§ Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)I beg to move amendment No. 420, in page 102, line 23, at end insert—
'(d) to identify unmet needs for railway services;(e) to expand the railway network where appropriate.'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 410, in clause 183, page 102, line 26, at end insert—
'( ) the Secretary of State,'.No. 408, in page 102, line 33, leave out "directions and".No. 409, in page 102, line 34, leave out from "strategies" to end of line 38 and insert "of a general nature".
No. 459, in clause 184, page 103, line 19, leave out "and".
No. 460, in page 103, line 21, at end insert—
'and(g) to facilitate the implementation of local transport plans provided for in section 92 of this Act.'.No. 419, in clause 195, page 111, leave out line 39 and insert—( ) 'Provided that before disposing of any land the Authority shall, in consultation with the local transport authority and other interested parties, consider what potential for rail or other sustainable transport related use such land might offer, and protect the land accordingly.'.897 No. 413, in clause 201, page 118, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.
§ Mr. MooreThe Minister had some problems with my constituency in Committee, so I remind him that it is Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.
The amendment would extend the purposes of the Strategic Rail Authority. We are concerned that the Bill does not tackle the problems, mainly affecting rural areas, relating to the expansion of the network under the new regime. We are all aware of the substantial new investment already going into the rail sector and planned for the future. Railtrack recently published its latest network management statement. Over 12 months it has doubled its estimate of the investment to be made in the rail network in the next decade, although the latest list looked more like a wish list and a response to public concerns than a deliberate plan of investment. I am sure that we shall return to that issue in the coming months. Clearly, substantial investment is planned, and we hope that it will be delivered.
The new Strategic Rail Authority planned under the legislation has a crucial role to play in providing a focus for the development of the network and guiding where much of the investment will be made. Those of us who represent rural constituencies understand that many of the great projects connecting the large urban centres will grab the most attention and will require the most significant investment, but we believe that there is a requirement for a statutory duty to be placed on the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that other parts of the country, particularly where demand for additional rail services has not been met, should be well served.
There are many campaigning groups throughout the country, each with the cherished hope of reopening lines. Reopening lines has become a new industry, in welcome contrast to the pattern of events over the past 30 years or more. There are many examples of groups seeking to reopen important links to particular communities. The proposed Matlock to Buxton line is the subject of a major study. Similarly, hon. Members have supported the reopening of the Sudbury to Cambridge line. As I represent part of the Scottish Borders, it behoves me to mention in passing the Waverley line. If my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will wax eloquent about the need for that line.
In addition to the campaign groups, various studies are being carried out. DETR is sponsoring one on micro-franchising by the Transport Research and Information Network. That is an exciting idea on which I hope the Minister will be able to update us, as he said in Committee that the report should be produced before too long.
§ Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)I welcome the amendment. Will my hon. Friend clarify the fact that it would encourage the Strategic Rail Authority to look at opening up new routes and stations such as Laurencekirk station in my constituency, on the Aberdeen line? A new station would 898 encourage people to commute to Aberdeen and enable people living south of Aberdeen to access the rail network for inter-city journeys.
§ Mr. MooreMy hon. Friend gives an excellent example of the responsibilities that the Strategic Rail Authority would have under the proposed amendment, not simply in respect of the infrastructure links between towns and villages, but also in relation to stations. Clearly it would be important for the authority to work closely with Railtrack.
Why is there suddenly great demand to reinstate many of the lines that were so cruelly put out of use by the Beeching cuts and other misguided developments during the past 30 years and more? My hon. Friend referred to commuting, but economic development is also an important factor. The provision of an alternative route for freight is increasingly an issue for rural communities, not least following the Government's misguided intention of introducing 44-tonne lorries. Quite separately, there is the growing demand for tourism to be boosted by the development of rural rail services. That is not to be underestimated.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), said in Committee that he had last visited my constituency on the old Waverley line. That rather gave away his age. However, he came as a tourist and we have already invited him back so that he can climb the hills in my part of the country.
Apart from commuting and economic development, there is the additional benefit of social inclusion. Many rural communities and some quite sizeable towns are increasingly isolated from the main networks across the country and therefore do not benefit from economic and social benefits. The Government's agenda is clearly fixed on developing measures to tackle social exclusion. We believe that providing rail links where there is clearly a demand for them would help to deliver the social inclusion agenda.
6.45 pm
Those of us who represent constituencies where there were once railways are well aware of the impact of their closure over many years. We believe that the Strategic Rail Authority should be a catalyst for the regeneration of those areas and must knock heads together to ensure that Railtrack, train operators and others deliver proper services.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment, but if he believes that it would not achieve what it sets out to do, I hope that he will be able to tell us what guidance the Strategic Rail Authority will be given to ensure that our objectives are met.
