§ Mr. BrakeI beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 85, line 36, at end insert—
'(6A) The Franchising Director shall consult the Mayor before proposing any changes to rail services which will affect the level of provision of rail services in Greater London.'.The amendment would give the mayor greater powers—or at least a greater say—over rail services in London. I hope that all hon. Members agree that London needs an integrated transport strategy. Such a policy should include the tube, buses and trains. Regrettably, rail at present is missing from the integrated transport strategy.The mayor will have control over buses. He or she eventually will have a degree of influence over the tube. If the Government's public-private partnership proposals collapse, the mayor may have much greater control over the tube system. However, the rail system remains outside the mayor's grasp.
That is very bad news for commuters. Today's briefing from the Save Our Railways campaign identifies 91 London centres that will miss out because the mayor does not have control over rail. I believe that the list should contain 94 such centres, the three missing from the original list being Beddington, Wallington and Hackbridge. All such centres will miss out because rail services will not be integrated fully into the mayor's powers or responsibilities. The amendment would enable the mayor to have a complete strategy for controlling all aspects of transport in London, and not leave out the rail service, which is a major people-mover.
§ Ms Glenda JacksonI trust that I will be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman about the mayor's powers in connection with surface rail and about the underground. I assure him that there is no danger of the public-private partnership collapsing, and the mayoral power will be complete when the underground transfers into Transport for London, after the successful completion of the public-private partnership.
Amendment No. 34 would place a duty on the franchising director to consult the mayor before proposing any changes to rail services which will affect the level of provision of rail services in Greater London.
Again, however, there is no need for this amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will find that consoling. As I made clear in Standing Committee, we intend to bring forward an amendment at a later stage that will place a duty on the franchising director to consult the mayor on the level of provision of services within London. Our intention is that the duty on the franchising director will be similar to that currently imposed on him in respect of London Transport by section 31A of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. This duty will be in addition to the duty of co-operation placed on the franchising director and Transport for London by clause 137.
I should also like to say a few words about how we intend that the Bill should deal with the mayor's powers in respect of the national rail network. There was substantial debate in Standing Committee of our proposals in this area. Some hon. Members expressed concern—and we
779 have heard it again today—that the mayor's rail powers needed to be further strengthened. In the event, the Committee endorsed the principle behind the relevant clauses and decided that they did not require amendment at that stage. However, I indicated to the Committee that the Government would consider bringing forward some amendments at a later stage in particular areas.
I am now in a position to indicate to the House the nature of the amendments that we envisage. Although it has not been possible to prepare those amendments for consideration on Report, we intend to table the amendments for consideration in the other place.
The aim of this package of amendments will be to fine-tune the balance between the real powers that the mayor will have, and the wider national objectives of the franchising director and his successor, the Strategic Rail Authority. The principle to which we are adhering is that, although the mayor should have a significant degree of influence over London's railways, that influence should complement and not detract from the need for the Strategic Rail Authority to take an overall strategic view and to address the key issues facing Britain's railways.
I should make it clear that this Bill, of necessity, refers to the franchising director rather than the Strategic Rail Authority. Subject to parliamentary approval, the functions given to the franchising director by the Bill will eventually be inherited by the Strategic Rail Authority.
I shall turn to the specific amendments that we propose. First, we intend to bring forward an amendment at a later stage that will provide for the mayor to issue instructions as well as guidance to the franchising director, subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of clause 165. That was an issue to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who unfortunately is not in his place, drew attention during the Standing Committee's consideration of the clauses on railways, although his suggestion was that the mayor should be able to issue directions to the franchising director, rather than simply guidance.
The amendment that we propose is designed to bring the mayor's powers more closely into line with those of the Secretary of State who, by virtue of section 5 of the Railways Act 1993, is able to issue both instructions and guidance to the franchising director. The 1993 Act does not empower the Secretary of State to issue directions to the franchising director, and so I hope that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Carshalton and Wallington will accept that our formulation is more appropriate.
