---

Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Earl made an interesting comment when he introduced the amendment. He said that he had had conversations with Mr Nicol Stephen, who, as we know, is the Scottish Minister for Transport, and that Mr Stephen was content with the amendment. That is not quite the same as saying that that is the considered position of the Scottish Executive. I wonder whether it would be possible for the noble Earl to clarify the position of the Scottish Executive, because there is of course a totally different route through which this process should progress.
 
4 Apr 2005 : Column 527
 

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the discussions were conducted not by me but by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who, unfortunately, is not in his place at present. But I think that Mr Stephen was content in an informal way.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for explaining the concept behind Amendment No. 11. He is correct that the Bill as drafted has provisions which apply to English PTEs but not to the Scottish PTE. However, that reflects the different policy approaches taken in England and Scotland.

The provisions in Scotland were developed in consultation with the Scottish Executive and reflect the policy approach that Scottish Ministers have decided to take. Nicol Stephen wrote to Alistair Darling only last week to reiterate that the provisions in the Bill relating to Scottish PTEs were what Scottish Ministers wanted. We have ensured that that letter has been placed in the Library of the House. It would seem very much against the spirit of devolution to force Scottish Ministers to accept provisions relating to PTEs in Scotland that they did not want.

I heard what the noble Earl said about his view of where Nicol Stephen stands on this matter, but we are working from our latest consultation, which my noble friend Lord Sewel also commented on in passing. We are working on the basis of a letter, which is available for scrutiny by all Members.

However, I recognise that there is an element of difficulty in this area and that there may have been cross currents in the discussions that have taken place. Therefore, I want to assure the noble Earl on the salient point that he made in asking me about this matter. The ability to commence the provisions of the Bill in Scotland at a different time from that in England and Wales includes Clause 14, as he wished. I can confirm that Ministers intend to commence Clause 14 in Scotland only once the Transport (Scotland) Bill and the following order have passed through the Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State wrote to the Scottish Minister for Transport on 1 April on exactly this point, and that letter has also been placed in the House Library. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that he has the reassurance that he thought he needed when proposing the amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am very content with what the Minister has said. Ultimately, we were seeking the reassurance that there will be a logical process, and I believe that that is what I heard. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 [Closures guidance]:

[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
 
4 Apr 2005 : Column 528
 

Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 13:

After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—

"PROCEDURE RELATING TO PUBLICATION AND MODIFICATION OF CLOSURES GUIDANCE
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any guidance or revised guidance, or modifications of guidance, which he publishes or makes (whether or not jointly with any other person) under section 42.
(2) The Scottish Ministers must lay before the Scottish Parliament a copy of any guidance or revised guidance, or modifications of guidance, which they publish or make (whether or not jointly with any other person) under that section.
(3) Any guidance or revised guidance published under section 42 is to have effect, and any modifications of guidance made under that section are to have effect, in accordance with an order made—
(a) if subsection (1) applies in relation to the guidance or modifications, by the Secretary of State,
(b) if subsection (2) applies in relation to the guidance or modifications, by the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) if both subsections (1) and (2) apply in relation to the guidance or modifications, jointly by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers.
(4) An order under subsection (3) which relates to guidance or revised guidance published, or modifications of guidance made, by the National Assembly for Wales jointly with the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers, or both of them, may be made only with the consent of the National Assembly for Wales.
(5) An order under subsection (3) is subject to the negative resolution procedure.
(6) If a statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) is annulled—
(a) the guidance or revised guidance, or modifications of guidance, to which it relates is, or are, treated as having been withdrawn, and
(b) where revised guidance or modifications is or are so withdrawn, any guidance published under section 42 which had effect before the publication of the revised guidance or the making of the modifications is to continue to have effect.
(7) The withdrawal of guidance or revised guidance or modifications of guidance under subsection (6)—
(a) does not affect anything done in consequence of the guidance before the withdrawal, and
(b) does not preclude the publication of further guidance or revised guidance or the making of further modifications."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13, I shall also speak to the other two government amendments in this group. Subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 13 require that any closures guidance, or revisions to it, must be laid before both Houses of this Parliament, as well as the Scottish Parliament, as appropriate, depending on whether the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers or both have a duty to publish the guidance under Clause 42. A draft of the guidance, or the modifications to existing guidance, will already have been consulted on. The document laid before the Parliaments will be the final version, incorporating, as appropriate, any comments made in the course of consultation.
 
4 Apr 2005 : Column 529
 

For the closures guidance or modifications to have effect, subsection (3) of the new clause provides that that can be done only in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers or the two jointly—again, depending on who has the duty to publish the guidance under Clause 42.

6.30 p.m.

Of course, the National Assembly for Wales also has a role in publishing joint closures guidance under Clause 42; for example, in relation to Welsh services. Where that is the case, the order bringing the guidance into force can be made only with the consent of the Assembly. Orders made by the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers or both under subsection (3) are subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Government believe that this is more appropriate than an affirmative resolution in these circumstances, given that there will already have been a wide-ranging public consultation on the draft closures guidance or modifications to it.

Should the order made under subsection (3) be annulled by either House of Parliament or the Scottish Parliament, then the closures guidance, or modifications to which the order relates, is treated as having been withdrawn. In those circumstances, any existing guidance would remain extant. The Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales would have to reconsider the closures guidance or modifications to it.

From the above, I hope it is clear that this amendment fully meets the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's recommendation; it provides for parliamentary control over the closures guidance and modifications to it both in Westminster and in Holyrood.

I would suggest that the Government's amendment has a number of advantages that are not found in the approach proposed in Amendment No. 12, which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, declined to move. That amendment would require the guidance to be part of an order. We do not believe that that is appropriate. The closures guidance is essentially a manual, intended to set out practical guidelines about how assessments of closure proposals should be carried out, including the criteria that proposals should meet. It will also include material on how consultations under Schedule 7 to the Bill should be conducted as well as other factors. I believe the House will recognise that it would not be helpful for this guidance manual to be written in the precise language and format that would be required if it were to be part of an order. That is why we have disavowed that approach to the issue.

We just do not believe that an affirmative resolution procedure is appropriate. Clause 42 requires that the closures guidance, and modifications to it, have to be consulted on in draft. For the initial closures guidance, the Government have committed to making this a very extensive exercise, as set out in the note on the closures guidance provided for Members of the Grand Committee.

The consultation will be very extensive. It will include rail operators, including freight operators and their representative organisations, passenger representative
 
4 Apr 2005 : Column 530
 
groups, freight customers, railway funding authorities, national authorities, local authority representative groups and a number of others. All those with an interest will have an opportunity to feed in their views.

The consultation will take place before the new network modification procedures come into force. I would also expect future modifications to the guidance to go through a similarly comprehensive consultation exercise. I beg to move.

---