§ House again in Committee.
§ Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.
§ Clause 62 [General functions]:
§
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 110AV:
Page 69, line 23, after ("railway") insert ("passenger and freight").
§ The noble Lord said: The Minister can quickly satisfy my noble friend and me if he can assure us that the words "railway services" means passenger and freight. I beg to move.
1476§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveThe Minister has assured me that the phrase "railway services" includes passenger and freight, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 agreed to.
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 111:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
Code of practice for protection of interests of rail users who are disabled
(" .—(1) The Regulator shall—
a code of practice for protecting the interests of users of railway passenger services or station services who are disabled.(2) In preparing or revising the code of practice, the Regulator shall consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, established under section 125 of the Transport Act 1985.").
§ The noble Earl said: I know that many Members of the Committee are concerned to protect the interests of the many disabled people who use the railway network. We believe that it is right to afford protection to their interests. Indeed, we have already moved an amendment to protect the continued provision of a national discount scheme for disabled passengers. We attach considerable importance to providing greater mobility for disabled people and we want to build on BR's good record for dealing with disabled passengers.
§ First, I should like to stress that our privatisation policy is about getting better services; that means for all rail users, including disabled passengers. Secondly, all railway operators will be required by the terms of their operating licence to have regard to the needs of passengers with mobility handicaps and that includes the operators of stations as well as the operators of passenger trains. Thirdly, the person responsible for issuing and checking compliance with those licences will be the new, independent railway regulator; independent of the railway operators and of Ministers and with a clear remit to look after passengers' interests. One of his key duties will be to look after the interests of disabled passengers.
§ We have discussed the way in which the regulator should go about discharging his duty to have regard to the needs of disabled passengers with the organisations representing disabled people. It is in the light of those discussions that I am tabling this new clause. My amendment addresses the two principal concerns which have been raised with us. It places a duty on the regulator to consult DPTAC. Members of the Committee will, I am sure, be aware of the very valuable work that DPTAC does to promote the interests of disabled people. We believe there can be no better body for representing their interests to the regulator.
§ The special facilities that disabled people need are often inexpensive and can help to make passenger services more attractive and easier to use for all passengers; for example, making sure that handles are easy to grip, doorways are wide enough to get through, announcements are clear and audible. Often making provision for disabled people is a matter of 1477 common sense. That is why we believe that having a code of practice produced by the regulator makes such good sense. Making the whole of the railway network fully accessible to all disabled people is not something that could be achieved overnight. But the existence of a code of practice will mean that when new facilities are being designed or old facilities refurbished there will he a code to which the designers can look to ensure that disabled passengers' needs are not forgotten. I beg to move.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Lord RixI thank the Government and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for the distance that we have travelled—I hope by rail—in Amendment No. 111, which is now before the Committee. Members of the Committee who follow these matters keenly might have noticed that before the amendment appeared, the noble Lord. Lord Renton, and I were trying to draft our own amendments. But good fortune smiled upon us and the noble Earl has proffered this alternative, which we are pleased to see.
However, those Members of the Committee with an interest in matters Biblical will recall how in the 18th chapter of the Book of Genesis Abraham pushed his luck with the Lord in pleading for the righteous in the city of Sodom. Each time the Lord made a concession old Abraham put in a bid for a further concession. I do not wish to push this parallel too far, for we all know what happened to that particular city. I also recognise that I am pleading with a temporal rather than a somewhat senior spiritual Lord.
May I too strain the Minister's tolerance by asking for two aspects of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I were trying to achieve to be carried into the clause so that we can achieve an even better text on Report? First, it seems to me that, excellent person as the regulator will no doubt be, there will be more weight behind the code of practice if it comes from the Secretary of State rather than the regulator. My recollection is that other codes of practice bear that imprimatur; certainly that is true, for example, of the code of practice issued under Section 118 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Secondly, while it is good that DPTAC must be consulted, the clause as it stands does not require anyone to take account of what DPTAC says. Again, I do not believe that we have to look at precedents requiring the person doing the consulting to have regard to the advice that he receives. "Taking account o' and "having regard to" are phrases which crop up regularly in social security legislation. Incidentally, I believe that the references to unstaffed stations made in Amendment No. 107D could well be considered by DPTAC and taken account of as I have just suggested.
If the Minister can see his way to taking away those not unimportant refinements with a view to tabling an amendment on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I, plus thousands of disabled travellers will be well satisfied.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisI do not wish to follow the Biblical simile of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, but I have a number of questions to pose about what 1478 undoubtedly represents some advance, though I am not convinced that the Government have seized on the right way of going about this issue. First, I adopt the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in questioning whether it shall be the regulator rather than the Government who will prepare the code of practice. There is an important difference. If it is the Secretary of State, then Parliament will be able to scrutinise the code of practice and we shall be able to debate it, because it will come before Parliament for debate and endorsement, whereas, if the regulator publishes the code of practice, I am not sure that we shall have any power of scrutiny whatever. That is an important lacuna.
I did not quite catch all the Minister's words. I believe that he referred to people who are disabled —and, indeed, that is written into the clause. He went on to refer to people suffering from a mobility handicap and I believe that he referred to a third category. Perhaps he will remind me of that category when he replies.
A person suffering from a mobility handicap could be a mother wheeling a pushchair onto a station and trying to board a train with that pushchair. That is a mobility handicap of sorts. I do not know whether such a person is to be included. I wonder what the Minister means by that and whether a statutory definition is available elsewhere.
Does that apply to the elderly; somebody who is not disabled but who is, by the vicissitudes of age, not particularly mobile? For example, the noble Lord', Lord Renton, is as sprightly as ever I remember him to be. Does the amendment cover a person who is 70 plus, not very sprightly but who cannot claim to be disabled?
I take it that the Minister has no intention of making the code of practice enforceable in any way unless the regulator is to be given specific powers in relation to the implementation of the code of practice. Is it a voluntary code? Perhaps the Minister will tell us the status of the code.
