|
Mr. Knight: The Minister raised the subject—it is not technically in the Bill—of doing an audit on disused lines to determine how many of them remain largely intact and what the scope is for bringing some of them into use, perhaps not as railways but by realising the asset in some other way. Surely, that is something that the Government ought to be undertaking.
10.15 am
Mr. McNulty: Seeing as I told officials about three months ago to do that, I hope that they are. I was simply saying that the exercise is more advanced in some areas than in others. The right hon. Gentleman is right, however, in that it does not necessarily follow that the routes should all be restored as rail lines; there may be secluded and segregated transport routes and channels that can be used by guided buses or some other device. It is at least worth considering that possibility, and I assure hon. Members that that is being done.
Following the demise of the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail passengers councils, something needs to be put in place. We think that the approach that we have adopted is the best way forward and that the procedures outlined in schedule 1 and covered in clauses 22 to 44 are the right way forward. As I said, I will try to get to a stage at which we can consider in greater detail the guidance that will be issued at the earliest possible stage.
Column Number: 207
Given that we need to go in some direction, because such matters should not be left to public sector bodies on their own, the clauses are essential. If I am honest, as I always am, I was a tad surprised myself that it took 22 clauses to get to this stage in a Bill of barely 60 clauses, but there is no secret agenda for closure. With the demise of the SRA and the RPCs of old, however, there is a need and an absolute necessity in public policy terms for a network modification process to be in place, and we think that we have got things about right in part 4.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to so many of the points that have been made. One point that he has not yet dealt with is costs, which I have already raised, along with the Liberal Democrat spokesman. What will he do to ensure transparency in respect of costs and that that information is available to the general public not just when a closure proposal is made but from now on? What about the suggestion that Network Rail can argue that it is not obliged to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000? How can we get access to the true running costs of some of the lines?
Mr. McNulty: I was trying to be generous and was therefore trying not to be unduly provoked. Whatever the hon. Gentleman feels about there being a sham, Network Rail is not a public sector body, but a private sector body. I will not reopen the debate on the demise of Railtrack and the creation of Network Rail, but I point out that it is a private sector body and therefore does not come under the freedom of information regime. As he knows, that regime is principally for public sector bodies.
We will do all we can on the performance end to ensure that more and more information is put into the public domain in respect of matters for which we are ultimately responsible, but I do not think—this is not a matter for us anyway—that a breakdown or cost analysis of every element of every line and service on the network would be terribly useful. When a closure is proposed, however, those cost elements must be part of the process. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that.
In some senses, the impact of cost will be fairly difficult to determine other than in the most discrete of circumstances, where there is a clear branch line and a clear element of cost involved. Let us imagine closing a station or stopping a service at some stations on a line rather than others. Unpicking such a situation will be difficult, but as was spelled out in the guidance, the cost elements will be part of the criteria and assessment of the application and proposal in question. So the point about cost is fair in the context of a proposal for closures. Cost figures will be available and included in the assessment that forms part of the process.
As part of that process, not the wider process, the Bill will enable us to require information from all licence holders involved in any application for
Column Number: 208
network modification at that stage, including Network Rail. We can therefore exact those costs, and they will be properly assessed in terms of any application.
John Thurso: I understand from meetings that I have had with Network Rail that the problem is that it does not know those costs. Its predecessor bodies did not have management accounts that detailed those costs, so it is trying to produce a set of costs ensuring that such figures can be made available. Given that the Minister is and will be in a position to require such information, can he tell us whether, once Network Rail has managed to get the information, he will request it and it will become available?
Mr. McNulty: As I said, as one licence holder among others under this part of the Bill we will be able to require those costs. The hon. Gentleman is right that over the past couple of years much of what Network Rail has sought to do as part of the overall process of reducing costs is, first, to recognise far more rigorously than any of its predecessor bodies what its asset base is in terms of what it owns, and secondly to determine the costs associated with maintaining and running that asset base and all the other elements that go with that in terms of routine maintenance, enhancements, new signalling work and other changes.
