Official Report 328KB pdf
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
In agreeing, convener, I think that it is obvious that the committee is not with me, which I suppose is not a unique experience.
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.