European Standing Committee A |
|
Mr. McNulty: I have been to at least two of the three Councils since enlargement, and the debate on the particular elements of this package does not seem to be influenced by whether countries are new members. It is much more a function of how developed or otherwise their particular rail industry and rail network is, how it interplays and interacts with those of other members, and other elements including basic geography. If there is discussion and splits, those do not necessarily occur in the context of old versus new; they are far more mixed up and fuzzier than that. Mr. Knight: May I place on the record my hope that the Minister will pursue the search for a definition in the disability area? It is necessary to ensure that a person who is a potential troublesome litigant is not encouraged to take a train company to court for refusing to accommodate them, if they clearly have disabilities so severe that they should be seeking an alternative form of transport. Mr. McNulty: I would not disagree with that at all in terms of the need for an agreed definition that is sensible, practicable and very clear. However, in terms of accessibility and accessibility rights in the UK context compared with that of many of our colleague member states, our definitions are at least as high, if not higher than the final definition that is likely to be arrived at by the Commission as part of the package. Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): I apologise to you, Mr. Chidgey, and to the Committee for my late arrival. I was misinformed as to the time and thought that we were to start at 2.30 pm. I hope that the Minister will also acquit me of any intentional rudeness. Has the Minister made any comments on the question of driver licensing? He will be aware that that is not only a matter fraught with difficulty, but one to which it is important that cost-benefit analysis should
Mr. McNulty: I certainly do not infer any rudeness from the late arrival of my hon. Friend. Let me say, purely in passing, because I have the great pleasure of appearing in front of her Select Committee later on— Mr. Knight: Who’s the crawler now? The Chairman: Order. Mr. McNulty: It should not be beyond the wit of the House authorities to arrange our affairs so that a Select Committee taking evidence on a range of important transport matters is not meeting at the same time as a Standing Committee that is dealing with equally important rail matters. Before my hon. Friend arrived, I was explaining the position that we have arrived at since last December’s Council. We have said to the Council and the Commission that in terms of subsidiarity we strongly feel that the driving licence elements do not apply to the UK, save for the between 2 and 5 per cent. of our drivers who go through the channel tunnel. That has been agreed. There should be a periodic cost-benefit analysis and when a stage is reached when the benefits far outweigh the costs, we might revisit the matter. However, as of now, as my hon. Friend implies in her question, we are nowhere near that position. We think that the costs far outweigh the benefits and could be detrimental to our industry. Matthew Green: I wish to bring the Minister back to the proposed compensation in cases of non-compliance with contractual quality requirements for rail freight services, which I am aware that he is resisting. On page 26 of the regulatory impact assessment—page 320 of the bundle—the first main paragraph states that
Does the Minister not think that it would be helpful to securing cross-party support and consensus on the Government’s position of resisting the proposal if further work were done to show the real environmental and cost impacts? Mr. McNulty: I am more than happy to consider that in greater detail. The supposed benefits to customers of about £250,000 a year at most is significantly lower than any likely costs, so we are still
Mr. Francois: May I begin by entirely endorsing what the Minister said about scheduling of Committees? I also serve on a Select Committee that usually meets on Wednesday afternoons, so I often face the difficult dilemma of deciding whether to attend European Standing Committee A or the Select Committee. I appreciate the Minister’s comments. Perhaps the matter might be taken up through you, Mr. Chidgey, as it can sometimes be difficult to arrange one’s diary. That said, may I press the Minister a bit further on the point about new entrants to the European Union? I listened carefully to his comment that there does not appear to be a stark difference in the approach to the package of established EU members and new entrants. I heard what he said, but, given that under-investment in railway networks has often been an issue for several EU members—it is particularly a problem in ex-communist countries where there have even been safety issues because of long-term under-investment by previous regimes—have any aspects of that emerged in debates or impacted on the package in any way? Mr. McNulty: As I was saying, in the limited debates thus far, and purely from my perspective rather than on the basis of detailed analysis, that has not been the case. With the best will in the world, I would not go on too much about under-investment in rail infrastructure by other countries, certainly pre-1997. We should look to our own lights in that respect. I have no doubt that their political and investment history and other elements have had an effect. Mr. Francois: What about the late ’70s, then? Mr. McNulty: Ah no, I was attacking cross-party. I am liberal and generous in my attacks on successive Governments since the war for under-investing, and I have been ever since I started commenting on the issue. I was asked whether the new members’ approach to the four elements of the package is discernible and distinct from that of existing members. Although investment levels in those countries—ex-communist or otherwise—history and, to some extent, geography clearly colour the perspective of new members, I have not discerned a difference in approach in the Council meetings that I have attended. Mrs. Dunwoody: Again, I apologise, Mr. Chidgey, if the Minister has dealt with this issue in detail. The freight proposals, particularly the mandatory nature of them, would cause considerable difficulty in this country. The Department’s own documents made it clear that it does not think that they are a good idea. Are we to take it that the Government will maintain that position? Given that car users are not compensated for delays, should we assume that the Government’s attitude towards delay payments will be robust? Column Number: 14 Mr. McNulty: Again, at the risk of being charged with obsequiousness, I can answer my hon. Friend’s question in the way that she would like me to. We will be robust from the outset in saying that we do not think in any way, shape or form that the element of the package on freight is desirable, or that the transfer payments and compensation and other elements are of any long-term benefit to the freight industry or its customers. Nor, as I told the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), do we necessarily think that anything approaching the proper level of costs, rather than benefits, has been captured in the documentation thus far. My hon. Friend can be assured that our objection to this element will be robust. Mr. Knight: When the package is concluded, what requirements are likely to be in place for the provision of information to the public? The whole thrust of the package is to encourage people to take international train journeys, but they will not do that if they do not know that such services exist. What requirements will be placed on operators in the UK to advertise what is available across the European Union? Mr. McNulty: I am not entirely sure that there will be any such requirement as a result of the third package. However, we are liberalising and extending international passenger rights, and I take the point that any body or set of rights is only as good as people’s awareness of those rights. I doubt whether the package will place a duty on member states or train operating companies, state or otherwise, to advertise. If these elements are on a EU-wide basis, it must be incumbent on member state Governments or the TOCs, or a combination of both, to ensure that the rights are publicised as widely as possible. The matter would still broadly be under negotiation if it were to be in the second part of the package, but it has certainly not emerged as a key proposal thus far. We will keep the House informed on how that and other elements of the package progress. Mr. Knight: I am grateful to the Minister. The answer to my next question can probably be inferred from that reply. Will he therefore bear in mind in any future discussions that he attends that it is absolutely essential that the public and all member states are aware of what is on offer? Mr. McNulty: I shall. Mr. Knight: I am grateful to the Minister. Can he confirm that, in the discussions involving him and other Ministers in the Department for Transport, he has been negotiating on behalf of the UK as whole and that separate discussions have not taken place involving Ministers from the Scottish Parliament? Mr. McNulty: That has been the position as I understand it. As and when elements of either the third or subsequent packages develop under the rail headline, we will have to take into account the situation if the Railways Bill is enacted, because many
2.43 pmMotion made, and question proposed,
Mr. Knight: I thank the Minister for his detailed replies. He has certainly answered our questions and largely met our concerns. This is a sensible way to proceed. In view of my party’s reputation as having a certain view on all things European, perhaps I should start by saying that there is such a thing as a positive Eurosceptic—indeed, that is what I consider myself to be, in that I do not wish to see a European constitution or a European currency implemented in the UK, but I do believe in a single market. As a trading nation, we are right to utilise that single market in the European Union to the full. We are also right to facilitate and encourage our citizens to travel across the EU. That is what the package does. The package has nothing to do with the heavy hand of federalism and everything to do with facilitating travel across Europe and encouraging UK citizens to use the railways. That should not be the subject of any party political division and it will not be so today. We do not intend to divide the Committee on the package, although we still have some ongoing concerns about the certification of drivers—concerns that are shared by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The Minister assured us that he was well apprised of the problems that might arise and the Opposition accept that he is taking the right approach in the ongoing discussions. We also have some concerns about the compensation arrangements and, indeed, the whole compensation culture that the world seems to be moving towards, particularly if those arrangements are going to lead to higher costs and higher ticket prices. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind during the ongoing discussions. I am not entirely convinced by the proposals for strict liability, and I hope that the Minister will say a little bit more about that. Column Number: 16 I also hope that when the package has been agreed and we seek to implement its provisions in UK law, whoever is sitting in the Minister’s seat resists the temptation to adopt a heavy-handed approach and gold-plate any of the provisions. A light touch is needed. If the package is ultimately agreed and implemented with common sense, it will bring only benefits to all members of society in the United Kingdom. 