Clause
24
Directions
specifying matters for purposes of section
23
Mr.
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 42, in
clause 24, page 15, line 36, at
end insert—
‘( ) such
passenger groups as he considers
appropriate.’.
Following
a number of amendments that I have proposed today, with which I have so
far failed to tempt the Minister, I feel quite strongly about this one
in particular. We have looked a number of times at what many people
might regard as not necessarily being the fullest provisions for proper
consultation. A proper consultation process ought to be incumbent on a
Secretary of State when they are making certain provisions and
orders.
Clause 24
allows the Government to set up minimum operating levels for principal
Crossrail services. Subsection (4) of the clause obliges the Secretary
of State to do so, having consulted Transport for London, passenger
services providers, and anyone else whom he “considers
appropriate”.
I
would suggest that we need to include a significant group of people
whom the Minister may well consider appropriate, but who are missing
from the Bill and who ought to be included and place an absolute
obligation on the Secretary of State to consult them. That is the
people who will use the service—the passengers themselves. As
those who will be profoundly affected by the minimum
operating levels for Crossrail, it seems obvious that, if service levels
are to be set or altered, passenger groups should be consulted
regardless, and not only if the Secretary of State considers that
appropriate. I
know that there are a number of excellent regional and national
passenger organisations that the Minister will have met in his role as
rail Minister; I certainly have in my role as shadow Minister. They
include Passenger Focus, London TravelWatch, and various groups in the
midlands. Those groups have much to say about the quality and operating
levels of services. It would be a gross oversight not to recognise the
value of the contribution that they make. To ignore them and not to put
an obligation for them to be consulted in the Bill would be a great
mistake.
Susan
Kramer:
I very much support the
inclusion of passenger groups as has been proposed in the amendment. In
my days on the board of Transport for London, advice from passenger
groups was crucial to understanding how to get the service right. It is
important particularly at a time when we need to ensure that there is
joined-up thinking and that we deliver what is properly integrated and
responsive to passengers’ needs. When a sum of about £16
billion is being invested, it seems that not to give those groups the
high-priority profile that would be provided by including them in the
Bill would be to miss an opportunity. The amendment would show that
thinking has changed and that passengers are recognised as part of the
system in a railway that, too long, had the reputation of being an
arrangement that would work beautifully if people never bothered to get
on the trains. That change in thinking that needs to be
incorporated.
Mr.
Harris:
I will preface my remarks by
pointing out, as I will repeat later on, that there is absolutely no
prospect of the Government ignoring passenger groups’ views
simply because that obligation is not in the
Bill.
However, the
clause that the amendment seeks to affect is linked to clause 23. It is
an advanced planning measure that enables the Secretary of State, after
consulting, to specify minimum operating levels to establish principal
Crossrail passenger services from a specified date. Those services will
make use, for at least part of their journey, of the new tunnel under
central London. That direction, which must be published, sets the basis
for the Office of Rail Regulation’s overriding duty under clause
23.
Before the
Secretary of State specifies the minimum operating levels, she must
consult Transport for London, the provider of any railway passenger
service likely to be affected by the direction and any such other
persons that she considers appropriate. The Secretary of State must
give due consideration to who, if anyone in addition to those
specified, needs to be consulted. If she did not do so, she would be
open to challenge in the courts. It is likely that rail passenger
groups would be included in the consultation.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon
has not specified any particular organisation. However, the danger of
the amendment is that other groups may start claiming that they, too,
need to be specified or included in the long list of consultations and
the list could become long and
ill-defined.
The
amendment is not necessary. The Secretary of State will act as she
considers appropriate, taking account of her general policy and the
Department for
Transport’s general record in relation to
passenger group consultations. This is not a bad amendment, but it does
not add a great deal to the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw
it.
Stephen
Hammond:
I listened carefully to the Minister. Let us
examine his logic. He has just said that we should not include in the
Bill the most important people, because doing so may bring in a load of
other people. If he wanted me to specify passenger groups—if he
would accept my amendment and if they were included—I would be
happy to ask leave to withdraw it and allow him to bring it back as a
Government amendment next week. However, if he is telling me that that
creates too wide an opportunity, why is he including passenger services
providers in the Bill? The Minister cannot have it both ways, but that
is what he is trying to do. He is wriggling, because he does not want
to be tempted into accepting one of my excellent amendments this
afternoon.
