§ Lords amendment: No. 7, in
§
Page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) If any condition (the "broken condition") of a licence exemption is not complied with—
may give to any relevant person a direction declaring that the licence exemption is revoked, so far as relating to that person, to such extent and as from such date as may be specified in the direction.
§
(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6) above—
condition", in relation to a licence exemption, means any condition subject to compliance with which the licence exemption was granted;
relevant person", in the case of any licence exemption, means a person who has the benefit of the licence exemption and who—
114
§ Mr. FreemanI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Madam SpeakerWith this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 18, 24, 178 to 181 and 187.
§ Mr. FreemanThere are two aspects of this group of amendments that I shall draw to the attention of the House. First, the principle amendments Nos. 7 and 24 deal with the powers of the Secretary of State or the regulator to revoke licence exemptions when breaches occur. The Bill needed improvement to make it plain that when an undertaking that has been given and formally recognised in the licence is breached, for example, the failure to honour a commitment on through ticketing, which is to be a condition of a licence agreement and a most important network benefit, then the regulator—in certain cases the Secretary of State will grant the licence—has the power to revoke the licence exemption where an exemption has been granted.
The more important reason for amendments Nos. 8 and 16 is to do with where there is a particular group of railway lines that involves both licensed and exempt activities. We realise that there may well be examples of that and I shall cite one in a moment: the Heathrow Express, which is most important. There may well be examples on the network where the running of trains is subject to the licensing regime because the railway service is plying for hire, carrying passengers on the track infrastructure and, also, where the same railway service runs are on exempt—privately owned—track. That may well also be the case for preserved railways.
The Heathrow Express example is the best that I can cite at the present time. The Heathrow Express service has reached the stage where an agreement has been concluded and we hope that construction will start shortly. The Heathrow Express is a spur from the western mainline connecting new stations at Heathrow central and terminal four to Paddington. The House will know that that service will run on licensed main track on the Great Western railway for most of its journey. It is a joint venture between the British Airports Authority and British Rail on 70–30 equity terms, with the majority coming from BAA in the private sector. Heads of agreement were agreed in March and the detailed agreement has now been concluded. Four trains per hour will run during the day on the 16-minute journey between Paddington and Heathrow central. Fares are to be set commercially by the joint venture and the level of fares presently contemplated are £9 single and £14 return. Contracts are now being tendered and let and main contruction will be under way soon. Services are expected to commence by the end of 1997. Approximately £300 million including the cost of the rolling stock will be invested.
The group of amendments, especially Nos. 8 and 16, deals with where it is expedient for public policy purposes not to control the fares on the whole service between Paddington and Heathrow. It is a non-stop service, partly running over track that would normally carry only licensed 115 services and partly over a private spur. We do not think that it is sensible in any way to interfere or regulate fares that will be and should be set commercially.
The amendments also provide for the transfer of the licences, including the Heathrow Express licence, but for that to occur there needs to be the consent of the Secretary of State or the regulator. At some stage in the future, that joint venture or others that benefit from the group of amendments may need to be sold or transferred, and there is a mechanism for that. Access to Heathrow by crossrail at some stage in the future will be possible, but the commercial agreement of the partners will clearly be needed for the joint venture.
Undoubtedly, the licence conditions—the Lords amendments clarify the position—can apply, for example, to the provisions for through ticketing or to other common operating procedures. There has been some anxiety that some of the arrangements for common operation between two franchisee companies might fall foul of either the licensing conditions or other legislation. We have made it plain in the Lords amendments that such arrangements are appropriate and can be included in the licence conditions.
I should be glad to answer detailed questions on any of the other Lords amendments in the group. I commend the amendments to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.