Amending pre-commencement access contracts: principal Crossrail services

I beg to move amendment No. 44, in clause 27, page 17, line 43, at end insert—

‘( ) Where the Secretary of State makes no objection to the contract, he must indicate who he has consulted in formulating his decision.’.

If the Minister wishes to take this amendment back to his officials, I will be happy to withdraw it. The clause also relates to pre-commencement access contracts, but those that affect the operation of principal Crossrail services, as opposed to those that concern the construction of the Crossrail network itself. It gives the Secretary of State the power to object to any perceived conflict between the specified minimum operating levels of Crossrail set by him and any existing access contracts as identified by the ORR. That is my understanding, at any rate. That effectively puts more power in the hands of Government and the purpose of my amendment is merely to introduce some accountability into the process.

The Secretary of State should consult affected parties before deciding whether to object to the contract identified by the regulator. He should then be happy to indicate exactly whom he has consulted in the formulation of that decision. Does the Minister agree that that puts no particular extra or undue burdens on the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State, whoever it might be at that time, should be happy to indicate whom he or she has consulted in the formulation of that decision?

I fear the hon. Gentleman might be drinking Martinis on his own tonight. I do not think that I will be able to join him. If I offered him the same concession that I offered previously, he might start spreading the rumour that I am a soft touch. The aim of his amendment is somewhat puzzling. It requires the Secretary of State to indicate whom she has consulted  when she makes no objection to an access contract that conflicts with the operation of the principal Crossrail services, but it makes no similar requirement when she does object.

I do not see a requirement to consult being necessary in any case. The ORR is already likely to be in touch with the parties to access contracts and to establish what would prejudice the operation of the principal Crossrail passenger services. The Secretary of State would decide whether she objects to that contract. If she does object, the ORR would be in touch with the affected parties anyway and regulations would provide for the carrying out by the ORR of its functions, which could involve consulting interested persons. If she does not object, I am not clear what use the ORR would have for information on whom, if anyone, she consulted in reaching that decision. At the risk of disappointing the hon. Gentleman, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

I know from the Minister’s debating here and in the House that he is not a soft touch. I cannot believe that anyone would think that of him. I have listened carefully to his rationale. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We now have a repeat performance by Mr. Hammond.

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 27, page 18, line 7, leave out subsections (7) to (9).

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 17, in clause 33, page 23, line 22, leave out subsections (6) to (8).

Thank you, Lady Winterton. I do feel a bit like the ITV autumn schedule, I must say.

This is a probing amendment. I seek to delete subsections (7) to (9) of clause 27. The two preceding subsections give the Office of Rail Regulation the power to enforce the decision of the Secretary of State as to the amendment or cancellation of any existing access contracts that are perceived to be in conflict with the Government’s specified minimum operating levels for Crossrail. Subsection (7) enables the Secretary of State to

“make provision in relation to the carrying out by the Office of Rail Regulation of its functions” as set out in the preceding subsections. That appears to me to be vague, ambiguous and in need of clarification. I hope that my amendment will allow the Minister to clarify exactly why these subsections are relevant and need to be included in the Bill.

Clause 27 deals with existing access contracts that may affect the operation of the principal Crossrail passenger services. After all, some access contracts that would have such an effect may still be in existence at the time of Royal Assent, and the clause enables them to be modified. Clause 33 also deals with the modification of access contracts. In both cases, where such modification was required, there would  need to be an extensive process corresponding broadly to that set out in paragraphs 3 to 6 of schedule 4 to the Railways Act 1993. It is desirable to provide for that by means of secondary legislation, rather than adding further to the Bill. It would be subject to the annulment process in the House.

Amendments Nos. 45 and 17 would delete both provisions that enable secondary legislation to be made. That could result in an unsatisfactory, inflexible position in which existing statutory procedures may not be entirely established or transparent. If there were concerns about provisions in the secondary legislation, there is parliamentary protection, as I have described. I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon is satisfied with that explanation.

As I said, this is a probing amendment. I wanted the Committee to understand why the subsections are necessary and I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.