All those matters are very much associated with our earlier debate on Amendment No. 107 because, with all the goodwill in the world, we can have codes of practice to protect the interests of the railway passenger and so on, but unless the staff' are available to assist materially in helping those passengers who are affected by the new clause, then the situation will not work out in practice. I shall not rehearse our earlier debate because we shall return to that at a later stage, but I am not at all sure that the situation of "destaffed" or understaffed stations will miraculously change as a result of the activities of the regulator and/or the franchising director. Unless staff are available, such disabled people cannot undertake the tasks which must be undertaken at a station; for example, boarding a train and so on. That means that we must consider this matter in conjunction with our reconsideration of our Amendment No. 107 at a later stage.
The Government have made certain concessions. I do not believe that they go far enough. On Report I shall wish to look at the need to strengthen those 1479 provisions but I thank the Government for having gone this far. I just wish to edge them a little further along the right route.
§ Lord RentonI too thank the Government. This is an extremely good initiative on the part of my noble friend Lord Caithness. As the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Clinton-Davis, have done, I should like to make one or two suggestions for clarifying and strengthening the new clause.
My first point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I believe that it should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish the code of practice. I say that for several reasons. First, if we look back through the statute book, we find that in nearly every case a Minister is given the responsibility. That has the advantage that the Minister can be questioned about the contents, the effect and the operation of the code of practice; whereas the regulator cannot be questioned. Therefore, it would be better to place that obligation on the Secretary of State rather than upon the regulator.
My next point is that at present, although we are told what the purpose of the code of practice is to be—protecting the interests of users who are disabled—we are not told to whom the advice, the guidance in the code of practice, is to be directed. It must obviously be directed at those people who will operate the railways and railway stations. Therefore, I believe the clause needs to make that clear.
Also, we should make it clear that the code is for guidance. We must be very clear minded about codes of practice. There are two kinds of legislation; primary and secondary legislation. The codes of practice are neither. They are merely advisory. The Highway Code is an excellent example. Therefore, it should be made clear that the code is for guidance, and the new clause is silent on that matter.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisI believe that the noble Lord will agree that in certain circumstances the codes of practice can have evidential value in relation to the prosecution of offences or even in relation to civil cases. That matter can be important. Whether the code of practice is intended to have that role or is intended to have a general view, I do not know. I believe that that needs to be clarified.
§ Lord RentonThe noble Lord is quite right. Perhaps I may give the Committee a vivid example of that. You cannot accuse a person in court of having committed an offence by failing to observe the Highway Code. You have to charge that person with, for example, dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention. In the course of pursuing that charge, the prosecution can say that there was evidence of lack of due care and attention in that the Highway Code was not observed in certain respects. That is quite true. But it is for guidance and that should be made clear.
My only other point is to mention a matter which worried the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis; namely, the people to be protected. The clause refers to the "disabled". That is a very wide term indeed in statute. 1480 It includes mentally handicapped people and those of us who are rather old, but it does not include us merely because we are old. It includes us only if we have become in some way defective, physically or mentally. We then become disabled, but we are not automatically disabled. I hope that that makes the position clear.
§ Lord TordoffI support what has already been said. There is one other point that I should like to make. The amendment says that the "regulator shall consult". That does not seem to take us much further. I understand that the commitment in another place, was that the Government would bring forward an amendment which would not only result in the regulator consulting but that the regulator would also give due regard to the views of DPTAC. I have the highest possible regard for that organisation and the department is always to be congratulated on the support it has given it. Like other speakers, I believe that the provision needs to be strengthened. I am not sure that, even now, the Government have fulfilled the obligation undertaken in another place.
§ 8.30 p.m.
The Earl of CaithnessI listened with great care to what Members of the Committee had to say on this account. I am grateful for the kind words about what we have tried to do. Again, I think that this is another occasion in our discussions on the Bill—indeed, one of many—that from earlier discussions we would not have believed possible. In fact, there is nothing between us at all on trying to get this right.
I must tell my noble friend Lord Renton that there is no definition of "disabled" in the Bill. There is a reason for that; namely, that the regulator will have a degree of discretion in determining the coverage of the code. I am sure that that flexibility is something that my noble friend will welcome. The code will be voluntary, but the regulator is under a duty to encourage its use and implementation. Of course, there is the requirement upon him that he shall produce a code. Indeed, if my noble friend will look at the first line of the amendment he will see that it says, "The Regulator shall". That is also helpful. The code will not have any force for the purposes of criminal or civil proceedings; it is simply for guidance.
In our view it is appropriate for the regulator, who is independent and has general responsibilities across the railway industry, to be the person to provide the code. I well remember the discussions that we had on Clause 4 as to the regulator's powers and responsibilities. Although I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said in that he would prefer the Secretary of State to have that responsibility, I am not sure that, where the regulator is independent and is responsible across the whole range of the railway industry for encouraging people to use the railway and for how it is to be used, he is not also the right person to look at the disabled code.
I turn now to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and one that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. In our view, a duty to consult must include a duty to take account of the 1481 views of those consulted. That is a principle of administrative law. I believe that it covers the concerns expressed this evening.
However, having said that, I shall obviously wish to read with care in Hansard what Members of the Committee have said and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As I said at the beginning, we have in common the desire to get the matter right. We may also take the opportunity of arranging a meeting between now and a later stage because Amendment No. 50 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is another matter which needs to be discussed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Keeping of register by the Regulator]:
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 111A:
Page 70, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) every revocation of a licence exemption;").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 111A, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 111B and 111C. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 111B and 111C:
Page 70, line 29, leave out ("direction or consent") and insert ("requirement imposed, or consent or approval").
Page 70, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) every requirement imposed, or consent or approval given, under a licence by any person (other than the Regulator) who is a qualified person, within the meaning of section 9(2) above, for the purpose in question, being a requirement, consent or approval whose provisions have been notified to the Regulator pursuant to a condition of the licence;").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§
Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 71, line 8, at end insert:
("(iii) every closure certified by the Regulator as a minor closure;").
