|
Dr. Pugh: Will the Minister clarify one point, which is important for the rail industry? New paragraph 1G(1) of schedule 4 does not anticipate, so far as I understand it, that in the process of reviewing access charges there will be any reneging on contractual responsibilities entered into by a private operator with any franchiser.
Mr. McNulty: I repeat that the Government are not in the business of reneging on extant and live contracts freely entered into, either, specifically, in terms of a review—although I repeat that I am no lawyer—or, in the wider context, in the transition from where we are now and where we want to get to in the railway
Column Number: 101
industry. That is simply not the case. To cast it as almost renationalisation without compensation, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire did, is an over-characterisation, to say the least.
The ORR is very comfortable with the Bill, as is the wider industry, not least the private sector. It recognises the risk of recalibration without challenging at all the independence of the economic regulator, and that fits in well with our new vision and structures for the rail industry. In conclusion, I commend clause 4 to the Committee and reserve the right not to say much more about schedule 4 at all.
The Chairman: I should like to make a ruling to give hon. Members some guidance before we get on to the two amendments to schedule 4. We have had quite a wide-ranging debate on what clause 4 seeks to do in schedule 4, and I am minded not to have a wide-ranging debate on schedule 4 unless a member of the Committee specifically tells me which parts of schedule 4, outside the issues that have already been discussed, need further discussion. I shall need a very clear indication that an hon. Member wants to look at parts of clause 4 that have nothing to do with the debate that we have had so far.
Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. Would you clarify whether the two amendments to schedule 4 standing in my name will be debated?
The Chairman: Yes, amendments Nos. 50 and 51 will be debated. However, I want it to be clear that we have had a very good debate on the principle of what schedule 4 is trying to do by having clause 4 in the Bill. I do not want to go over the same ground in a general debate on schedule 4. If an hon. Member wishes specifically to consider parts of schedule 4 that are not covered by the amendments and have not been covered by this debate, I shall listen to what he or she has got to say before I give a ruling on whether I shall allow further debate.
Mr. Knight: That is a very fair ruling, Mr. Griffiths
We now have a new adjective to cover a whole range of unacceptable behaviour, such as breach of trust, breach of faith, using legislation to water down commitments and cutting the jurisdiction of the regulator. The word is ''recalibration''. It is a reneging on the commitment given by the state to the private sector; it is objectionable to my party and we shall oppose it.
Dr. Pugh: I wanted to make the simple point that ''recalibration'' is a noun.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4.
Division No. 4]
AYES
Atkins, Charlotte
Harris, Mr. Tom
Howarth, Mr. George
MacDougall, Mr. John
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Mahmood, Mr. Khalid
Merron, Gillian
Owen, Albert
Pugh, Dr. John
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Field, Mr. Mark
Knight, Mr. Greg
Wilshire, Mr. David
Column Number: 102
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Reviews by ORR of access charges
and licence conditions
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 88, line 26, at end insert
', which must be published within one month of their receipt'.
I cannot recall whether you had the misfortune to hear my detailed argument about why time limits should be set when something is decided on, Mr. Griffiths, but I will spare the Committee a repetition of that. The argument applies all over again, but if you missed it in the first instance, I commend the report of the proceedings to you, where you will find a cogent argument that will persuade you, even though it did not persuade the Government.
Where the Secretary of State says that a review should be conducted but the Office of Rail Regulation decides that it should not be, it should be required to put those reasons in the public domain. If the Minister says that of course the ORR will be required to do that, the Bill might as well say that it must be.
Mr. McNulty: I fully anticipate that the ORR would publish its reasons for such a refusal when it tells Ministers. I would not give it one month; rather, it would have to publish at the same time as informing Ministers. The amendment is therefore neither appropriate nor necessary.
