Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, the confidence that the Bill has imposed in the Secretary of State, and which the Minister has repeated today, has convinced me by a pretty narrow margin that I had better support my noble friend's amendment after all, despite the fact that it gives unnecessary encouragement to a Secretary of State to tamper in matters of which he knows very little.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord has said, but he indicated in fairly principled terms why the amendment was not acceptable to him. I am sorry that my perspective on the amendment differs from his. I had hoped that, had there been any further action on the amendment today, he might have joined us in the Division Lobbies. But as I am confident that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will withdraw his amendment, that issue may not arise.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I must offer the Minister my commiserations. It must be sad for him to realise that he had perhaps persuaded one Member of your Lordships' House to support his argument but then suddenly to find that his argument has had the opposite effect. Never mind.
I shall deal with the Minister's two technical objections. His last point was that the amendment had no link to the high-level specification. That is not a valid excuse because it can be put in as part of the strategy. You cannot say at one point that the inclusion of "rolling-stock" or "infrastructure" in proposed new subsection (7E) is too prescriptive but then object in the next minute that the high-level specification has not been included.
The Minister is right that proposed new subsection (7E) includes a list of various things. The amendment refers to such strategies as the Secretary of State,
That does not imply a fragmented strategy; it just says that, as part of a strategy, there must be some reference to those aspects. The Minister then said, rather tellingly, that most, if not all, will be addressed. That is a classic get-out clause, is it not? We run the risk that policy for community railways, for example, could easily not be addressed. Those are the two technical arguments.
I shall now deal with the principle. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who tabled this amendment originally in Committee, for which I must give him due credit, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Minister failed to address the
4 Apr 2005 : Column 495
Scottish comparisonScottish Ministers will have to publish a strategy. It is not surprising that he did not deal with that because it does not help his argument.
The Minister brought up the aviation point. It is quite simple: the aviation industry is taxed, not subsidised, by £4 billion a year.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Scottish position is not quite as the noble Viscount says. The Bill does not lay a duty upon Scottish Ministers; it creates a power that they may exercise, whereas the amendment is drafted in terms of a duty.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I accept what the Minister says, but the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers have indicated that they will take up that power as a duty.
The other point related to the Secretary of State and his responsibilities. Let us be clear: if my noble friend Lord Peyton produced an amendment that said that no Secretary of State would be encouraged "to fiddle about", to use his words, I am sure that we would all support that fiddling amendment. We are all against Secretaries of State doing that on their own policies or on anything else.
The Bill has brought Network Rail directly under the control of the Secretary of State. He is responsible for funding; he is taking control. If he takes control and accepts that responsibility, he must come before Parliament and there must be a duty. That duty ought to be in the Bill because the industry needs to know. It is no good saying that it will just be done by the specification report and what the department publishes annually; the industry needs to know the long-term plans. It is a long-term industry whose funding requirements are long term.
The final point that persuaded me to test the opinion of the House was the Minister's remark that the amendment was unnecessary, because we all know that when Ministers say that, the amendment is indeed very necessary.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 136.
Schedule 4 [Reviews by ORR of access charges and licence conditions]:
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |