|
John Thurso: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for putting on the record the Government's commitment to the environment in the context of the effect on it of activities connected with the provision of railway services. That was precisely what I had hoped might happen. On those grounds, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Column Number: 74
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 34, at end insert—
'(7A) After subsection (4) insert—
''(4A) The Secretary of State shall also be under a duty, in exercising the functions assigned or transferred to him under or by virtue of this Part, to promote the renewal of franchise agreements to incumbent companies which have met the terms of their previous franchise agreement.''.'.
The amendment would place on the Secretary of State, in exercising his functions with regard to the renewal of franchises, a duty to have regard to those incumbent companies that had met the terms of their previous franchise agreements. The reason for that is to increase stability. I think that it is commonly agreed that following privatisation, the railways have tended to operate in a way that has not been wholly successful, and one reason is that privatisation led to the fragmentation of the railways, and, sometimes, to competition where it has not been entirely necessary.
A factor in perhaps securing better value from the railways for the public purse and passengers might be longer franchises, and rewards for franchise companies that fulfil their objectives. A current example is provided by the east coast main line and GNER. The company started with some great advantages, including a line in reasonably good order and some of the more modern rolling stock. However, to give credit where it is due, it added to that a quality of service that is a fine exemplar, from which several other companies might learn. I know that hon. Members of all parties have used GNER regularly and find it both comfortable and normally reliable. Those responsible for re-letting the franchise should be obliged to take that into account.
I suppose that one might unkindly call my amendment the GNER amendment, but I want to draw attention to the fact that some companies—there are others besides GNER—have done a very good job for their passengers. Those companies that have done a good job for their passengers should be entitled to a small form of comfort, and have their efforts recognised and taken into account when franchises are re-let.
Mr. McNulty: I shall not unkindly characterise the amendment as a GNER amendment, or as any other type of amendment. Equally, and for obvious reasons, I shall refrain from commenting on the value and virtues or otherwise of particular franchisees.
I understand the broad the sentiments behind the amendment, but I fear that it will not do what the hon. Gentleman seeks. That is not because it is defective or duplicative, but—I hate to mention the European Union at 25 minutes past five o'clock on a Tuesday evening, as it will create excitement on the Opposition Benches—because I suspect that it will fall foul of EU procurement law.
It is not practical for a number of reasons. We said in the White Paper in July that we are minded to give more regard to performance. The White Paper said that train company bids
Column Number: 75
''will be judged not only on cost, but on relevant past performance, their commitments to improve train and crew liability and their operational viability.''
I cannot accept the amendment because of its wording. It depends on an effective, efficient and useful set of franchises coming to term; the achievement and performance of the incumbent will then mean something. In the context of any number of the franchises let after privatisation, the targets were not particularly strenuous, to say the very least. Incumbency and successfully achieving a franchise is of no particular merit. The amendment would also disadvantage bidders that have run successful operations elsewhere. It is only fair if we are taking past performance into account that it should not be done on one franchise alone but on the past performance of the company itself. The amendment
Column Number: 76
would also—this is the EU procurement bit—unnecessarily prevent new entrants from coming into the market, with all the associated fears of costs, market efficiency and so on that would be involved.
We made a huge commitment in the White Paper to get to a stage on franchises so that the number, the nature and the substance of each would be far more rigorous than they have been thus far. Nevertheless, however good we are on that, it is not enough to judge the record of the incumbent in pursuing the franchise as a reason to preclude new competition or to disadvantage newcomers or other bidders to the advantage of the incumbent. That is not entirely fair. Although I understand the sentiments behind the amendment, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Debate adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 16 December at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.
| 