Mr. Wilshire: I take that as meaning that the Minister agrees with me, so no doubt he will introduce an amendment on Report to say that the reasons must be published at the same time. I was trying to be helpful and generous in suggesting one month, but if the Minister thinks that publication should take place at the same time, either he can table an amendment on Report or I will. Given that one month is too long to satisfy the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 90, line 22, at end insert—
'(k) the suitability of the rolling stock for the type of service being provided.'.
The reason for the amendment is to probe the Government's thinking, although the Minister might say that it is not the best way. The amendment arises from slam-door trains and South West Trains, which serves my constituency and for which trying to achieve anything better out of old rolling stock has been something of a challenge for quite a long time.
I do not want to go back over the general debate about the objectives and standards or the list in proposed new paragraph 1D of schedule 4A to the 1993 Act. However, where there are objectives to be met, standards to be set and improvements to be made but there is a cap on the amount of money available and not enough to replace existing rolling stock, the question of whether certain things can be achieved, given the suitability of what is currently available,
Column Number: 103
ought to be a material consideration. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Mr. McNulty: As he does quite often, the hon. Gentleman pre-empts part of what I shall say, in that we think that the amendment is not the way to do what is required. It relates to a matter of detail that would be far better captured in the newly modified franchise agreements than in the wider strategic outputs referred to in schedule 4. The point is entirely fair, but the question of the use of rolling stock by train operating companies and its suitability will be addressed far more readily through the new franchise contracts than in the schedule.
11 am
The other side of the equation is the impact of rolling stock on network costs. As I have said, we are working closely at a general level with train companies, Network Rail and the rolling stock companies to consider how to address that issue throughout the system. We are doing that in relation to rolling stock procurement and more generally. The issue is better addressed in a franchise contract, rather than in the high-level outputs relating to the Office of Rail Regulation. In that context, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. [Interruption.] I have just been told that slam-door trains will be off the network entirely next year, but he already knows that, so I will not insult him by saying it.
Mr. Wilshire: If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that the point is valid and the Government have given an undertaking to consider it in a more appropriate place. Having got that into the record, I am more than willing to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Mr. Chope: May I take this opportunity to ask the Minister when he envisages the next access charge review taking place, bearing in mind the commitment made by the Secretary of State in February this year that nothing would be done to bring forward a review within the five-year period set after December 2003?
Mr. McNulty: At the risk of boring the Committee, I point out simply that the hon. Gentleman has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's commitment from February and I have nothing to add to it.
Column Number: 104
Question put, That this schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 4.
Division No. 5]
AYES
Atkins, Charlotte
Harris, Mr. Tom
Howarth, Mr. George
MacDougall, Mr. John
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Mahmood, Mr. Khalid
Merron, Gillian
Owen, Albert
Pugh, Dr. John
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Field, Mr. Mark
Knight, Mr. Greg
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 5
Railway strategy for Scotland
Dr. Pugh: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 5, page 5, line 34, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in page 5, line 35, after 'to', insert 'the development of'.
No. 11, in page 5, line 35, at end insert
'and publish such a strategy annually'.
No. 33, in page 5, line 39, at end insert
'including members of the general public.'.
No. 41, in page 5, line 42, at end add
'(5) The Scottish Ministers shall be obliged to have regard to views and opinions expressed to them before confirming any adoption or revision of their strategy and, if any written suggestions or objections are received by them from any person, persons or body corporate from anywhere within the United Kingdom objecting to all or any part of their proposed strategy within 28 days of the announcement thereof, then the strategy adoption or changes shall be determined by the disputed strategy procedure and the Scottish Ministers shall refer the same to a Strategy Committee set up for this purpose for their consideration.
(6) A Strategy Committee consisting of five members of the Scottish Parliament, no fewer than four elected members representing local authorities in Scotland and one Scottish Minister shall be established to determine the railway strategy for Scotland where the same is disputed.
(7) In the event that the Scottish Ministers are unwilling to implement the decisions of the Strategy Committee, then the disputed railway strategy for Scotland shall be withdrawn.'.
| 
