| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 2:
"( ) the interests of the users and providers of services for the carriage of goods by rail;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not keep the House long on this amendment. New paragraph 1D(4) on page 92 gives a list of objectives and standards which "may include, in particular," information,
On reading the list, Members will find that it mentions "capacity"; "frequency of railway passenger services"; "journey times"; "reliability of railway services"; "overcrowding"; "fares"; "information"; "accessibility"; "major projects"; and,
which we believe is a major omission. I can assure the Minister that huge numbers of people are extremely concerned about the growing problem of congestion on our roads and are extremely disappointed that the Government do not seem to have a coherent strategy for dealing with that problem. I believe that it is necessary to insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I also support the amendment and the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Following on from my noble friend's comments in response to the previous amendment, this covers in effect the content of what might be called the high-level output statement which will form part of the strategy. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, by the time we reach heading (j) we are into a fair amount of detail, although what is left out is the interest of a major user of the railway system; that is, rail freight operators. They are in the private sector and therefore have the most to lose when things go wrong.
The list of objectives and standards set out in paragraph (4) is extraordinarily detailed and interesting. While it is not limiting, it is detailed enough to cover the "types and numbers of trains" and the "frequency of . . . services", which will probably include freight but may not cover journey times. On the provision in heading (g) covering the "quality of information", does that ask whether the indicator board on platform 2 at Goring-on-Thames is working? In the past Ministers and noble Lords have asked why we have to specify this level of detail. However, if we are doing that, I argue that freight needs to be mentioned in such a long list covering detailed points on passenger services. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I, too, support the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on his eloquence in moving the amendment and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on the brevity and force of his support. I want to repeat what I said in Committee that of course the Government recognise the importance of the rail freight industry in this country and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that there is increasing interest in freight against the background of considering how to tackle our congested road network and reduce the amount of goods being delivered by road transport. That point is well taken. I want to reassure noble Lords that the Government take very seriously rail freight issues and they intend to involve the industry fully in the development of the high level output specification which, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley pointed out, forms the basis of the allocation of resources.
4 Apr 2005 : Column 499
In the interests of clarity, the high level output specification is the notice from the Secretary of State to the Office of Rail Regulation as part of the access charges review process, and it will be the key statement of his strategy for the railway for the coming period. It will include information from the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers, as appropriate, about desired outputs and finances for the rail industry over the review period.
New paragraph 1D(4) of Schedule 4 lists standards and objectives with respect to particular matters that may be included in the specification. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley indicated, the list is permissive in nature, but it is not exclusive. It includes such things as objectives and standards with respect to the capacity of networks, journey times and the reliability of trains on the network. But the list does not limit what the Secretary of State can do. He could include within the specification standards and objectives in respect of the interests of the users and providers of services for the carriage of goods by rail in the information that he provides to the Office of Rail Regulation.
We are well aware that the high level output specification for passengers is bound to affect freight operators. After all, freight operators use the same tracks on the same networks as passenger operators. Therefore the Government will need to ensure that they are aware of the potential effects on freight of any decisions that are taken in setting the specification. We have already begun what we consider to be constructive discussions with the freight industry on this very important point.
Furthermore, under Section 4 of the Railways Act 1993, as it would be amended by this Bill, the Secretary of State would already be under a duty when carrying out his functions as part of the access charges review process to carry them out in a manner he considers best calculated to protect the interests of persons providing services for the carriage of passengers or goods by the railway in their use of any railway facilities which are vested in a private sector operator.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. On a point of clarification, he mentioned the high level output statements for passenger services. I was pretty sure that it was established in Committee that the statements would apply to both passenger and freight services. Could he possibly clarify that?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, a great deal of the detail in the list referred to by noble Lords involves passenger transport services. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, stressed that point. However, I want to emphasise, as I did in Committee, that the high level output specification could include freight because, over the period that the specification is due to run, it would not be possible to construct one in relation to passenger services which did not take into account the needs of freight. So the duty will apply in respect of the prices charged for such use and the quality of the service provided.
4 Apr 2005 : Column 500
I think that this will provide the protection argued for very forcefully both today and in Committee by noble Lords. Indeed, given his declared interest in the rail freight industry, I want to reassure my noble friend Lord Berkeley that we consider this to form the basis of a reassurance to the industry that their interests with regard to the development of the specification and thus the development of the railway itself will be taken fully into account.
The amendment would not give any new powers or any new obligations to the Secretary of State and the interests of freight operators will already be protected by the Bill. So, while I recognise the strength of the arguments put forward, it is clear that we do not foresee the future development of the railway without acknowledging the very important part that freight services have to play—particularly given the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that road congestion issues also need to be tackled by ensuring rail freight provision.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his encouraging reply. When we read Hansard we shall see that we have been given the assurances we seek. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 95, line 5, leave out "determine" and insert "advise the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a more significant amendment and addresses an issue where we may be at odds with the Government. Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 reflect our concern that the decision about closures should be based on advice given by the Office of Rail Regulation, but that it should be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to make the decision. We are not in favour of a decision of that nature being sloughed off, if I may use that expression, to an official or a functionary; it must be a political decision.
I am an optimist who believes that the railways probably are on the road to financial recovery, but I am sure that it would generate a great deal of heat if such a decision were to lead to service closures. It would be incredibly difficult for a Secretary of State to get round the fact that he is the person who should make an essentially political decision about the withdrawal of services, albeit on the advice of an official—in this case the Office of Rail Regulation—who, as I understand it, would certify that the correct procedure had been followed and that the figures had been properly devised. We are not content that such a decision should not be part of the political process. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |