Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Railway Heritage Committee) Order 2013
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Burns, Mr Simon (Minister of State, Department for Transport)
Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)
† Dakin, Nic (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
† Duddridge, James (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
† Evans, Graham (Weaver Vale) (Con)
† Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
† Greenwood, Lilian (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Heyes, David (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Hunt, Tristram (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
† Jackson, Mr Stewart (Peterborough) (Con)
† Lopresti, Jack (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
† Morgan, Nicky (Loughborough) (Con)
Qureshi, Yasmin (Bolton South East) (Lab)
† Reid, Mr Alan (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
† Robinson, Mr Geoffrey (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)
† Sturdy, Julian (York Outer) (Con)
† Weatherley, Mike (Hove) (Con)
John-Paul Flaherty, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
First Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 14 January 2013
[Annette Brooke in the Chair]
Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Railway Heritage Committee) Order 2013
4.30 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of the Railway Heritage Committee) Order 2013.
The order was laid before the House on 29 October 2012.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Nottingham South on her good fortune in the reshuffle, moving from a subject that I know she was familiar with, attached to and considerably interested in, to her new portfolio responsibilities. I am sure that, in a short time, she will become as attached to and interested in the railways and other parts of her portfolio as she has been when it comes to cycling and local road safety.
I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about the draft order to abolish the railway heritage committee and transfer its designation function to the board of trustees of the Science Museum. The Government fully recognise the valuable work that the RHC has carried out over a number of years in identifying and designating railway artefacts and records of historical significance, so that they can be preserved for future generations.
During its life, the RHC has designated more than 1,300 artefacts and many thousands of important historical documents, including the Brunel drawings of the Great Western Railway; the collection of British transport films; paintings by Terence Cuneo; coaches from the royal train; a travelling post office sorting van; and the Great North of England Railway archive. Apart from its secretary, the members of the RHC are unpaid, giving their time free of charge. Their passion and enthusiasm are noteworthy, providing a good example of the volunteering spirit that is vital in preserving this country’s rich railway heritage.
As hon. Members will know, the Government were originally minded to abolish the designation function along with the RHC on the basis that no equivalent protection exists for other transport sectors. However, this Government do listen and were persuaded of the unique position that railways play in this country’s heritage. As a result, we agreed to the suggestion made by the noble Lord Faulkner during the passage of the Public Bodies Act 2011 that the RHC’s designation function should not be lost, but instead be transferred to the board of trustees of the Science Museum. I pay tribute to the considerable amount of work that the noble Lord did and the fact that he was able to make the case, which was totally justified and which the Government were prepared to accept. I am delighted to see him listening to our proceedings this afternoon.
There are many benefits to the Government’s approach, not least of which will be the streamlining of the process by transferring it to a larger group—the Science Museum Group—where economies of scale can be utilised by employing resources across a wide range of duties. The Government carried out a targeted six-week consultation, which revealed that, although there was significant support for the RHC, the majority of respondents appeared to be pleased with the proposal to maintain the designation function and transfer it to the board of trustees of the Science Museum.
Many respondents recognised the need for rationalisation of functions or expressed the view that the exercise of the designation function is more important than the vehicle through which it is delivered. There was strong support for the board of trustees of the Science Museum being ideally placed to take on the role in the future, especially if it appoints external panel members to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between its carrying out the designation function and its role as the governing body of the national railway museum.
The Government are determined to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, overheads and management layers wherever possible and believe that the RHC is a good example of where those objectives can be achieved. The RHC’s main committee and three sub-committees will be replaced by a railway heritage designation advisory board, under the board of trustees, with a chair and around 10 members, a number of whom will be drawn from the RHC to ensure a smooth transition of expertise. I am pleased to report that a shadow version of this advisory board has already been set up, with its first meeting having taken place on 22 November last year. Also, once the designation functions have been transferred to the board of trustees, it will be governed by the provisions of the National Heritage Act 1983, which should allow it greater flexibility to create a more efficient organisation.
The cost of running the RHC is currently around £100,000 a year, which will be largely reduced and absorbed within the existing budget of the Science Museum Group. The back-office functions will be more streamlined as they will be absorbed within the existing structure of the Science Museum Group. It is anticipated that the appointment of external non-Science Museum Group members to the advisory board will negate any potential conflict of interest between the board of trustees’ carrying out the designation function and its role as the governing body of the National Railway museum. We are confident that this will ensure that the National Railway museum does not receive unfair preference. I understand that most members of the new advisory board will be external to the Science Museum Group, and that it will also include representation from Scotland and Wales.
We are aware from the consultation and other entreaties that there has been some appetite to extend the scope of the designation function to members of the industry that are currently not within the scope, and to introduce some further simplification of the process. There were a number of reasons why we were not able to use this order to bring additional bodies into the scope. First, an order under the Public Bodies Act 2011 is subject to an affirmative procedure, whereas an order to extend the scope of the designation powers would have to be made under the Railway Heritage Act 1996, which would be subject to a negative resolution procedure.
Secondly, it is not possible to combine in a single statutory instrument provisions that are subject to different parliamentary procedures. An extension to the scope of the powers could therefore be achieved only through an additional statutory instrument, which would undoubtedly have put at risk the target date of April 2013 for the transfer of powers to the board of trustees of the Science Museum.
Thirdly, it would also have been necessary to give further consideration to, and engage in, further consultation to identify the bodies to be included, and also to consider whether further changes could be made to the procedures under the 1996 Act in order to reduce the burdens on the industry, as was included in the response of one of the consultees for this order.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is responsible for the Science Museum Group, will carry out a review within three years of the passing of the order and its coming into effect, to establish whether further bodies or classes of bodies should be included within the scope of the 1996 Act, and whether the burden on bodies as a result of the exercise of the designation function can be reduced. Until then, there is nothing to prevent interested parties from reaching voluntary agreements. For example, I understand that Transport for London will be co-operating with the Science Museum Group to establish voluntary arrangements to ensure that the London Underground’s rich heritage is preserved for future generations.
In conclusion, the Government are confident that the transfer of the designation power to the Science Museum Group will streamline the process by including it in a larger group where economies of scale can be identified and further efficiencies realised. As a result, we are confident that the preservation of an important part of our nation’s heritage will be secured for future generations.
4.39 pm
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Brooke. I thank the right hon. Member for Chelmsford for his kind remarks, and I look forward to debating rail matters with him over the coming months.
It is a great pleasure to be discussing rail heritage, and I am sure that Members on both Front Benches will find significant areas of agreement this afternoon. That is welcome, because, as the right hon. Gentleman set out, there was a real danger at the outset of this process that things could have easily been very different.
When the incoming Government set a match to make their bonfire of the quangos following the general election in 2010, they were keen to feed the flames as quickly as possible and came dangerously close to throwing a national treasure on to the funeral pyre, because the rail heritage committee is just that: a little treasure. Since its creation under the Railways Act 1993, it has been quietly yet effectively going about its business, protecting the historically important artefacts, records and archives that tell the story of our railways.
Since its creation, the committee has designated more than 1,300 artefacts, both large and small, and many thousands of documents, keeping them safe and finding suitable homes for them, often within our country’s network of heritage railways and museums. That story, of course, continues. Such items still need protection,
if today’s infrastructure and the records of the rail industry are to be preserved so that future generations can understand and learn from them.Coming from the east midlands on the train today, I was reminded of our region’s proud history of engine building. I see that the hon. Member for Loughborough is sitting in her place; when I passed the Brush Works in Loughborough, I was reminded of that history. We also have Bombardier not far away in Derby. Any visitor to St Pancras will behold the magnificent station roof, which was manufactured by the once great Butterley Company in east Derbyshire. Their stories form a vital part of the history of our railways.
I am sure that I do not need to tell anyone here how important the story of our railways has been to the lives of people not just in the east midlands or across Britain, but across the globe. Even if I did have to tell them, I could simply refer them to Dan Snow’s forthcoming BBC 2 programme, which starts tomorrow evening. [ Interruption. ] It starts at 9 o’clock, I believe. The enduring popularity of Britain’s heritage railways and museums, and films and television programmes about our railways, confirms how well loved and valued our unique rail heritage is.
It was all the more surprising therefore that, back in October 2010, the Department for Transport claimed that the rail heritage committee
“cannot be justified as no equivalent protection applies to the heritage of any other transport sector”.
Fortunately, the then Ministers at the Department for Transport, who may not have immediately appreciated the essential role of the rail heritage committee, were persuaded that it was indeed justified, and I pay tribute to those who succeeded in persuading them.
Supported by thousands of rail and history enthusiasts, who took the time to write to their MPs, it was the work of my noble Friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the former chair of the rail heritage committee and a passionate supporter of our rail heritage, which secured the Government’s change of heart and their decision to reject abolition and instead transfer the powers of designation to the National Museum of Science and Industry. As Nigel Harris wrote in Rail magazine,
“Anyone with a love of, or at least a respect for, railway history and Britain’s place in it, should celebrate this victory and doff their caps to Richard Faulkner.”
I do not have a cap to doff, but I welcome the chance to place on the record our thanks to my noble Friends Lord Faulkner and Lord Davies of Oldham for their persistent and determined lobbying.
However, while the designation role of the rail heritage committee is safely passing to the National Museum of Science and Industry, with additional expertise already established on the shadow railway heritage designation advisory board, there remains a concern about the scope of the powers to reflect the changing nature of the rail industry.
The previous Government recognised that the list of organisations covered by the statutory power of designation is insufficient to cover the modern industry, and in 2008 and 2009 the Department for Transport consulted on extending the scope of the rail heritage committee. There was strong support for a wider remit, including from Transport for London, which particularly wished to see London Underground—150 years old last week—brought within its scope.
Indeed, a new statutory instrument to achieve the changes was drafted and circulated and was cut short only as a result of the change of Government. The need for a wider scope was also raised by many respondents to the Government’s consultation on the proposed abolition of the rail heritage committee.
Speaking in the other place, the noble Earl Attlee agreed that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has responsibility for the Science Museum Group, would
“carry out a review within three years in order to establish whether further bodies or classes of bodies should be included within the scope of the Railway Heritage Act 1996”.