§ The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 112 I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 113. Amendment No. 112 deals with the register for closures. It is not clear that that includes minor closures, as they do not require the regulator's consent; he is simply required to "certify" them. The amendment would specifically require details of minor closures to be entered in the register.
§ Amendment No. 113, which relates to the subsection which enables the Secretary of State to direct the regulator not to enter any provision in the register if he considers that it would be against the public interest so to do, would not permit him to omit any details in relation to closures or experimental passenger services, the details of which I think he ought to complete. I beg to move.
The Earl of CaithnessAt first sight it seems wholly reasonable that the regulator should register every certification that a proposed closure is a minor closure; indeed, the noble Baroness was very persuasive. But, on second thoughts and when one 1482 looks at the amendment in closer detail, I am not so sure that it is a good idea because of the extremely minor nature of minor closures.
Let us remind ourselves of what a minor closure is. It is, by definition, a closure which inconveniences neither operators nor passengers. For example, in the case of a proposal to withdraw services, the regulator may certify a closure as a minor one only if passengers would not as a result of the withdrawal be forced to make an extra change of trains or have their journey times significantly increased.
Most closures certified as minor will be even less significant. For example, if the owner of a light maintenance depot wished to demolish the washrooms in order to install new facilities, the demolition would count as a closure and would have to be reported to the regulator's office in order to be certified as minor. Closures are defined very widely in order to guarantee that nothing which should be subject to closure procedures is missed. There is, I imagine, little of controversy about the merits of that approach. However, its consequence is that there are likely to be any number of trivial certifications of minor closures. I do not think that there is any public interest requirement for all of them to be registered. I think that the amendment would place unreasonably onerous requirements on the regulator's office. It is for that reason, rather than as a matter of principle, that I cannot agree to the noble Baroness's amendment.
§ Baroness StedmanI hear what the Minister says. I still think that it would probably be better if all those minor closures were entered in the register. Surely that would not involve too much work for the regulator. However, I shall read what the Minister has said arid reconsider the matter. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 112A:
Page 71, line 21, at end insert:
("(f) in relation to rail freight, details of every applicant and recipient of grants under sections 124 and 126 below.").
§ The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move the above small amendment to which the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is also attached. In the long list of the regulator's responsibilities, one aspect which seems to have been missed out in relation to rail freight is that there is no requirement to make a report. Yet, as I am sure the Minister will agree, it will be public money that will be spent under Clauses. 124 and 126. In the circumstances, I wonder whether we can add a further condition—namely, paragraph (f) of the amendment—to the existing paragraphs (a) to (e) so that we shall know what has actually been spent on rail freight and also have details of the grants under the two clauses. I beg to move.
The Earl of CaithnessI sympathise with the spirit of the amendment. It is important that public money is spent wisely and is subject to effective scrutiny. However, there are already mechanisms in place for 1483 ensuring such scrutiny without disclosing details which may be damaging to the commercial interests of individual firms.
First, I should emphasise that the regulator's register would be the wrong place for publishing information of the kind described by the noble Lord. The regulator has specific functions and duties, and these do not relate to the payment of government grants. The regulator's register is to contain information in which he has a direct interest by virtue of his functions under the Bill (for example, information relating to licences and access agreements). It would therefore not be appropriate to require the regulator to obtain, or include in his register, information about matters in which he has no direct interest.
Secondly, the payment of grants is naturally subject to detailed scrutiny by the National Audit Office, who are at liberty to make random checks on the procedures used by the Department of Transport and the territorial departments. Grants are paid following objective assessments and against specific criteria—there is no scope for improper payments.
Thirdly, some Members of the Committee might not be aware—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, is aware of this —that information about freight facilities grant awards is already deposited annually in the Library of both Houses, following an undertaking given by the Minister for Public Transport in another place in December 1990. It is the Government's intention that information about the enhanced grant scheme introduced by Clause 126 of the Bill will be similarly recorded.
The nature of the brand new track costs grant introduced by Clause 124 of the Bill does not lend itself easily to public disclosure of individual awards. This is a revenue grant, and will be paid to rail freight operators once they have concluded commercial negotiations with Railtrack. However, I appreciate the noble Lord's anxieties, and the Government will consider the most appropriate way of notifying Parliament about the operation of the grant.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveNo one could be other than happy and pleased with the effort the Minister has made to satisfy the spirit of the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [General duties of the Central Committee]:
§ The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood)In calling Amendment No. 113A, I must point out that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 114 under the pre-emption rule. I now call Amendment No. 113A.
§
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 74, line 9, leave out from ("relates") to end of line 11 and insert:
("(a) to the provision of railway passenger services—
(b) to the provision of station services by any person in a case where the operator of the station in question is authorised by a licence to be the operator of that station,
if the condition specified in subsection (1A) below is satisfied in relation to the matter in question.(1A) The condition mentioned in subsection (1) above is satisfied if-").
§ The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 113A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 115A, 116A to 116E, 119A to 119D, 119F, 119G, 127E to 127H.
§ This large group of amendments has three simple. and important purposes. The amendments will bring the following within the remit of the consumer committees: services provided on behalf of the franchising director; bus substitution services; and station services provided by all licensed station operators rather than just station services provided by franchisees and BR.
§ Amendments Nos. 113A, 116D, 116E and 119G achieve the changes of substance while the remainder in this group are minor drafting alterations consequential on these changes. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is important that these services be included. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
§ 8.45 p.m.
§
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 74, line 13, leave out ("services for the carriage of passengers by railway") and insert ("railway passenger services").
