|
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to defend the indefensible, but I hope that he will reflect on the actual contents of clause 34. It refers to minor modifications, but at every stage of its exhaustive description of minor modifications and where they apply the word ''closure'' is used. It is used in subsections (1)(a) and (b), (2), (3), (4)(a) and (b), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11), and it is sometimes used in the singular and at other times it is used in the plural.
It is nonsense for the Minister to suggest that the clause covers something other than closures. The language that is used makes it clear that the clause is concerned exclusively with closures, rather than with modifications. Anybody who is interested in preserving the integrity of the English language should take a look at this short debate and decide which side of the argument they come down on.
Mr. McNulty: Anyone who does that—and I exhort people to do so—will start from the premise that clause 34 is entitled ''Minor modifications''. I have said that minor modifications will involve closures—of waiting rooms, toilets, or whatever—but that clearly does not equal the closure of an entire facility.
The hon. Gentleman has cleverly listed how many times the clause refers to a ''closure'' or to ''closures'', but that needs to be seen in the context of the title of the clause—''Minor modifications''. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire hinted this morning, a ''minor modification'' may well be the temporary closure for refurbishment of part of a station, or as I suggested, the closure of a facility within the curtilage of the station, but such modification is profoundly not closure of the station. In that regard, the terms ''minor modifications'' and ''network modifications'' are the appropriate language, not simply ''closures''.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Closures eligible to be treated as minor modifications
Mr. McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 113, in page 38, line 5, leave out from 'the' to 'may' in line 10 and insert
Column Number: 238
'Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers that closures of any description not specified in this section should, because of their temporary nature or limited effect on the provision of railway passenger services, be treated as minor modifications, the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers'.
This is purely a drafting amendment. Subsection (6) uses the expression ''national authority'', but although the sense is clear from subsection (7), the term is not defined in the text. The amendment simply corrects that drafting error, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mr. Knight: We accept the Minister's explanation. The amendment does indeed make the position clearer and makes the clause better, and we will therefore not divide on it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 114, in page 38, line 17, leave out
'all the funding is provided by'
and insert
'which no funding is provided by a railway funding authority other than'.
No. 115, in page 38, line 19, leave out second 'or'.
No. 116, in page 38, line 21, at end insert
(e) the discontinuance of a station or part of a station that is wholly in Scotland;'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Knight: The clause refers to the discontinuance of a railway passenger service along a stretch of line where there is no station, or at any rate none in use, and where an alternative route is available. What about freight business? Could anything in the clause put future or existing freight services at risk? Opposition Members have general ongoing concerns about the protection of freight business.
In passing, I make the wider point that Transport for London and the Scottish Executive, for example—and, to a lesser extent, the Welsh Assembly and passenger transport executives—may specify passenger services and investment in the infrastructure. Freight, being a national business, may lose out. A few of us feel that some form of protection may be needed to ensure that existing rights and freight growth are provided for. Can the Minister reassure me on that?
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): When I read over the clause, I found that subsections (1) to (5) are very precise; one can almost see the draftsmen beavering away, trying to get things as precise as they possibly can. Then one gets to subsection (6), where the draftsmen have clearly thought, ''There may be things that we have left out.'' There is therefore a statement to say that things excluded so far may be included there, and an attempt to specify the sort of things that we are thinking of, such as whether there is an impact on freight, and to say what the range of the provision is. Subsection (6)(b) states:
''applies only to closures which, because of their temporary nature or limited effect on the provision of railway passenger services''.
Column Number: 239
From examples given by the Minister so far, I think that I understand what that means; this is the catch-all that allows almost anything to be tried on.
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has already suggested that there is a certain vagueness about the issue of freight. Will the Minister put something useful on record that would help clarify what is meant by a
''limited effect on the provision of railway passenger services''?
Obviously, nothing has an unlimited effect on railway passenger services; all effects are, to some extent, limited. I know that there is the back-stop of negative procedure, and if the provision is used to introduce something in future there will be a mechanism for contesting it, but it might be helpful if he specified what the limited effects are likely to be. I am grateful for the illustration that he has offered so far, and I understand that it necessarily excludes something as full frontal as station or line closure, but I am not certain what else it excludes.
Mr. McNulty: I said as clearly as I possibly could this morning that all the processes outlined in part 4 refer to rail passenger services. I think I cited the example of a request for a closure of a service, station or network on which there was already vibrant use by freight. In such an instance, closure would be extraordinarily unlikely, in accordance with the assessment criteria that will be established under guidance. The interaction between freight and passengers must be one dimension in any assessment of the closure criteria, but interaction will vary. One can think of many elements of the network where, because of the absence of rail passenger services, it may be in order to close a station but not to go any further and close the line or network as it is of huge significance to freight.
There are many parts of the country—I would expect the number to increase—where freight, interleaved with limited passenger services, is overwhelmingly the largest user of particular lines. That is right and proper, not least because it gets freight off some of the inter-city lines and more important passenger lines. The interleaving of freight with passengers on the general network is important. I share everybody's concern to protect freight, and we have a broad consensus on an avowed policy to increase or encourage freight on trains, rather than otherwise. Principally, part 4 is about passenger services. Specifically, clause 35 is about minor modifications, although I accept the point made about the broad sweep of part 4.
I anticipate that if there were vibrant and active use of freight on any line or network, it would be an important criterion in assessing the line's viability and a closure order would not be ratified. Although there are interfaces between freight and passengers, I would think it unlikely that anyone would put in such a closure notice if there were such active use of freight, but I understand the concerns, none the less.
I highlighted in Westminster Hall the point about the interaction of freight and passengers, saying that I could get a far better deal for rail passengers in London overnight by simply excluding freight entirely from
Column Number: 240
some of the London commuter lines. Of course, some of the freight lobby collapsed at the back of the Hall, and I quickly corrected myself, saying that it was just an example of the public policy choices we face. We are very keen to maintain the active freight use of lines.
Dr. Pugh: We want certainty. If infrastructure is clearly subject to minor modification from the passenger service point of view, but none the less there is a knock-on consequence for freight, does that debar the modification from being treated as minor, or is freight just something that needs to be taken into account?
Mr. McNulty: If I understand the point, I am not suggesting that the existence of freight is the only reason why a minor modification may not be allowed. As in other aspects of this part of the Bill, closure guidance and the assorted assessment criteria, in the widest possible sense, will accompany freight, as I suggested. They will be far broader criteria than those that prevail. We are not talking about freight only; there will be other criteria in the closure guidance, of which I hope to get a first cut to the Committee as early as possible.
3.15 pm
Mr. Knight: I am grateful for the Minister's reassurances. There is a precious little in the Bill about freight, so it is important, as we debate its implications for passengers, to satisfy ourselves that we are not legislating in any way that might damage or hinder the capacity of the network to pursue a vigorous policy of improving freight business. I think that I am content with what the Minister said and with the clause, although there is time to reflect on the matter before Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