Amendment No. 419, on land sales, seeks to ensure that all rail and sustainable development options are fully considered by all the relevant parties before the Strategic Rail Authority enters into the sales process, and that if it identifies proper rail opportunities, the land concerned will enjoy protection from the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government.
The amendment is necessary because there is concern about the way in which the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has been conducting the land sale process. 899 In Committee, we had impassioned debates on the subject, highlighting the fact that the Government's intention of developing an integrated transport system with railways at its heart was being undermined by the fact that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority—or the British Railways Board—was continuing to enter into open sales of all its remaining land assets. No preferential terms are offered to local authorities or rail interest groups, nor are they given first refusal.
In Committee, we emphasised in particular the ludicrous situation in Edinburgh, where the Abbeyhill loop—a crucial part of the infrastructure around Waverley station and a key part of the east coast main line, and therefore of strategic importance nationally—despite having been identified by the local authority as a key area for development, had been included in the sales process. The local authority was facing the dreadful prospect of having to divert resources to fund the acquisition of that piece of land. In Committee the Minister was clearly taken aback by that ludicrous situation, and on our last morning he made the significant announcement that there was to be a reprieve for the Abbeyhill loop; it was to be taken out of the sales process and offered exclusively to Railtrack. I hope that in his reply the hon. Gentleman will let us know how the process has developed, and what steps have been taken since that debate to ensure that the sale to Railtrack is properly under way.
The issue of the Abbeyhill loop highlighted the more general fact that a new procedure was needed. The Government could not argue that they wanted to develop their integrated transport structure under the Bill and promote rail as a first choice in that system, while selling off potentially important bits of land to developers, or anyone else who wanted them.
The Minister said that it should not be necessary to raise each case on the Floor of the House to ensure that action is taken. We welcome that, but if the amendment is not accepted, we need to be reassured that the Minister and his Department have done something to ensure that the sales process undertaken by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority is revised, and that the Minister has issued officials with new guidance.
We have been told that no amendment is necessary, and we would like to believe that. However, as we have demonstrated, the sell-off process has undermined many of the assurances that have been uttered publicly at various stages over many months. Transport 2000 wrote to Sir Alastair Morton, the chairman of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority in February, asking him how he saw the sale process as consistent with the need to protect land, as many local authorities are trying to do, under local transport plans. In particular, it asked at what point the land became safeguarded. Is it when it is in a draft plan that is not yet ratified, or only when the local transport plan has been formalised by the Government, which we realise is still many months away?
The Government are sponsoring various studies of ways in which different modes of transport can integrate, and how we can get rid of some of the congestion on our roads, which we have discussed at length this afternoon. It would surely be premature to allow these key strategic assets to be sold off while those studies are being undertaken and before the local transport plans are finalised.
900 Transport 2000 advised me that the reply from Sir Alastair Morton was bland, which those who know his public persona may find surprising and unlikely. In any event, Transport 2000 gained no greater reassurance from that response.
We need assurances from the Minister this evening that as soon as land is included in local transport plans or identified as falling into that category, it will be safeguarded. We also need to understand how, under the new procedures introduced for the Abbeyhill loop, the Strategic Rail Authority intends to intervene to protect other land across the United Kingdom.
In a report in the Financial Times on 17 April, Juliette Jowit noted that Tom Winsor, the rail regulator, is revising the Railtrack licence and might give himself the power to veto future Railtrack sales of land—an equally important issue. That point has not, as far as I can see, been echoed elsewhere. It was not touched on in Committee. It is relevant to how the Strategic Rail Authority will proceed, and to other points that I have raised. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate what the regulator's role will be in relation to Railtrack, and what the Government's overall vision is for the protection of land held in the public or private sector which may in the future have strategic use.
Integrated transport is the rallying call of the Bill, and we support it wholeheartedly. However, we do not believe that it will become a reality if the tools for integrating transport are stripped away from the relevant authorities before they take their formal powers. That would be a disaster for the vision; it would undermine what the Government want. We hope that in responding to the amendment, the Government will have a change of heart and demonstrate that they recognise that these are serious issues.
§ Mr. SymsI shall speak to our amendments Nos. 408, 409 and 410 and to one or two others. One concern that we raised in Committee about the Strategic Rail Authority, which we welcome, is the Secretary of State's ability to interfere in its operation. Clause 179 provides that the Secretary of State will appoint members of the authority. Subsection (4) states:
In making any appointment to membership of the Authority the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions of the Authority.People with experience that will add value to the authority will be appointed, and that we welcome. Yet clause 183, which sets out the purposes and strategies of the authority in the exercise of its functions, will allow the Secretary of State to interfere.We believe that the authority should have the confidence of the Secretary of State if it has capable people on it, and the political boss—the Secretary of State—should not have the temptation to interfere in its strategies. Our amendments would allow the Secretary of State to give only guidance of a general nature, rather than interfering with strategic planning. We made that point in Committee and we still feel strongly about it.
§ Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)I am pleased to take part in this short debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). There is nothing twee about Tweeddale—it is full of tweed, not tweeness. That might help the Minister to pronounce the name right eventually.
901 The veterans of the Standing Committee all look very well, considering the struggles that they had there. The Minister should not allow civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen to tack four separate Bills together and put the resulting Bill through the legislative process. Committee members have done well and been very generous. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has played an active part in considering the Bill in Committee, but parliamentary consideration is very hard when so many different issues are bagged together. The Minister might bear that in mind for the future.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale said. The responsibilities and duties imposed on the Strategic Rail Authority are important. It should, as my hon. Friend said, be an active catalyst in promoting new railways and Railtrack initiatives. Its purpose should be, as much as anything else, to help communities realise their maximum economic potential, as well as considering the technical and commercial aspects of plans.
Our region has a population of 108,000, and there is no railway station anywhere in the region. It cannot be right, in this new century, that people in south-east Scotland are disadvantaged to that extent. There has been a great deal of public support for the idea that the Waverley route should be reopened, and that a rail corridor through the region connecting the city of Edinburgh to the top of the railway network at Carlisle should be reinstated as soon as possible.
A huge psychological blow was inflicted on communities such as Hawick in my constituency 30 years ago when the railway was removed. The Ministers here tonight were obviously not there at the time, except perhaps as tourists on trains going up and down the Waverley route. I remind them that their ministerial predecessors at the time gave assurances about guarantees of additional public transport being made available to make good the losses resulting from the withdrawal of the railway, but those promises were never made good. People feel bitter about that, and remember the ministerial undertakings that were never kept. If the Strategic Rail Authority is not flexible enough to revisit those questions, the ministerial assurances given 30 years ago may never be fulfilled.
7 pm
There is clear evidence that economic stagnation in south-east Scotland resulted directly from the withdrawal of the Waverley line in 1969. Economic growth in the Scottish borders has suffered over the past 30 years. If anyone needs evidence of that, a comparison with what has happened to similar communities within striking distance of Edinburgh, such as Fife or other parts of the central belt, which have kept and maintained rail links with the capital, will show that their growth has been vastly different from that in the borders.
I am particularly concerned about communities such as Hawick, which is suffering real depopulation as a result of dramatic job losses in the knitwear industry. The heart of Hawick was ripped out when the Waverley line was closed.
§ Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnorshire)I fully support all that my hon. Friend is saying. Does he know 902 that Dr. Beeching axed the whole north-south rail route in Wales—the only one we had—in 1963? In Brecon, 115 people lost their jobs when six lines were closed down. As my hon. Friend says, it is vital that we should take the opportunity to reopen some of those lines, because the economic impact of closure was disastrous, especially in Wales.
§ Mr. KirkwoodI hope that the Minister will take a lead from my hon. Friend's helpful intervention by saying what powers are available. If the amendment is not acceptable, the Minister must make clear what we can expect from the SRA.
We have suffered job losses in areas such as Hawick, and there has been an impact on growth industries such as tourism, which are vital to rural parts of the UK. Also important is the ability of sectors such as agriculture to use transport at reasonable cost; the costs of transport in areas such as the highlands and south-east Scotland are high, and rising. It is becoming near impossible to attract any significant inward investment to areas denied access by their poor infrastructure.
The borders of Scotland have suffered greatly—perhaps more so, recently, than other parts of the UK, in terms of development and capital for road and rail infrastructure. I concur entirely with all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale about social inclusion, sustainability and integrated transport, all of which are essential. Individuals who live in areas such as south-east Scotland should be offered some degree of choice about how they travel. If there is no railway station in the region, choice is impossible.
Finally, the SRA should consider the transport of volume materials, such as timber, by heavy goods vehicles. Timber is a good example, not exclusive to Scotland. I know that Ministers are genuinely trying to promote improvements, but there are real concerns about the volume of timber being extracted from the forests of Wales and Scotland in places where a railway could have a positive impact. A few days ago there was a terrible tragedy at Langholm, in which two people were killed when a lorry spilled its load on to a road. The combination of inadequate roads and bigger lorries causes concern.
The timber industry is under financial pressure, and there is a temptation to do the job in ways that may prejudice safety. The guidelines need to be reconsidered. The Kielder forest has huge timber resources, and the planned southern borders railway would be a positive contribution to dealing with the problems raised. It would also spare small village communities that would otherwise suffer from 44-tonne trucks thundering through day and night, causing both inconvenience and danger.
I appeal to Ministers to accept the amendment. This cannot be simply a technical or financial question. The SRA must have the flexibility to look into the wider issues. If it does, it will be able to promote the development of some of the communities that we represent in ways that will not be possible unless the Bill includes explicit ministerial powers. Our amendment seeks to add those powers, and I support it.
§ Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam)I, too, support amendment No. 420, which would improve the Bill by clarifying the purpose of the Strategic Rail Authority and including a requirement to identify unmet need. I can illustrate that need by the experience in my constituency of the services by Connex SouthCentral.
903 The Minister will be aware that the latest performance figures rate Connex in category C. In the first national survey of commuters recently, Connex scored poorly on customer satisfaction—just 71 per cent. were satisfied or very satisfied with its services. Only yesterday, the Evening Standard published an analysis of complaints: across the rest of the south of England, complaints fell for the first time since privatisation, but Connex bucked the trend—complaints were up by 31 per cent., which is an appalling record.
From letters from constituents, I know that people feel that the services that they receive are very poor and do not meet their need to travel comfortably in a train that is not like a cattle truck. The Under-Secretary was present at a recent Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who, with me, highlighted serious defects in current services. Connex is providing a quite rotten service.
The amendment goes to the heart of turning the service round and meeting the needs of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore)—[Interruption.] I have not had as much coaching in the pronunciation of Tweeddale as have members of the Standing Committee. My hon. Friend discussed long-cherished hopes for the opening up of lines long closed. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has told us of the economic, social and other benefits that would arise. My constituents have a far more modest and less ambitious aim: they simply want Cheam station to be brought up to scratch.
Connex has been promising for years to invest in improving the facilities of Cheam station. Instead, the company has allowed the station to be vandalised, run down and neglected. The station makes people wish not to use the railway. It makes them feel unsafe and insecure. I shall paint a brief picture of the station; it may not have the colour and flamboyance of the Waverley line, but my constituents are concerned about it. The canopies that protect the travelling public if it is raining as they go up to London in the morning are broken. They have been broken for as long as I and many other people can remember. I have written numerous times to Connex, and have extracted promises that work would begin. Promises were made the year before last, and last year, but the work has not started yet.
If the Government cannot accept the amendment, my constituents undoubtedly still have an unmet need—to be able to wait for trains without getting soaking wet at Cheam station. They are receiving a C class service. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to ensure that Connex honours its long-given promises and to secure the investment that will improve that station. It may not involve the opening of a new line, but it will certainly make a big difference to many of my constituents.
§ Mr. RaynsfordWe have had a short but interesting debate on a matter that is of real concern to many hon. Members—in particular those who represent areas that lack rail services or whose constituents do not have a service of a sufficiently high quality.
I will try to respond to the matters raised and to do justice to the range of amendments. There is a wide range of amendments in this group, some of which would have 904 a different effect from that moved by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), whose constituency name caused a certain amount of merriment and difficulty in Committee. The civil service, with its incomparable skill in finding a way around such a difficulty, quickly had the hon. Gentleman down as "TEL". I will not draw any conclusions as to whether associations could be made with other people with a similar-sounding acronym.
The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case for action to deal with areas in his constituency—he sensibly and generously extended his comments to cover a wider area—where the absence of rail services has inevitably affected the availability of public transport options for people in need.
This group of amendments reaches the heart of the reasons for the establishment of the SRA and the way in which it will operate. First, the amendments would add specific items to the primary purposes of the authority and to the manner in which it must exercise its functions, as well as requiring it to review its property portfolio. Secondly, they would affect the overall coherent direction of railway policy by removing the Secretary of State's power to direct the authority and the requirement that the rail regulator should facilitate the furtherance by the authority of any strategies that it has formulated with respect to its purposes.
I shall start with amendment No. 420, as it would add to the fundamental purposes of the authority. The amendment raises an important question: the way in which potential unmet future demand for railway services can be met.
The aims of the amendments—to ensure that the authority identifies unmet needs for railway services and can expand the network where appropriate—are aims with which we totally agree. We are setting up a strategic body to plan for the long-term development of the railway network—to fill a gap that was left when the railways were privatised in a way that weakened the strategic overview. We recognise that demand is growing, that the railway needs developing and that the structure is not in place to meet that challenge. We have said that we want railways to take their rightful place at the heart of an integrated transport system. That is why one of the three high-level purposes that are to be part of the mission statement of the SRA, as set out in clause 182(b), is to
secure the development of the railway network.That is already in the Bill: it is clear and unequivocal. We are keen to secure the development of the railway network.That purpose includes considering the possible expansion of the network and the need for new lines to meet demand where appropriate. We have taken that purpose seriously and have given the SRA the tools to do the job. The SRA will be a facilitator and promoter of schemes. It will not necessarily take forward schemes itself—often that is the proper job of industry or of local authorities.