§ The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 114A I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 115B, 117A and 119E. These are merely technical drafting amendments that are required because of a change of definition. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 115A:
Page 74, line 19, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 115B:
Page 74, line 21, leave out ("services for the carriage of passengers by railway") and insert ("railway passenger services").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Baroness Stedman had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 116:
Page 74, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
§ The noble Baroness said: I am grateful to the Minister for the amendment he has brought forward. However, I am not certain yet that he has covered all the points that I wanted him to cover in Amendments Nos. 116, 117 and 118. I shall not move the amendment.
§ [Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
§
Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 116A:
1485
Page 74, line 47, leave out ("(a)").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 116B, 116C and 116D:
Page 75, line 2, at end insert ("or ( ) in the case of a service provided on behalf of the Franchising Director, to the Franchising Director,").
Page 75, line 20, leave out ("(1)(b)") and insert ("(1A)(b)").
Page 75, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) The services which are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as provided on behalf of the Franchising Director are the same services as are to be so regarded for the purposes of section 32 above.
( ) In this section, any reference to railway passenger services includes a reference to bus substitution services required to be provided in place of any such services; and in this subsection, "bus substitution services" has the same meaning as it has in sections 120 to 124 of the Transport Act 1985.").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 69 [General duties of consultative committees]:
§ The Deputy Chairman of CommitteesIf Amendment No. 116E is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 117 under the pre-emption rule. I now call Amendment No. 116E.
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 116E:
Page 75, line 34, leave out from ("relates") to ("if") in line 36 and insert:
("(a) to the provision of railway passenger services—
(b) to the provision of station services by any person in a case where the operator of the station in question is authorised by a licence to be the operator of that station,
if the condition specified in subsection (1A) below is satisfied in relation to the matter in question.(1A) The condition mentioned in subsection (1) above is sat isfied").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 75, line 38, leave out ("services for the carriage of passengers by railway") and insert ("railway passenger services").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 76, line 19, after (" 41") insert ("(Proposals to close passenger networks operated on behalf of the Franchising Director) and (Proposals to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment Nos. 119A to 119G:
Page 76, line 23, leave out ("(a)").
Page 76, line 25, at end insert ("or
1486
( ) in the case of a service provided on behalf of the Franchising Director, to the Franchising Director,").
Page 76, line 40, leave out second ("to") and insert ("(1A) and").
Page 76, line 45, leave out ("(1) (b) (i)") and insert ("(1A)(b)(i)").
Page 76, line 47, leave out ("services for the carriage cif passengers by railway") and insert ("railway passenger services").
Page 77, line 10, leave out second ("to") and insert ("(1A) and").
Page 77, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) The services which are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as provided on behalf of the Franchising Director are the same services as are to be so regarded for the purposes of section 32 above.
( ) In this section, any reference to railway passenger services includes a reference to bus substitution services required to be provided in place of any such services; and in this subsection, "bus substitution services" has the same meaning as it has in sections 120 to 124 of the Transport Act 1985.").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 70 [Functions under section 56 of the Transport Act 1962]:
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 119H:
Page 77, line 28, at end insert:
("(1A) In section 56 of that Act, in subsection (5), the words from the beginning to "section; and"' (which preclude committees from considering charges for services and questions relating to the discontinuance or reduction cif railway services) shall be omitted.").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, that had it not been for the fact that her amendments could not be moved, we would have recommended to the Committee that they be accepted. Perhaps we can discuss with her between now and another stage how we should proceed from here. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and thank her very much. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 119J:
Page 77, line 29, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (1A)").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 78, line 6, after ("ferry") insert ("or railway").
§ The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 120, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 121, 122 and 123. These are minimal amendments. Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 is being amended and the remaining functions of the former area transport users' consultative committees are being transferred to the consultative committees, including their functions relating to the provision of ferry services. That extends powers to the Secretary of State to provide far the role of the consultative committee to include those ferry services.
§ With these amendments I am seek ing to empower the Secretary of State to extend the role of the consultative committees further to include railways in addition to those which are included in the Bill where 1487 he wishes to do so. That would mean that he could, for example, include the Docklands Light Railway within the London Regional Passengers Committee. Since the railway passed from the control of London Transport to the London Docklands Development Corporation it has technically fallen outside the LRPC's remit.
§ These are only minor amendments but they would enable the Secretary of State to bring the DLR or any other light railway within the remit of the new committees without the need for an order under the Transport and Works Act, which is the alternative. If the amendments were adopted, that would save time and expense. I beg to move.
§ Viscount GoschenClauses 68 and 69 set out the duties of the new committees in respect of passenger services provided by British Rail or under a franchise agreement. Clause 70 of this Bill will give them duties under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 in respect of services provided by certain other operators such as the Tyne and Wear Metro and Manchester Metrolink. The London Regional Passengers Committee, which will act as the rail users' consultative committee for London, will continue to consider matters relating to services provided by London Transport under the London Regional Transport Act.
We do not envisage a wider remit for the committees. We do not intend that freight or open access operators should come within their scope. As we have stated earlier, those services are exposed to market forces in the same way as private bus services and civil aviation where no statutory consumer committees operate. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendments.
§ Lord Carmichael of KelvingroveI am slightly disappointed by that reply because of the mention of ferry services. In most parts of the country, particularly in my part of the country—where there are many ferries, especially in the Clyde estuary and the North —ferries have little value without the railway to take you there. For unity of purpose I should have thought that we should have the railway and the ferry together. We may be making a great error here. It seems to me that they are part of the same service and I would have hoped for a more encouraging answer from the Minister. If the noble Baroness wishes to consider returning to the matter, I should be only too happy to support her and perhaps raise the matter in another way.
§ Baroness StedmanI hope that I can read into the Minister's reply the assurance that passengers on the various light railways have some right of access to a users' committee. That is how I understood his response. If so, that meets my point and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
§ The Deputy Chairman of CommitteesIf Amendment No. 122A is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 123.
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 122A:
Page 78, line 12, leave out from ("service") to end of line 15.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
§ Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 71 agreed to.
§ Clause 72 [Duty of certain persons to furnish information to the Franchising Director on request]:
§
Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 79, line 16, leave out ("or").
§ The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience. of the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 123A, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 123B and 123C.
§ Amendment No. 123A is essentially a probing amendment. We are anxious to ascertain whether the Bill and any orders which will follow the Bill will make it possible for the franchising director to obtain all the information necessary in order to assess franchise bids.
§ Clause 72(1) gives the franchising director powers to require the provision of information from the board, subsidiaries of the board and holders of network or station licences. Since the onus will be on the franchising director to let all franchises for providing rail services in future, it seems reasonable that he should have the power to garner information from potential operators to determine whether they genuinely are capable of operating the services and whether they are fit persons to operate a public service. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 123B.
§ Amendment No. 123C is also a probing amendment. Several clauses in the Bill use the phrase "without reasonable excuse". It would be opportune if the Minister were to advise the Committee exactly what he considers to be a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with directions. In this case we are talking about the directions of the franchising director. I beg to move.
§ 9 p.m.
The Earl of CaithnessThe franchising director is given considerable powers for the purposes of obtaining information under Clause 72 and we have thought carefully about when those powers might be needed. They are aimed at covering three specific types of information. The first relates to the costs of providing a service. The franchising director will need to provide information on which bidders can base their tenders. At present BR is the only source for that information. The second relates to access charges. The franchising director will need to know the cost of gaining access to the track and to stations in order to plan and package franchises and decide on the service levels he should specify. For that he will need to look to the network and station operators. Thirdly, he will need information to monitor franchisees' performance. Much of this is now and will continue to be gathered through track management systems, which will be operated by the track operator, Railtrack.
We do not expect any of the people whom the franchising director might approach to obtain the 1489 information to which I have referred to resist providing it. But the clause provides an important "reserve power" for the franchising director to obtain the information he needs for the purpose of facilitating his functions under this part of the Bill.
The first two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, are aimed at widening the list of persons to whom the provisions of the clause would apply to add persons applying for a network or station licence. I am not convinced that that is necessary given the reasons for which the franchising director would require information.
I turn now to the noble Lord's other amendment. I do not believe that it would be desirable to delete the defence of "reasonable excuse" from subsection (6). Subsection (6) provides that a person failing to comply with the franchising director's request for information, having been served with a notice under subsection (4), would not be guilty of an offence if he has "reasonable excuse". The validity of the "reasonable excuse" would be a matter for the magistrates' court (in England and Wales) or the sheriff court (in Scotland) to decide. I do not think that we can today decide that no reasonable excuse shall ever exist or that criminal liability shall arise even where there is a reasonable excuse. I recommend that it is right that there should be such a defence and that it should be a matter for the court to decide.
Let me also comment on another point raised by the noble Lord. The franchising director does not need powers to obtain information from potential operators. It will be in the interests of potential operators to supply all the information which the director needs to assess their bids. If they refuse to provide information, it is always open to the franchising director to reject their bids.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisI thank the Minister for that explanation. It is very helpful. We shall read with care what he said. I believe that the term "without reasonable excuse" is reasonable in the context. I am a little anxious about its application in relation to the issues affecting enforcement. If one has a reasonable excuse it represents a defence, of course. However I am not sure whether that would cover issues referred to in an earlier context affecting the uncommerciality of being able to carry on with a service, for example. I believe that that would constitute a reasonable excuse.
I shall not press the matter further. I shall read what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 123B to 124 not moved]
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clauses 73 and 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Meaning of "railway services" etc.]:
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 124ZA:
Page 83, line 11, leave out ("cleaning") and insert ("the cleaning of the exterior,").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 124ZA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124ZB 1490 and 124C. They are technical amendments designed to improve definitions of light maintenance services and light maintenance depots. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 124ZB:
Page 83, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert:
("(b) the carrying out to locomotives or other rolling stock of maintenance work of a kind which is normally carried out at regular intervals of twelve months or less to prepare the locomotives or other rolling stock for service;").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 76 [Interpretation of Part 1]:
§
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 124A to 124C:
Page 84, line 37, leave out ("or 35(1)") and insert (" (Proposals to close passenger networks operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)(1), 35(1) or (Proposal to close passenger railway facilities operated on behalf of the Franchising Director)(1)").
Page 84, line 43 leave out ("section 2(2) above") and insert ("subsection (2) of section 2 above (but this definition is subject to subsection (4) of that section);").
Page 85, line 21, leave out from ("includes") to end of line 23 and insert ("premises normally used for the provision of light maintenance services, whether or not the land or other property is, or the premises are, also used for other purposes;").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§
Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 124D:
Page 85, line 34, at end insert:
(" "luggage" means personal effects accompanying passengers and which, for the purposes of this part, includes pedal cycles,");
§ The noble Lord said: In the absence of both the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and my noble friend Lord Falkland I beg to move Amendment No. 124D and speak to Amendment: No. 125C. First, there is a mistake—I do not know from where it stems—in the wording of the Marshalled List. It refers to "'page 89, line 34". It should refer to "page 85, line 34".
§
Amendment No. 124[) clarifies and expands the reference in Clause 75(1) (a) to,
services for the carriage of passengers by railway".
It is intended to make clear that the carriage of pedal cycles as accompanied luggage should be treated as a constituent part of the service provided by the new operators of the railways. We are all aware that every encouragement needs to be given to people to use bicycles for their own health and for the health of the nation rather than rushing around in motor cars. One way of doing that is to make room available on trains for people to take their pedal cycles with them. I am sure that these amendments would have been far better moved by my noble friend, or indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who presumably at the moment is riding the wrong way up a one-way street, as he told us at Second Reading was his custom. I also feel strongly that pedal cyclists are to be encouraged in the interests of their health and the health of the nation.
§ This provision would ensure parity with a similar measure included in the Channel Tunnel Act after an amendment in Committee, when the right honourable 1491 gentleman, Sir George Young—I am not sure whether at that stage he was speaking as a Minister, therefore I had better not quote him directly —indicated that he had been involved in negotiations time and again with British Rail. He said that all sorts of undertakings had been given but had not been honoured. At that time, 1987, rolling stock was still being designed with no provision for bicycles. That situation has improved recently but the need still has to be underlined.
§ This amendment would oblige the new operators to provide a rail service that allows a seamless journey —being one which involves two or more transport modes with smooth connections between them. For cyclists, combined rail travel requires smooth connections at both ends of the rail journey. That is most easily accompanied by the provision of a cycle carriage. That should be available to a wide range of passengers. It could have considerable economic potential and avoid the restrictive limitations which have been imposed in past years by British Rail—although, as I said, I believe the situation has improved to a certain extent in recent times. It would meet the Government's target of reducing road congestion, which can be easily achieved by shifting journeys to a combined rail and bicycle mode.
§
Amendment No. 125C suggests that after "effect" we should insert,
save that nothing in this provision shall relieve the passenger service operators from providing a similar space for the carriage of pedal cycles and bulky luggage as if they were still compelled to provide space for mailbags on their trains".
I can still remember the days when as children we used to go on holiday and used to send our luggage in advance. It was always there in the hotel when we arrived after we had seen it on its way two or three days before. How things have changed.
§ The Government's proposals to relieve the new operators of the obligation to carry mailbags reflects the shift in the carriage of mail from rail to road. Where rolling stock has been designed to accommodate this obligation, it serves the requirements of passengers with pedal cycles. Ensuring that the new operators retain the facility supports government policy in meeting targets for stabilising CO2 emissions and reducing congestion in much the same way as the earlier amendment did. Furthermore, while maintaining and expanding the flexible space concept, commercial opportunities would be opened up which hitherto have been limited by regulations concerning the security of the Royal Mail. British Rail, as we heard earlier, ceased to be a common carrier in 1962, but its continued role as a carrier of mailbags has benefited passengers with pedal cycles. The configuration of rolling stock should allow for the continued carriage of bicycles and bulky luggage. All lease agreements or orders placed for train sets by the new operators should incorporate contractual requirements for the provision of flexible space.
§ These are probing amendments, which I am moving on behalf of others. Nevertheless, I think they are worthy ones. Anything that can be done to encourage the carriage of bicycles by train and that makes it not too difficult for cyclists to take their bicycles with them must be a good thing. I beg to move.
1492§ Lord Clinton-DavisI have a vague recollection that we discussed an idea resembling this in the paving Bill. I believe it was the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who moved the amendment on that occasion. I must say in passing that I am delighted to hear of the extraordinary good fortune that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, had in his youth so far as the consignment of his luggage was concerned. If one travels by air these days, luggage which is consigned to Rio sometimes finds its way to Riga or some other such place.
I commend the general idea in this amendment, but I am not sure that it ought to be dealt with by primary legislation. Perhaps it is a matter for a code of practice, or guidelines. But it would be retrograde if trains were not to carry pedal cycles. There was, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, a period when it was virtually impossible to get a pedal cycle on to a train. I think that was wrong. I am glad to hear, although I no longer ride a bicycle myself, that there seems to have been some improvement in that facility or some change in the practice. Certainly, for bulky luggage, space ought to be available for consignment in the appropriate carriage of a train. As I said, I do not feel that that is right for primary legislation but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Viscount CraigavonI rise briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said about these amendments. Let me take up the example that he gave of rolling stock that was created specially for the Channel Tunnel. There was a crucial decision to be made in designing the new rolling stock. Once the design was fixed, one could not afterwards put in space for bicycles. There had to be a certain amount of thought before new rolling stock was designed.
In a sense we are now in the position of not knowing what new operators and new franchisees are going to do when they have the chance to build new carriages. In my opinion the Government are under a duty strongly to encourage new operators to provide a minimum amount of space for cycles. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, gave the impression that British Rail had improved in that respect. That may be the case marginally. But at times when I have been involved in British Rail's willingness to carry cycles on trains, they appear to have slipped backwards. They may have taken a few steps forward at one time, but in my opinion they have gradually been slipping backwards and providing less and less space for cycles.
On some of the new rolling stock that British Rail now uses, space is provided for only one or two cycles —perhaps to keep within the law, although I am not sure about that aspect of it. So if a family of four want to go on a cycle outing, they have to catch two separate trains as two trains have to be used to book four cycles. In other words there is a very restricted service on new rolling stock. In my opinion there is potentially a commercial benefit in allowing cycles to be carried on trains. Perhaps that is a longer term benefit and new operators may not want to consider it straight away. They may want to forget about longer 1493 term considerations. l f the Government can encourage them in the direction of such commercial benefit, it would be very useful.
I turn to what I call the Royal Mail amendment, Amendment No. 125C. Currently there are large spaces for carrying the Royal Mail in existing carriages. When the requirement for services to carry the Royal Mail is taken away, there is a possibility that those spaces will be turned over to alternative uses and perhaps for seats. Any ability to carry cycles will disappear.
If the Government can encourage those operators, in whatever way they consider suitable, not to rip out that space, they will be doing a service in a small way to cyclists, for whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, explained, they have expressed encouragement. I hope that the Government can give the Committee some encouragement.
§ Lord Cochrane of CultsI fear that the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, is slightly mistaken about the economics of railway transport. Railway transport for passengers makes money by carrying passengers. Anybody who has had the misfortune to be jammed up against a bicycle in a tube train will notice its awkward shape. A bicycle does not stack readily, even with the pedals between one's legs. Bicycles on trains take up a wholly disproportionate amount of space. Modern trains are designed to carry passengers efficiently and to extract the maximum amount of revenue that is reasonable from the space within the vehicle.