Secondly, we intend to bring forward an amendment at a later stage to make it clear that the franchising director is to implement the mayor's instructions and guidance
in the manner best calculated to give effect to the instructions and guidance".This would replace the Bill's current wording, which simply requires the franchising director to implement the mayor's guidance. This would be a technical amendment, again designed to harmonise the Bill's wording with that in section 5(1) of the Railways Act 1993, imposing a duty on the franchising director similar to that which he is currently under in respect of instructions and guidance issued to him by the Secretary of State.780 Thirdly, we shall table an amendment to the effect that the mayor's instructions and guidance to the franchising director shall include instructions in respect of additional railway services to be procured by the franchising director on behalf of the authority. That is so that the franchising director can ensure that the best use is made of scarce track capacity on the London rail network, and can advise the mayor on the best way of meeting his or her requirements for additional services.
Fourthly, we shall table an amendment to clarify the position where there is a conflict between the instructions and guidance issued by the mayor and those issued by the Secretary of State. The amendment will make it clear that, while it is for the Secretary of State to set the overall strategic policy for the railways in Britain, it will be open to the mayor to issue instructions and guidance on operational matters which impact directly on users of rail services in London.
We shall also table an amendment to deal with the procurement of additional rail services and facilities by London local authorities other than the Greater London Authority. We intend to table an amendment in the Lords to give the mayor the power to promote new network improvements and to comment on or oppose proposals advanced by others. That will be done by giving the mayor the ability to promote and oppose local Bills in Parliament and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
We believe that that package of amendments will more fully define the relationship between the mayor and the franchising director and give each of them a clear framework of co-operation within which to work. As we made clear in the London White Paper, the franchising director and the Strategic Rail Authority will retain the final say over rail, but the mayor will have a crucial role to play in improving London's rail services and will have the powers needed to make a difference. In that light, I trust that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. WilkinsonI apologise for intervening after missing the speech by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). However, the Minister's statement is of such significance that it cannot go unanswered. She made a series of pronouncements that should be incorporated in new clauses. She said that references to the national rail network in this part of the Bill will in future often relate to the Strategic Rail Authority. The mayoralty will have powers beyond guidance to the franchising director in the form of instructions. The mayoralty will have a strategic responsibility vis-a-vis the railways in London that was not envisaged when the Bill was published. The changes were not mooted by the Government on Second Reading or in Committee.
I greatly welcome the new provisions because if the Greater London Authority is to be genuinely strategic, one of the most important strategic functions is the co-ordination and rationalisation of the provision of public transport in the capital. It made little sense for the mayoralty to be able to issue guidance to the franchising director but to be unable to make dispositions as to the facilities and resources necessary to bring about the co-ordination that is central to the mayoralty's role.
I hope that their Lordships will give those matters the closest scrutiny. I welcome the outline of the new provisions but several questions are begged by the 781 Minister's observations. As she admitted, there could be conflict between the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State and the mayoralty to the franchising director. There will be a mechanism to resolve that conflict, but Londoners will want the mayor and his authority to have the predominant power to bring about the rationalisation of public transport facilities in the railway sector that the Bill was intended to achieve and that it has hitherto lacked the mechanism to bring about. The Government are moving in the right direction, but I wish that they had spelt it out much more clearly a lot earlier.
§ Mr. BrakeI thank the Minister for her statement, which is of some significance. I welcome her announcement that the Government will table amendments in the other place. It is important that they fine-tune arrangements between the mayor and the franchising director and between the mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority. I hope that that will shift the balance of power away from the franchising director towards the mayor, as I think the Minister said would happen. The views of the mayor and of Londoners should be paramount in discussing London rail services. I welcome the fact that the mayor will be able to promote new services. In those circumstances, I shall not press the amendment.
§ Ms Glenda JacksonI wish briefly to respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). In Committee, I said:
We intend to table an amendment at a later stage that will place a duty on the franchising director".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 February 1999; c. 743.]In some of our lengthy and substantial debates in Committee, I said that the Government were considering tabling amendments later on particular matters. That is what we have done. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's response to what I said. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for welcoming the Government's proposals and for his commitment to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.