“there is nothing to prevent interested parties reaching voluntary agreements.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 1343.]
I am pleased to hear from Lord Faulkner that positive discussions have taken place between the new shadow advisory board and Transport for London to establish such arrangements, with great support from Peter Hendy, the commissioner of transport for London. May I remind the Committee, however, that the Railway Heritage Act 1996 was passed after attempts to set up a voluntary scheme had proved unsuccessful? I understand that Transport for London is anxious for the current voluntary arrangements to be put on a statutory footing. In his letter, Peter Hendy, the commissioner, explained why. It is worth reminding the Committee what he said:
“First it demonstrates the strength of commitment we in TfL have towards our unique railway heritage, and our determination that nothing of significance to the nation’s railway story should be lost. Secondly, bringing TfL within scope would solve an anomaly, in that some of TfL’s operations, having formerly being British Rail services, are in-scope—for example, London Overground—whilst the Underground is not. Thirdly, not being in-scope adds to our regulatory burden, because management time has to be expended unnecessarily on dealing with requests from members of the public—especially railway enthusiasts—to preserve artefacts, when it would be much more efficient and cost-effective to refer such demands to an independent body possessing statutory powers, able to judge objectively what is important”.
The Minister, who I am sure shares that concern about not having undue burdens on organisations such as Transport for London and wants more efficiency and cost-effectiveness, will give the proposal careful consideration. A new statutory instrument would be needed to give it effect, so I will be grateful if the Minister can give a stronger commitment today.
Perhaps the Minister can address the following questions in his response. First, can he assure us that the consultation on extending the scope of the Railway Heritage Act will be carried out in this Parliament and, if so, when would that commence? Will he consider a statutory instrument specifically to bring London Underground within scope? What consideration has he given to the need to protect the heritage of our developing light rail systems? I am, of course, conscious of the development of Nottingham’s modern tram system and of the excellent National Tramway museum in Crich, in Derbyshire, which might even be in the Secretary of State for Transport’s constituency.
Finally, what assurances can the Minister provide that the concerns of those working in the industry are better considered from the outset when changes are
proposed to the discharge of heritage duties? The initial proposals for abolition of the rail heritage committee’s designation powers raised concerns for other bodies, and the Minister is aware of the representations that Railway Paths Ltd has made over the expertise currently provided by British Railways Board (Residuary) Ltd, and the reassurances that it has sought for when the BRBR’s duties are transferred to the Highways Agency.4.48 pm
Mr Burns: The hon. Lady kindly made a valid and important point. She said that the Government, having listened to the results of the consultation on the original proposals, were prepared to make significant changes on designation.
I have explained to the Committee why we cannot do both the abolition of the RHC—moving it to the Science Museum—and the changing and widening of scope in one statutory instrument. That is just a parliamentary fact of life. I have, however, given a categorical assurance to the Committee that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which will be the responsible and sponsoring Department from 1 April, when the draft order comes into effect, will carry out a review within three years. I cannot say categorically, at this time, whether that will be before the next general election, which is on 6 or 7 May 2015, but I can categorically assure the Committee that the review will happen within the three years.
The hon. Lady also asked what consultations would be carried out and whether they would take place during this Parliament. That is a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has agreed to carry out the review. It will determine all the factors and how the consultation will take place.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the point about whether there would be a specific statutory instrument for Transport for London and the London Underground. I do not think that that is necessary, so it will not happen as a specific statutory instrument for one sector. The reason is that, as she rightly said during her comments, Transport for London is at the moment in discussions to seek a voluntary agreement with what is currently the RHC, so that it can be included in the scope. Provided that the issues are concluded satisfactorily so that that is accomplished, that will give protection.
Then, when the review is carried out by the DCMS on the potential for widening the scope by statutory instrument, that would be, if it were to go ahead—I cannot anticipate at this stage where it will lead—the second lock on the system, because clearly Transport for London would be included, both overground and underground.
As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, during the earlier consultations, a list was drawn up of how section 1 of the Railway Heritage Act 1996 should be expanded from what is currently in the primary legislation. That was extremely all-embracing, taking into account changes. It included London rail, London Underground, London tram and the docklands light railway of Transport for London, so I think that the potential, following the review, could very well lead to what the hon. Lady is asking for. In the meantime, provided that the discussions on a voluntary agreement with Transport for London are successful, it will get that security through that voluntary agreement.
Lilian Greenwood: Can the Minister comment on whether, if such a voluntary agreement is reached in respect of London Underground, that helps to relieve the regulatory burden that Peter Hendy describes in his letter? I am talking about the situation if a voluntary agreement is in place, rather than the statutory powers being there.
Mr Burns: I think that it is a very good first step to give protections that other artefacts and documents have in order to cover the London Underground. That is what I think is important. On the question of bureaucracy, no, I do not think that any exceptional or unnecessary
bureaucracy is created. The system is a good one, although, as this order shows, we believe that it can be greatly improved by moving the committee to the board of trustees of the Science Museum because there will be far greater manpower and resources to ensure the smooth running of the organisation. I think that that is the right way to go. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will accept this statutory instrument today.