Railways Bill

Public Bill Committee, 13 January 2005.

Standing Committee A

Clause 22 - Proposal by service operator to discontinue non-franchised services

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Part 4 of the Bill contains 22 clauses—of which this is the first—all dealing with rail closures. This part of the Bill has caused widespread concern in numerous organisations from many parts of the country, and such concerns have been expressed to me and probably to other Committee members.

The clauses about closures refer not to the lines but the passenger services on them, and nothing is said about what happens to the lines after a closure has taken place. If a rail route carries freight, or might do so in the future, surely Network Rail should keep the line open. Perhaps it should be maintained for a period to see whether other operators wish to operate passenger services on it. How does the Minister envisage the lines being dealt with?

I do not know whether the Society for the Blind has written to other Committee members, but it has expressed concerns to me about the closure process in the clause and in schedule 7. It feels that when a closure is mooted there should be a requirement to place an advert in a publication called Soundings—a national talking newspaper—so that those rail users who cannot read a normal newspaper will be made aware of what is proposed. What is the Minister's response to that? It would be only fair if the Secretary of State were to designate disability organisations as bodies representing the interests of railway passengers in this part of the Bill.

What has added to the concern outside the House is the fact that, although there are 22 clauses dealing with closures, the Government have not shown that they want to encourage the opening of new rail routes. I received a communication from the Minster rail group, which is based in Yorkshire, and some of its members live in my constituency. It is campaigning to reopen a rail line from Beverley to York, and it has managed to secure funding from the Countryside Agency and support from one of the local authorities in the area to carry out a feasibility study on whether it would be profitable for the line to reopen.

One of the main campaigners has written to me concerning this part of the Bill, and I shall share with the Committee some of what he has to say. He writes:

''But the biggest worry, and the biggest single section of the bill (over a third of the clauses) is concerned with ''streamlining'' the procedures for rail closures.

This is odd since . . . earlier both the Minister and the Secretary of State were launching the . . . Community Rail report and . . . denying media reports that closures were on the agenda.''

He asks why they want to speed up closure procedures now, which is a fair question. He continues:

''What is all the more alarming is that the Bill makes no mention of public hearings or hardship. Indeed there is little about consultation with users, and then only through bodies recognised by the Secretary of State! It is not clear which bodies these would be. Rail users could be effectively ignored.''

He adds:

''All this sends out exactly the wrong message.''

I would welcome the Minister's response to those concerns. There may be reasons, which I hope he will explain, why he believes that all those clauses are appropriate. As there are 22 clauses dealing with pretty much the same issue, I hope that you, Mr. Griffiths, will allow him on this clause to explain his overall agenda in this area. We look forward to hearing what he has to say.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said, we now come to 22 clauses in part 4, all of which relate to changes and amendments to the closure period. I hope that you, Mr. Griffiths, will allow a little leeway from the Chair, as a general debate on the principle of closures may avoid the need for debate later. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to respond fully to the wider question. Individual clauses may have some merit, but, taken together, the effect of 22 clauses that change the way in which closures can be made—all of them making closures easier—is to give the impression that there is an agenda for closure, which may or may not be the Government's intention.

At present, the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers are under a general duty to ensure the continued operation of services, networks or stations, but there was a revealing paragraph in the White Paper ''The Future of Rail''. Paragraph 5.3.6 states:

''Currently much of the involvement of local and regional stakeholders is focused on planning enhancements, rather than on the Government's priorities of improving performance and cost control.''

Of course, improving performance does not necessarily mean improving service. There is a distinction between the two. There may be a wide range of trains providing a comprehensive service, but the performance of those trains may leave something to be desired. Furthermore, their performance could be improved by removing some trains. If there is only one train that runs on time, there is a very high level of performance but not necessarily a high level of service. It is possible that removing trains, as the Strategic Rail Authority has proposed in some instances in order to improve service, could result in a deterioration in the overall service while improving the performance of some trains.

The other issue is cost control. It is important that we understand the real costs that are involved. One of the criticisms that was made of Dr. Beeching when he imposed his cuts in the '60s was that a general level of cost per mile of railway track was used to calculate savings, which were based on the number of miles closed. It was assumed that savings could be calculated on the average cost of running a mile of railway, but that has proved to be false. Many smaller lines do not bear the cost that is attributed to them by using an average cost. In fact, when a line is closed, far less saving is achieved than was expected at the beginning, as the fixed cost of running more remote rural railways is actually far less than that of running more frequently used higher-speed services.

I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain to the Committee why it is necessary to make so many amendments, given that we have a closure procedure with which no one seems too unhappy and which appears to have worked, and if, as has been claimed, there is no overall agenda for closing some of the smaller railways. I, too, have received considerable correspondence from a wide range of organisations that have expressed concern, and, furthermore, wish to enhance the railways by reopening lines that were closed in the '60s and by linking up areas that were not linked up before. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain the Government's thinking in detail.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I, too, would like to ask the Minister some questions, beginning with one about the proposed guidance. The whole clause is based on guidance, but we have not seen that in draft format or otherwise, and it seems that we are being asked to approve it in the dark. I should be grateful if the Minister could state when the draft guidance will be published, because when we see it we will have a better idea about whether the Government can be trusted, or whether this programme is, as most people fear, a secret agenda to close down a significant part of the railway network.

Subsection (5) states:

''Before giving the notice under subsection (3), the service operator must carry out an assessment of whether the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in the relevant part of the closures guidance; and that assessment must be carried out in accordance with that guidance.''

The Minister may say that there is an enormous amount of detail to be included in the guidance, but the fundamental issue, namely the criteria for closure, must be as plain as a pikestaff to the Government. I fear that the public will draw an adverse inference about the Government's trustworthiness if the criteria are not set out clearly for members of the Committee.

On page 20 of the explanatory notes, it states:

''The content of the guidance is not on the face of the Bill,''

as anybody who looked at the Bill would know,

''but it is likely to include criteria that cover economic, financial, environmental and social factors based on those used by the Department for Transport for appraisals in other transport modes.''

If the Minister or the Government can put that in the notes, why can we not have an expansion of those principles before the Committee, so that we know exactly what we are debating? If the criteria are going to be similar to other appraisals, why keep them a secret? On what basis can the Government use the notes, which do not carry any weight in law, as a substitute for the contents of draft guidance?

I hope that the Minister can come clean about those issues, and I hope also that he can give a specific answer to the question implicit in the contributions already made to the debate—namely, why do the Government need to change the existing criteria? At the moment, the criterion for closure, which was endorsed as recently as 2000 by the Government, is passenger hardship. Why is that to be changed or expanded? How can any change be consistent with anything other than a desire on the part of the Government to close down a lot of railway lines, which they would not be able to close down under the existing criteria?

Will the Minister explain why public sector funders need to be able to initiate proposals for closure? Much is made of the fact that passenger transport executives cannot propose closures, so why should they need to be able to propose closures in the future? Lots of public organisations and activities are funded by the taxpayer, but that does not mean that the Government or their acolytes should be able to propose the closure of those enterprises willy-nilly.

The point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) is important, because many people have great difficulty obtaining information about the costs of some of the branch lines threatened with closure. In the vicinity of my constituency, if one were to look at the Lymington town branch line, which goes from Brockenhurst, one might be desirous of knowing how much it costs to maintain that line, its stations and so on. At the moment, it is difficult to obtain such information because it is said that it is commercially confidential. It has also been rumoured that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would not apply to Network Rail because it is a supposedly private sector organisation, although everyone knows that that is a sham. Will the Minister explain whether information such as the existing costs and the basis on which those costs have been calculated will be made available to all interested parties, not just at the stage of consultation when it is probably too late to do much about it—as with most consultation exercises, this one will probably be a sham—but now? That would enable people planning ahead to know whether their branch line is in danger of being closed down by the Government.

What criteria will be used to determine whether a line comes into the excluded category? We will discuss that in detail in a subsequent clause. It is clear that the Government can decree that a particular line be in the excluded category. If a line falls into that category, the right to be involved in the consultation process is more restricted and that process is shorter. Some of the lines under threat at the moment will be deemed by the Government to be in the excluded category. What criteria will be used to decide whether those lines are in the excluded category? What is to stop the Government spelling out all the lines that it regards as excluded under the terms of the Bill? If they did that, those affected by those lines would be put on notice that their line was likely to be in the first category for closure.

So, there are some important issues that the Government must address. In principle, if we are talking about changing the criteria that appear in the statute book—namely the criterion of passenger hardship in determining whether a line should be closed—the new criteria should be in the Bill and subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that, if the Minister waffles through in trying to answer some of my other questions, he will not waffle through this one but will come clean on when the guidance will be issued, what the criteria are and why we have not been told about them until now.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Since the Minister will talk about the principles of the closure programme in his response to those who have spoken, I want to make a few general comments.

The 20 pages devoted to rail closures make up about half the text of the Bill, if the schedules are not included. There is almost a case for renaming the Bill the rail closures and miscellaneous provisions Bill, because that is the way in which it can be represented, although we do not use the word ''closure'' in the title, but refer to network modification. It is significant that the only modification that is talked about to any extent is closure.

Like many others, we have real problems understanding what problems the Government are endeavouring to address through the sequence of closures. Where is the difficulty? Has it been such hard work to close railway lines down? I suggest that until that problem is identified it is difficult to justify those clauses—unless there is a hidden agenda. Some responsibilities have changed and there needs to be an adjustment, but whether that justifies half the text and the main part of the Bill being used in that way I do not know.

I can imagine people going back to bodies such as the passenger transport executives having read the Bill and saying, ''There is bad news and good news. The bad news is that the PTA will lose some of its franchise rights. The good news is you get the chance to close a few lines.'' That is about as far as the matter goes. It is contrary to the signals that the Government are putting out about community rail partnerships.

I want to make a couple of specific points about the general run of the subsequent clauses. There are two categories of closure, if I can put it like that: franchised closures and non-franchised closures. In turn, there are two categories of people who seem to be able to engage in the closures and for whom rules are laid down: funders and operators. The procedures differ for funders and operators. If we look at the procedures for funders, we see that an unmistakable leniency is creeping in. The funding authority does not appear to require the permission or the imprimatur of the national body. It has to notify the national body, but as I understand it—I stand ready to be corrected—it would be slightly easier for a funder to proceed with a closure than for an operator to do so. In the past, a funder had to have an assessment done by the regional passenger committee. That assessment no longer seems to be in place.

The irresistible conclusion is that there is now an easier way through the whole closure process, but that it will be for other people, and not the Government, to make the hard decisions. In both sets of procedures, the Office of Rail Regulation plays a significant part. My understanding from my reading of the Bill so far is that a more or less identical role is played in respect of the funders' proposals and the operators' proposals. I would like the Minister to confirm that principle.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Before I call the Minister, I should say that I am happy for the debate on clause 22 to be a little more wide ranging, given the request made by the Committee, but on the assumption that there will not be a series of clause stand part debates as we go through the subsequent clauses. We will see how things go.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It is again a pleasure to serve under your tutelage and chairmanship, Mr. Griffiths. I am grateful, too, for your indulgence in allowing the Committee to roam slightly wider than the substance of clause 22 when discussing all the matters that are before us in part 4.

Let us start from the beginning. Why have we bothered to include in the Bill 22 clauses that refer to network modification? As an aside, in relation to the claim made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I point out that it is a rather strange secret agenda that features in 22 clauses of a Bill that is 59 clauses long. That is some secret.

The current process for closure has at its core on the one hand the SRA—the more astute members of the Committee may have noticed that this will go if the Bill is successful—and on the other hand regional passenger committees, which the astute members of the Committee will have understood go as well. Although amendment No. 5, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats but has not been selected, says simply

''leave out Clauses 22 to 44'',

which might make it sound as if they are consumerist champions, it would actually have completely the reverse effect. It would secure for the Government—or certainly the rail industry—almost a carte blanche to do what they liked about network modification and closures.

Eradicating two key institutional elements of the current closure process—the SRA and the RPCs of old—and putting nothing in their place, which would be the import of deleting the entire part, would not do any favours for anybody other than those who seek to imitate the Conservative Dr. Beeching, which we certainly do not seek to do. If the RPCs of old and the SRA are going, it is important for closures and network modifications that something is put in their place. That is the first reason why part 4 is before us.

As anyone who has gone back to the Railways Act 1993 and earlier will know, the current legislation governing the existing process in terms of guidance is extremely complex, so we are faced with two choices. We could take account of all the other aspects of the Bill and the White Paper, seek to ride with that complexity and make changes to reflect all the other elements. However, I suspect—I am neither a parliamentary draftsman, which I am pleased about, nor a lawyer—that we would probably return with more clauses than are currently in the Bill. It is appropriate to try to put some clarity into the operation and, however cumbersome the 22 clauses may be, to try to move on afresh in legislative terms to reflect both the overall Bill and the need and desire for a network modification procedure in the wake of the RPCs and the SRA. Broadly and by way of introduction, those are the reasons behind part 4.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I understand the Minister's argument that changes in the initial part of the Bill require sequential modification and that if the clauses were not included it would be almost impossible to close any service, which might be a good thing.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

No, quite the opposite.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

None the less, what the Minister said would be plausible if network modification were defined in some other way than as closure. I hope that he will go on to explain why network modification is spoken about only in terms of closure.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I shall; indeed, that was probably going to be my next point. There is no existing procedure for consultation on enhancement or new capacity on the rail network and, if the matter is thought through, why should there be? Such an approach may sound logical initially, but it clearly is not. Why should there be a special process for looking at enhancement, increased capacity and other elements of the rail network? Those are rightly covered by a range of other processes, including planning processes and a range of documents and so on from the national authority—in this case, central Government—backed up to some extent by regional transport strategies.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

If the Minister is correct in saying that if one wished to develop a new station one would need planning permission, a planning inquiry with an independent inspector would be required, so why is there no procedure for a public inquiry with an independent inspector with regard to closing a station?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is a blue herring. Just because, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) knows, given that we spent such an interesting time in this Room discussing the planning and compulsory purchase option, there are planning processes in respect of building, refurbishing and modifying developments, it does not follow that there should be equal processes for closure. We are saying clearly, and it is not the subject of dispute, that if we get rid of the SRA and the RPCs, it leaves in tatters the existing system. Everyone accepts that the system needs to be replaced. I could make a cheap point and say, ''Except the Liberals,'' because they tabled an amendment saying that they did not want clauses 22 to 44, so they do not want another closure process, but I am a generous man, so I will not make such a cheap point.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I would never for a moment think that the Minister was capable of making any cheap point, but he might be guilty of presenting us with an actual red herring this time. Schedule 1 makes the arrangements for the transfer of powers to the relative bodies. Simply deleting the closure clauses therefore means that schedule 1 takes effect and those powers go to their recipient, as set out in that schedule.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That would be a useful, fundamental and telling point if it were not for the inconvenient existence of schedule 13. Due to part 4 and schedule 7, schedule 13 gets rid of and repeals much of the closure process already in place and the powers that lie therein for the SRA and the RPCs.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for responding positively on this particular point. Would he give an undertaking that he will let members of the Committee know his conclusion in good time to allow an amendment to be tabled on Report if he decides not to do anything? I think that he has accepted the point that disabled people need to be kept informed and to be kept in this particular loop.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Inasmuch as I can, of course I give such an undertaking. I do too, as the guidance is fairly central to all this, on the entirely fair, wider point. There was, by the by, at least a page of a guide to the guidance in the very earliest documentation that I gave the Committee, although it by no means covers all the criteria.

