(1) Before—

(a) issuing an invitation to tender for a franchise agreement in a case in which the services to be provided under the agreement are or include services in which a Passenger Transport Executive for an area in Scotland have an interest, or

(b) entering into a franchise agreement in respect of such services in a case in which no such invitation has been issued, the Scottish Minister must consult the Executive for that area.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the services in which a Passenger Transport Executive has an interest are—

(a) services for the carriage of passengers by railway within the passenger transport area of that Executive; and

(b) services which are not such services but are services for the carriage of passengers by railway to or from such an area.

(3) A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in Scotland and the Scottish Minister may enter into arrangements under which one or both of the following occurs—

(a) sums become due from the Executive to the Scottish Minister in respect of services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area or in respect of station services or bus substitution services provided within that area; and

(b) the Scottish Minister undertakes to exercise or perform his powers and duties in relation to or in connection with such services in a particular way.

(4) A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in Scotland may enter into agreements for purposes relating to or connected with the provision, by a person who is a franchisee or franchise operator in relation to a franchise agreement, of—

(a) services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area; and

(b) station services provided for purposes connected with any such services.

(5) A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in Scotland may not enter into an agreement (whether by virtue of subsection (4) or otherwise)—

(a) with a person who is a franchisee or franchise operator in relation to a franchise agreement, or

(b) with a person who is proposing to become such a franchisee or franchise operator, unless the agreement is approved by the Scottish Minister.

(6) The Scottish Minister may—

(a) give a general approval for the purposes of subsection (5) in relation to a description of agreements, as well as specific approvals for particular agreements; and

(b) withdraw his approval in relation to any agreement at any time before the agreement is entered into.

(7) The agreements to which a Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in Scotland may become a party with the approval of the Scottish Minister include franchise agreements under which services are provided which are or include services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area.

(8) The Scottish Minister and the Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in Scotland must each provide to the other any information which—

(a) the other reasonably requires for purposes connected with his or their functions in relation to railways or railway services; and

(b) is information which it would have been lawful for him or (as the case may be) them to disclose apart from this subsection.

(9) In this section—

(a) a reference to a service for the carriage of passengers by railway within a passenger transport area is a reference to a service for the carriage of passengers by railway between places in that area or between places in that area and places outside it which are within the permitted distance;

(b) a reference to station services provided within such an area is a reference to station services provided in connection with any such service for the carriage of passengers by railway; and

(c) a reference to a bus substitution service provided within such an area is a reference to a bus substitution service for the carriage of passengers between places in that area or between places in that area and places outside it which are within the permitted distance; and in this subsection "the permitted distance" has the same meaning as in section 10(1)(ii) of the Transport Act 1968 (c. 73) (25 miles).'.—[Mr. Davidson]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 64, in clause 5, page 5, line 38 at end insert

'and they shall concurrently publish in full the reasons for adopting the strategy or revised strategy.'.

No. 7, in clause 13, page 12, line 2, at end insert 'in England'.

The Conservatives have just fought for the rights of first-class passengers; I want to speak up for people in Strathclyde.

The amendments are intended to maintain equality between Scotland and England in terms of the role of passenger transport executives in the rail franchising process. Although the Bill will devolve significant additional powers over the railway network in Scotland to Scottish Ministers, it does not confer any additional legislative competence on the Scottish Parliament. The primary legislation governing the relationship between Ministers and regional authorities on railway matters will remain reserved to this Parliament. Consequently, unless the Bill gets it right, there is a real risk of a gap in the statutory chain, which could both fetter the future discretion of Scottish Ministers and frustrate the effective delivery of integrated transport in the west of Scotland.

This is not just a matter of legal niceties. It is of fundamental importance to my constituents, and to the 44 million passengers who use the Strathclyde rail network each year. Rail travel accounts for more than a quarter of all fare-paid journeys in the Strathclyde area, and the level of railway use in the west of Scotland is second only to that in Greater London. The railway network is therefore a core component in the regional transport system in Strathclyde. It is also undoubtedly a key reason why there are proportionately fewer car journeys in Strathclyde than in the rest of Scotland.

In other words, we are looking at a balance between private and public transport in the west of Scotland that clearly goes with the grain of the Government's national transport and sustainability objectives. It is important that the Bill should not undermine the continued delivery of integrated transport in the Strathclyde Passenger Transport area, and therefore unwittingly work against the wider policy objectives that the Government have set themselves.