2.47 pmMrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): Co-operation between member states on basic infrastructure is not only sensible, but something that all Members of the House of Commons support. None the less, it is true that from time to time the Commission and European institutions, no doubt with a worthy desire to ensure that their responsibilities are perfectly set out, have seemed to some of us to go way beyond what is necessary or workable. The present package of railway measures comes pretty close to some of those problems. If there are intracontinental services, it is sensible to ensure that the people who are running them maintain the highest level of care and are protected in a way that is common to all nations. It is essential that if passengers are to be compensated and protected throughout the Union, they should have access to the same level of regulation and they should be able to protect their interests. It is also vital that in the name of political sense and our ability to work together, the Commission and the institutions do not seek to set up rigid, unworkable structures that will contribute to a feeling of ill will and incompetence when people try to put into practice wholly unworkable systems. I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I have very strong reservations about the proposals on driver certification. If people are driving between the United Kingdom and France, they must have a measure of understanding of the two systems and the necessary protections; no one would gainsay that for a second. On the other hand, to insist on a system that involves every driver everywhere in the United Kingdom, including the most obscure parts of the shunting yards of fairly ancient systems, would be absurd and bring the whole package into disrepute. I am delighted to have heard what the Minister had to say, and I can assure him of constant support as long as his robust attitude is maintained. However, we in the House of Commons ought to look closely at the liberalisation of international passenger services at some point. The package has implications that are likely to rise up and bite us. The House of Lords report, which was extremely useful, urged the Government to continue to resist the requirement for a full international rail driver’s licence for all train drivers. Where it is possible for systems to be integrated without extra cost in a workable and sensible manner, the Community should do that. Such work should contribute to our understanding of one another’s transport systems. However, the devil makes work for idle hands, and the Commission is not above creating
2.51 pmMr. McNulty: I thank the Committee for its questions and comments. This has been an interesting and focused debate on a subject to which we shall return. The package is in its early gestation; it will not be implemented until the end of 2006 at the very earliest, even with a very optimistic assessment of the hurdles that remain. I have tried to make clear the Government’s views on freight, rights, liberalisation and driving licences. I am grateful for colleagues’ comments, particularly on the freight and driving licence elements. On the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about strict liability as it appears under the passenger rights proposal, that is still a matter of intense discussion. There will be strict liability for a limited amount. There are—but herein lies danger—precedents in shipping and aviation, but they are strictly within the context of shipping and aviation, and any notion of simply transferring definitions or implementation of strict liability from them to rail would be resisted. Thus far, at least to the extent that there has been consultation, the TOCs in the UK have been fairly relaxed about the principle, but we will wait and see how that finally pans out. There are four elements of the package, and we are not terribly happy with at least two of them, save for the ground given—that is not the right word, but it will do—by the Commission and the Council on subsidiarity. We resist, at least at this stage, the imposition of the certification of driving licences in the UK, except in relation to drivers who go through the channel tunnel. We shall resist the freight element as it is currently tabled, and there is still a lot of discussion to be had on the rights and liberalisation elements. In the broader context, in the Council there is some debate and dispute with the Commission about whether the four elements belong in a single package, simply so that there can be a third package to go with
Matthew Green: In all his words so far, the Minister has not really mentioned the environment. I hope that he will make it clear that the Government will not support something that leads to environmental disadvantages and will resist anything that reduces the likelihood of freight or passengers travelling by rail or transfers them on to roads instead. Mr. McNulty: I take that as an absolute given and the point at which we start rail policy. It is important that scrutiny opportunities are afforded to the House, if not this Committee, on such important elements as they develop. If I had to step out of the role pf a focused and deeply concerned Minister who only said what he was told to say and speculated about when the elements might come to fruition, I suspect that little progress will be made under either the Luxembourg or the subsequent UK presidency, which has implications for the optimistic deadline of the end of 2006. I give the assurance that we shall return to many aspects of the package and, in that context, I commend the motion to the Committee. If, in the spare time before I attend the Select Committee, we could have a debate entitled “Positive Euroscepticism: a view”, I should be enormously grateful. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Committee rose at five minutes to Three o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 10 March 2005 |