The plan is to make sure that consultation takes place on that guidance before commencement in the summer. It should not be beyond the wit of officials to get to a stage, at the very least, where people can have sight of that, hopefully before Report, but certainly during our parliamentary process. I will do all that I can to hasten that process, so that people can see the guidance in a bit more detail than the simple one page that was part of the document that I gave to the Committee in the first instance.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my concerns, but he is still a bit vague. We are told that the Report stage is planned for a fortnight today. Having that in mind, would it be possible to produce the draft guidance or draft criteria before then, and if not, why not?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Two days before.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Two days before, so that we could suggest amendments.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have said as much as I can. With the best will in the world, we cannot amend guidance. We cannot amend guidance on Report on the Floor of the House or anywhere else, and the hon. Gentleman has been around this place long enough, albeit on and off, to understand that. However, there will be significant consultation. I understand that that will guide or impact on Members' contributions to any debate that we have on Report. As I said, and rather as I promised on Tuesday on the PTEs guidance, we will try to see if we can at the very least have a sort of high-level framework of what that guidance might look like.

The other assurance that I can give is that there will be substantive consultation on that guidance, with all those involved or likely to be involved. If I can in any way, shape or form get at least a first draft of what that guidance might look like to the Committee in sufficient time to do something with it before Report—I take the hon. Gentleman's point—I shall. None the less, I shall try and make sure that that is available in some form in sufficient time for there still to be a chance, if not for our Chamber, then for another Chamber, to look at and take note of what is in there. I can say no more than that.

This is not about a secret agenda. It is not about closures. It is not about me or any successor of mine being the new manifestation of the Conservative Dr. Beeching. It is about putting in place as robust a process for network modification as we possibly can, not least because of the demise of the SRA and the old RPCs. I cheerfully apologise for taking 22 clauses to do that, but we start from an extremely complex body of legislation. We sought, at least in part, to detract from rather than add to that complexity by bringing things forward in the way that we have done.

Let me touch on some of the points of substance that were made by colleagues. I take the point of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross that the problem with Beeching was the attempt to make cost savings by using an average approach. I have examined the detail of what Beeching did, and it was quite phenomenal. If one looks at a pre-Beeching and post-Beeching map of the rail network, there was a hugely significant change. It got rid of about a third of railway mileage in the entire country. All the huge gaps that can now be seen in the network date back to that stage. I have not worked out the exact details, but it is fair to say that since 1963—the best part of a 40-year period—there has been nothing like the number of closures carried out by Beeching. Those closures were hugely significant.

I am not about to become Dr. Beeching 2, but such matters must be considered in detail. The new procedures will require a detailed assessment of the effects of closures on passengers, operating costs and revenues, which will be spelt out firmly in the guidance. Combined with the process that we put in place, that will mean that the stroke-of-a-pen approach based on the dodgy numbers utilised by Beeching cannot be repeated. If I were being less than generous, I would say that it could be repeated should the amendment to get rid of clauses 22 to 44 be accepted. Then we might be in a world where a Minister with responsibility for transport could eradicate almost a third of our railway lines at the stroke of a pen. The point about the average approach and the numbers used by Beeching is a fair one; that will not be replicated in the process.

It has been a while since it has been mentioned, so I shall talk in passing about the concept of undue specificity. It is far more appropriate that the broader criteria we want to introduce in the process are not in the Bill because of undue specificity. We want to introduce more criteria than simply passenger hardship, which, however defined, is a fairly narrow criterion. Passenger hardship will not necessarily sit well with cost benefits, economic benefits and the social and economic substantiation for the existence of a line, not to mention the fair points about freight made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire.

However intellectually rigorous parliamentary counsel are, and however erudite they are in their intellectual acrobatics, people should eschew the notion of definitive, universal listings in a Bill, because that is exactly what they are, and beyond such listings one cannot go, so the flexibility necessary to take on board all the elements—each application—on their own terms and in their own circumstances is lost if ultra-rigid criteria are included in the Bill.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Will the Minister accept that the clear implication of what he has said is that the proposals in the Bill will therefore create passenger hardship, which would not be created if these criteria were not amended?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In a word, no. I would not accept that at all. I have said clearly that, however defined, passenger hardship in itself is a narrow criterion. If we want as fair and elaborate a series of criteria in guidance as possible, which go beyond a narrow definition in the Bill, that would be too exact. We want a far more efficient and fair procedure than one based on narrow criteria, however defined. It does not follow that I am saying that passenger hardship does not matter—far from it—but there is a whole range of criteria beyond that that needs to be substantially considered.

I do not think that a set of procedures that includes a 12-week consultation period and a detailed assessment of all the effects could be described in any way, shape or form as speeding up closures. It is about putting in place a process of network modification that is as fair as it possibly can be to all concerned, especially the notion that we will consult widely on the guidance.

The points of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire on freight are entirely fair, but part 4 applies to the closing of passenger services only, not freight services. If the line is already used for freight, that will be picked up in the assessment carried out under the closure guidance and the line will remain open. That is also why the focus is on services on the lines rather than the lines themselves. As I understand it, and unless someone tells me otherwise, that is what will prevail.

I get the odd notion or two—not terribly many—about what to do with lines that no longer have services on them. Proposals have been made in some instances, although I cannot remember the exact cases. As the right hon. Gentleman infers, it is clear that there may be another role for the line at some time down the road—if that is not mixing modes too readily—so the SRA may come to us and say, ''This is what may happen in the future, so just mothball it. Put it to one side, but leave the line open.'' In other cases, there may no longer be services on a line but it acts as a useful fallback or contingency exit route in cases of disruption further down the line, so it is useful as a dispersal point and worthy of being kept open. The system whereby each case is judged on its own merits will prevail, and if, after all the processes are implemented, there are lines that have no stations because they have all been closed, and no services—franchise or other—because they have all been withdrawn, the decisions about whether the rail bed is dug up and so on will still come back to us as the strategic keeper of the flame for the national network.

I am engaging in a little exercise—actually, it is not little, so I should not say that it is. By any definition, there were extensive changes in 1963. Having looked at the pre-Beeching map, I think that it would be an interesting exercise generally but also as a matter of public policy to find out what has happened to all the lines. Rail beds up and down the country have not had anything done to them. The rails may have been taken up, but the rail beds are still there. In other cases, they have been built on and developed. It would be interesting simply to determine how many of the lines shut by Beeching have at least the potential to be restored in some shape or other. By the way, that is not a public expenditure commitment. There are some interesting curves, loops and other elements that perhaps could be brought back if they have not been used for anything else. It would be a rather useful—but probably academic—exercise to see what could prevail.

In essence, part 4 does not cover actual line closures. That process remains with Ministers.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The Minister raised the subject—it is not technically in the Bill—of doing an audit on disused lines to determine how many of them remain largely intact and what the scope is for bringing some of them into use, perhaps not as railways but by realising the asset in some other way. Surely, that is something that the Government ought to be undertaking.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Seeing as I told officials about three months ago to do that, I hope that they are. I was simply saying that the exercise is more advanced in some areas than in others. The right hon. Gentleman is right, however, in that it does not necessarily follow that the routes should all be restored as rail lines; there may be secluded and segregated transport routes and channels that can be used by guided buses or some other device. It is at least worth considering that possibility, and I assure hon. Members that that is being done.

Following the demise of the Strategic Rail Authority and the rail passengers councils, something needs to be put in place. We think that the approach that we have adopted is the best way forward and that the procedures outlined in schedule 1 and covered in clauses 22 to 44 are the right way forward. As I said, I will try to get to a stage at which we can consider in greater detail the guidance that will be issued at the earliest possible stage.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister for responding to so many of the points that have been made. One point that he has not yet dealt with is costs, which I have already raised, along with the Liberal Democrat spokesman. What will he do to ensure transparency in respect of costs and that that information is available to the general public not just when a closure proposal is made but from now on? What about the suggestion that Network Rail can argue that it is not obliged to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000? How can we get access to the true running costs of some of the lines?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I was trying to be generous and was therefore trying not to be unduly provoked. Whatever the hon. Gentleman feels about there being a sham, Network Rail is not a public sector body, but a private sector body. I will not reopen the debate on the demise of Railtrack and the creation of Network Rail, but I point out that it is a private sector body and therefore does not come under the freedom of information regime. As he knows, that regime is principally for public sector bodies.

We will do all we can on the performance end to ensure that more and more information is put into the public domain in respect of matters for which we are ultimately responsible, but I do not think—this is not a matter for us anyway—that a breakdown or cost analysis of every element of every line and service on the network would be terribly useful. When a closure is proposed, however, those cost elements must be part of the process. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that.

In some senses, the impact of cost will be fairly difficult to determine other than in the most discrete of circumstances, where there is a clear branch line and a clear element of cost involved. Let us imagine closing a station or stopping a service at some stations on a line rather than others. Unpicking such a situation will be difficult, but as was spelled out in the guidance, the cost elements will be part of the criteria and assessment of the application and proposal in question. So the point about cost is fair in the context of a proposal for closures. Cost figures will be available and included in the assessment that forms part of the process.

As part of that process, not the wider process, the Bill will enable us to require information from all licence holders involved in any application for network modification at that stage, including Network Rail. We can therefore exact those costs, and they will be properly assessed in terms of any application.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I understand from meetings that I have had with Network Rail that the problem is that it does not know those costs. Its predecessor bodies did not have management accounts that detailed those costs, so it is trying to produce a set of costs ensuring that such figures can be made available. Given that the Minister is and will be in a position to require such information, can he tell us whether, once Network Rail has managed to get the information, he will request it and it will become available?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As I said, as one licence holder among others under this part of the Bill we will be able to require those costs. The hon. Gentleman is right that over the past couple of years much of what Network Rail has sought to do as part of the overall process of reducing costs is, first, to recognise far more rigorously than any of its predecessor bodies what its asset base is in terms of what it owns, and secondly to determine the costs associated with maintaining and running that asset base and all the other elements that go with that in terms of routine maintenance, enhancements, new signalling work and other changes.

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, Network Rail is certainly moving in the direction of developing a far more rigorous assessment of the costs, risks and other bases of what it does. By the time there are applications under the new process that has cost and assessment of cost as one of its key elements, I am confident that Network Rail will be in a better position to improve and work up all its information. To some extent, the information is there already, but it is a matter of disaggregating and understanding with a greater degree of confidence quite what is there.

Broadly, that is my introduction to the clauses in part 4. Clause 22 sets out the circumstances and procedures that apply when a service operator proposes to close all non-franchise services on a line or from a station. That is partly why the focus is on services, rather than simply on infrastructure, given that there will be more than one service—more than one carrier—on a particular line. The clause sets out provisions for circumstances in which there are proposals to close the non-franchise services on a line or from a station.

As hon. Members will know, clauses 22 to 25 relate directly to that matter, clauses 26 to 28 concern passenger networks and clauses 29 to 31 concern stations. It is important that hon. Members understand that the ORR has a role to play in this area, as a regulator, after this Bill, with a brief that is far wider than narrow economics.

I commend clause 22 to the Committee. Hon. Members will know that the Government have tabled some minor amendments—I assure the Committee that they are technical amendments—to some of the later clauses to address aspects that were recognised after our first attempt to deal with the complexity. I commend clause 22 to the Committee, and I hope that, at some stage during the merry month of January, I shall be commending all the other clauses to the Committee up to clause 44, and subsequently up to clause 59.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Opposition Members are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to make available the general content of the guidance as soon as possible, and also for agreeing to examine the point that I made about disability. That is a very important issue, and we look forward to hearing from him as soon as possible.

I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but it is only fair that I say that we have seen him today at his best. He has left his leather jacket and boots outside the Committee, and adopted more the persona of that suave actor, Leslie Phillips.

The Minister has dealt comprehensively with all the points made, but I hesitate before being seduced by his new look and style. What reasons did he give for introducing the 22 clauses? First, they were necessary changes because of the abolition of the SRA. Secondly, he was championing devolution. Thirdly, the existing set-up was complex. On the first two points, I would have thought that changes associated with abolishing a body and taking account of devolution could have been dealt with in one or two clauses. I do not think that anyone on the Opposition Benches, including the Liberal Democrats, would object to changes being made because of having to change the names of organisations in legislation when abolishing a particular body. We all accept that.

Where unease remains is in respect of the changes that the Minister seeks to make because, to use his words, the current system is complex. Clarity and simplicity are, in effect, what he says that he wishes to bring about. In other words, however, clarity and simplicity could mean making it easier to close down a rail service. Some might argue that that is part of a pattern from this Government, including, for example, the transfer of transport planning powers to local and regional authorities, while funding constraints mean that they have to abandon their preferred options, perhaps including trams or heavy rail, in favour of buses; removal of PTE powers to negotiate long-term franchise contracts with rail operators, perhaps because the Government want them to choose cheaper buses; and the transfer of responsibility for rural rail services to community rail partnerships, but without any appropriate increase in funding, which some cynical people might say is done to ensure that responsibilities for closure will fall at a local level and will not be seen to be taken by the Government. Some uncharitable people may argue that the changes are being made because the Government want to see some lines closed down, but realise that it would be politically impossible for them to be seen to take responsibility.

The Minister was quite clear that he does not want to be seen as the son of Dr. Beeching, and we believe him, as he was honest and genuine today. However, we must look beyond the lifespan of this Minister. I do not mean that unkindly; I hope that he is in place for a long time to come on his party's Front Bench, but perhaps on the Opposition side, rather than where he currently sits. We are concerned that the argument for simplicity could be used by another Minister to close down rail lines. That is not part of the Conservative party agenda in 2005 or beyond, so he does not carry me with him in his conclusion.

The amendments necessary to take heed of devolution and accommodate the abolition of the SRA are relatively simple, and the Minister could reintroduce them on Report. I must urge my colleagues to vote against the clause.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Thank you, Mr. Griffiths, for allowing us the latitude for this debate. It has been a very important one, and I hope that such latitude will enable us not to repeat it later. I also thank the Minister. I shall not be quite so fulsome in my praise as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire; I have a high regard for the Minister and I would not damage his reputation any further with that kind of praise. None the less, I must say that he has gone a long way towards answering the questions that were put to him. He has also given some reassurance by repeating on a number of occasions that there is no secret agenda for closure and saying that the clauses are consequent on the abolition of the SRA and devolution to national bodies, although I am not 100 per cent. convinced in that regard, because I think that it would have been possible to have used a relatively small number of clauses along with schedule 1. He is right to point out to me that if schedule 13 were to stand, that could not be done.

Taking the whole of the Bill, it would have been possible to take the existing powers set out in the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000, and simply to have transferred them. The meat of the amendments is not simply the transfer of power, but the change of power to make closure an easier and smoother process. Although I am considerably reassured by what the Minister said about this Government's intention, I am concerned that the overall impact of those changes is to make closure easier for all those involved, which could bring about a future situation under some other Minister where a closure programme would be easier to defend than it is today. Although I am reassured, I am still extremely nervous about the overall impact of the clauses.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Schedule 7 - Consultations under Part 4

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I mentioned en passant my concerns about schedule 7, and the Minister responded fully and said that he would consider the point about ensuring that blind people were included in the consultation process. As the schedule is just about consultation, on the basis of his assurance, I ask my colleagues not to divide the Committee on it.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

May I ask the Minister about paragraph 2(3) of the schedule? Why is a different period of notice provided for in cases under clauses 25 and 26 from that provided for in the other clauses? Although he dealt with many of the other points in the previous debate, he did not answer the point about excluded services and the criteria that would apply to the definition of an excluded service, and about when we will find out which services the Government regard as excluded. One can see from the schedule that, by deliberate omission, there is a much less satisfactory consultation process in respect of clauses 25 and 26 and any proposals for closure than in respect of any other clauses. I should be grateful if he explained why.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire for not pushing the schedule to a Division. This is a matter of the wider consultation process. I do not have to hand the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, but I shall certainly let him know in due course. It is a fair point and apologise for missing it. My notes do not tell me anything, so I will get back to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 23 - Proposal by funding authority to discontinue non-franchised services

Clause 24 - Proposals to discontinue franchised or secured services

Clause 25 - Proposal to discontinue excluded services

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 24, line 25, leave out from 'passenger service' to end of line 26 and insert

'other than one which is—

(a) a relevant railway passenger service for the purposes of any of sections 22(1), 23(1) and 24(1), or

(b) an experimental passenger service;'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 109.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

This and the following two sets of Government amendments are—I know that this will cause the hairs on the back of Opposition necks to bristle—entirely technical. There is no hidden agenda. We simply seek to reflect section 49 of the principal Act, the Railways Act 1993. There were a few omissions when the Secretary of State's powers were transferred en bloc. The amendments fill those legislative lacunae and I commend them to the Committee.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I accept what the Minister has to say. These appear to be technical amendments and we do not find them offensive.