The relatively healthy state of affairs in the west of Scotland's transport is not simply a happy accident. It is the result of more than 30 years of conscious political choice and deliberate financial decisions by accountable regional bodies that had the will and the means to influence directly the delivery of local railway services as part of an integrated transport system. Strathclyde regional council, of which I was a member—as was the Minister: I hope she will bear that in mind when she replies—invested more than £400 million in developing the local railway network while it was the passenger transport authority for the area. Since railway privatisation, the successor PTA has spent over £50 million of discretionary funding in service and network enhancements, and a recent study by consultants appointed by the Scottish Executive has shown that more than half the growth in traffic and revenue on the Strathclyde rail network during the 1990s was directly due to initiatives by the PTA and the PTE.

Such an outcome is clear proof of the correctness of what the Secretary of State for Transport said in the House when he introduced the railway White Paper:

"Local transport decisions are best taken by people who know what is needed locally." [Hansard, 15 July 2004; vol. 423, c.1548].

It also seems to accord with the intentions of the Scottish Transport Minister, Nicol Stephen, who has said:

"I still expect SPT to have a direct role in the management and development of rail services in the west of Scotland." [Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 June 2004; c. 9099.]

Unfortunately, the present drafting of the Bill appears to undermine the delivery mechanism for that assurance. It is that defect that the amendments seek to address. The Bill proposes to take away PTEs' existing powers in relation to rail franchises, and clause 13 replaces them with new provisions for engaging PTEs in the franchising process. However, clause 13 does not apply in Scotland, although this is an area where the Scottish Parliament has no competence to enact equivalent or alternative provisions. The amendments therefore seek to introduce an additional clause that will give Ministers in Scotland the same discretion to involve a passenger transport executive in future railway franchises that the Secretary of State for Transport seeks in relation to English PTEs.

There is a parallel Bill before the Scottish Parliament that could potentially amend the basis on which SPT currently operates, and result in a transfer of powers between it and Scottish Ministers. That is an undoubted complication, but I cannot emphasise too strongly that it does not remove the need for the amendments. I remind the Minister that the Scottish Parliament is not able to amend the underlying legislation governing railways. It is also worth pointing out that Holyrood's Transport (Scotland) Bill is at a less advanced stage than the Railways Bill, and its key components in relation to SPT are simply enabling. Their implementation will depend ultimately on secondary legislation whose terms and scope have yet to be defined, let alone scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament.

The Government's acceptance of the amendments would not oblige Scottish Ministers to follow any particular future course of action, other than introducing a statutory obligation to consult. I am sure that hon. Members would in any event endorse that latter requirement. The same principles of open and accountable government should be adopted consistently throughout the United Kingdom, and should not be differentially applied in a Bill that is the responsibility of this Parliament.

The remaining provisions of the amendments put the Bill's application to a PTE in Scotland on the same footing as in England. They would preserve a statutory framework that would enable, but not compel, Scottish Ministers to adopt the same participatory approach to a rail franchise in Scotland that would be available to the Secretary of State for Transport in England in equivalent circumstances.

We are always dealing with hypothetical situations when legislation is in progress, but in this one, the uncertainty is compounded by the fact that two legislatures are involved. If this part of the Railways Bill is passed unamended, there is a tangible risk of unintentionally restricting the future ability of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament to provide for the continuing effective delivery of integrated transport in the west of Scotland. Such a risk could arise, for example, if the current Transport (Scotland) Bill failed to gain Royal Assent or was substantially amended by the Holyrood Parliament. A risk could also arise if Scottish Ministers chose not to exercise their proposed power to initiate secondary legislation in this field, or sought to change the basis of that legislation at the outset or in future.

My new clause and amendment seek to remove such risks by ensuring the consistency of the reserved legislative framework within which devolved railway policy will be made and delivered in Scotland. They preserve, rather than forgo, options by preventing a situation in which Scottish Ministers are statutorily debarred from involving a PTE in rail franchising. In the interests of even-handedness and of ensuring the future delivery of integrated public transport in the west of Scotland, I commend the proposals to the House. I am sure that the Minister will not fail to be moved by them and will accept them.

I rise to speak to amendment No. 64, which would add to the end of clause 5(2) the phrase

"and they shall concurrently publish in full the reasons for adopting the strategy or revised strategy."

