Again, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulation with some clarity. As he said, it is not entirely the easiest area. Penalties have been introduced relatively recently to provide a better standard of service, by and large, from rail operators. In broad terms, we find the order uncontentious and basically support it.
I missed what the Minister said about what happened if the contraventions lasted longer than two years. If someone else missed it, I hope that he might re-cover that. Also, why is there a two-year cap? Presumably the contraventions could go on for three or four years. Could something happen over the two years stronger than the penalty position on which the order rests?
The rail companies indulge in other businesses. How much of that other business will be taken into account for the 10 per cent of turnover? For example, GNER runs Sea Containers. Could that business be brought in as a base for the 10 per cent? We would be grateful to know.
What would happen if the contraventions were completely beyond the rail company’s control? I mean signals going out of order or lines being out of action for a long period. Where does the responsibility lie and when do the penalties begin to impact? The fining power is being moved from the Strategic Rail Authority to the Secretary of State. How will that impact on what is done?
The 10 per cent turnover figure includes government grant and subsidy. Is there not a technical risk that the Government will simply be taking back or handing on to passengers 10 per cent of taxation that they have already contributed? They may be grateful for getting a little of their tax back, but they may get it back in a different form. There is also the possibility that the companies will ask for additional subsidies to cover the penalties paid out of subsidy. That is slightly convoluted as well. Is there any evidence to suggest that a fine of, for example, 10 per cent acts or will act as a deterrent or restriction on the companies concerned?
If the Minister were able to deal with at least some of those questions, we would find that he would add a little more light on the order. However, as I say, I have no intention of not supporting it.
Railways Act 1993 (Determination of Turnover) Order 2005
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hanham
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 19 July 2005.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Railways Act 1993 (Determination of Turnover) Order 2005.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c187-8GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:49:11 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264764
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264764
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264764