Amendment agreed to.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 24, line 41, leave out from 'which' to 'the' in line 43 and insert

'no funding is provided by a railway funding authority other than'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 110, 114 and 118.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Again, the amendments provide clarity, ensuring that the definitions and interpretations of what we are doing with cross-border services between England and Scotland are consistent throughout the Bill. The existing wording is less than clear, and the amendments improve it.

Amendment agreed to.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 25, line 12, at end insert

'and any other service, or description of services, which immediately before the commencement of this section is treated as a service, or description of services, in relation to which Schedule 5 to that Act is to have effect is to be treated after commencement of this section as designated by an order under this section as a special procedure service, or description of special procedure services.'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 108 and 126.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The amendments are in part technical and in part consequential on matters that were overlooked when the Bill was drafted. They deal with the broad relationship between the Bill and the relevant aspects of network modification in the 1993 Act. They tidy up the provision, and get consistency back into the mix between the two. I commend it to the Committee—not, I hope, in a Leslie Phillips-esque way.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 108, in page 25, line 12, at end insert—

'(11) Where any order under paragraph 5A(1)(b)(ii) of Schedule 5 to that Act (application of that Schedule to London services) is in force immediately before the commencement of this section, that order shall have effect after commencement of this section as an order under this section designating any services, or descriptions of service, to which it applies as London services.'.

No. 109, in page 25, line 12, at end insert—

'(12) For the purposes of this section (apart from the reference, in the definition of ''excluded service'' in subsection (7), to ''relevant railway passenger service'') ''railway'' has its wider meaning.'.—[Mr. McNulty]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

For the reasons outlined by the Minister, which we accept, the amendments have made this a better-drafted clause. However, for the reasons that I gave when we debated clause 22, it is still unacceptable. I ask my hon. Friends to press it to a Division.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I hoped that we could draw the Minister out a little further on the subject of excluded services. Although the issue will be debated specifically when we come to clause 38, it will be much easier for us to understand whether or not it is reasonable—I would rather go along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire in saying that it is not reasonable—if we were given a bit more insight into the Government's thinking on excluded services.

Under clause 38, the Government could effectively take all rail services outside the scope of part 4, and certainly of clauses 22 to 24. The explanatory notes say that clause 38 replicates a power that already exists under the 1993 Act, and that that power

''has been used to exempt light rail, metro and discrete parts of the heavy rail network from the closure provisions.''

I do not know whether that approach is taken on grounds relating to freight, but it is important for our understanding of the Bill—and, more important, the understanding of those outside who are following our proceedings—that the Minister should explain the linkage between clauses 38 and 25.

What are the Government's intentions in relation to the use of the powers under clause 38 to exclude services? The services that are excluded under clause 38 will be subject to the provisions of clause 25, and that is what we are being asked to discuss.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

In essence, provision for the excluded services is as set out in schedules 5 and 37 of the 1993 Act. It would include London Underground and, because of its nature, Merseyrail, which of all the PTE-type facilities is absolutely discrete. It would also include light rail outside London and, for now at any rate, probably travel through the channel tunnel and some of the experimental services, or services that are provided otherwise than as a regular scheduled service.

Paragraph 2(3) of schedule 7 sets out when the broad dates need to be fixed in terms of the relationship between clauses 25 and 26. It is not a device for excluding nearly everything from the closure process; it is almost the opposite position to where the hon. Member for Christchurch started. I hope that with my impression of Leslie Phillips I have managed to persuade the Committee that the closures procedure is appropriate, that it works and that it is more robust than the narrowly defined position now. The real secret agenda is to exclude most of the real services from what is now an improved closure process.

The proposal refers to those discrete or specific services that are above and beyond the regular rail network or are discrete or experimental enough to warrant exclusion. Under the new position in the Bill, London Underground, light rail outside London and services such as Merseyrail would be contenders for definition as excluded services, as they are now.

Question put, That clause 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Schedule 8 - Proposals to discontinue excluded london services

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The schedule contains proposals to discontinue excluded London services and I am worried about the wording on page 112. My concerns are already noted on the amendment paper—two starred amendments stand in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. They have not been selected, although I do not criticise the Chair for that, as they are starred, but they encapsulate our concerns. It would appear that the Mayor is under no duty to act reasonably.

I refer the Minister to paragraph 5. Sub-paragraph (3), referring to the consent of the Mayor to a closure, states:

''At any time after the period for making objections the Mayor of London may make that decision without receiving a report or further report if—

(a) he has made such enquiries as he thinks fit''.

However, an unreasonable Mayor might decide that he does not need to make any inquiries. He might be so convinced that he is right that he does not listen to the views or opinions of others and does not trouble himself with inquiring what other people think. We take the view that there should be a duty on the Mayor to act reasonably. The amendment that I would have introduced would have added the words ''that he has made all such inquiries as are reasonable''. Why do the Government not think that a test of reasonableness should be imposed on the Mayor?

Paragraph 5(4) states:

''The Mayor of London may give his consent subject to such conditions as he thinks fit.''

Again, we would have preferred the words ''as he reasonably thinks fit''. What assurance can the Minister give us that the wording is sufficient to prevent a pig-headed, self-opinionated Mayor from proceeding unreasonably?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am tempted to say that we are okay, as the pig-headed, self-opinionated candidate lost, and Steven Norris is unlikely to stand again.

The schedule simply reflects legislation as amended by the 1999 Act, and nothing has occurred to affect closures, or in any sense to challenge the idea that that wording is sufficient. In that context, if amendments had been introduced, I would have asked the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw them. I thought for a moment that we were discussing them, but I hope that that is helpful.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. I am not entirely certain that I buy what he said, but I would like to reflect on it. On that basis, I shall not seek to divide the Committee.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clause 26 - Proposal by operator to close passenger network

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I should like to ask the Minister one question. As he rightly pointed out, schedule 13 lists the sections in the 1993 and 2000 Acts that are being repealed. Actually, it is very simple: all the sections about closure in both those Acts are repealed in their entirety. We do not have to bother with them, as it is entirely what is in the Bill that is relevant.

Clause 26 deals with the proposal by an operator to close a passenger network. In the 1993 Act, section 39, ''Notification of proposals to close operational passenger networks'', is the section that is used to deal with that matter. It includes in subsection (4)(a) a requirement that a notice given by the operator

''shall be accompanied by a statement of—

(a) the operator's reasons for the proposal''.

I have looked in the Bill but cannot find that any statement is required of the operator's reason for a proposal. I may have missed it, but I would be grateful if the Minister could either direct me to where I can find that or explain why the Government no longer require the operator's reasons.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has missed it; I think that the matter will be dealt with in far greater detail in the guidance. Indeed, I am right, because that is what my notes say—speaking before the officials give me a piece of paper sometimes works. As specific clauses deal with issues such as operators, excluded networks and services and proposals for stations, we want to elaborate in far more detail on what is required under each clause in the closure guidance. Returning to section 39 of the principal Bill, I can think of no reason why that issue will not be covered by the guidance.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Will the Minister explain the difference between an operator and a service operator? Clause 22, which has already been discussed, refers to service operators, whereas this clause refers to operators. That is particularly the case in the rubric headings. Clause 22 is entitled ''Proposal by service operator to discontinue non-franchised services'', whereas this clause is entitled ''Proposal by operator to close passenger network''.

The explanatory notes state that clause 26

''applies to Network Rail's network.''

Does that mean that it applies to Network Rail or to Network Rail franchisees? Would Network Rail franchisees be able to trigger clause 26 provisions without the consent of Network Rail, or would such an application be made on their behalf by Network Rail? Would Network Rail be able to make a proposal under clause 26 without the consent of any franchisees operating over the network?

If, as seems implicit from the explanatory notes, the effect of clause 26 would be triggered by an application by Network Rail, what guarantee is there that the information provided by Network Rail in support of such an application would be made available in detail to the public at the same time as it was to the Secretary of State so that there could be parity of available information affecting a public service? Network Rail is apparently, technically, a private organisation, but the Minister accepts that it is wholly dependent on and related to the provision of public railway services. Therefore, why can there be no guarantee of such a parity of information rather than, as seems implicit in the clause, it being made publicly available only in the event of the Secretary of State deciding that an application is reasonable and should be carried forward for further consultation?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have been trying to look for the exact reference that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but as I said in our opening deliberations, the Bill provides for all licence holders, including Network Rail, to be forthcoming with information necessary to consider either a service closure or operating closure. If the proposals for a network closure impact on a service closure, they will need to go through both parts of the process.

Clause 26 applies to network operators including Network Rail and does not directly refer to franchise operations, which are dealt with elsewhere, as are non-franchised operators or services on particular lines. Despite Network Rail being in the private sector, and therefore excluded from the freedom of information provision that covers public sector bodies, there is sufficient in the Bill to demand that all licence holders must give us the full information necessary to make the assessment along the lines of the broader criteria that we are introducing in this Bill than those that currently prevail.

There will be all the information available from network operators. If a network operator proposes closure of a network and that impinges on services, the service element has to go through in terms of closures as well as the network closures spelled out in clause 26. The hon. Member for Christchurch is right to the extent that clauses 22 and 26 are a key interplay between the two.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 4.

Clause 27 - Proposal by funding authority to close passenger network

Column Number: 219

Proposal to discontinue operation of secured network

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Will the Minister explain more about the definition of a secured network? Who can be involved in helping to decide what networks should be networked, prior to any application to discontinue its operation?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

A secured network is one that the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers have a duty to provide arising from the network modification provisions, such as a consequence of ORR issuing a closure non-ratification notice for a proposal under clause 26. The Bill refers to railway funding authorities as the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales, PTEs, Transport for London, the Mayor of London, or any other person designated by the order.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Clause 29 - Proposal by operator to close station

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will the Minister confirm my reading of the clause? Subsection (1) states:

''This section applies where—

(a) the operator of a station proposes to discontinue the use of a station or of some part of it''.

If a station operator wanted to close part of a station—not because he wished its use to cease permanently, but because rebuilding works were taking place to improve the station and he felt that that part of it needed to be closed in the interim—am I correct in thinking that paragraph (e) would come into play? Would building works be regarded as ''a minor modification'', even if the scope of the building works was fairly substantial in some parts of the station?

While we are on the question of stations, is the Minister satisfied that there is a sufficient duty on, or incentive for, owners of stations to maximise the revenue that they generate not just from passengers, but perhaps from other members of the public who could be encouraged to shop at the station? If the station has units or rooms that are not in use, will they be properly exploited by the station owners to maximise revenue?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's inquiry is yes. Minor modifications are excluded. As I understand it the emphasis of that phrase is on ''modification'' rather than ''minor'' in the sense that the works themselves may be quite substantial but they are modifications to something that will remain once they are completed. Paragraph (e), rather than paragraph (a), would prevail. The issue is about stopping those services—all or in part—rather than anything else.

The right hon. Gentleman's wider point is not necessarily part of the clause or the Bill. I think that I said this on Second Reading. My answer would be probably a profound no, if one can be probably profound. Especially at larger termini—and certainly in some of the provincial, out-of-town and out-of-city services, in urban and semi-urban areas—rail station owners are probably not doing as much as they could to exploit the full development potential in the larger termini, or the full potential for commercial and entrepreneurial or community-focused activities. I am talking about the exploitation of the asset; the station and what is there. I am trying to get to grips with that with the Bill and a range of initiatives with a range of station owners, not least Network Rail in relation to the larger termini. I take the point on board in the context of both mass development potential and activities at large termini in major cities, and smaller, more community-focused and entrepreneurial activities that may prevail at particular stations.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to you for your indulgence, Mr. Griffiths, because although the issue is technically outwith the Bill, it is important that those of us who want to see a successful railway industry use every angle possible to maximise revenue and encourage public interreaction with the railway network. Is the Minister aware that in some areas the problem is that planners sometimes get rather sniffy about development if they feel that members of the public may be making an extra journey to the station because there is a shop there? They consider such development proposals in a hostile way. During the negotiations in which he is clearly engaged, will he speak to his fellow Minister who is responsible for planning to see if any change in the guidance is necessary to make it easier to facilitate the development of stations?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I certainly take that point, but it is not just a question of planning. I was at a small inter-urban station in South Yorkshire that had had £5,000 spent on it. It all looked very nice; there had been a huge enhancement to its park-and-ride facility, which was very useful given its proximity to a urban area, and it had a lovely little cafe and information centre inside, which was permanently staffed. However, through some configuration of the interaction between assorted bureaucracies thus far—part of which the Bill is trying to deal with, although not clause 29 in particular—the gentleman staffing it cannot sell tickets. Because of Network Rail, the train operating company or a mixture of the regulatory framework between the TOC, Network Rail and the council that employ the gentleman concerned, he is not sufficiently trained to sell tickets; or at least, he does not have the right bit of paper.

People can park at the park-and-ride facility to go into Doncaster or one of the other main urban areas in South Yorkshire, and they can have a nice cup of tea or glass of orange from that gentleman. He can undertake to look after their car and treat them nicely, and people are encouraged to stay at such park-and-ride facilities because there is a permanent member of staff present. If, however, they want a ticket to get on the train, he cannot help them. That cannot be right if we want to explore the synergy and development potential of stations to help passengers as well as facilitate things like park-and-ride facilities. That is why we are considering such matters and, happily, that station will not be the subject, potentially or otherwise, of a closure application under clause 29.

Mr. Chope rose—

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I have given a lot of latitude here. I hope that what he has to say deals specifically with the clause.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

So do I. The issue of station closures is very important. The Minister has drawn attention, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, to the interaction between station closure, alternative possible uses for a station and whether someone with a bit more entrepreneurial flair would be able to make a go of a station that is not very productive at the moment.

The clause seems to make it almost impossible for a group of people or a rival entrepreneur to save a station. Once the operator has decided, perhaps for his own convenience, to close a station, the time scales are so limited that it would make matters almost impossible for a group of people who might say, ''We would like to take on this station. We think it has been run down deliberately by the operator; we would like to save it and develop it in an imaginative way.''

The time scales for closure are so tight that any alternative owner trying to save that station will be unable to get the necessary permissions to do anything effective. We are talking about people throughout the network having a 12-month timetable so that they can be certain of what trains are running and which services are being provided.

Clause 29 sets out a system that would enable a station to be closed within a period of three months, thereby giving a minimum opportunity to people who felt that there was a realistic proposal to develop that station for the greater community benefit.