A duty would thereby be imposed on Scottish Ministers, in preparing or revising a strategy, to publish in full their reasons for so doing.

We live in an age of openness and—I like to think—fairness, and everything that we do should at least be within the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. The public have a right to know why decisions are made using their money in their name, and the amendment would impose a duty on Scottish Ministers to ensure that whenever they publish or change a strategy, they explain why.

I hope that the Minister will tell me and the House that my amendment is not necessary because she expects the giving of such explanations to be best practice. If she does, I shall be delighted not to pursue the matter further.

Was the right hon. Gentleman referring to the Westminster Freedom of Information Act 2000 or to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002?

My general point was that in the enlightened age in which we now live, one hopes, an increasing number of decisions made involving the use of public money are open to scrutiny.

Mr. Davidson made the case for new clause 3 very well, but nothing that he said led me to conclude that we should support him if he decides to divide the House on it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend Mr. Davidson for explaining the point of his new clause, which is that this Bill should make the same provision for passenger transport executives in Scotland as for those in England.

I, too, remember fondly our days as members of Strathclyde regional council many years ago, on which we both served our political apprenticeship. If I remember correctly, he had to serve his slightly longer than I served mine, before moving on to other things.

I accept what my hon. Friend said about the approach of Strathclyde PTE, and I should make it clear that I highlighted those points in responding to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna), who have raised similar issues before. That PTE was forward-thinking and was at the forefront of providing integrated transport. As my hon. Friend alluded to, it underpinned a political agenda that recognised the need and desire in the west of Scotland for an integrated public transport system that served all the communities in the area. I should point, however, that I will be asking my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause and amendment, for reasons that I hope he will understand.

It would be remiss of me not to put on the record the fact that yesterday, the Scottish Parliament gave its unanimous support—such unanimity is very unusual—for a Sewel motion transferring functions relating to railways from this House to Scottish Ministers. Having agreed that transfer of power to Scottish Ministers, it would not be right for this House then to second-guess what they want to do. As my hon. Friend said, they have outlined their approach to railway development in Scotland in the Transport (Scotland) Bill. They have made it clear that there will be a need for local input into the Scottish rail network, and have therefore stated categorically that the west of Scotland regional transport partnership, which will replace Strathclyde PTE, will have a role in the development, management and monitoring of the franchise in that part of Scotland. Indeed, the new regional transport partnerships will be established across Scotland.

I am aware that concern exists that there might be a gap between enactment of the Railways Bill and of the Transport (Scotland) Bill, but we anticipate no such gap. Under the terms of clause 14 of the Railways Bill, Strathclyde PTE will continue to be a party to the ScotRail franchise. That will allow it to maintain its current role in the management of that franchise, until Scottish Ministers make an order under the Transport (Scotland) Bill—once enacted—to transfer its powers.

The Transport (Scotland) Bill also includes provisions that allow Scottish Ministers, if they so wish, to transfer or share their own transport functions with the new regional transport partnerships that will be established across Scotland. Therefore, if they wish, Scottish Ministers can share rail functions with any RTP. So clause 13 as drafted will not statutorily debar Scottish Ministers from involving other parties in rail franchises, and in the light of that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw his new clause. If he does so, it would be entirely logical for him to withdraw amendment No. 7 as well.

The amendment tabled in the name of Mr. Knight is not necessary. We share the view that there needs to be maximum consultation, transparency and openness. Under freedom of information Acts north and south of the border, the opportunity now exists to underpin that transparency. I know that Scottish Ministers share the UK Government's concern that Scottish citizens should be properly informed about what is proposed for their railway network and why. As I said in Committee in response to a previous amendment to clause 5 that was based on a similar principle, the Scottish Executive have adopted the principles of the Cabinet Office's code of practice on policy development and public consultation. That being the case, the reasons behind policy and strategy proposals will be explained as part of observing those principles, and of good practice. There is every likelihood that before its actual publication, a strategy will have been widely available as a consultation document.

Those of us who represent Scottish constituencies know that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament are well versed in the importance of consultation in respect of policies and initiatives.In that spirit, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok to withdraw the new clause.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Minister has been polite and considerate and has yielded no ground. Goodness me—some things have not changed since our days in Strathclyde! I had hoped that she might have mellowed, but apparently she has not.

I understand that I have a decision to make about pressing the new clause to a vote. It is maybes aye, and maybes no—but, on balance, I think that I will not do so.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.