I am a cyclist but I have to say that bicycles are very bad with regard to space. If there is a charge for the space that they take up, everybody complains like mad. Obviously there is room for compromise. I must say to the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, that the days of the guard's van in locomotive hauled coaching stock have virtually disappeared on regional railways, which I suspect is what he is talking about, except in the high season. For providing a guard's van which will hold bicycles British Rail should be roundly congratulated.
With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, about the arrival of luggage in advance, somewhere in the attic I have a pile of trunks marked "Luggage in advance, 1s 6d". But I do not suppose that any railway ever made a penny out of them. The service is incredibly labour intensive. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to visit one of those shops, such as Messrs X or Y, who will sell him, sometimes at rather extortionate expense, clothes which weigh but a fraction of those which one used to wear, and thus solve his problem in that way without cost to the public exchequer. However well intended, for commercial reasons the amendment should be opposed. And the Bill is about bringing commerce to the railways.
The Earl of CaithnessWe welcome to our Committee stage the noble Viscount. The noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, have been working 1494 hard all day. We welcome the change of voice and the experience the noble Viscount has brought to this matter.
Amendment No. 124D would insert a definition of "luggage" into the Bill which would include reference to bicycles. In Clause 75 it is made clear that services for the carriage of passengers by railway includes services for or in connection with the carriage of luggage. As a consequence of the amendment, franchisees would be required to provide services for or in connection with the carriage of bicycles. That would be an anomalous provision.
The Government do not believe that such a provision would be helpful. As my noble friend Lord Cochrane said, the carriage of bicycles should be at the commercial discretion of the operator. If there is a genuine customer demand for the carriage of bicycles, then operators will have every incentive to provide the necessary space. I do not believe that that is the sort of matter which requires the backing of statute.
Much the same can be said of the related Amendment No. 125C. Again the purpose of that amendment would be to require passenger service operators to provide space for bulky luggage and bicycles on their trains. Its connection with the carriage of mail is tenuous. I can only assume that the noble Lord is thinking principally of the carriage of bicycles and suchlike in mail vans, a practice which I believe still occurs occasionally. Mail vans are intended for Royal Mail use only; other "luggage" is meant to be carried separately, usually in the guard's van. Where space on passenger trains is made available for Royal Mail or Red Star use but is unoccupied on a particular journey, it should be at the discretion of the train operator (if permitted under the terms of any contracts) to decide what to do with the space.
I should point out to the Committee that the carriage of Royal Mail letters on passenger trains is already pretty minimal and is forecast to dwindle almost to nothing over the next two to three years. That is because mail is now carried far more efficiently on dedicated parcels trains operated by BR's rail express systems division. That service is a major contribution to the Post Office's fine record of meeting its first-class delivery targets.
As passenger service operators can be expected to provide appropriate luggage space if that is what customers want, just as BR does now, I recommend to the Committee that, even if the noble Lord wishes to press the amendment, your Lordships should not accept it.
§ Lord TordoffThose are hard words. The position. as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, is significant. He blew the whistle on the whole matter. He said that people can carry bicycles if it is commercially advantageous so to do. Of course, it is not commercially advantageous. The Government know that perfectly well. If the matter is left to market forces, the chances are that rolling stock will be designed and brought into operation which is incapable of carrying bicycles. That would be a great 1495 pity. We should encourage people to use bicycles when they are on holiday rather than strapping them to the tops of their motor cars.
The Government's position on the matter has been underlined. I am not arguing that the issue should go into primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is almost certainly right on that. However, we have had the opportunity of teasing out from the Government what their attitude is and it is clearly not sympathetic to the transport of bicycles by rail.
By having put these amendments forward and succeeded in blowing the Government's cover, as one might say, we may have done a useful service tonight. I hope that the noble Earl's honourable friend in another place, Sir George Young, is able to read what has been said because he is a bicycling enthusiast. He may be somewhat displeased by what he reads of today's debate in Hansard. Having said that, I pass the whole matter back to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and my noble friend Lord Falkland, whose amendments these were. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment tonight.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
§
Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 125:
After Clause 76, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption for independent railways
.—(1) Nothing in this Part shall apply to—
(2) This subsection applies to any railway or tramway which at the date of the passing of this Act was not operated by—
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2) above, any railway owned by a local authority which is authorised by any enactment to lease the railway to any person shall be deemed not to he operated by a public sector operator.").
§ The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 125 is in my name together with the names of my noble friends Lord Montagu and Lord Mottistone. I have a note from the latter to say that he is unable to be here today. Indeed, one can read of his activities on the ticker-tape in your Lordships' Lobby as, alas, he is in the Isle of Wight.
§ I hope that the Minister will find a different song coming from the Back Benches. This is the first time that I have spoken in Committee and my noble friend and Members of the Committee may wonder what the new clause which I propose is about. The present standard gauge of railways is 4 feet 81½ inches, as mentioned in the amendment. I understand from my 1496 noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that that is 1.435 metres, which is the gauge of the railways mentioned in the Bill which run all over Europe and into Asia as well.
§ The amendment seeks to exempt the operators of standard gauge preserved and independent railways in Great Britain from some obligations in the Bill which we believe are irrelevant to such operations, let alone to the activities of the operators. I should like my noble friend to glance at the first element in Clause 35 involving the closure procedures. The provisions in Clause 35(1) (b) on page 43, line 36, concern the carriage of passengers by railway. The provision of services for the carriage of passengers by railway may, include people who wish to pay a visit to preserved and independent railways, which number over 100. Are such trains classified as carrying passengers by railway for the purposes of the Bill, and hence will they be affected by the notification of closures?
§
Clause 21(2) (b) on page 22 concerns access. It bears the rubric:
Exemption of passenger services from section 20(1)",
which deals with franchising. Am I right in thinking, as I have been advised, that subsection (2) (b) gives class exemptions for that type of preserved and independent railway from the provisions of franchising?
§ Similarly, Clause 15(1) (a) concerns access. I am given to understand that over 30 of the 100 standard gauge preserved and independent railways have access on to British Rail's existing network. If the independent and preserved railways had to comply with all the provisions of access, it might create one or two problems for them.