I ask the Minister to take from this debate consideration of whether it is reasonable to have such a short timescale within which a dramatic, draconian proposal such as to close a station can be determined when we have one-year timetables. We know that if someone was to get possession of a railway—for example, to build a road over it—they have sometimes to give 18 months' notice to the operator. How are we going to preserve the smaller stations on the network if we are giving the operator an incentive to close them down at relatively short notice, as contained in clause 29?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have tried to be Leslie Phillips all morning, but every time lately—certainly in the last couple of minutes—the hon. Member for Christchurch speaks, I twitch and reach for my leather jacket and bovver boots. That is the most fatuous contribution we have had thus far.

The closure of a station is not going to happen while there are services there and trains stopping. Even if there was such a plan, that would not exact much of a response from the authorities. We have heard that this is a draconian process of closing stations within three months, but it is not if services exist, if the network exists and if looking at alternatives prevail.

With your latitude, for which I am grateful, Mr. Griffiths, we have had a very interesting and productive discussion on the wider issue; how to utilise stations more readily as an asset. We think it appropriate that, when needed, there is a process to discuss proposals for the closure of a station. This is not going to drop out of the sky. No one is going to get a station closure proposal in before potentially shutting a network or stopping a service.

The discussion the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and I had was about live, vibrant stations and how to make more of them. The hon. Member for Christchurch talks as though these are entrepreneurial units and that the small matter of a train running through and stopping at a station is incidental. We need to save the railway station at all costs. That is why it borders on the fatuous and why I border on reaching for my bovver boots, but I shall resist because everything has gone so swimmingly and in such a respectful fashion thus far. Probably the best thing to do is to ignore the fatuity of his comments and seek to preserve the gentility of the Committee.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I wish to place on record that whatever the Minister does to encourage the development and greater use of stations—in terms of his comments that are technically outwith the Bill—he will have our support. On this narrow clause, for reasons mentioned regarding clause 22, we must vote against.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 3.

Clause 30 - Proposal by funding authority to close station

Clause 31 - Proposal to discontinue operation of secure station

Clause 32 - References to the ORR

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I wonder whether the clause is an Achilles heel in the system. Those of us who are sceptical about the Government's intentions are worried that there is no independent scrutiny of the closure proposals. The clause provides that if the body intending to make the closure is satisfied that the proposal meets the criteria in the guidance provided by the Secretary of State, it goes to the Office of Rail Regulation, which then decides whether the consultation process was flawed or the proposal does not meet the criteria. How can we be assured that the Office of Rail Regulation will be able to take account of representations? Will a quasi-judicial process be involved when it considers whether the consultation process was flawed and/or the proposal meets the criteria and will it hold a public hearing or inquiry to ensure that those who believe that the proposal does not meet the criteria can make their points? How will all that be determined?

We have seen examples in the past of collusion between Ministers and regulators and on issues such as the closure of railway lines and stations we must be assured that there is no scope for collusion or pressure from Ministers. I am sure that the Minister will think that I am deliberately winding him up because it is difficult for him to maintain his genial role throughout a sitting, although he has done very well this morning.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although no one would ever accuse him of being genial. If he makes allegations of previous collusion between Ministers and regulators, perhaps he should be more specific.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am hesitant about drawing up a list of past cases of this Government putting undue pressure on regulators because I am not sure that that would be in order, Mr. Griffiths, in a debate on the Bill. However, I stand by what I said and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that there is no scope for collusion between the Office of Rail Regulation and Ministers.

In part reply to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), the amazing statements that the Minister made earlier about the immediate past holder of the Office of the Rail Regulator when he made it clear that he considered that gentleman with contempt because he had not done the Government's bidding is an indication of what has happened.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee A

Clause 32 - References to the ORR

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I advise the Committee that the Chairman's provisional selection of amendments to the Bill as it stands is on the Table. The Committee will be mindful that it might change during the afternoon, subject to whether we continue our proceedings on Tuesday. I remind the Committee that this morning we were debating the question that clause 32 stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

When we adjourned at 11.25 am, it was apparent that the Minister was in dire need of a cigarette break. After a 3-hour cigarette break, I hope that he has come back in better humour. [Interruption.] I accept that he was in good humour almost all morning until he could not wait for those last five minutes.

We were in the middle of an interesting debate about the role of the Office of Rail Regulation and how its independence could be guaranteed. In the context of the clause, we were also considering how we could ensure that there would be no pressure on the Office of Rail Regulation to do the Government's bidding when adjudicating on closures and closure proposals. How can it be said that the Office of Rail Regulation will be wholly independent and will sit between those who want to implement rail closure and those who oppose it, given that, under clause 50, there is a new obligation on the Office of Rail Regulation to provide information and advice to the Secretary of State in connection with respective railway functions. Surely that means that the Secretary of State will get a running commentary from the Office of Rail Regulation on the progress of proposals for closure that are viewed sympathetically by the Secretary of State. The poor punter will be excluded from access to the same information.

How can the Minister assure us that the Office of Rail Regulation will truly be independent and even-handed in carrying out its functions if it has a greater obligation to provide advice and information to the Secretary of State than it has to provide advice and information to the objectors to a proposed rail closure? That is a short point but a pertinent one. It is indicative of the way in which the Government want to have control over what is nominally an independent official dealing with rail regulation. That is reflected in clause 50 and under the provisions of clause 32.

Finally, under the auspices of this clause stand part debate, I ask the Minister whether the information that is provided to the Office of Rail Regulation will be available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to anybody who wishes to have it. As I understand it, the Office of Rail Regulation will be a public sector body. Since it will be under a statutory duty to acquire as much information as possible about the railways, will it be possible for the public to use the freedom of information regime to get access to information that, we are told, it will not be possible to get access to from Network Rail because of its supposed private sector status?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I rise to raise a different point with the Minister. Clause 32(6) refers to the Office of Rail Regulation being provided with

''such information as it may require for the purpose of carrying out its functions under this section.''

Should the Bill become law, will the Office of Rail Regulation have any evidence-seeking power? I am concerned about a scenario where it would seek to obtain information and the party in possession of such information might conclude that, by withholding that information, it could influence the decision and get the decision that it wishes. What happens then? Can the Office of Rail Regulation insist that it be given sight of the documents that it feels that it needs to see to enable a proper decision to be made?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Welcome back, Mr. Amess, to our deliberations. On the point about freedom of information and the ORR, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is entirely right: it is a public body and will have to conform with the freedom of information regime. That means that all is disclosable unless it meets any of the assorted exceptions. Network Rail is not, as I said this morning, subject in that way as it is a private sector company. However, I thought that I made it clear—this touches partly on the point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight)—that there is provision within the Bill for all licence holders in the rail system, including Network Rail, fully to disclose information as part of the closure process. I made that point this morning, and that is the position.

We should not confuse two things: the national rail function of ORR as economic and safety regulator in the wider domain—as I said some time ago; probably last week, although it seems longer ago—and its specific functions. I do not want the hon. Member for Christchurch, inadvertently or otherwise, to mislead the Committee, because I thought that the import of what he said was almost that the ORR acts as some sort of appeal body, and is a last court of appeal for objectors. It is not: the ORR has almost an ombudsman-type role in the closure process. It is independent. I am not going to enter into a debate about that, even though at some stage in our deliberations, in the context of the Strategic Rail Authority, the hon. Gentleman talked about Government lackies and stooges. I am not going down that road.

The ORR is an independent body, set up to act independently. Its task is to check that the assessments have been carried out properly. By implication, that means that all information has been made available, the criteria for closures guidance have been met, and there has been full and proper consultation in the whole process. In essence, the ORR's role is to ratify the closure notice on the back of all those elements of the process, as laid out in the clauses that we are discussing, having been met. That is a right and proper role for it and I am sure that it will discharge those roles in an independent and objective fashion. It is a public body, as are the rail funding authorities, and, as I have said, is obliged to act in a fair and proper way. As with all public bodies, if people demur from the notion that it has acted in a fair and reasonable way, there is the traditional review route. It is a public body and has operated since 1 January in a freedom of information regime. All parties to any of the closure processes outlined in the various clauses under discussion have to make all information readily available, according to the criteria laid down in the guidance. We are confident that in that regard the ORR's role and references to the ORR will be discharged appropriately. There is an obligation in relation to information.

I am told that in relation to clause 32(6) and the point about the ORR having evidence-seeking powers, the ORR will have to decide whether it can determine that the criteria have been met. If it cannot, because of the lack of information, it is likely that it will issue a non-ratification notice as part of an assessment that will say, ''There are key elements of the criteria and processes laid down in the guidance that have not been met because all the information has not been forthcoming.'' Implicit in the Bill is the notion that all licence holders coming to the ''party'' through any of these processes must make all that information readily available.

There is simply no point, from our perspective, in broadening the assessment criteria spelled out in the guidance to a far wider base than is currently the case and then having organisations holding back information, capriciously or otherwise. There is a backstop in that regard. This is not some kind of formal appeal process. I would liken it far more readily, as I have said, to an ombudsman-type role to ensure that all elements of the due process have been carried out in full. However, there is the scope for non-ratification if that is not the case. In those circumstances, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 - Closure requirements

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 35, line 40, at end add—

'(10) The Office of the Rail Regulation shall be under a duty to give full reasons in writing for its decision to issue, vary or revoke a closure ratification notice concurrently with the issuing, variation or revocation of the notice.'.

This is a probing amendment. We would like to hear what the Minister has to say. There has been some debate this morning and this afternoon about the scope and extent of the Freedom of Information Act. Whether that Act applies in any particular circumstances in law, we certainly think that it should apply in spirit, and that is the thinking behind the amendment. We feel that any decisions that are made should be transparent, open and clear and that full reasons for making those decisions should be published. Those reasons should not be shrouded in mystery and there should not be certain aspects where the reasoning behind the decision is obscure or uncertain. The Minister may say that the decisions will be made public in any event, by way of practice, but if that is not the case, we think that it should be.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am with the right hon. Gentleman in spirit, but not in practice because I do not think that the amendment is necessary. As I have already said, the ORR, as a public body, will be under a duty in relation to the Freedom of Information Act. If Members think it through, they will realise that when the ORR issues a notice, it is unlikely that it will want to do so other than publicly and transparently. Following on from a closure notice or the non-ratification of a closure notice, the ORR will set down how the closure is to be achieved or why, if it is not ratified, it is not to be achieved. Not least against the backdrop of what I have said already about the regulator being dispassionate, objective and independent from Government, I do not want to start to lay down terms and conditions within which it can operate that independence.

I have faith and confidence—backed up by my knowledge of the FOI regime that the ORR will be under—that the amendment is unnecessary. The ORR already says in its business plan that

''In all their work, our staff will provide a service to the rail industry that is thorough, constructive, timely and fair and will always give full reasons for decisions.''

People could argue that that statement reflects the ORR before the Bill becomes an Act, but I can think of no reason why it will not remain central to its mission and business plan. It is in its interest as the independent regulator for the entire industry to seek and implement that transparency. I am with the hon. Gentleman in spirit, but I do not think his amendment is necessary in substance for all the reasons that I have outlined.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On the basis of what the Minister has said, I am satisfied, particularly as he said that he was with the amendment in spirit. I take it that if the ORR ceases to be as open as he and I feel it should be, he will be on the case, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Before we leave the part of the Bill that deals with closures, I should just mention a concern that exists in Wales over the Bill's provisions. I note that in the clause, the ORR has a duty to deal with the National Assembly for Wales. This morning, I read one or two newspaper reports concerning the Bill and its likely effect and scope. I came across a copy of the Western Mail dated 17 December, and under a headline ''Bill signals alert over rural rail'', an article stated:

''Fears have been raised over the future of rural rail services in Wales as it appears that Westminster will retain the power to close them even though the Assembly is to take control of their funding.

The Railways Bill is being fast-tracked through Parliament to ensure it is passed before the next general election. It has been flagged up as giving the Assembly control over railways in Wales, but Plaid Cymru MP, Simon Thomas says some of the most important powers will remain with the Transport Secretary in London.''

Intriguingly, this report goes on to refer to

''Mr. Thomas, one of the MPs scrutinising the Bill''.

It was at this stage in reading the report that I became rather concerned because we have not seen much of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). Indeed, on Tuesday, when a raft of amendments were on the amendment paper in his name and I referred to his absence, some hon. Members quite rightly cautioned me on what I was saying in case the hon. Gentleman had met with an unfortunate accident. On reflection I thought that I had been a little hard on him. However, when we finished our deliberations, I happened to go into the Tea Room and there he was, as large as life, eating a sandwich. If he is putting himself forward in Wales as one of the MPs scrutinising the Bill, he ought to spend less time eating sandwiches in the Tea Room and more time attending the Committee.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow but, in the defence of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, at least he is a member of the Committee. The Scottish National Party did not even bother to apply for membership.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

That is a very good point. After those who determine the membership of these Committees have read the Hansard report of our deliberations, I hope that they will hesitate in future before appointing a Member of one of those minority parties to Committees. It is far better that they appoint a Member who is going to attend and play a full part in our proceedings.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get involved in unnecessary partisan attacks on anyone on this Committee, save to say that I endorse everything that he has said about the absence of Plaid Cymru. I was going to be more partisan than that, but I shall not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) should know that Plaid Cymru and the SNP determine who should represent them on the Committee. Not only do we have a situation in which there are hugely significant elements of Scottish business here, which the SNP has decided is none of its business, and not only do we have a Plaid Cymru Member who does not bother turning up, but we have a Plaid Cymru Member who does not bother turning up even though he purportedly also represents the Scottish dimension from the nationalist perspective. Given the history, I think that he has represented the nationalist perspective rather well by not being here during our deliberations in Committee.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Would my hon. Friend give the Committee an example of some of the language he might use were he being partisan?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. At that point, I will ask the Minister to concentrate now on the clause.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Thank you for saving me, Mr. Amess. I was going to say to the Committee that I would love to provide examples, but we have only got two and a half hours left. There would not be sufficient time.

The right hon. Gentleman raises a half-reasonable point. He will know that there are specific functions in the Bill afforded to the National Assembly for Wales, not least because of this rather inconsiderate notion that there are not only discrete rail services in Wales, but those that go to and from Wales across the border. Therefore, there are Secretary of State rights enshrined in the Bill that look after that English and Welsh perspective, and the National Assembly for Wales is afforded rights given that there are Welsh-only services and, in particular, the Wales and Borders franchise. It is for the National Assembly and the Secretary of State, as the two parties involved in Wales, to come to an arrangement and work that through. That is only right and proper. We will come to an amenable arrangement with the National Assembly of Wales in due course about what transfer of resources there should be, given the allocation of responsibilities for Wales-only and cross-border railways once the Bill is secured. That is right and proper, too.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's direct and substantive comments, hooked, rather ingeniously, on this clause, rather than on clause 50 where we talk about wider resources. I accept his comments, but I think that I have addressed them. I heartily endorse his comments about what we might call Plaid Cymru's phantom, rather than shadow, transport spokesperson.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 - Minor modifications

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 36, line 11, leave out second 'or'.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 112, 115 and 116.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As I said earlier, all the Government amendments tabled thus far are technical in nature. They address elements that we thought were in the Bill but were found not to be so on Second Reading.

Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 are minor modifications to get to the stage at which Scottish Ministers can deal with the same matters as UK Ministers and the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 are, in essence, about including stations wholly within Scotland in the list of closures in respect of which a clause 34(6) order may be made. In all cases, the amendments reflect what we seek to do throughout the Bill, which is to ensure that the powers of Scottish Ministers to make an order are equivalent to those of the Secretary of State.

