|
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Since the Minister will talk about the principles of the closure programme in his response to those who have spoken, I want to make a few general comments.
The 20 pages devoted to rail closures make up about half the text of the Bill, if the schedules are not included. There is almost a case for renaming the Bill the rail closures and miscellaneous provisions Bill, because that is the way in which it can be represented, although we do not use the word ''closure'' in the title, but refer to network modification. It is significant that the only modification that is talked about to any extent is closure.
Like many others, we have real problems understanding what problems the Government are endeavouring to address through the sequence of closures. Where is the difficulty? Has it been such hard work to close railway lines down? I suggest that until that problem is identified it is difficult to justify those clauses—unless there is a hidden agenda. Some responsibilities have changed and there needs to be an adjustment, but whether that justifies half the text and the main part of the Bill being used in that way I do not know.
I can imagine people going back to bodies such as the passenger transport executives having read the Bill and saying, ''There is bad news and good news. The bad news is that the PTA will lose some of its franchise rights. The good news is you get the chance to close a few lines.'' That is about as far as the matter goes. It is contrary to the signals that the Government are putting out about community rail partnerships.
9.45 am
I want to make a couple of specific points about the general run of the subsequent clauses. There are two categories of closure, if I can put it like that: franchised closures and non-franchised closures. In turn, there are two categories of people who seem to be able to engage in the closures and for whom rules are laid down: funders and operators. The procedures differ for funders and operators. If we look at the procedures for funders, we see that an unmistakable leniency is creeping in. The funding authority does not appear to require the permission or the imprimatur of the national body. It has to notify the national body, but
Column Number: 200
as I understand it—I stand ready to be corrected—it would be slightly easier for a funder to proceed with a closure than for an operator to do so. In the past, a funder had to have an assessment done by the regional passenger committee. That assessment no longer seems to be in place.
The irresistible conclusion is that there is now an easier way through the whole closure process, but that it will be for other people, and not the Government, to make the hard decisions. In both sets of procedures, the Office of Rail Regulation plays a significant part. My understanding from my reading of the Bill so far is that a more or less identical role is played in respect of the funders' proposals and the operators' proposals. I would like the Minister to confirm that principle.
The Chairman: Before I call the Minister, I should say that I am happy for the debate on clause 22 to be a little more wide ranging, given the request made by the Committee, but on the assumption that there will not be a series of clause stand part debates as we go through the subsequent clauses. We will see how things go.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): It is again a pleasure to serve under your tutelage and chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths. I am grateful, too, for your indulgence in allowing the Committee to roam slightly wider than the substance of clause 22 when discussing all the matters that are before us in part 4.
Let us start from the beginning. Why have we bothered to include in the Bill 22 clauses that refer to network modification? As an aside, in relation to the claim made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I point out that it is a rather strange secret agenda that features in 22 clauses of a Bill that is 59 clauses long. That is some secret.
The current process for closure has at its core on the one hand the SRA—the more astute members of the Committee may have noticed that this will go if the Bill is successful—and on the other hand regional passenger committees, which the astute members of the Committee will have understood go as well. Although amendment No. 5, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats but has not been selected, says simply
''leave out Clauses 22 to 44'',
which might make it sound as if they are consumerist champions, it would actually have completely the reverse effect. It would secure for the Government—or certainly the rail industry—almost a carte blanche to do what they liked about network modification and closures.
Eradicating two key institutional elements of the current closure process—the SRA and the RPCs of old—and putting nothing in their place, which would be the import of deleting the entire part, would not do any favours for anybody other than those who seek to imitate the Conservative Dr. Beeching, which we certainly do not seek to do. If the RPCs of old and the SRA are going, it is important for closures and network modifications that something is put in their place. That is the first reason why part 4 is before us.
Column Number: 201
Secondly, the Bill gives greater responsibility to a range of public funders through devolution. If we are serious about that devolution, it should include a modicum of devolution of responsibility for network modification and closures. If the matter is thought through, it is clearly not appropriate to allow PTEs, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament a lot more responsibility for a range of functions connected with rail and leave in place the remnants of the old system, allowing the Department for Transport or a national authority to do what it chooses on network modification anywhere on the national network. It follows naturally that devolution moves elsewhere in the Bill should be reflected in this part of it.
As anyone who has gone back to the Railways Act 1993 and earlier will know, the current legislation governing the existing process in terms of guidance is extremely complex, so we are faced with two choices. We could take account of all the other aspects of the Bill and the White Paper, seek to ride with that complexity and make changes to reflect all the other elements. However, I suspect—I am neither a parliamentary draftsman, which I am pleased about, nor a lawyer—that we would probably return with more clauses than are currently in the Bill. It is appropriate to try to put some clarity into the operation and, however cumbersome the 22 clauses may be, to try to move on afresh in legislative terms to reflect both the overall Bill and the need and desire for a network modification procedure in the wake of the RPCs and the SRA. Broadly and by way of introduction, those are the reasons behind part 4.
Dr. Pugh: I understand the Minister's argument that changes in the initial part of the Bill require sequential modification and that if the clauses were not included it would be almost impossible to close any service, which might be a good thing.
Mr. McNulty: No, quite the opposite.
Dr. Pugh: None the less, what the Minister said would be plausible if network modification were defined in some other way than as closure. I hope that he will go on to explain why network modification is spoken about only in terms of closure.
Mr. McNulty: I shall; indeed, that was probably going to be my next point. There is no existing procedure for consultation on enhancement or new capacity on the rail network and, if the matter is thought through, why should there be? Such an approach may sound logical initially, but it clearly is not. Why should there be a special process for looking at enhancement, increased capacity and other elements of the rail network? Those are rightly covered by a range of other processes, including planning processes and a range of documents and so on from the national authority—in this case, central Government—backed up to some extent by regional transport strategies.
Column Number: 202
I cannot think of any significant enhancement or increased capacity on the rail network over the past 30 or 40 years that would have gained from a 12 or 16-week process. If the matter is thought through, what is the point of the Government putting an advert in the Christchurch Chronicle and asking people to write in objecting to enhancement of capacity on the line from Brockenhurst to London? I am not belittling the point—actually, I am—but I cannot see the corollary. Such an approach might initially sound useful when people suggest that the entire agenda for Christchurch is closure and that, if not, there would be parallel guidance and parallel processes to consult on capacity and enhancements to the rail network. That does not follow, however. Many other processes have consultation at their core, and they will capture the necessary consultation and discussion with people. Anyone who had anything to do with the Bill that became the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 will know that there was exhaustive consultation on a range of levels. It is almost a red herring—it is an orange one in this case—to suggest that there should be a mirror process about enhancements to capacity or new capacity.
Mr. Chope: If the Minister is correct in saying that if one wished to develop a new station one would need planning permission, a planning inquiry with an independent inspector would be required, so why is there no procedure for a public inquiry with an independent inspector with regard to closing a station?
Mr. McNulty: That is a blue herring. Just because, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) knows, given that we spent such an interesting time in this Room discussing the planning and compulsory purchase option, there are planning processes in respect of building, refurbishing and modifying developments, it does not follow that there should be equal processes for closure. We are saying clearly, and it is not the subject of dispute, that if we get rid of the SRA and the RPCs, it leaves in tatters the existing system. Everyone accepts that the system needs to be replaced. I could make a cheap point and say, ''Except the Liberals,'' because they tabled an amendment saying that they did not want clauses 22 to 44, so they do not want another closure process, but I am a generous man, so I will not make such a cheap point.
| 
