Clause 36
Designation of experimental passenger services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Chope: I hope that the Minister can explain whether it is possible for a service that is already in existence to be designated an experimental passenger service. On my reading, the clause is not clear about that, although the implication of subsection (2) is that an experimental passenger service cannot be one that is already in existence. It says:
''The designation must be in relation to a line or station on or from which the service will be provided.''
That is, such a service will be provided in the future and is not being provided now.
I ask about that, because allowing the Government to designate existing services as experimental would trigger a much easier regime for closure than is
Column Number: 241
required under other provisions in the Bill. We know that it is possible to extend the experimental period, although I have no concern about.
Perhaps I can illustrate my point with the example of the proposal, which I understand the Government support, to close the Gatwick Express. Is that service described as an experimental service or could it be so? It has certainly been a highly successful, popular and profitable service. Where does its proposed closure fit in with the clause? After all, the Gatwick Express was, in a sense, an experiment to see whether it was worth while having a direct, non-stop link between one of our major international hub airports and the centre of the London conurbation.
I have experienced the service and all the evidence that I have seen, including, of course, anecdotal evidence, suggests that it has been highly successful, popular and profitable. However, the service was in the nature of an experiment when it was first established, so could we regard it as such now? Could it be designated as an experimental service in order to save it from closure? Can the Minister explain?
Mr. McNulty: With the best will in the world, that is one of the most obtuse examples that I have ever heard from the hon. Gentleman. First, there is no such proposal on the table, supported by the Government or otherwise, as I have said previously. Secondly, the 1993 Act makes it clear that experimental services cannot last any longer than five years. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Gatwick Express has been in place for more than five years and therefore would not comply with the criteria set out in the 1993 Act.
The SRA's route utilisation strategy, which we have spoken of before, is out for consultation—it may have already finished, although I am not sure. As part of the principle of considering the utilisation of routes, the strategy is quite rightly investigating the entire use of the Brighton commuter line and the optimisation of capacity. I do not demur from the notion that the Gatwick Express has been successful; I use it regularly. I am not sure that I need to be told in 11 languages that the doors are closing and that we are getting to Gatwick at such and such a time. Very pleasant though the voice is, it lasts nearly all the journey. However, the service has proved to be a good one.
Equally, over the past five years—I think that this is the case; I will correct the figures if I am inadvertently misleading the Committee—passenger numbers on the Brighton commuter line have increased by some 72 per cent. to 75 per cent. We are not talking about a different line. The Gatwick Express—experimental or otherwise—was not put along a brand new line to get from Victoria to Gatwick. It is on that same line.
Rather like the example previously of how to interweave and overlap two important aspects in the general network sense of passenger rail and freight, it is more than appropriate that we proceed on a line-by-line basis. The Government have made no comment
Column Number: 242
thus far, and quite rightly given that the process is still under way; the outcome of the utilisation strategy for that particular line is awaited.
The hon. Member for Christchurch is wrong to suggest that we support the demise of the Gatwick Express or otherwise. We are talking specifically about experimental services. It must be right to have the ability to try those in terms of the national network. There may well be attempts by train operating companies or whoever else to provide a particular form of service on some aspect of the network and that service may well work. I do not have all the answers and nor does the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in the Committee.
It is right and proper to allow time to see whether the experiment works and to make that—this is all that clauses 36 and 37 seek to do—outwith the core elements of the network modification clauses in this part. It may well be in the context of the future that that flexibility affords a chance for a line or a service to reinvent itself and work in a better fashion. That flexibility in the system is necessary. It was thought by those who drafted the 1993 legislation to be necessary, but we want that to be outside the core of what is covered in clauses 22 to 26. It is in that spirit that clauses 36 and 37 are offered.
Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Will he tell me specifically whether it will be possible for an existing service to be defined as an experimental service for the purposes of clause 36 or does it have to be in relation to a new service?
Mr. McNulty: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. The hon. Gentleman has probably stumbled on that. The key point about clauses 36 and 37 is that as and when such a service is so designated, it is outside clauses 22 to 26 and all that lies therein. That is the plus point of clauses 36 and 37. As I understand it, and unless I am told otherwise during the course of our deliberations, there is nothing to designate an existing service as an experiment. We are talking not just out of the sky, but with some reasoning and rationale behind the process.
If we return to the case of the Brighton commuter line, we could agree with what looks like the outcome of the SRA's utilisation strategy that there should be one service up and down the line and the demise of the Gatwick Express. Alternatively, we could demur from that and decide that the Gatwick Express should prevail and commuter lines will have to fit in in some other way. There is no interest on the Government's part to designate the service as experimental and do away with it in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested. To answer his point in a far less verbose fashion, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an existing service becoming—with all the designations and time frames involved in the clauses—an experimental service.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 243Clause 37
Discontinuance of experimental passenger services
Mr. McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 40, line 14, at end insert
'( ) A person giving notice of a proposed discontinuance under subsection (2) must send to the Office of Rail Regulation a copy of the notice published under subsection (3)(b).'.