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, Network Rail is certainly moving in the direction of developing a far more rigorous assessment of the costs, risks and other bases of what it does. By the time there are applications under the new process that has cost and assessment of cost as one of its key elements, I am confident that Network Rail will be in a better position to improve and work up all its information. To some extent, the information is there already, but it is a matter of disaggregating and understanding with a greater degree of confidence quite what is there.
Broadly, that is my introduction to the clauses in part 4. Clause 22 sets out the circumstances and procedures that apply when a service operator proposes to close all non-franchise services on a line or from a station. That is partly why the focus is on services, rather than simply on infrastructure, given that there will be more than one service—more than one carrier—on a particular line. The clause sets out provisions for circumstances in which there are proposals to close the non-franchise services on a line or from a station.
As hon. Members will know, clauses 22 to 25 relate directly to that matter, clauses 26 to 28 concern passenger networks and clauses 29 to 31 concern stations. It is important that hon. Members understand that the ORR has a role to play in this area, as a regulator, after this Bill, with a brief that is far wider than narrow economics.
I commend clause 22 to the Committee. Hon. Members will know that the Government have tabled some minor amendments—I assure the Committee that they are technical amendments—to some of the later clauses to address aspects that were recognised after our first attempt to deal with the complexity. I commend clause 22 to the Committee, and I hope that, at some stage during the merry month of January, I
Column Number: 209
shall be commending all the other clauses to the Committee up to clause 44, and subsequently up to clause 59.
Mr. Knight: Opposition Members are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to make available the general content of the guidance as soon as possible, and also for agreeing to examine the point that I made about disability. That is a very important issue, and we look forward to hearing from him as soon as possible.
I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but it is only fair that I say that we have seen him today at his best. He has left his leather jacket and boots outside the Committee, and adopted more the persona of that suave actor, Leslie Phillips.
The Minister has dealt comprehensively with all the points made, but I hesitate before being seduced by his new look and style. What reasons did he give for introducing the 22 clauses? First, they were necessary changes because of the abolition of the SRA. Secondly, he was championing devolution. Thirdly, the existing set-up was complex. On the first two points, I would have thought that changes associated with abolishing a body and taking account of devolution could have been dealt with in one or two clauses. I do not think that anyone on the Opposition Benches, including the Liberal Democrats, would object to changes being made because of having to change the names of organisations in legislation when abolishing a particular body. We all accept that.
Where unease remains is in respect of the changes that the Minister seeks to make because, to use his words, the current system is complex. Clarity and simplicity are, in effect, what he says that he wishes to bring about. In other words, however, clarity and simplicity could mean making it easier to close down a rail service. Some might argue that that is part of a pattern from this Government, including, for example, the transfer of transport planning powers to local and regional authorities, while funding constraints mean that they have to abandon their preferred options, perhaps including trams or heavy rail, in favour of buses; removal of PTE powers to negotiate long-term franchise contracts with rail operators, perhaps because the Government want them to choose cheaper buses; and the transfer of responsibility for rural rail services to community rail partnerships, but without any appropriate increase in funding, which some cynical people might say is done to ensure that responsibilities for closure will fall at a local level and will not be seen to be taken by the Government. Some uncharitable people may argue that the changes are being made because the Government want to see some lines closed down, but realise that it would be politically impossible for them to be seen to take responsibility.
The Minister was quite clear that he does not want to be seen as the son of Dr. Beeching, and we believe him, as he was honest and genuine today. However, we must look beyond the lifespan of this Minister. I do not mean that unkindly; I hope that he is in place for a long time to come on his party's Front Bench, but perhaps on the Opposition side, rather than where he currently sits. We are concerned that the argument for simplicity
Column Number: 210
could be used by another Minister to close down rail lines. That is not part of the Conservative party agenda in 2005 or beyond, so he does not carry me with him in his conclusion.
The amendments necessary to take heed of devolution and accommodate the abolition of the SRA are relatively simple, and the Minister could reintroduce them on Report. I must urge my colleagues to vote against the clause.
10.30 am
| 
