Schedule 3 - Abolition of Rail Regulator: Savings, &c. Question proposed, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Railways and Transport Safety Bill
10:15 am
Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)
I thought, Mr. Hurst, that you were talking about the hon. Member for Bath. I do not imagine that he can read a newspaper and answer a question at the same time, ambidextrous though he is.
I am sure that the Minister will have heard what the hon. Member for Bath said. I had difficulty with the paragraph because I wrongly linked the two schedules. I apologise for that and will make sure that I do not again get quite so vigorously ahead of myself.
In the response to my question on schedule 2, we were told that the present rail regulator's contract will run its course and that he will then go on his way. I am sure that he will take with him any pension provision to which he is entitled. The hon. Member for Bath raised the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—another of those dreaded EU directives—which caused great consternation. Will the Minister tell us the implications for other savings? Will the Office of Rail Regulation remain where the current rail regulator is housed? From the discussion that we had on the increase in volume of staff and officials that the new Office of Rail Regulation is intended to have, it seems that a big property will be needed to house them and their egos.
This is a cheeky little measure and, mindful of the fact that the hon. Member for Bath believed that the rail regulator would serve the length of his contract and then go on his way, will the Minister tell me what compensation the Secretary of State may feel is due under paragraph 5(3)
''to the last person who held the office of the Rail Regulator.''
What would be the basis of such compensation? I do not believe that the outgoing chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, Sir Alistair Morton, received such compensation. If a person serves the full term of their contract and their pension arrangements are
honoured, I cannot see that there should be a right to further compensation.
Presumably, such compensation would be in the form of a one-off payment. The paragraph states that it would be made to the last person who held the office, and we know who that is. The Government are being pretty beastly to the person concerned and have been fairly public about it. Is that why the Government believed that they needed to include the provision? Will there be a little amendment down the road to delete it? If the incumbent serves to the end of his contract—the Minister assured us this morning that he would—I do not see what reason there would be for compensation. I am sure that the Government regret being as beastly as they have been to the rail regulator, but that does not justify compensation.
I would like further guidance from the Minister. During the course of the Bill to set up the Office of Communications, concern was expressed by the staff of the five existing regulators. Incidentally, one would think that savings could be made by replacing five regulators with one, but we could not get a commitment from the Government on that. The hon. Member for Bath touched on the question of staff transfers—will the staff be invited to transfer their functions from the office of the rail regulator to the Office of Rail Regulation, and what will happen to their pensions in the event of their not transferring? Will they be given a new contract, or will they carry on regardless?
I also have a difficulty with paragraph 6, which states:
''Section 15 is without prejudice to any function, property, right or liability of the International Rail Regulator.''
I presume that the Minister will confirm that the international rail regulator will continue in his position. I am surprised, however, that the Bill is silent on the nature of the relationship between the new Office of Rail Regulation and the international rail regulator. However, Mr. Winsor is lucky, as it seems that he will receive a big sum of compensation.