Local Government and Transport Committee, 21 Dec 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Official Report 328KB pdf

---

Railways Bill

This is the 30th meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee in 2004 and our last this year, so in case I forget to do so at the end, I wish all members of the committee a good Christmas and a happy new year when it comes. I look forward to seeing you all again after the recess.

The first item on our agenda today is further consideration of how we should handle the Sewel motion that is, as we understand it, likely to be lodged on the UK Railways Bill. We have had another letter from the Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, which states that the Executive hopes to lodge the Sewel motion and accompanying memorandum early in January, and that he expects to be able to bring to the committee information about the transfer of resources to the Scottish Executive.

I will give a draft outline of how we intend to consider the issue once the Executive lodges the motion and memorandum. I propose that, in addition to the format that we used for another recent Sewel motion—a presentation from the minister, questions and answers, a debate and an indication to the Parliament of whether the committee supported the Sewel motion—it would be useful, as some members have suggested, to hear evidence from other relevant railway industry bodies. Given that there will be significant financial issues associated with the transfer of powers that is part of the UK Railways Bill, it seems that it would be appropriate to hear from Network Rail about the financial implications that will follow. I am prepared to listen to suggestions from members about other groups from whom it would be useful to hear, but I would appreciate it if members could say what specific area of evidence they would expect them to address. We will proceed on that basis. Do any members wish to suggest bodies?

I assume that our Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, will complete the evidence with his officials.

Yes.

I assume also that the information that he refers to in his letter of 20 December, and which was also referred to in his oral evidence on 2 November, will be supplied as soon as possible. It is pretty important that we get hold of that as soon as possible.

As far as witnesses are concerned, Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Passengers Committee Scotland have a wide knowledge of the rail network in Scotland, which would be useful. It is essential that the UK Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, come before us, because what is at stake is the funding of the rail network infrastructure in Scotland for the foreseeable future. It is plain that we would want the right to question Mr Darling about his views on what Scotland's share should be and what a fair share should be. Of course, he also has another responsibility as Secretary of State for Scotland, so I presume that he will want to come here to say how he will fight for Scotland's fair share in respect of the responsibilities that it is proposed we take on in respect of the railways.

To sum up, we should hear from Network Rail, the SRA, rail users and the UK Secretary of State for Transport.

Do other members have comments?

One of the issues that we discussed with the Minister for Transport when he was here in November was the process of moving powers from the UK Government to here and the financial issues associated with that. I understand that, at that stage, the minister was involved in what might have been quite sensitive negotiations about money that will be allocated to Scotland to allow us to take on the new powers. The negotiations were on whether the funding would be based on the Barnett formula, on a needs assessment or on pounds per mile of track. I do not think that we know yet how funding will be allocated; that will be one of the crucial issues. We need to know whether the responsibility, when it comes, will be worth the candle, supposing that we have the money to spend on it.

It is not up to us to tell the minister how to conduct his business, but it would be useful and helpful if, when he appears before us, he ensures that with him are civil servants from the Finance and Central Services Department to lay the ground for us on how the process will work in reality. I would also particularly like to speak to Network Rail because of the lack of power of direction—as I see it—that will be available to Scottish ministers, despite their taking on new responsibilities.

On the financial back-up to the settlement, I imagine that the Minister for Transport will bring appropriate officials to support him in answering questions. I expect that that suggestion will be taken on board.

It will be important to have before us somebody who can provide us with objective evidence on the financial issues. We have had various experts in the past, but in my view the financial issues are at the core of the matter. It would be helpful to have somebody, in an evidentiary or advisory capacity, who could assist us with that. In the past, we have accepted that financial issues in respect of the railways are complicated, so we would benefit from such ability.

Are you suggesting that we seek to make a short-term appointment of an adviser?

That might be helpful. Alternatively, at the end of the process, we could invite someone to give evidence on the evidence that we will have taken. From my perspective, financial issues are at the core of the matter. Rather than simply have a political debate on the financial issues, I would like us to take some objective evidence as well.

We could try to achieve that. Although I am comfortable that we should invite as broad a range of witnesses as possible, I do not agree with Fergus Ewing that it is necessary for us to invite the UK Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling. The Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, is accountable to the Scottish Parliament on transport; I imagine that he will be perfectly able to answer questions that MSPs might have on the agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. I do not know whether colleagues agree with my assessment.

I certainly agree with that assessment. To invite Alistair Darling would be a waste of time. Although some members might get a good press release when he turned down the invitation, it is not necessary for him to appear before us. That will not affect our ability to deal with the Sewel motion.

On that basis, do members agree to invite the range of witnesses that has been suggested?