Mr.
Harris:
I should point out that passenger service
providers are there: they can be counted and identified and there is no
question about who they are. There may be a question about which
passenger groups—they are many and diverse— should be
included in the
list.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am afraid that the Minister is trying hard but
failing to
convince.
Mr.
Field:
I very much agree. Would not my hon. Friend agree
that he included in his amendment the words “as he considers
appropriate” to give the Minister the opportunity to suggest
that it may not necessarily be appropriate to include some newfangled
or unrepresentative passenger group? I cannot understand why, other
than simply to hold the line, the Minister does not accept the
amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that he should do so
forthwith.
Stephen
Hammond:
I certainly agree. I cannot see why the
Government will not accept the amendment and include in the Bill this
requirement to consult, which is sensible. It is important that this
group be consulted. I take the Minister’s point, which is that
he thinks that any reasonable Secretary of State would consult that
group. However, why not put that on the face of the Bill? I have heard
no argument not to do so. I am afraid that I would like to test the
will of the Committee on this
amendment.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
9.
Division
No.
4
]
Question accordingly
negatived.
Clause 24 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause 25
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
26
Amending
pre-commencement access contracts: construction of
Crossrail
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 43, in
clause 26, page 17, line 19, after
‘State’, insert
‘and such other persons as the
Office of Rail Regulation considers
appropriate’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 47, in clause 29, page 20, line 15, after
‘State’, insert ‘and other interested
parties’.
Stephen
Hammond:
The wording of the amendment means that we might
be about to rehearse the same argument as has just been articulated.
Its purpose is to ensure that appropriate consultation and an
appropriate consultation process are carried out. In the
present context, that should be prior to the adjustment by the Office
of Rail Regulation of the pre-commencement access contracts. Clause
26(4) gives the ORR power to require concerned parties to submit
proposals on how they should amend such access contracts, and the
Opposition welcome that. Giving the parties to agreements the power at
least to contribute to the decision-making process of the regulator
will greatly improve the chances of effective modifications to such
agreements.
Subsection
(5) says that the ORR must consult the Secretary of State as part of
that process. We welcome that too, especially as it puts the ORR under
no particular obligation to abide by the Secretary of State’s
directions. The requirement is one of consultation only. However, the
consultation procedure ends there, and it seems short-sighted to
presume that no one else will be affected at that stage by the changes
to pre-commencement access contracts. The amendment is intended to
ensure that the ORR is open to the concerns of other appropriate and
relevant parties and that it consults them in a relevant and
appropriate
fashion.
Mr.
Harris:
The amendment would require the ORR to invite
representations from parties other than the Secretary of State when it
considered that an access contract needed amending if use of the
railway facility to which the contract related would be affected by the
construction of Crossrail.
The amendment is not strictly
necessary, but I accept that it might have some merit, so I would like
to consider it with officials in the Department. The ORR does not need
authority to consult as widely as it considers appropriate, because
nothing in clause 26 prevents it from doing that already. The ORR would
in practice need to consult at least the parties to the affected access
contracts before it could decide whether and how the contracts needed
amending. Subsection (4) enables the ORR to require the parties to
propose the directions that should be given. The ORR has established
consultation policies and a track record of
facilitating a very open process on access matters, so the decision on
what is appropriate consultation can be trusted to it. I have explained
my position on the amendment. However, if the hon. Gentleman insists on
pressing the amendment, I shall have to ask my colleagues to vote
against it.
Stephen
Hammond:
If one is on the Opposition Front Bench for any
Committee stage of any Bill, one knows that any minor victory is to be
celebrated. This is potentially the second minor victory today in which
the Minister has agreed to take back two of my amendments to look at
with his officials. I shall probably celebrate with a Martini later
this evening. I am therefore delighted to withdraw the amendment and I
look forward to talking to the Minister about it in future. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
26 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
3.15
pm
Clause
27
Amending
pre-commencement access contracts: principal Crossrail
services
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 44, in
clause 27, page 17, line 43, at
end insert—
‘( ) Where the
Secretary of State makes no objection to the contract, he must indicate
who he has consulted in formulating his
decision.’.