We have given the authority the tools that it needs in clause 188. Those powers are deliberately wide so that it can encourage and promote the industry by giving financial assistance or can assist in other ways. Where necessary, the authority can go as far as promoting a Bill in Parliament to facilitate growth, or it can request the rail regulator to direct facility owners to enhance facilities or provide new facilities.
905 It is that variety of tools, along with the high-level purpose to which I referred, that answers the concerns of Liberal Democrat Members as to how their objectives will be met. Schemes to expand the network to meet need will come from a variety of sources. The authority is in the prime position to encourage and support as appropriate. It will take a view on whether a proposal fits with its strategies for securing the development of the network. If it does, it might be commercially viable in its own right and it can be taken forward without difficulty by the industry. In cases where a proposal is not commercially viable, the SRA will be able to consider whether some direct public support is justified. It will have funds such as the rail passenger partnership fund to help with innovative schemes. It can also look at ways of sharing risk between the public and private sectors, where that might be the necessary precondition for getting a scheme to operate.
7.15 pm
Imaginative proposals to reopen lines are already being produced. I am therefore optimistic that the right structure will be in place when the Bill is enacted to enable the objectives so eloquently set out by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches to be met. I can assure the House that the SRA already covers those aims in its primary purposes and that we have given it the tools to do the job.
Amendments Nos. 459 and 460 would adversely affect the manner in which the SRA carried out its functions, and we do not consider them helpful or appropriate. We made it clear in Committee that we expect the SRA to facilitate and lead consultation with local and regional government. The SRA's strategies will promote rail use within an integrated transport system. Consistent with that national framework, the SRA will take account of the views of local and regional bodies. That will involve extensive consultation to identify the opportunities for rail.
We expect decisions about services to be taken in the light of local transport plans. However, the process needs to be a two-way process so that local plans are consistent with the national framework. That is why it is preferable to deal with the relationship in our guidance on local transport plans and in directions and guidance to the SRA, rather than on the face of the Bill. There are a great many policies and plans that the SRA will need to consider and it would be inflexible to specify them all in the Bill. Such a course would also fall foul of a problem that we frequently identified in Committee, to which we referred in shorthand as the "list" problem: if one identifies certain problems but fails to identify others, it is possible to infer that they have not been treated equally seriously.
The shadow SRA is starting to receive local transport plans and to assess them. It will consider all LTPs now that the new regime is in place. I hope that that answers the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who asked in Committee whether transport plans are being viewed by the shadow SRA. This will be part of a continuing process, as will communication of the shadow SRA strategy to local authorities.
Before I deal with the underlying purpose of amendment No. 419, I should explain to the House that it may be based on a misunderstanding of clause 195. That clause concerns non-operational land that the SRA will inherit from the British Railways Board. By definition, 906 subsection (2) of the clause relates only to land that the SRA does not need for the discharge of its other functions; that means, for example, land that has no prospect of future railway use. There is no need for the amendment because "land" under clause 195(2) cannot be land with potential rail use. If the land does have the prospect of future railway use, the Bill means that it is dealt with in accordance with the SRA's overall purposes, strategies and functions. That in itself is an important safeguard.
If the land does not have a railway use, the Secretary of State can direct the SRA about the way in which the land is to be disposed of. Such a direction could require the SRA to dispose of the land for alternative transport purposes. Cases can also be considered individually by the SRA on their merits.
Setting aside the technical aspects of the amendment, I recognise that the land issues continue to attract attention and concern, and to generate campaigns locally and nationally. The shadow SRA's property review, completed in September 1999, identified some 1,400 sites, of which only 200 were considered to have any transport potential. The remaining properties are small, disparate sites, or sites with development problems of poor access or land contamination. Many are remote from the operational railway.
Since the lifting of the suspension of land sales imposed during the review, the British Railways Board—as part of the shadow SRA—has initiated the first phase of sales, affecting some 600 sites, which will be undertaken under the new marketing process which gives priority to transport uses.
As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said in Committee, we cannot simply say that all former railway land should be put to one side. We have to reach decisions on a sensible basis, taking into account whether there is a realistic prospect of rail use in the foreseeable future. That is why the marketing process strikes a balance between disposing of surplus land and ensuring that sites for future transport use are identified.