I support Fergus Ewing's call to invite Alistair Darling, for which there are good reasons. I understand that Nicol Stephen is the Minister for Transport in Scotland and that he has a particular role to carry out, but the fact that the UK secretary of state will cede powers to Scotland may give rise to issues to do with Network Rail. Scottish ministers' power of direction over Network Rail will be important. The Sewel process is on-going, but it seems that Scottish ministers will not have a great deal of power of direction over Network Rail. The only way in which that could be achieved would be through the UK secretary of state, not through the minister who is responsible for transport in Scotland. There is an important edge to the debate that makes it proper for us to ask Alistair Darling to attend, which would allow us to decide whether the proposals will be a success for Scotland.

It remains my view that it would be perfectly possible for the committee to decide whether to recommend that the Sewel motion be agreed to on the basis of the range of evidence that we will take from the various rail bodies that we mentioned and from the Minister for Transport, who is responsible to Parliament. I propose that we proceed on that basis.

I appreciate your general approach. I welcome the fact that you have agreed to have an inquiry and your agreement to David Mundell's request. It is sensible that, as well as inviting Network Rail, the users and the SRA, we should have an objective source of evidence.

I say to Michael McMahon that the issue is not about being able to put out a press release. Bruce Crawford has put his finger on the central point—we face a momentous decision. Powers will be transferred, but we do not know whether resources will be transferred. The nub of the matter is, as Mr Crawford pointed out, that we do not know how resources will be allocated. A wide variety of criteria could be used singly or collectively, including the Barnett formula, population, length of track and an audit of need. At present, we have no idea what criteria will be used. The first question that should be asked is, "What are the criteria?" Unless we hear from the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland, we will not know what the Westminster end of the Government proposes the criteria should be.

I will finish on this point, because I appreciate that time is short and today's agenda is busy. If the criteria do not suit Scotland, the financial consequences could be catastrophic, which is why there is in this case a strong argument for having the responsible Westminster minister here and making him accountable to this Parliament, so that he can explain the criteria that he advocates be used to assess Scotland's share of the resources.

Without giving a full response, I draw members' attention to the last sentence in Nicol Stephen's letter to the committee, in which he proposes

"to share with the Committee, in advance, factual information which will provide the basis for agreement with the Department for Transport."

Nicol Stephen will provide the committee with that information in advance of the meeting, in order that we can probe it with the witnesses whom we invite.

You are right, convener. We are in terrible danger of saying that we will not get the answers from the witnesses, so we will have to ask other people as well. I would prefer to find out whether we get the answers. If we are not satisfied, that will be the time to call for other evidence. To be frank, the questions that are being asked by Fergus Ewing are the very ones to which Nicol Stephen should be able to give us answers; I presume that he has agreed to lodge the Sewel motion because he clearly understands the basis on which resources will be transferred. If he does not, it will be up to the committee to find the answers. If we are not satisfied with the response and we feel that we can get the answers only from somebody else, we should make that decision at that time and not second-guess the evidence that we will receive.

First, I support David Mundell, although I am not sure where the person or persons he mentioned will come from. However, I share his desire for such information. Secondly, the committee is well able to work on its scrutiny role. If we do not get the evidence that we require, we can go further. Can we write to the minister to say that we want information on the matters that were mentioned by Fergus Ewing?

That will not be necessary because I have already written to the minister stating that we want an explanation of the financial arrangement that will underpin the agreement. The minister has indicated that he will supply that.

That is fine.

Finally, every party that is represented round this table will have the opportunity to scrutinise the bill through their representatives at Westminster. We have every opportunity to scrutinise the bill and the powers that will pass to Scottish ministers through the Minister for Transport. I propose that we go with the list of witnesses that we discussed, with the exception of inviting the Secretary of State for Transport, who was suggested by Fergus Ewing. Do we agree?

Members indicated agreement.

In agreeing, convener, I think that it is obvious that the committee is not with me, which I suppose is not a unique experience.

The minister states in his letter:

"I propose to share with the Committee, in advance, factual information which will provide the basis for agreement with the Department for Transport."

We all accept that that information is vital, so can we have it before Christmas, or at least ascertain whether it is currently available? If it is, can we have it, so that we can perform our scrutiny role, assess the information and begin to carry out the work on the criteria as quickly as possible?

I do not know whether the information is available yet, but in communicating with the minister's staff we will say that members would appreciate the information as early as possible, in order that they can scrutinise it appropriately.

We agree on that basis to proceed with scrutiny of the proposed Sewel motion when it is lodged. We expect to discuss it at our meeting on 18 January.