If
the Minister wishes to take this amendment back to his officials, I
will be happy to withdraw it. The clause also relates to
pre-commencement access contracts, but those that affect the operation
of principal Crossrail services, as opposed to those that concern the
construction of the Crossrail network itself. It gives the Secretary of
State the power to object to any perceived conflict between the
specified minimum operating levels of Crossrail set by him and any
existing access contracts as identified by the ORR. That is my
understanding, at any rate. That effectively puts more power in the
hands of Government and the purpose of my amendment is merely to
introduce some accountability into the process.
The Secretary of State should
consult affected parties before deciding whether to object to the
contract identified by the regulator. He should then be happy to
indicate exactly whom he has consulted in the formulation of that
decision. Does the Minister agree that that puts no particular extra or
undue burdens on the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of
State, whoever it might be at that time, should be happy to indicate
whom he or she has consulted in the formulation of that
decision?
Mr.
Harris:
I fear the hon. Gentleman might be drinking
Martinis on his own tonight. I do not think that I will be able to join
him. If I offered him the same concession that I offered previously, he
might start spreading the rumour that I am a soft touch. The aim of his
amendment is somewhat puzzling. It requires the Secretary of State to
indicate whom she has consulted
when she makes no objection to an access contract that conflicts with
the operation of the principal Crossrail services, but it makes no
similar requirement when she does object.
I do not see
a requirement to consult being necessary in any case. The ORR is
already likely to be in touch with the parties to access contracts and
to establish what would prejudice the operation of the principal
Crossrail passenger services. The Secretary of State would decide
whether she objects to that contract. If she does object, the ORR would
be in touch with the affected parties anyway and regulations would
provide for the carrying out by the ORR of its functions, which could
involve consulting interested persons. If she does not object, I am not
clear what use the ORR would have for information on whom, if anyone,
she consulted in reaching that decision. At the risk of disappointing
the hon. Gentleman, I ask him to withdraw his
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I know from the Minister’s debating here
and in the House that he is not a soft touch. I cannot believe that
anyone would think that of him. I have listened carefully to his
rationale. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
We now have a repeat performance by
Mr.
Hammond.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 27,
page 18, line 7, leave out subsections (7) to
(9).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 17, in clause 33, page 23, line 22, leave out subsections
(6) to
(8).
Stephen
Hammond:
Thank you, Lady Winterton. I do feel a bit like
the ITV autumn schedule, I must
say.
This is a probing
amendment. I seek to delete subsections (7) to (9) of clause 27. The
two preceding subsections give the Office of Rail Regulation the power
to enforce the decision of the Secretary of State as to the amendment
or cancellation of any existing access contracts that are perceived to
be in conflict with the Government’s specified minimum operating
levels for Crossrail. Subsection (7) enables the Secretary of State
to
“make provision in
relation to the carrying out by the Office of Rail Regulation of its
functions”
as set out in
the preceding subsections. That appears to me to be vague, ambiguous
and in need of clarification. I hope that my amendment will allow the
Minister to clarify exactly why these subsections are relevant and need
to be included in the
Bill.
Mr.
Harris:
Clause 27 deals with existing access contracts
that may affect the operation of the principal Crossrail passenger
services. After all, some access contracts that would have such an
effect may still be in existence at the time of Royal Assent, and the
clause enables them to be modified. Clause 33 also deals with the
modification of access contracts. In both cases, where such
modification was required, there would
need to be an extensive process corresponding broadly to that set out in
paragraphs 3 to 6 of schedule 4 to the Railways Act 1993. It is
desirable to provide for that by means of secondary legislation, rather
than adding further to the Bill. It would be subject to the annulment
process in the
House.
Amendments Nos.
45 and 17 would delete both provisions that enable secondary
legislation to be made. That could result in an unsatisfactory,
inflexible position in which existing statutory procedures may not be
entirely established or transparent. If there were concerns about
provisions in the secondary legislation, there is parliamentary
protection, as I have described. I hope that the hon. Member for
Wimbledon is satisfied with that
explanation.
Stephen
Hammond:
As I said, this is a probing amendment. I wanted
the Committee to understand why the subsections are necessary and I
thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
27 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