The amendments deal with simple oversights in drafting. I commend these utterly non-contentious, non-partisan and very delicately and eloquently phrased amendments to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 112, in page 36, line 13, at end insert

(e) the discontinuance of a station or part of a station that is wholly in Scotland.'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I shall make just a short contribution. As the Minister said, or certainly implied, the proposals in clauses 34 and 35 mirror those contained in the Railways Act 1993. However, there is one distinct difference, and that is the language that is used. In the 1993 Act, the equivalent clauses refer to minor closures and thereby clearly indicate to the reader or observer what the subject matter concerns. Unfortunately, this Government do not want to call a closure a closure, so instead of minor closures, we now have minor modifications, although the explanatory notes in paragraph 133 state:

''The concept of 'minor modifications' is very similar to that of 'minor closures' in the 1993 Act.''

Why is the whole of this part of the Bill, which is about closure and discontinuance, as it is called, not actually called ''closure and discontinuance''? Why have the Government resorted to phraseology such as ''network modifications'' or, in the case of clause 34, ''minor modifications''? They talk a great deal about transparency, clarity, the need for plain words and all the rest of it. Today we have news that a GCSE in cake decoration counts for the same as a GCSE in English language. Perhaps that is an indication that the Government are keen to reduce the emphasis on the importance of proper precision in the use of the English language in our education system.

What justification can there be for resorting to euphemisms in legislation, and using the expression ''modification'' for closure? Why is it, after all these years, that the new Labour lexicon of obfuscation continues to get larger?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The real culprit is not the language in this Bill but the relaxed and ill-informed language of the 1993 Act, in which everything from the minor modifications that these clauses refer to all the way up to closure were included under the heading of closures. I know that the legalese within which we have to operate for legislation can be difficult, but services are not closed, they are stopped, and networks are not closed, they are discontinued.

Stations are certainly closed; I give the hon. Gentleman that. The clauses specifically relate, however, to minor modifications that close part or some of the facilities available at a station. Any statement that a station was being closed if only a part of it were actually being closed would be made entirely in error. If an order were given to close a waiting room, one might possibly deduce that the end result would be closure—I give him that much—but if a station and the facilities that it offered were modified to the extent that it no longer had a waiting room, it could not be said that the station had closed. However, that is the logic of using closure as the catch-all rather than network modification.

The provisions are not obfuscation or some new Labour lexicon designed to distort things. If nothing else, such an approach would be entirely arrogant. I also think that it might be acknowledged that if a station had been closed, Labour councillors and MPs would not be running around saying, ''It's okay, I know you can't use it any more, but it's not closed, we have just modified it.'' If the public cannot use a station, it has clearly been closed.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to defend the indefensible, but I hope that he will reflect on the actual contents of clause 34. It refers to minor modifications, but at every stage of its exhaustive description of minor modifications and where they apply the word ''closure'' is used. It is used in subsections (1)(a) and (b), (2), (3), (4)(a) and (b), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11), and it is sometimes used in the singular and at other times it is used in the plural.

It is nonsense for the Minister to suggest that the clause covers something other than closures. The language that is used makes it clear that the clause is concerned exclusively with closures, rather than with modifications. Anybody who is interested in preserving the integrity of the English language should take a look at this short debate and decide which side of the argument they come down on.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Anyone who does that—and I exhort people to do so—will start from the premise that clause 34 is entitled ''Minor modifications''. I have said that minor modifications will involve closures—of waiting rooms, toilets, or whatever—but that clearly does not equal the closure of an entire facility.

The hon. Gentleman has cleverly listed how many times the clause refers to a ''closure'' or to ''closures'', but that needs to be seen in the context of the title of the clause—''Minor modifications''. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire hinted this morning, a ''minor modification'' may well be the temporary closure for refurbishment of part of a station, or as I suggested, the closure of a facility within the curtilage of the station, but such modification is profoundly not closure of the station. In that regard, the terms ''minor modifications'' and ''network modifications'' are the appropriate language, not simply ''closures''.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 - Closures eligible to be treated as minor modifications

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 113, in page 38, line 5, leave out from 'the' to 'may' in line 10 and insert

'Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers that closures of any description not specified in this section should, because of their temporary nature or limited effect on the provision of railway passenger services, be treated as minor modifications, the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Scottish Ministers'.

This is purely a drafting amendment. Subsection (6) uses the expression ''national authority'', but although the sense is clear from subsection (7), the term is not defined in the text. The amendment simply corrects that drafting error, and I commend it to the Committee.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

We accept the Minister's explanation. The amendment does indeed make the position clearer and makes the clause better, and we will therefore not divide on it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 114, in page 38, line 17, leave out

'all the funding is provided by'

and insert

'which no funding is provided by a railway funding authority other than'.

No. 115, in page 38, line 19, leave out second 'or'.

No. 116, in page 38, line 21, at end insert

(e) the discontinuance of a station or part of a station that is wholly in Scotland;'.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The clause refers to the discontinuance of a railway passenger service along a stretch of line where there is no station, or at any rate none in use, and where an alternative route is available. What about freight business? Could anything in the clause put future or existing freight services at risk? Opposition Members have general ongoing concerns about the protection of freight business.

In passing, I make the wider point that Transport for London and the Scottish Executive, for example—and, to a lesser extent, the Welsh Assembly and passenger transport executives—may specify passenger services and investment in the infrastructure. Freight, being a national business, may lose out. A few of us feel that some form of protection may be needed to ensure that existing rights and freight growth are provided for. Can the Minister reassure me on that?

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

When I read over the clause, I found that subsections (1) to (5) are very precise; one can almost see the draftsmen beavering away, trying to get things as precise as they possibly can. Then one gets to subsection (6), where the draftsmen have clearly thought, ''There may be things that we have left out.'' There is therefore a statement to say that things excluded so far may be included there, and an attempt to specify the sort of things that we are thinking of, such as whether there is an impact on freight, and to say what the range of the provision is. Subsection (6)(b) states:

''applies only to closures which, because of their temporary nature or limited effect on the provision of railway passenger services''.

From examples given by the Minister so far, I think that I understand what that means; this is the catch-all that allows almost anything to be tried on.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has already suggested that there is a certain vagueness about the issue of freight. Will the Minister put something useful on record that would help clarify what is meant by a

''limited effect on the provision of railway passenger services''?

Obviously, nothing has an unlimited effect on railway passenger services; all effects are, to some extent, limited. I know that there is the back-stop of negative procedure, and if the provision is used to introduce something in future there will be a mechanism for contesting it, but it might be helpful if he specified what the limited effects are likely to be. I am grateful for the illustration that he has offered so far, and I understand that it necessarily excludes something as full frontal as station or line closure, but I am not certain what else it excludes.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I said as clearly as I possibly could this morning that all the processes outlined in part 4 refer to rail passenger services. I think I cited the example of a request for a closure of a service, station or network on which there was already vibrant use by freight. In such an instance, closure would be extraordinarily unlikely, in accordance with the assessment criteria that will be established under guidance. The interaction between freight and passengers must be one dimension in any assessment of the closure criteria, but interaction will vary. One can think of many elements of the network where, because of the absence of rail passenger services, it may be in order to close a station but not to go any further and close the line or network as it is of huge significance to freight.

There are many parts of the country—I would expect the number to increase—where freight, interleaved with limited passenger services, is overwhelmingly the largest user of particular lines. That is right and proper, not least because it gets freight off some of the inter-city lines and more important passenger lines. The interleaving of freight with passengers on the general network is important. I share everybody's concern to protect freight, and we have a broad consensus on an avowed policy to increase or encourage freight on trains, rather than otherwise. Principally, part 4 is about passenger services. Specifically, clause 35 is about minor modifications, although I accept the point made about the broad sweep of part 4.

I anticipate that if there were vibrant and active use of freight on any line or network, it would be an important criterion in assessing the line's viability and a closure order would not be ratified. Although there are interfaces between freight and passengers, I would think it unlikely that anyone would put in such a closure notice if there were such active use of freight, but I understand the concerns, none the less.

I highlighted in Westminster Hall the point about the interaction of freight and passengers, saying that I could get a far better deal for rail passengers in London overnight by simply excluding freight entirely from some of the London commuter lines. Of course, some of the freight lobby collapsed at the back of the Hall, and I quickly corrected myself, saying that it was just an example of the public policy choices we face. We are very keen to maintain the active freight use of lines.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

We want certainty. If infrastructure is clearly subject to minor modification from the passenger service point of view, but none the less there is a knock-on consequence for freight, does that debar the modification from being treated as minor, or is freight just something that needs to be taken into account?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If I understand the point, I am not suggesting that the existence of freight is the only reason why a minor modification may not be allowed. As in other aspects of this part of the Bill, closure guidance and the assorted assessment criteria, in the widest possible sense, will accompany freight, as I suggested. They will be far broader criteria than those that prevail. We are not talking about freight only; there will be other criteria in the closure guidance, of which I hope to get a first cut to the Committee as early as possible.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful for the Minister's reassurances. There is a precious little in the Bill about freight, so it is important, as we debate its implications for passengers, to satisfy ourselves that we are not legislating in any way that might damage or hinder the capacity of the network to pursue a vigorous policy of improving freight business. I think that I am content with what the Minister said and with the clause, although there is time to reflect on the matter before Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 - Designation of experimental passenger services

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I hope that the Minister can explain whether it is possible for a service that is already in existence to be designated an experimental passenger service. On my reading, the clause is not clear about that, although the implication of subsection (2) is that an experimental passenger service cannot be one that is already in existence. It says:

''The designation must be in relation to a line or station on or from which the service will be provided.''

That is, such a service will be provided in the future and is not being provided now.

I ask about that, because allowing the Government to designate existing services as experimental would trigger a much easier regime for closure than is required under other provisions in the Bill. We know that it is possible to extend the experimental period, although I have no concern about.

Perhaps I can illustrate my point with the example of the proposal, which I understand the Government support, to close the Gatwick Express. Is that service described as an experimental service or could it be so? It has certainly been a highly successful, popular and profitable service. Where does its proposed closure fit in with the clause? After all, the Gatwick Express was, in a sense, an experiment to see whether it was worth while having a direct, non-stop link between one of our major international hub airports and the centre of the London conurbation.

I have experienced the service and all the evidence that I have seen, including, of course, anecdotal evidence, suggests that it has been highly successful, popular and profitable. However, the service was in the nature of an experiment when it was first established, so could we regard it as such now? Could it be designated as an experimental service in order to save it from closure? Can the Minister explain?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With the best will in the world, that is one of the most obtuse examples that I have ever heard from the hon. Gentleman. First, there is no such proposal on the table, supported by the Government or otherwise, as I have said previously. Secondly, the 1993 Act makes it clear that experimental services cannot last any longer than five years. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the Gatwick Express has been in place for more than five years and therefore would not comply with the criteria set out in the 1993 Act.

The SRA's route utilisation strategy, which we have spoken of before, is out for consultation—it may have already finished, although I am not sure. As part of the principle of considering the utilisation of routes, the strategy is quite rightly investigating the entire use of the Brighton commuter line and the optimisation of capacity. I do not demur from the notion that the Gatwick Express has been successful; I use it regularly. I am not sure that I need to be told in 11 languages that the doors are closing and that we are getting to Gatwick at such and such a time. Very pleasant though the voice is, it lasts nearly all the journey. However, the service has proved to be a good one.

Equally, over the past five years—I think that this is the case; I will correct the figures if I am inadvertently misleading the Committee—passenger numbers on the Brighton commuter line have increased by some 72 per cent. to 75 per cent. We are not talking about a different line. The Gatwick Express—experimental or otherwise—was not put along a brand new line to get from Victoria to Gatwick. It is on that same line.

Rather like the example previously of how to interweave and overlap two important aspects in the general network sense of passenger rail and freight, it is more than appropriate that we proceed on a line-by-line basis. The Government have made no comment thus far, and quite rightly given that the process is still under way; the outcome of the utilisation strategy for that particular line is awaited.

The hon. Member for Christchurch is wrong to suggest that we support the demise of the Gatwick Express or otherwise. We are talking specifically about experimental services. It must be right to have the ability to try those in terms of the national network. There may well be attempts by train operating companies or whoever else to provide a particular form of service on some aspect of the network and that service may well work. I do not have all the answers and nor does the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in the Committee.

It is right and proper to allow time to see whether the experiment works and to make that—this is all that clauses 36 and 37 seek to do—outwith the core elements of the network modification clauses in this part. It may well be in the context of the future that that flexibility affords a chance for a line or a service to reinvent itself and work in a better fashion. That flexibility in the system is necessary. It was thought by those who drafted the 1993 legislation to be necessary, but we want that to be outside the core of what is covered in clauses 22 to 26. It is in that spirit that clauses 36 and 37 are offered.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Will he tell me specifically whether it will be possible for an existing service to be defined as an experimental service for the purposes of clause 36 or does it have to be in relation to a new service?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. The hon. Gentleman has probably stumbled on that. The key point about clauses 36 and 37 is that as and when such a service is so designated, it is outside clauses 22 to 26 and all that lies therein. That is the plus point of clauses 36 and 37. As I understand it, and unless I am told otherwise during the course of our deliberations, there is nothing to designate an existing service as an experiment. We are talking not just out of the sky, but with some reasoning and rationale behind the process.

If we return to the case of the Brighton commuter line, we could agree with what looks like the outcome of the SRA's utilisation strategy that there should be one service up and down the line and the demise of the Gatwick Express. Alternatively, we could demur from that and decide that the Gatwick Express should prevail and commuter lines will have to fit in in some other way. There is no interest on the Government's part to designate the service as experimental and do away with it in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested. To answer his point in a far less verbose fashion, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an existing service becoming—with all the designations and time frames involved in the clauses—an experimental service.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Discontinuance of experimental passenger services

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 40, line 14, at end insert

'( ) A person giving notice of a proposed discontinuance under subsection (2) must send to the Office of Rail Regulation a copy of the notice published under subsection (3)(b).'.

The clause seeks merely to carry over all that is in the Railways Act 1993, but the way that we have arranged matters in schedule 11, which was supposed to reflect the equivalent provisions of the 1993 Act, leaves out a requirement to send a note of discontinuance to the ORR. We did not mean to leave out that requirement as it was part of the 1993 provision. The amendment is therefore needed to require that a note setting out the details of discontinuance be sent to the ORR. It was caused by an omission in what we were trying to do in the sense of having this Bill reflect the provisions of the 1993 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 - Quality contracts schemes in connection with service modifications

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 41, line 37, at end insert

'(e) that the scheme will support economic and social regeneration.'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 41, line 37, at end insert

'(e) that the scheme will not increase traffic congestion.'.

No. 61, in page 41, line 37, at end insert

'(e) that the scheme will reduce traffic congestion.'.

No. 62, in page 41, line 37, at end insert

'(e) that the scheme will reduce air pollution.'.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

This is the famous ''bustitution'' clause. Where rail services have been curtailed or closed, the clause allows for that service to be replaced—substituted—by a bus service.

By tabling the amendments, I want to probe what the Government mean in subsection (1)(1A)(c) by the word ''compatible''. To understand that, we need to reflect on the objectives of the local transport plans, because the word compatible relates to those plans. The objectives of local transport plans are to improve road safety and access to transport and to reduce congestion and pollution.

In amendments Nos. 60 to 62, I have put forward definitions to test whether the Government intend to be more precise about what compatible means. Amendment No. 60 asks whether the bus substitution will be allowed to increase congestion. If we take passengers off a railway line and place them on a bus, it is likely that congestion will increase, by however little. Will the Government allow that to happen? It is clearly in conflict with the local transport plans. I am interested in the Minister's reply to that.

Amendment No. 61 would ratchet up that objective by insisting that not only does the bus substitution scheme not increase traffic congestion but reduces it. That is one of the Government's objectives and it is shared by local authorities. It would be difficult to achieve. Part of the consideration of the plans might be that, if we are not going to reduce congestion, we need to reconsider whether the railway line should be closed down.