I repeat to the House the assurance that my hon. Friend gave the Committee: the SRA will not take a short-term view. The creation of the shadow SRA, consisting of BRB and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising working closely together, means that land decisions by the BRB can be taken in the context of the shadow SRA's strategic considerations. That is a significant improvement. For example, it means that the BRB is not proceeding with the sale of any sites on the proposed east-west route from Cambridge to Oxford until a decision is taken on that important new rail scheme—or, rather, old closed rail scheme which may become a new rail scheme. The BRB will also think very carefully about any strategic freight sites. It will not rush to sell sites with potential for rail freight ahead of other sites in its portfolio, except where there is already a clear demand for them. That demonstrates that we are not repeating past mistakes by acting rashly and ordering BRB to sell off all land as quickly as possible.
We look to Railtrack and the industry to identify and acquire sites with transport potential. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham made it clear in Committee that the current sales process is not inexorable; it can and will be halted where there is strong justification for doing so. If sites with rail potential are not acquired by the rail 907 industry or local authorities, the shadow SRA will consider whether they should be retained for strategic use. That will involve some careful choices if we are to avoid the problems of blight and lost development opportunities that would otherwise arise if too much land were sterilised in that way. I hope that the commitments given in Committee, which I have repeated today, provide reassurance.
The second theme of the group of amendments is to question the way in which we can ensure that overall control and development of the railways pulls in the same direction.
Amendment No. 413 would amend clause 201, which itself amends section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. That sets the general duties of the Rail Regulator—and the Secretary of State—to reflect the changes that we are making in the railway industry. One way in which it does so is to ensure that the Rail Regulator and the authority work on the same broad strategic goals.
The amendment, tabled by Conservative Members, relates to the new duty that we have placed on the Rail Regulator, requiring him to facilitate the furtherance by the authority of its strategies. Let me make this absolutely clear: the Rail Regulator remains independent. It is still for the regulator to balance his various duties and objectives and take decisions that are in the best interests of the railway and its users. However, we need to ensure that, while taking account of these different functions, we align the Rail Regulator's duties as closely as possible with the authority's, so that they are moving in the same direction rather than working against each other.
The strategies that the authority will develop are fundamental to the future of the railway, and will be a vital consideration for the regulator when taking decisions relating to his own functions. It makes no sense to require the authority to formulate strategies if the regulator is free to ignore them. The provision is to preserve the balancing act that the regulator must maintain in carrying out his section 4 duties, and it defines one of the most important relationships between the regulator and the SRA.
Amendments Nos. 410, 408 and 409 are rather different. They seek to reduce substantially the power of the Secretary of State to direct the SRA and to give him instead the role simply of giving guidance and of a consultee. I, for one, do not consider that that is sufficient. Whatever their views on the specific policy, the people of this country are rightly concerned and vocal about transport policy. They expect their elected Government to take transport seriously, which we have done and will continue to do. To do so, we need to retain overall direction of railways policy, which these amendments would take away from us.
The SRA will be at the heart of the future direction and development of the railway network, and its strategies will provide the route map for the future. That is why we have, and need, these powers. The Secretary of State will be accountable to the House for the SRA as well as for its wider policies. To be accountable, he must have some control over the SRA that goes further than guidance or consultation.
It may reassure—or possibly discomfit—the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) if I remind them that the powers that they seek to do away with are not new, and are indeed well precedented.
§ Mr. RaynsfordThey occur, as the hon. Member for Poole rightly recognises, in the Railways Act 1993, which was so often referred to in our Committee proceedings, and with which both hon. Gentlemen will be very familiar. The Secretary of State currently gives objectives, instructions and guidance to the franchising director under the powers contained in the 1993 Act. By contrast, the prime objectives of the Strategic Rail Authority are on the face of the Bill, while the direction and guidance power available to the Secretary of State is equivalent to that in the 1993 legislation. I hope, therefore, that Conservative Members will recognise that their amendments are not appropriate and should be withdrawn.
In conclusion, I shall briefly refer to the specific points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale raised several issues. He specifically asked when we could expect to see the micro-franchising report. The answer is that it is due in June. I hope that that is a more specific response than that which the hon. Gentleman received in Committee: it is compatible with that response but more specific. We see no objection in principle to decentralised operation, which is, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, known as micro-franchising, but the shadow SRA will want to study the report and analyse the pros and cons of these options in detail.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how guidance to the SRA would be given to achieve the objectives of his amendments. There is no need to give guidance to secure the development of the network because, as I have said, that is already one of the three overarching objectives specified in the primary legislation.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know the position in relation to land when local transport plans were outstanding. The rigorous process of consultation that we shall put in place will ensure that land with rail potential is identified. As I have explained, there will be no question of land with rail potential being disposed of. There is therefore no need to wait for local transport plans before decisions are taken.