§ The last problem concerns licences in Clause 6 on pages 6 and 7. All four matters—franchising, closures, access and licences—in all the provisions under the clauses which I have mentioned present some perhaps minor problems and apprehensions to the over 100 independent and preserved railway operators. They provide something which we never expected to be covered in the entire provisions of the 140 clauses and schedules to the Bill.
§ Will my noble friend be able to indicate the Government's thoughts on providing exemptions in these four areas for the preserved and independent railways? They are the standard gauge railways and the types of trains and railways which are mentioned in the Bill. They are not the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch type of narrow gauge railway. I beg to move.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Lord RentonBefore my noble friend sits down will he consider whether it is true to say that nearly all of the 100 railways to which he has referred—I am familiar with two or three of them —are already privatised? Is it not correct that they are run under licence from the department or from British Rail (I am not sure which) and they are run as private businesses?
Lord Lye11I believe that my noble friend is absolutely right. They are run as private businesses, but, as I understand it, in the four areas that I have mentioned there are a number of obligations which I believe my noble friend will agree are relevant to the 1497 providers of services. Clause 35 refers to the carriage of passengers by rail. The Committee will know exactly what that refers to. We have been discussing that throughout the Bill.
Does my noble friend agree with me that that phrase really applies, as the Bill would have it, together with all the obligations of franchised and licensed railway services to the 100 independent—I would not call them small—and preserved operators? The force of my proposed new clause is that I seek the guidance of the Government and the thoughts of my noble friend on the relaxation of all of the full implications of the four clauses. I believe that my noble friend Lord Renton and I are on parallel lines, but I had not thought to refer at all to British Rail. These are 100 independent lines. We are seeking to gain guidance and possibly obtain exemptions from some of the obligations which I believe the Committee and my noble friend may agree are not necessarily relevant to those independent operators.
§ Lord Cochrane of CultsCan my noble friend on the Front Bench say whether the definition being sought by my noble friends can he encompassed, or may already be so encompassed, within a light railways order? If that is so and the order can be modified to encompass them, it might save a great deal of bother.
The Earl of CaithnessI am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for so lucidly explaining his amendment to us. To many of the Committee the argument is somewhat familiar. The amendment which my noble friend has just moved is very similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, moved earlier in our discussions; namely, Amendment No. 23. I refer Members of the Committee to the Official Report for 1st July, cols. 1039 and 1040. So we are retreading very similar ground with this amendment.
However, having listened with care to what my noble friend Lord Lyell said, I wonder whether he has seen the Department of Transport's paper of 24th May 1993 on exemptions, which explained how independent railways were to be exempted from most of the provisions in Part I of the Bill. I confirm that it is our intention to issue exemptions to independent railways from the licensing, access, franchising and closures provisions in Part I. That was clearly stated in our document of 24th May. On the other hand, there may be areas where independent railways share stations with British Rail, where limited application of some of the Bill's provisions may be necessary. There are also some provisions in Part I of the Bill which are intended to apply to independent railways, such as some of the competition law provisions in Clause 59. It is also the case that Part I of the Bill provides some opportunities for independent railways, such as the ability to run their own trains on the Railtrack network if they are willing to obtain a licence for that purpose. A complete exclusion from Part I of the Bill would prevent this. I am sure that that is not what the independent railways would want.
There is one further difficulty with a complete exclusion of particular railways from the Bill, and that is defining which railways it should apply to. The list 1498 in the amendment is defective, for example, in excluding international operators other than BR or its subsidiaries. Our policy is to license any such operators running on the Railtrack network. Dealing with exclusions from the Bill by means of our approach of granting exemptions is, I believe, a better approach.
§ Lord LyellI thank my noble friend for his courteous reply, which was even more lucid and swift than my attempt to introduce my amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend. I have received the document to which he referred. Given what it states, I hope that he and the Committee will forgive me for having moved my amendment and putting the case in my own words. Paragraph 7 of my noble friend's document gave me some cause for happiness. The last sentence of paragraph 7 on page 3 states:
Any services the preserved railways run on the Railtrack network using the right of access arc likely to be exempted from franchising".I am grateful for that excellent assurance, although I might look into those that are "likely to he exempted".My noble friend referred to the licensing of private railways using the network. I presume that his thoughts run parallel to my own on steam excursions from, say, Perth to Inverness. I am sure that a mechanism for granting one and two-day licences could be found.
My noble friend has been kind enough to give us his thoughts in his paper on 24th May as well as a fairly kind reply to my proposals. If I may study his words with care and have a word with him or his advisers between now and the next stage, I do not think that it will be necessary to return to this subject. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 agreed to.
§
Lord Clinton-Davis had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 125ZA:
After Clause 77, insert the following new clause:
("Bids by subsidiaries of the Board
.—(1) It shall be a duty of the Board to organise its activities and those of its subsidiaries so as to permit the relevant subsidiary to bid for the provision of each franchised passenger service.
(2) In preparing any bid under the terms of subsection (1) above, the Board and its subsidiaries shall not be required by the Secretary of State or any other person to disclose to any person information which might, in the opinion of the Board or the relevant subsidiary, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of the Board or the relevant subsidiary.
(3) For the purposes of this section, nothing in section 22 above shall be deemed to prevent the Board or the relevant subsidiary of the Board becoming a franchisee.
(4) In this section, "the relevant subsidiary" means the subsidiary of the Board which, at the date on which this Act was passed or the time when the franchise agreement is made, was providing or operating services for the carriage of passengers by railway in the exercise of a function conferred by or under any enactment.").
§ The noble Lord said: This amendment is now otiose because of the amendment which was carried in the names of noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Marsh. Therefore, I do not intend to move it.
§ [Amendment No. 125ZA not moved.]
§ Clause 78 agreed to.
1499§ Viscount GoschenI beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.