Amendment No. 62 deals with air pollution. It is an objective of the local transport plans that the scheme will reduce air pollution. That is a high test to pass because it depends on what trains are used and what buses are put on to replace them. It is unlikely that the scheme will lead to a reduction in air pollution. Indeed, it is likely to lead to an increase in air pollution. That is usually the balance between rail and buses, but it can vary because of local conditions. Interestingly, the regulatory impact assessment states that there will be no direct benefit to the environment from such changes. Surely, if the Government are keen on encouraging local transport plans, there should be a benefit.

Amendment No. 59 would not cover the current objectives of local transport plans, but it would widen the definition so that the scheme would support economic and social regeneration. I am interested in contrasting the economic and social benefits as a result of comparing bus, light rail and heavy rail. Even on equivalent journeys—we could speculate on the reasons why—buses do not always have the same economic benefit as heavy rail or light rail.

One of the reasons why business and industry are more likely to invest in light rail or heavy rail is that large, capital expenditure gives a degree of certainty to business that the transport system will remain in place. That is not always so in the cases of bus substitution because, although the bus substitution envisaged under this part of the Bill is that of quality contracts and has not been tried in the country before, bus substitution was tried in the '60s and '70s during the Beeching cuts. Buses were substituted in rural areas to replace the lines. Originally, when the lines were closed, a bus service was put in their place and in the majority of cases such a service no longer now exists. That is why industry, business and commerce often make investment decisions that support the local economy and the social regeneration of areas that are related to light and heavy rail in a way that they will not do in respect of buses. Those sectors tend to discount buses in such areas.

I have widened the definition because, when local authorities consider their local transport plans and economic priorities, they are often motivated not by the objectives that the Government have defined for local transport plans, but by much wider social and economic objectives. Indeed, the four objectives of the local transport plans are not really transport objectives at all. They deal primarily with the consequences of road accidents, pollution and traffic congestion. They cover the consequences of transport rather than trying to improve it, whereas most local authorities are as keen on supporting and creating new jobs as they are on attracting investment and including in society those on its fringes and those who have been excluded. I have broadened the scope of the clause, so that we are not dealing with only a narrow transport issue. Local authorities and local people do not look at the use of transport as just a bus, train or tram going from A to B. They look to see how that transport system integrates into the whole community and supports it, and that objective should be part of this scheme.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). He has done a service to the Committee in raising the issue and in tabling these amendments. We have naturally been focused on railways; but this is the part of the Railways Bill where we need to look at what alternatives should be in place where it is decided that the rail service, for a variety of reasons, is not the appropriate service for the community.

I believe I start from the same point as the hon. Gentleman, namely that I would prefer to see a thriving rail service in place. But if that rail service, for whatever reason, has to be terminated, I would rather the community had some form of public service—whether it be a double or single-decker bus service, or a minibus service—rather than zero public service. Therefore it is right to look at the options and I hope to tease a statement of intent from the Minister about how the Government see this working and what incentives he intends putting forward to encourage something we all want to see.

Certainly I take the view, with regard to amendment No. 62, that we should strive wherever possible to reduce air pollution within our transport system. I do not share the Green party's view that the answer is apparently to tax everybody off the road. There are other ways of doing it and we would certainly support the Government if they indicate that is what they are looking at.

When I was a Minister in the last Conservative Government, my car was due to be renewed and I was asked which model I would like. I replied that I did not care which model it was, but that surely a gas-powered car must be available through the Government car service. So I was provided with the first ministerial gas-powered car, which, as the Minister will know, in effect produces zero emissions. It is up to the public sector to set a good example to the private sector. We all know of the research being done by companies such as General Motors and Toyota into the viability of the hydrogen cell engine, which seeks to propel a vehicle using hydrogen, the only by-product of which is water. Other companies, we know, are looking at new generation diesel vehicles, which emit much less pollution than is currently the case.

Although my point is slightly different from that of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, he has done a service to the Committee by allowing us to debate the wider issues surrounding the transfer of a local service from the railway to a bus or perhaps coach, and to see what the Government intend to do in pursuit of a clean-air policy in this area.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I wish to heap further praise upon the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley. Bus substitution is something we all fear and dread. Occasionally, even on wonderful lines such as Merseyrail, one is asked to get off a train and on to a bus to follow a completely irrational route to one's destination at enormous length and with excessive tedium. Very few people welcome bus substitution, but if it occurs at all, obviously it should not simply be an adjunct to what is already there in the way of bus services, nor should it be an outright competitor to existing services. It should be, as the hon. Gentleman properly argued, integrated into the system. That I take to be the thrust of the amendments as he phrased them. I understand that they are probing amendments, but they raised a very interesting area of debate.

Quality bus contracts are a good thing. They are extraordinarily preferable to free-market anarchy because they specify an agreed level of service and do not allow operators to cherry-pick the times and routes that best suit them. Although the contracts are a good thing, they should not be a temptation for closure outright, and there is a suspicion that this offering could be that temptation.

I stand to be corrected on this, but I understand that a quality contract could at one stage be introduced and implemented only within a period of 21 months. That has been reduced to six months and so can be done expeditiously and quickly, but only in the case of bus substitution and not generally. I do not understand the rational case for that, unless this is some sort of temptation for people to look more favourably on bus substitution.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As ever, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, is half right. From what he was saying, I think he half supports the clause, so no change there. Wider notification has gone from 21 months to six months, but he should have read in detail the July White Paper reviewing transport rather than simply that on rail. There we have provided what he seeks to achieve, which is to look at the introduction of quality bus contracts where there is an offer by an authority to put its bus services into the wider integrated transport solution and vision for its area. That is not simply reducing the period to six months. That is not simply the rather narrow provisions of the Transport Act 2000, which effectively had the contracts as a last resort, although we think they go beyond that. In the context of a fully integrated and comprehensive transport strategy for an area, we have said to authorities that we will consider allowing them to go down the route of the quality bus contract. Furthermore, we will allow authorities to dispense the bus service operators grant, rather than, as now, it going direct to the operators.

I too am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley for the debate and for the amendments. I am also grateful that they are probing amendments, because I do not accept them as they are currently formed, for reasons that I want to come on to.

If amendment No. 59 were to be supported, the narrowest legal definition could mean an authority only going down the route of bus substitution for a rail service in areas that were socio-economically deprived. That is not my intention and I am sure it is not my hon. Friend's intention.

For other criteria, compatibility with the local transport plan would mean that there must be evidence that, within the broad context of that plan, air quality does not suffer and congestion is if anything decreased and certainly not increased. When we refer to compatibility with the local transport plan, we mean precisely that—the way in which the proposal to offer a quality bus contract in lieu of a particular rail service fits in with the wider plan for transport and, underneath that, with the socio-economic objectives of the local authority.

It would be right and proper to criticise if what we were seeking to do was entirely out of context with whatever else the local authorities were trying to do with transport and with how their transport elements fitted in with their wider schemes for economic, social and other developments and regenerations. They could develop a quality contract in lieu of one particular rail service—

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

Will my hon. Friend comment on how the Mersey tram proposal fits into that? He is well aware that Merseytravel has designed it in such a way as to address specifically the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley in amendment No. 59. I do not think that that would be covered by the clause, but it would certainly be covered by the wider context that my hon. Friend the Minister is talking about. Will he say a word about that?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is what we mean by looking at the compatibility of a particular proposal under the clause in that wider context. My hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to that issue and to the success of Merseyrail in what it is doing in conjunction with Merseytravel. Indeed, most passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives take such an approach in their areas.

We are trying to pick up on the issue. Air quality and congestion targets are relevant to and rooted in the local transport plans. It is certainly the Government's broad intention to ensure that we do everything within a sustainable development framework that underpins all we do. At the core of what we do is an awareness, appreciation and acceptance of the economic, social and regenerative dimensions of any policy that we introduce.

On the back of the July White Paper and the consultation that we carried out last year, to arrive at a six-month rather than 21-month time scale for quality bus contracts in the wider context, the Department will shortly publish guidance to local authorities on how to apply for quality contract schemes in the context of those changes. If the Bill is successful, we will amend the guidance accordingly. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley will take my reassurance that at the heart of what we mean by the compatibility of bus substitution are the economic and social regeneration dimensions, air quality and concerns about congestion.

I have used it before, but I am trying to resist the use of ''bustitution''—a dreadful word. I have already been upbraided once today for my use of language. Someone had nothing better to do than listen to me do an interview on ''You and Yours'' and upbraid me—quite rightly, according to grammar—for saying that a particular aspect of the past had not been a ''terrible success''. My mind had clearly conflated. Someone—I do not know who as they did not leave their name—rang my parliamentary office to upbraid me for a woeful use of English grammar. So I am not using the word ''bustitution'', although I say that merely in passing.

Of course, the substitution needs to be compatible with the wider context of the local transport plan. As my hon. Friend will know, and as is clear from the expanded guidance that we set out for the second round of local transport plans, such plans must be set out in the context not only of our transport targets for congestion, air quality and the specific elements outlined in the guidance on local transport plans, but in the broader sense, of economic and social regeneration, and they must have sustainability at their core.

I have not forgotten the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about cleaner, greener fuels and air quality. I shall guide him to the relevant parts of the July White Paper, and I assure him that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), to whom such matters are more properly directed, will get a direction, appropriate or otherwise.

I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, and I commend clause 39 to the Committee.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I shall ask the Committee's permission to withdraw the amendment but, before doing so, I suggest that my hon. Friend might not escape being associated with the word ''bustitution'' for very long. It flows too easily off the tongue and he may one day be attributed in the next annexe to the Oxford English dictionary as the originator of the word, rather than be upbraided for a slight grammatical error on Radio 4.

We have had a useful debate, and I am grateful to those hon. Members who thanked me for tabling the amendment. I take the reassurances that my hon. Friend the Minister has given us. However, I ask him to reflect a little further on some of the issues that have been raised in the context of the regulatory impact assessment. When one reads it, one sees that it basically compares the cost of buses with that of rail in PTE areas in Britain. It leaves one with the impression that the main motivation in such matters is cost. Of course, cost is always important, while we are responsible for raising taxes, but it is not the only issue. I am grateful for the assurance that he gave about bearing in mind the elements that are already in local transport plans relating to the consequences of transport.

More widely, on transport and the objectives of social and economic regeneration that are not in local transport plans, when I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the last Transport questions whether the definition should be expanded, he said that we should focus on transport issues. In fact, using the definition of transport as conveying goods, people and vehicles from point to point, virtually none of the four objectives in local transport plans is objectively about transport issues: they deal with the consequences of transport. People want better transport for social and economic reasons. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 42, line 3, at end insert—

'(1C) Where a scheme has been introduced under subsection (1A) and the Passenger Transport Authority considers that the scheme could beneficially be extended to the whole of its area, it may so extend the scheme.'.

I would be surprised if members of the Committee were aware of the train service that leaves Stockport once a week and trundles round south, east and north Manchester. It reverses in and out of stations and eventually arrives at Manchester Victoria. People who are not familiar with the geography of Greater Manchester can be assured that no sane, sensible person would ever use that service; there are perfectly good train and bus routes from Stockport to Manchester Piccadilly, where one can get a tram or bus or walk to Manchester Victoria, which takes a fraction of the time that the journey would take on the other route.

I am told that the reason why the service exists is that it is simpler to run that Saturday service, which is occasionally substituted by taxis and buses, than to go through the process of closing it down. That is one reason why I welcome the central part of the Bill. The route goes all over south, east and north Manchester. The only people who use it are those who are interested in going on unusual train journeys. It is no use whatever to the travelling public of Greater Manchester.

The amendment seeks to discover how far, if at all, a quality contract scheme would be allowed to extend if that service was withdrawn. The route would have only a small financial benefit and no transport benefit. If buses were provided, no one would use them. The amendment proposes that when a scheme has been introduced and the PTA considers that it could

''beneficially be extended to the whole of its area, it may so extend the scheme.''

Will the Minister say what limits there would be?

Another extreme case—it does not involve a rail system that meanders all over an urban conurbation—is that of a rail service that stops at one or two stations. Such a service could easily be replaced by a bus service, which people would use if the route was previously a useful transport corridor. How far could that be extended? If the route is in a limited area, with just two stops, for example, what will a quality contract mean? Does it differ from a service being put out to tender? A quality contract in the London sense means producing a list of routes and asking bus operators to tender for them. In both cases, it is difficult to see that one would be getting a quality contract, rather than just a tendered service, which the public sector would probably have to pay for. How far could that quality contract be extended? I would be very interested to know.

The hon. Member for Southport, in the 50 per cent. of his contribution that the Minister said he had got right, noted that the Government had reduced to six months the time limit for the consultation on bringing in quality contracts under the Transport Act 2000. That is useful and I welcome the fact that they have done that, but in most, if not all parts of the country, the largest barrier to introducing quality contracts is section 124 of the 2000 Act, which requires the local authority or the passenger transport authority to show that the quality contract is the only practical way of delivering a service. There are examples from the midlands of passenger transport authorities trying to introduce a quality contract and the local bus operator, operating an almost monopoly service, flooding the area with services so that the passenger transport authority and the passenger transport executive cannot show that a quality contract is the only way of providing bus services. As a result, the proposal fails. That is why we have no quality contract schemes at present.

In considering clause 39, I am trying to find out how much of a loophole there is in respect of bringing in quality contracts. The current legislation does not make it easy enough to introduce them into areas where there are serious public transport problems, as there certainly are in every area in which FirstGroup operate buses, and where other bus companies run monopolies. In my constituency, they run a semi-monopoly. The service is—if one does not have to use it—laughably appalling in terms of punctuality and reliability. I refer hon. Members to a recent edition of Private Eye, which contains a list of the FirstGroup's failures throughout England, Scotland and Wales. It points out that recently wheels have fallen off three different buses in my area of north Manchester. In a random inspection, more than 50 per cent. of the FirstGroup's buses were found not be roadworthy. I will not read out the Private Eye cuttings, but they go through FirstGroup's failings in every urban area in this country and in much of Scotland, where it is the biggest provider of bus services.

I am interested to find out whether there is a loophole or whether will we just get a tendered bus service between two points. If a small quality contract works on the basis of substituting the rail service, can it be extended to the benefit of the area? The fundamental point—I have had this debate with my hon. Friend the Minister several times, and we have not yet managed to convince each other of our cases—is that if we want to cut congestion on the roads and pollution, it is sensible to have commercial competition at the point of tendering, as happens in London, rather than on the road, where it leads to damaging transport practices and to many people, including some of the poorest and most vulnerable in this country, not getting the bus services that they should from bus operators.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley is a model of sanity, because there surely has to be scope for the extension of quality contracts. In this contribution I hope to increase my percentage of correct remarks—52 per cent. would be an improvement. The routes left when a rail service is taken away, as I said previously, are not inherently rational. After all people walk, and often drive, considerable distances to rail stations in the first place, so a bus service precisely mirroring a defunct rail service is not necessarily the best way to get them to their destination.

When a rail service falls, there has to be some rethinking of how we move people to the places they want to go to, particularly commuters, who have specific demands and requirements. There has to be flexibility—I think that the Minister will acknowledge that there will be flexibility—but if there is, there must also be opportunity for extensions, variations and integration with existing services. When Ministers hear such views, which are implicit in the amendments, they fear some sort of Liberty hall, where we all end up with quality contracts and a bus service such as the rather successful London bus service. Heaven forbid! I am sure we are much happier with whatever we have in our local area following privatisation.