The hon. Gentleman wanted to know the specific position in relation to Railtrack and the rail regulator protecting land disposal. I can confirm that the regulator is considering a new licence condition which, subject to consultation, would impose on Railtrack controls on the disposal of relevant assets, including land. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel comforted by that.
The hon. Member for Poole, in an admirably short speech, simply expressed concern about the role of the Secretary of State. I hope that I have made it clear that the Secretary of State has an important role, as he is responsible for the overall operation of railway policy and transport policy and is answerable to the House. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman approved of the terms of clause 179(4), under which the Secretary of State must appoint people with considerable qualifications to positions in the Strategic Rail Authority.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) started unhelpfully by complaining about the structure of the Bill. He said that it was four Bills in one. He obviously had not listened closely to his colleague the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, who completed his speech by congratulating the 909 Government on their objective of integration. Our proposals are a classic illustration of integration, so I cannot accept the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
7.30 pm
I listened with concern and interest to the comments made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the problems created by the shortage and the inadequacy of the transport services in the area that he represents. I spent a few days in the vicinity of Kielder forest recently and I can entirely endorse his comments about the problems caused by large timber-carrying trucks on a road network that was simply not designed to cope with such pressures. I am equally aware that the local rail service closed in the 1960s. That was a sad loss to the area, in the same way as the loss of railways is a sad loss to other areas.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the opportunities that would encourage the carrying of timber by rail. We are keen to encourage rail freight when that is possible and when it is good value. The shadow SRA is working on the freight element of its strategy, covering vital issues of capacity, demand and investment. The details are still being developed, but the overall objective is more freight by rail. The SRA will bring together freight and strategic planning for the first time; we will make progress in that direction.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) when he talks about the poor standard of service provided by the train operator, Connex SouthCentral, in his territory. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham has similar experience of Connex SouthCentral, and Connex SouthEastern operates in my constituency, so I am not unaware of the complaints that are made by many constituents. I can only say in encouragement to the hon. Gentleman that the protests, which I was happy to convey to Connex, of many of my constituents—they used to get wet when they waited at Woolwich Arsenal station because of the inadequacy of the platform cover—have at last led to action being taken. I wish him well in his campaign to achieve similar results for his constituents who use Cheam station.
I hope that I have done justice to the points made in the debate and explained why the amendments are either unnecessary or undesirable. I urge the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale to withdraw his amendment.
§ Mr. MooreI am afraid that, despite the Minister's mastery of my constituency name, I shall have to disappoint him. He was untypically churlish in attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for his views on the Bill. The view has been expressed—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—that the staples it contains are the only things integrating the Bill before us. It is a mammoth effort and we shall return to the points behind it on Third Reading.
We are unconvinced by the Minister's arguments about land sales and particularly about those on rural—
§ It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [9 May], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
910§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 321.
912| Division No. 191] | [7.33 pm |
| AYES | |
| Allan, Richard | Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W) |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | |
| Baker, Norman | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Ballard, Jackie | Livsey, Richard |
| Beggs, Roy | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Bell, Martin (Tatton) | Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert |
| Brand Dr Peter | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Breed Colin | Moore, Michael |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) |
| Burstow, Paul | Oaten, Mark |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) | Öpik, Lembit |
| Rendel, David | |
| Russell, Bob (Colchester) | |
| Cotter, Brian | Sanders, Adrian |
| Smyth, Rev Martin Belfast S) | |
| Davey, Edward (Kingston) | Stunell, Andrew |
| Taylor, Matthew (Truro) | |
| Donaldson, Jeffrey | Thompson, William |
| Fearn, Ronnie | Tonge, Dr Jenny |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Tyler, Paul |
| George, Andrew (St Ives) | Webb, Steve |
| Hancock, Mike | Willis, Phil |
| Harris, Dr Evan | |
| Harvey, Nick | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | Sir Robert Smith and |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) | Mr. Tom Brake. |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Caton, Martin |
| Ainger, Nick | Cawsey, Ian |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) |
| Alexander, Douglas | Chaytor, David |
| Allen, Graham | Church, Ms Judith |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Clapham, Michael |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) |
| Atkins, Charlotte | |
| Austin, John | Clark, Paul (Gillingham) |
| Barnes, Harry | Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) |
| Bayley, Hugh | Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) |
| Beard, Nigel | Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) |
| Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) | Clwyd, Ann |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Coaker, Vernon |
| Berry, Roger | Coffey, Ms Ann |
| Betts, Clive | Coleman, lain |
| Blackman, Liz | Colman, Tony |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Connarty, Michael |
| Blizzard, Bob | Cooper, Yvette |
| Blunkett, Rt Hon David | Corbett, Robin |
| Boateng, Rt Hon Paul | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Borrow, David | Corston, Jean |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Cousins, Jim |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Cox, Tom |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Cranston, Ross |
| Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E) | Crausby, David |
| Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) | Cryer, John (Keighley) |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
| Browne, Desmond | Cummings, John |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) |
| Burden, Richard | |
| Burgon, Colin | Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) |
| Byers, Rt Hon Stephen | Dalyell, Tam |
| Caborn, Rt Hon Richard | |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Darling, Rt Hon Alistair |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) |
| Cann, Jamie | Davidson, Ian |
| Casale, Roger | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) |
| Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H) | Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Dawson, Hilton | Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Denham, John | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Dismore, Andrew | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
| Dobbin, Jim | Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Dowd, Jim | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Drew, David | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Kemp, Fraser |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Khabra, Piara S |
| Edwards, Huw | Kidney, David |
| Ennis, Jeff | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Field Rt Hon Frank | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Fisher, Mark | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Lawrence, Mrs Jackie | |
| Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna | Laxton, Bob |
| Flint, Caroline | Lepper, David |
| Flynn, Paul | Leslie, Christopher |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Levitt, Tom |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Lewis, Terry (Worsley) |
| Fyfe, Maria | Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen |
| Gapes, Mike | Linton, Martin |
| George, Bruce (Walsall S) | Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) |
| Gibson, Dr Ian | Lock, David |
| Gilroy, Mrs Linda | Love, Andrew |
| Godman, Dr Norman A | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Godsiff, Roger | McCabe, Steve |
| Goggins, Paul | McCafferty, Ms Chris |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Gordon, Mrs Eileen | Macdonald, Calum |
| Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | McDonnell, John |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | McFall, John |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | McGuire, Mrs Anne |
| Grocott, Bruce | McIsaac, Shona |
| Grogan, John | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Gunnell, John | McNamara, Kevin |
| Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | MacShane, Denis |
| Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | McWilliam, John |
| Hanson, David | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet | Mallaber, Judy |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter |
| Healey, John | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Marshall-Andrews, Robert |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Martlew, Eric |
| Heppell, John | Maxton, John |
| Hesford, Stephen | Meacher, Rt Hon Michael |
| Hewitt, Ms Patricia | Michael, Rt Hon Alun |
| Hill Keith | Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) |
| Hinchliffe, David | Mitchell, Austin |
| Hodge, Ms Margaret | Moffatt Laura |
| Hoey, Kate | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Moran, Ms Margaret |
| Hope, Phil | Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | Morley, Elliot |
| Howarth, Alan (Newport E) | Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Howells, Dr Kim | Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon) |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | |
| Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) | Mountford, Kali |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | Mudie, George |
| Hurst, Alan | Mullin, Chris |
| Hutton, John | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
| Iddon, Dr Brian | Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) |
| Illsley, Eric | Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) |
| Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) | Naysmith, Dr Doug |
| Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) | Norris, Dan |
| Jenkins, Brian | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| O'Hara, Eddie | Stevenson, George |
| Organ, Mrs Diana | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| Osborne, Ms Sandra | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Palmer, Dr Nick | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Pearson, Ian | Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin |
| Pendry, Tom | Straw, Rt Hon Jack |
| Pickthall, Colin | Stringer, Graham |
| Pike, Peter L | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Plaskitt, James | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Pollard, Kerry | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Pond, Chris | |
| Pope, Greg | Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) |
| Pound, Stephen | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Prescott, Rt Hon John | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Timms, Stephen |
| Purchase, Ken | Tipping, Paddy |
| Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce | Todd, Mark |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Touhig, Don |
| Radice, Rt Hon Giles | Trickett, Jon |
| Rammell, Bill | Truswell, Paul |
| Rapson, Syd | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Raynsford, Nick | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) | Turner, Neil (Wigan) |
| Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff | Tynan, Bill |
| Rooney, Terry | Vaz, Keith |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Rowlands, Ted | Wareing, Robert N |
| Roy, Frank | Watts, David |
| Ruane, Chris | White, Brian |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Salter, Martin | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Sarwar, Mohammad | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Shipley, Ms Debra | |
| Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Singh, Marsha | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) | Wills, Michael |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | Winnick, David |
| Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) | Wood, Mike |
| Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) | Woolas, Phil |
| Smith, John (Glamorgan) | Worthington, Tony |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Snape, Peter | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Southworth, Ms Helen | Wyatt, Derek |
| Spellar, John | |
| Squire, Ms Rachel | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Starkey, Dr Phyllis | Mr. David Jamieson and |
| Steinberg, Gerry | Mr. David Clelland. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.