The clause seeks merely to carry over all that is in the Railways Act 1993, but the way that we have arranged matters in schedule 11, which was supposed to reflect the equivalent provisions of the 1993 Act, leaves out a requirement to send a note of discontinuance to the ORR. We did not mean to leave out that requirement as it was part of the 1993 provision. The amendment is therefore needed to require that a note setting out the details of discontinuance be sent to the ORR. It was caused by an omission in what we were trying to do in the sense of having this Bill reflect the provisions of the 1993 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Quality contracts schemes in connection with service modifications
Mr. Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 41, line 37, at end insert
'(e) that the scheme will support economic and social regeneration.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 41, line 37, at end insert
'(e) that the scheme will not increase traffic congestion.'.
No. 61, in page 41, line 37, at end insert
'(e) that the scheme will reduce traffic congestion.'.
No. 62, in page 41, line 37, at end insert
'(e) that the scheme will reduce air pollution.'.
Mr. Stringer: This is the famous ''bustitution'' clause. Where rail services have been curtailed or closed, the clause allows for that service to be replaced—substituted—by a bus service.
By tabling the amendments, I want to probe what the Government mean in subsection (1)(1A)(c) by the word ''compatible''. To understand that, we need to reflect on the objectives of the local transport plans, because the word compatible relates to those plans. The objectives of local transport plans are to improve road safety and access to transport and to reduce congestion and pollution.
In amendments Nos. 60 to 62, I have put forward definitions to test whether the Government intend to be more precise about what compatible means. Amendment No. 60 asks whether the bus substitution will be allowed to increase congestion. If we take
Column Number: 244
passengers off a railway line and place them on a bus, it is likely that congestion will increase, by however little. Will the Government allow that to happen? It is clearly in conflict with the local transport plans. I am interested in the Minister's reply to that.
Amendment No. 61 would ratchet up that objective by insisting that not only does the bus substitution scheme not increase traffic congestion but reduces it. That is one of the Government's objectives and it is shared by local authorities. It would be difficult to achieve. Part of the consideration of the plans might be that, if we are not going to reduce congestion, we need to reconsider whether the railway line should be closed down.
3.30 pm
Amendment No. 62 deals with air pollution. It is an objective of the local transport plans that the scheme will reduce air pollution. That is a high test to pass because it depends on what trains are used and what buses are put on to replace them. It is unlikely that the scheme will lead to a reduction in air pollution. Indeed, it is likely to lead to an increase in air pollution. That is usually the balance between rail and buses, but it can vary because of local conditions. Interestingly, the regulatory impact assessment states that there will be no direct benefit to the environment from such changes. Surely, if the Government are keen on encouraging local transport plans, there should be a benefit.
Amendment No. 59 would not cover the current objectives of local transport plans, but it would widen the definition so that the scheme would support economic and social regeneration. I am interested in contrasting the economic and social benefits as a result of comparing bus, light rail and heavy rail. Even on equivalent journeys—we could speculate on the reasons why—buses do not always have the same economic benefit as heavy rail or light rail.
One of the reasons why business and industry are more likely to invest in light rail or heavy rail is that large, capital expenditure gives a degree of certainty to business that the transport system will remain in place. That is not always so in the cases of bus substitution because, although the bus substitution envisaged under this part of the Bill is that of quality contracts and has not been tried in the country before, bus substitution was tried in the '60s and '70s during the Beeching cuts. Buses were substituted in rural areas to replace the lines. Originally, when the lines were closed, a bus service was put in their place and in the majority of cases such a service no longer now exists. That is why industry, business and commerce often make investment decisions that support the local economy and the social regeneration of areas that are related to light and heavy rail in a way that they will not do in respect of buses. Those sectors tend to discount buses in such areas.
I have widened the definition because, when local authorities consider their local transport plans and economic priorities, they are often motivated not by the objectives that the Government have defined for local transport plans, but by much wider social and economic objectives. Indeed, the four objectives of the
Column Number: 245
local transport plans are not really transport objectives at all. They deal primarily with the consequences of road accidents, pollution and traffic congestion. They cover the consequences of transport rather than trying to improve it, whereas most local authorities are as keen on supporting and creating new jobs as they are on attracting investment and including in society those on its fringes and those who have been excluded. I have broadened the scope of the clause, so that we are not dealing with only a narrow transport issue. Local authorities and local people do not look at the use of transport as just a bus, train or tram going from A to B. They look to see how that transport system integrates into the whole community and supports it, and that objective should be part of this scheme.
| 