If the Minister is unhappy with the words of the amendment, he must accept the thrust of it, because it is forcefully argued. Bus services, when they appear, cannot simply mimic rail services and be quality contracts at the same time. They may, in fact, be exotic, unworkable, unusable and unwelcome bus services. They have to be slightly better than that. We put up with such services from time to time as a temporary fix when the rail service goes down, but as a permanent requirement integrated into a local transport plan, it does not meet requirements or constitute a quality contract.

I accept that the Minister will consider the amendment and think it a carte blanche for PTEs all over the place to extend the scope of quality contracts in an ill disciplined, uncontrolled way, but there is a salient and important point in the amendment that must be addressed. The Minister said earlier that when Beeching simply advocated bus services instead of rail services, communities usually ended up without a bus service or a rail service. I have a slightly soft spot for Dr. Beeching and I wince a little when people mention him, because he is the only famous old boy of the secondary school I went to, so I cannot speak altogether ill of him.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It is very self-effacing of the hon. Gentleman to recognise that he is not a famous old boy of his school, which I am sure is not the case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley has again done us a service in tabling the amendment, because it sets out the extremes of bus substitution. Were I to come to the Committee to secure the very limited proposal to simply replace a rail service with a bus service doing everything but going along the track bed, or close to it, such limitations would not be appropriate. But are the provisions a loophole to allow PTAs and PTEs to bring quality contracts in through the back door, which I know that my hon. Friend would like? They are not.

''making a quality contracts scheme is an appropriate way of securing that the transport needs of the potential users of a relevant railway service that has been or is to be reduced or discontinued are met''.

The aim is not direct, including geographic, substitution, but to meet the transport needs that were served by a particular railway service and, crucially, to broaden the point, to meet some needs beyond a simple one-for-one service substitution. The clause also requires that

''the making of the scheme will contribute, in an appropriate way, to meeting the transport needs of persons living, working or studying in the locality served by that service''.

Then there are the points about compatibility with the local transport plan, which we referred to in relation to previous set of amendments. That is important because, especially in an urban setting, if we were dealing with more or less one-for-one replacement, as my hon. Friend suggests, that would not be a quality contract. It would just be a secured bus service rather than a train service.

The points that my hon. Friend and others have made about the needs of a particular area served by a railway and about commuters who drive to a station to use that rail service are well made. We are talking about something that is sufficiently broad to encompass most solutions that a PTA would put up as alternatives in terms of quality contracts and bus substitution for discontinued or reduced rail services. I am sure that this is not the case in Manchester because of all the other elements of transport that it already has, but if we were talking about an urban area served by the sort of windy inter-urban rail service that my hon. Friend suggests that no one save what appeared to be a coded way of saying a DFT official would use on a Saturday, and if that was the principal rail service in the area and it was discontinued for some reason, the solution might be that a network of four or five substantive services would replace it and form the basis of a quality contract. The short answer is that I do not know.

My hon. Friend said that there might be only three stops on a rail service that was being discontinued, but he will know that, although we think of all the PTE areas as overwhelmingly urban, some of them serve a significant rural and semi-rural hinterland. If those three stops are on the way out to a particular community and are one of the core ways in which its transport needs are served, but for whatever reason the discontinuance of that rail service is granted, a more direct bus service to that community might prevail. My hon. Friend has highlighted the two extremes that probably, in all instances, cannot prevail.

We have drawn up the clause so that it goes further than simply one-for-one replacement to allow the integration of any bus substitution service within the wider transport on offer in an area and to secure improvements in public transport for others who live in the area. Let me turn around what hon. Members have said. If a bus service is being offered rather than a train service, how that addresses and satisfies the transport needs of a locality is entirely different from how the heavy rail service did it. We have left things deliberately broad, but I have to say, in all candour, that that the provision is a not back-door way of getting in an entire PTA area covered by a quality bus contract.

I would welcome applications for quality bus contracts from PTAs if they can be sustained in the broad, integrated way that is at the heart of the July transport White Paper. The provisions do not go so far as to enable PTAs to regulate buses over their area merely on the pretext of a modest rail reduction in one part of the area. That is more the domain of what we are trying to do in the wider context of section 124 and of quality bus contracts, the guidance for which, as I have said—in the light of the changes that we seek to make both in terms of the timetable and the substance offered in the transport White Paper—will shortly be issued.

So, the clause is not about the extremes that my hon. Friend suggests. Precisely because any number of alternative forms of bus services substituting for rail services could prevail, we have tried to leave things as broad as possible and allow the door to be open for quality bus contracts as a replacement. That is what the clause does.

The Chair of the Select Committee said on Second Reading, as my hon. Friend has done today, that bus substitution leaves a bad taste precisely because of all the promises made not just by the Conservative Government during the Beeching era and the immediate post-Beeching era, but—I would say cheerfully—by the two 1960s Labour Governments. All sorts of promises were made for substantive bus substitution to replace the post-Beeching gaps, but they never came to fruition. I understand the hesitation, albeit some 40 years later, about losing rail services in any way, shape or form. That is why we included some substance to ensure that any replacement arising from the discontinuance of a rail service is durable and lasts into the future to sustain the communities concerned and their transport needs.

I am grateful for the chance to put those points on the record. I cannot accept the amendment, however well intentioned it may be. None the less, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for posing his questions. I am deeply disappointed that I cannot give him the answer that, deep down in his bones and in his heart, he wants.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which—this may surprise him—was slightly better than I expected. This is not the first or even the second time that we have debated this matter. It should be a priority for the Government to look at ways of re-regulating the bus system that capture the best aspects of commercial entrepreneurship of private operators, ease congestion and put reliability and punctuality back into the system.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Is it not worth putting on the record that the bus service that is doing best in this country and makes bus statistics look good is the least-regulated service: the London service?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman meant that. I agree that the most successful bus service in the country for punctuality, reliability and, probably most importantly, increasing its patronage is in London. However, it is regulated.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I meant most regulated even though I did not say that.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

In that case, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have made the point a number of times that, in the capital, we have a scheme that works. We should be trying to replicate that good practice in at least the other great urban conurbations.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Surely, the London bus scheme necessitates a subsidy approaching £1 billion of taxpayers' money each year. How can the hon. Gentleman describe the London bus scene, which needs such a subsidy to sustain it, as successful?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The hon. Gentleman is right about the current situation, although I think that the figure is slightly lower at the moment. If we compare metropolitan bus services outside the capital with the service in the capital until the advent of the Mayor and large subsidies to the London bus system, we find that patronage in metropolitan areas dropped by 40 per cent. or more and patronage in London grew marginally over the same period. A good period to consider is that from deregulation in 1985 until 1999 when the London system worked much better than elsewhere without subsidies. One can argue about how much cash should be put in, but not that the regulated system, with virtually no subsidy, outperformed the subsidised systems, albeit with small subsidies, in the metropolitan areas. I did not intend to talk about those two areas, but I was encouraged to do so by the interventions.

To conclude, my hon. Friend can contradict my interpretation of his statement later if he disagrees, because I am sure that we will come back to this on Report, but I understand him to mean that the ''bustitution'' process requires quality contracts. Quite simply, one could not guarantee the bus substitution if it was done only over a small area. Therefore, for quality contracts, one should look to a much larger area than the route along the line just to make ''bustitution'' viable. If that interpretation is wrong, I am sure that we will return to the issue at some point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 256

Substitute road services

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 43, line 27, at end insert '; or

the new route and the stopping places thereon are more convenient for, and accessible to, the communities served thereby.'.

I want to make similar but not identical points to those that have just been made. The amendment is moderate in effect and is meant to be helpful. It is in no way at odds with what the Government seek to achieve through the clause. I therefore hope that the Minister will embrace the amendment.

The clause deals with substitute road services when a railway passenger service has been either temporarily interrupted or discontinued. The amendment deals with the latter event. The clause must say that when a railway passenger service has been terminated, the route and stopping places of the substitute service need not correspond precisely to those of the discontinued service if, under subsection (3)(a)

''it is not practicable for them to do so; or . . . the substitute service broadly corresponds to the discontinued service in terms of the localities served.''

My amendment seeks to widen the scope of paragraph (b) and it is appropriate partly for some of the reasons that we heard in the previous debate. A station is very often on the outskirts of a village or town, and its siting was probably determined by the overall route of the railway track or even by the siting of a particular community not in the 1990s or even the 1950s but in the 1800s. So in many cases, the positioning of a railway station is not convenient to the local community, but it must live with it because it is all that the community has. When that service is terminated permanently and a substitute service is introduced and when there is a clear case for altering the route and moving the stopping points to make the service more popular, that is what we should do.

I accept that the clause contains several safeguards and it is right that it does. We do not oppose the general thrust of the clause, which is a welcome part of the Bill. Our amendment, however, seeks to allow greater flexibility than that given by subsection 3(b) where it is appropriate and right to do so. I commend it to the Committee.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the chance to discuss his amendment. In substance, what we say about practicability and the use of the phrase

''broadly corresponds to the discontinued service in terms of the localities served''

does, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, offer some safeguards. However, given that I am still in Leslie Phillips mode rather than yobbo mode—

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

Or Sid James mode.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Or Sid James mode. It may be worth while if the closure guidance outlined in clause 42 makes reference to the spirit of the amendment, but I think that there is flexibility in the Bill. We can elaborate on the thrust of clause 40—in terms of improvements and greater convenience and accessibility for communities—in the guidance rather than in the Bill, because the matter is already covered there.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Is the Minister giving a commitment to including my suggestion in the guidance or to considering doing that in the guidance?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am giving a strong hint that I will consider putting it in the guidance, unless the army that stands behind me—and I am but one man—tells me that there is a very good reason not to include it.

The right hon. Gentleman's points are entirely fair. He recognises that there are safeguards in the clause. Those safeguards suffice, but adding what he suggests to the guidance on closures may well give us the extra flexibility that he seeks, although it is better placed in guidance. I am giving him the assurance that I will reflect on the issue, and I will put what he suggests in guidance unless I find a good reason not to do so.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am most grateful to the Minister. I much prefer the Leslie Phillips we are seeing today to the leather-jacketed yobbo. I only ask that he lets me know two days before Report where his conclusions, so that if he gives me a disappointing reply, we have time to return to the matter then. On the basis of the Minister's very fair response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

At the moment, the clause provides the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Assembly with the power to secure the provision of substitute bus services, but there is no duty. Can the Minister explain why he is not imposing a duty on the Government to provide substitute services in the circumstances set out in the clause? It would mean altering ''may'' in subsection (1)(b) to ''shall''.

I would also be grateful if the Minister explained what he means by ''secure'' in subsection (1)(b); at whose expense would it be secured? It is easy to require something to be secured, but who will pay for it? Does the provision mean that the national authority—in the case of England, the elected Government—will use taxpayers' money to pay, or would the expense be imposed on Network Rail or the organisation proposing the withdrawal of the rail passenger service? I would be grateful if the Minister explained a little more about which person would have to pay in the event of the Government or national authority securing the provision of a substitute service.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government's policy on the whole issue of substitute road services. He spoke eloquently of the consequences of the Beeching cuts. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate two days ago, I was the secretary of my school railway society when Dr. Beeching made his cuts, and I remember warning of the consequences that would flow from them.

At that time, I took a great interest in the railways. We know that since those cuts, many of the substitute bus services have disappeared completely. Is it the Government's policy that where a railway passenger service is closed, there shall be a substitute bus service, or is their policy that there should be one occasionally, infrequently, more than infrequently, or sometimes? We have had some sympathetic words from the Minister about his desire to maintain a substitute service, but if one looks at the detail of the Bill, there is no obligation on the Government to do that. That is why it is important to seize this opportunity to get a statement from the Minister on his Government's policy on requiring a substitute road service where a passenger rail service is discontinued.

I am also interested in the Minister's view of the current position on temporary interruptions to railway passenger services. In cases of temporary interruption, the provision of a substitute service seems to be a bit hit and miss.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Apart from commenting on the startling revelation, which came as a shock to all of us, that the hon. Gentleman was secretary of his railway society at school—that really does explain a lot—the most substantive response that I can offer that is relevant to the clause is that the clause is designed simply to replicate all that currently prevails under section 214 of the Transport Act 2000, which we are seeking to repeal.

The situation regarding temporarily interrupted services will be as it is now. The clause brings up to date the provisions of the 2000 Act—and, I think, those prior to that, because the 2000 Act did not change very much of that which prevailed in the 1993 Act. The word is ''may'' rather than ''shall'' because, without wanting to give the hon. Gentleman a headache by going on again about undue specificity, it will not be appropriate in all circumstances for a bus or taxi service to be substituted, temporarily or otherwise, for a discontinued or temporarily interrupted service; something else might well be required. If we use ''shall'' rather than ''may'', however, whatever the circumstances, whatever is most appropriate, every single time there is an interruption or a discontinuation of service, there will be a bus or taxi replacement, whether it is appropriate, entirely barmy or otherwise. The provision must be permissive to leave the appropriate degree of flexibility for the authority.

The thrust of the clause is simply to take on board those elements of section 214 of the Transport Act 2000 relating to powers that rested with the SRA, whose existence we are ending. There is nothing new, nothing startling, no secret or hidden agenda; we are keeping the powers, but keeping them for the Secretary of State and other national authorities named throughout the Bill, rather than leaving them with the SRA, which will no longer exist. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

We must put on record how disappointing it is that the Minister has not taken the invitation that I gave him to express unequivocally what the Government's policy will be in relation to the closures that will follow the Bill's enactment. The Minister had the opportunity to say that, except in the most exceptional circumstances, the Government would require a substitute alternative service. The Minister has not said that, but has said that he wishes to retain flexibility and to look at each case on its merits. That will cause a lot of people to be concerned that the Government want to reduce the size of the rail network and are not even committed to providing alternative road services.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Closures guidance

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The main import of the clause is to state that, quite properly, there is a duty on Scottish Ministers to publish guidance. Will the Minister confirm that subsection (7) is wide enough to cater for a potential situation in which Scottish Ministers consulted with an English company operating a service that starts in England in respect of an English station?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am pretty sure that the answer is no, and if it is not I will want to know the reason why. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It is appropriate that the respective funding authorities issue their own guidance in the context of their own areas. It is an interesting point. Let me explore it and I will get back to the right hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

No, I have finished.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I am most grateful to the Minister for seeking to answer my point. [Interruption.] It seems as though my point of order is being answered as I speak. I was about to say that we should have a Scottish Minister here to deal with this matter, and I am delighted to see that hon. Lady has materialised. Perhaps, with your indulgence, Mr. Amess, I can repeat the question that the English Minister attempted to answer. I do not criticise him for not knowing the position.

''Before publishing or modifying any guidance under this section the person with the duty of publishing the guidance must consult—

(a) such persons operating railway passenger services, networks and stations that are affected by the proposed guidance''.

If we are dealing with a service that runs across the border from England into Scotland, would this mean, in effect, that Scottish Ministers would have to consult with an English company operating a service that crossed the border into Scotland in relation to English stations on the English side of the border?

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I am not sure whether that was a point of order.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Amess. It started off as a point of order and as I saw the Scottish Minister enter the Room, it mutated into a question to her. Alluding to my mutated point of order, may I ask the Scottish Minister to respond?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Following on from the point that my right hon. Friend has made, and seeking as best I can to represent the interest of the Scottish National party, which is not represented in this Committee, may I ask the Minister the following question? Will the draft guidance produced by Scottish Ministers be made available to members of the Committee in roughly the same time scale as the Minister said the guidance relating to English Ministers will be issued?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The short answer is yes, no, maybe, who knows? Not being a Scottish Minister in the terms of the Bill, I am not responsible for the guidance produced by Scottish Ministers, so it would be wrong of me even to suggest that it will or will not be available. I have given the Committee assurances on the guidance for which I am responsible, and that is the situation that prevails.

To the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), let me say that the key element is the points made in subsection (2) rather than subsection (7) about cross-border proposals. To modify my earlier no, I think that there could be a case in which what was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman prevailed in relation to services in the immediate border area. I thought that he was alluding to whether, simply because Great North Eastern Railway, for example, an English company, operates on the east coast main line, Scottish Ministers would have to be consulted or consult on what prevails on the line from London all the way up to the border. That is what I answered no to, but in border areas there may well be some overlap and due diligence would dictate that there is consultation both ways, because of the nature of the cross-border service.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I was making the latter point, which I think the Minister has now answered. I am grateful to him for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Exclusion of liability for breach of statutory duty

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I invite the Minister to explain to the Committee and place on record the reasons why he believes that access to the courts should be removed. That is a very serious matter that should be contemplated only in exceptional circumstances. It is therefore right that he place on record why he feels that under the clause there should be an exclusion of liability for breach of statutory duty.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

As I understand it, and with the caveat that I am no lawyer, the answer is that any number of the isolated applications for closure under the provisions of this part of the Bill that a network operator or funding authority can make could, in the wider scheme of things, be construed as a breach of statutory duty in the widest possible sense of providing a network and so on. There is no point having a closures or network modification procedure if there is not a concomitant relaxation of the liability for breach of the wider contracts or obligations. The clause excludes from liability for breach of statutory duties operators and railway funding authorities under certain obligations arising from part 4. Therefore, one part of the law says, ''You can, in these circumstances and by this process, implement modifications or closures,'' but that might clash with or breach other statutory duties. The measure reflects section 50 of the Railways Act 1993 and is needed because there could, by the closure of an element such as a station, line or service, be breaches of the wider statutory duties imposed on the bodies. There is no evil intent of circumscribing the law or the courts.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Interpretation of Part 4

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 47, line 37, leave out '28(7) or (8)' and insert '28(6) or (7)'.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Bye-laws

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 48, line 41, at end insert

', whether lawfully or as a trespasser.'.

This clause is at the beginning of part 5, and it contains the provision to allow a railway operator to make byelaws regulating one or more of the areas subsequently listed. I am concerned that it should be made quite clear that subsection (1)(d), which relates to the right to make a byelaw in respect of

''the conduct of persons while on relevant assets'',

is a wide provision, and includes a person who is on railway assets whether lawfully or as a trespasser. In essence, there are two classes of persons who are likely to be on railway property: the customer, who may or may not be a yob, as most are well behaved and it is the unfortunate minority who fall foul of byelaws; and the trespasser, who is far more likely to be a yob or a thief, or perhaps just an uninvited rambler, and is on railway property and deliberately or accidentally causing damage.

Both those categories must be covered by the provision. As drafted, it may well cover the trespasser and the lawful invitee, but there should be no doubt and railway operators should have the power to make the widest possible byelaws to protect their property from wanton acts of vandalism. The amendment would therefore remove any uncertainty. Most railway operators have in the past used the legislation properly to make fair, not oppressive byelaws, in order to maintain their property and prevent it from being damaged.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Perhaps I missed a crucial part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. His amendment would add the phrase

''whether lawfully or as a trespasser'',

which means, in other words, whether lawfully or unlawfully. In what other way could a person be present on the railway? I am not quite sure why that must be said and why the clause must be amended. Obviously, anyone present will be so either lawfully or illegally.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

That is a fair point, but our history of law making is littered with cases that come before the appellate court in which the court has taken a more restrictive view of legislation than Members of Parliament and peers did when passing it in this place. There is a Latin phrase in that regard, but I am looking for assistance in recalling it.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I cannot assist my right hon. Friend with that phrase, but I can point out that there are certain duties of care that any owner has to trespassers, as well as to people who are legally on his property. I think that that is what my right hon. Friend had in mind when he tabled the amendment. I am afraid that my Latin is less good even than his; it is some 20 years since I did my O-level.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The precise pronunciation of the Latin phrase may come to me before I sit down, but in case after case, the courts have held that what lawmakers thought was the scope of a provision was narrower than had been anticipated.

The amendment seeks to make it clear that the railway companies can make byelaws that cover not only those who are their legitimate customers, but those who are on their property unlawfully or even accidentally. The blundering rambler who finds that he or she is on railway property, perhaps because of the absence of a fence to keep people out, and unintentionally causes damage, should be subject to a byelaw just as much as the yob or the customer who gets out of control, perhaps through drink, and starts to cause damage. The amendment seeks to give railway operators maximum scope to make appropriate byelaws to protect their property. I ask the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart what is wrong with that.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I support what my right hon. Friend says in his amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept its import. One of the problems is that people who currently get on to the railways as trespassers cause a disproportionate amount of disruption and damage. One needs only to think of all those cases in which services are significantly delayed because of people on the line to realise the extent of the problem. I am talking not about people who throw themselves on to the line to commit suicide, but people who trespass on the line. In the context of this opportunity to discuss byelaws, it seems to me that the Bill would be much stronger if it included the powers advocated by my right hon. Friend.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The short answer is that it does. The most appropriate definition proposed in the Bill in relation to the 2000 Act simply defines people as people. It does not question the reason why they are on railway assets, whether for good or ill, or legally or otherwise. The byelaws should be focused on everyone, and not change because someone is there illegally and trespassing and not as a customer or passenger. The byelaws reflect and are directed at everyone who, for whatever reason, is on railway property.

I understand the import and the thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I assure him that the amendment is entirely unnecessary. Under law, as I understand it, we seek the broadest definition. In the context of byelaws, it is not at all germane whether someone is on the assets by trespass or lawfully. In this case, we do not need specificity but the broadest definition, which says that if a person is on railway assets, they are obliged to take note and follow the byelaws. It is as simple as that, although I understand his concern and where he is coming from.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

If those who advise the Minister on such matters are satisfied that the clause as drafted would cover the eventualities that I have outlined to the Committee and he is content with the advice that he has received, I am also content. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

It is not very often that we have the chance to discuss railway byelaws in the round in a Committee, but this is a good opportunity to do so. Can the Minister tell me whether the powers contained in the clause are ones that he would expect to be used more forcefully in respect of people who cause disruption to railway journeys by trespassing on the line and, to be blunt, committing suicide—choosing to use the railway's assets as the location in which to commit suicide? That is highly damaging to the drivers of trains. When I served on the Health and Safety Commission, one of the biggest railway safety problems that we had to deal with was the impact on a driver of seeing somebody committing suicide in front of a train.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The hon. Gentleman is attempting to make a serious point, but what byelaw could punish somebody who had committed suicide?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

That is a matter worth exploring. The person who committed suicide could not be penalised, but if people with assets—we are not talking about people who do not have any assets—are the cause of an enormous amount of consequential loss, what power is there under the byelaws for the network operator to sue the estate of a person who has deliberately put the health and safety of a train driver in jeopardy and inconvenienced an enormous number of travelling passengers? My concern is not so much about the other travelling passengers as about the fact that, by choosing to commit suicide on the railways, people cause an enormous amount of physical and mental damage to train drivers.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Given the rather insensitive and brutal tone of the hon. Gentleman's comments, does he not agree that it is just as well that the clause gives train companies the power to make byelaws rather than members of the Committee?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman described my remarks as brutal. If he was the relative of or had himself been a train driver who had been confronted with the consequences of somebody throwing themselves on to the line in front of a train, he would not make light of this serious issue, which is of immense consequence. Most people hear about such suicides only by reading a short article in the local paper or, if they happen to be a travelling passenger, noticing that services have been severely disrupted. However, the consequences for train drivers of somebody throwing themselves in front of a train when it has no ability to stop without running that person over are serious.

In the context of the Bill providing a chance to legislate about the issue, I am asking the Minister whether he is satisfied that the existing byelaws are sufficient to enable the train operating companies or the network operator to sue the estate of people who cause the damage to which I refer. Something like that needs to be done as a deterrent because people's whose minds are seriously disturbed, such that they are minded to commit suicide—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I think that the Minister has understood the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Will he therefore kindly draw his remarks to a conclusion?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Amess. I share your optimism that the Minister has understood my point.

I conclude by asking the Minister to address the issue of deterrence. If there were severe penalties for committing suicide on a railway line that would bear financially on their estate, they might be deterred from doing it.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am not going to follow the point made by my hon. Friend. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, there may be remedies available other than railway byelaws.

I ask the Minster whether the examples given in subsection (2) are limited by the scope of subsection (1), or does he view subsection (2) as freestanding and in no way limited by subsection (1)? To give him an example of what I am thinking, could subsection (2)(e), which refers to

''bye-laws for the prevention of nuisance'',

include a nuisance which is outwith the assets of the railway company? If a particular station was plagued by noise nuisance from a nearby property, does the Minister envisage that the byelaws could cover the eventuality that someone who was not on railway property was nevertheless causing a nuisance to those who were on railway property? Or does he feel that the scope of these byelaws will apply only in the case of subsection (1), paragraphs (a) to (d)?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

To be entirely fair, the byelaws, by definition, must apply to the utilisation of those relevant assets, and people's behaviour on those assets. There are other recourses to law from any source of nuisance that is outside those assets. But because subsection (2) says ''may include'', of course, paragraphs (a) to (g) are not meant to be exhaustive in any regard. They are simply indicative.

The hon. Member for Christchurch makes some very serious points about suicide, not least the impact on drivers. If one has been up in the cab of an express train, as I have, one can imagine the horror, and it is all the greater on a commuter train, especially when, as they frequently do, these things happen at busy stations.

I shall not apologise for the hilarity on my own side; all that the hon. Gentleman said has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanisms for making byelaws or the substance of the byelaws, as in this clause. He is either being obtuse or, given that it is late in the day, completely stupid, by raising such very serious points, not least the ones about drivers, in the context of mechanisms to make byelaws—completely stupid in the sense that, if he is offering a suggestion as to what rail byelaw might prevent some poor unfortunate from committing suicide, he is bonkers. If he is suggesting that rail byelaws should somehow outweigh probate, tort and other forms of legislation in the wider English legislative context, he is even more bonkers than I thought. So I do not apologise for the hilarity on the Government Benches; there was sotto voce hilarity on the Opposition Benches. Those are very serious points, but to conflate them with the mechanisms for making, and the substance of, byelaws is deliberately and utterly obtuse.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Under the circumstances, I think not.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I did not stop the flow of the debate because I was fascinated by it. I assume that you took the view that ''bonkers'' is a parliamentary term, but I should like to know whether that really is the case.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

This has been such a pleasant afternoon up until now. I will reflect on whether the term ''bonkers'' is accepted parliamentary language.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Further to my point of order, Mr. Amess. I freely send my apologies to the Clerk for landing him in it as well.

Schedule 9

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

For the benefit of my colleagues who are hanging on to the edge of their seats waiting for me to recall the Latin phrase that I mispronounced, I understand it is eiusdem generis. I am grateful for confirmation that that is the case.

There are two amendments to the schedule on the amendment paper in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, but they are starred and have therefore not been selected. I make no criticism of the Chair for that, but I wish to ask the Minister why the schedule is worded as it is and not worded as it would be if those amendments had been agreed to.

Also, should not the scope and content of byelaws be made widely available? We have all seen those notices on A1-size hoardings, not only in railway stations but elsewhere, detailing byelaw after byelaw and printed in such minuscule type they are difficult to read even when one is standing close to them. Should there not be a duty or some encouragement properly to inform fare-paying passengers or those seeing them off on a journey of the restrictions imposed upon them? Should there not be some encouragement, or a even duty on stations, to display the byelaws?

Just as aircraft have in-flight magazines these days, a lot of train operating companies have rail magazines that are available in the carriages of the trains. Should there not be some encouragement or duty either to publish such byelaws in any train magazine available or to affix them to the doors, so that passengers can become fully acquainted with the scope of the restrictions that are properly imposed upon them?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

This gives me an opportunity to come back to the Minister on the issues that I discussed earlier. The schedule sets out the penalties for breaches of byelaws. In the light of the Minister's acceptance of the gravity of the situations that I described, and in the knowledge that on some occasions people do not succeed in committing suicide but do give a major fright to the driver and disrupt the railway services for many hundreds or thousands of other passengers, does the Minister believe that the penalties in paragraph 2 of the schedule are sufficient to reflect the seriousness of such trespassing?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The thrust and content of the provisions dealing with the 28-day period are the same as in the Transport Act 2000, which we think is about right, given the experience.

I share the concern that, beyond the publicity outlined in the schedule, it should be incumbent on train operating companies and owners of stations to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the relevant information, but I do not think that there should be a requirement in the Bill or elsewhere in statute. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire knows that the Bill makes provision for anyone who requests a copy of such information to get a free copy, but it is certainly in the interests of the operators for those byelaws to be fully publicised, especially if they are peculiar to a particular station or line.

In practice, such information is designated, but not exactly drawn to people's attention, in major stations, and there has to be a copy in the operator's principal office as well. However, the wider point of getting such details disseminated as much as possible—by exhortation rather than statute—should prevail.

I also take the point about there being significant disruption with a suicide, but I do not understand how a byelaw could capture the liability for disruption to the wider business, not just of the rail operator but of anyone else, that the failed suicide has placed himself under. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there are other areas of law to seek redress in such circumstances.

To take a more recent case, no byelaw would have prevented an individual from parking their car where they did at the Ufton Nervet rail crossing. With the best will in the world, no byelaw could seek redress from the estate of that individual for liabilities encountered by the rail operating company due to loss of business or anything else. It is not for byelaws to do that. As it happened, the driver was not insured, but the drivers insurance bureau—or whatever the name is of that legal catch-all for drivers' insurance—covered that dimension.

I am not decrying the substance of what the hon. Gentleman said about the import to or impact on businesses or individuals, especially drivers, of suicide, but I can envisage no circumstance in which byelaws of rail operating companies would be the way to seek redress. Suicide and such things are far more important than a nuisance byelaw created for the smooth flow of traffic and utilisation of rail assets on the Great Western or any other line. That is why I was angry and why I called the hon. Gentleman bol—bonkers, for which I apologised. I nearly said what I was really thinking. Schedule 9 as it is, including the levels of fines for the purposes for which the byelaws are intended, is more than appropriate, and I commend it to the Committee.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I have already decided that ''bonkers'' is unparliamentary, and the other word certainly would have been as well.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The Opposition welcome the Minister's support for my view of what should be best practice and, on the basis of what he said, I do not seek to impede the addition of schedule 9 to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Code of practice for disabled rail users in Scotland

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will the Under-Secretary give us an assurance in respect of this clause, which relates to a code of practice for disabled rail users in Scotland? There is also widespread concern about assistance for disabled rail users in England, and it would be fair and equitable if, at the same time that a code of practice is published for Scotland, the Secretary of State decided to publish one for England. If the Under-Secretary cannot give me that assurance now, I hope that she will pass my request to the Secretary of State, as I certainly would not want disabled people in England to feel in any way that they were second-class citizens.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

In fact, disabled people will travel from Scotland to England, and part of the problem is that their treatment would be different in different places.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

The point that both the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Southport raised is important. As far as possible, we want uniformity for the codes of practice for disabled people across Great Britain, and to that end I am sure that there will be considerable liaison between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers.

This clause transfers the power that the Secretary of State holds for the UK to Scottish Ministers in line with the decisions that the Committee has previously made in transferring functions to Scottish Ministers. I will draw the right hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who is of course also the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am advised that there will be considerably more liaison and uniformity than is obvious from this clause. If there is any change to that position, I will advise both the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 48 and 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 18 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.