'(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare, and from time to time revise, a code of practice for protecting the interests of users of relevant English and Welsh services who are disabled.

(2) The Secretary of State shall publish a code prepared under this section, and every revision of it, in such manner as he considers appropriate.

(3) Before preparing or revising a code under this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee established under section 125 of the Transport Act 1985 (c. 67).'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 60, in clause 47, page 50, line 38, at end insert

'and the Mobility and Access Committee Scotland (MACS)'.

Many disabled people still feel disenfranchised when they consider embarking on a rail journey, and the new clause would put that right. Rail journeys should be a pleasant experience for everyone, regardless of whether they are disabled, and I hope that the new clause will engender the Government's support.

The hon. Gentleman has been very brief in his presentation of the new clause, but I am sure that the House shares his concerns about disabled passengers. I disagree, however, that the new clause goes further than existing provision. When one considers the lot of disabled passengers under the previous Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997, the new clause is, frankly, a joke. However, this is an important matter for discussion.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to promulgate a code of practice for protecting disabled railway users in England and Wales. It would empower the Secretary of State to prepare and, from time to time, revise that code of practice. It would require him to publish it, and each revision of it. Finally, it would require him to consult the Department's disabled persons transport advisory committee before preparing or revising the code. It is designed to provide for a duty on the Secretary of State to maintain a code in England and Wales that corresponds to the power in clause 47 allowing Scottish Ministers to prepare a similar code. I strongly believe that the new clause is unnecessary, and suggest that it be withdrawn. If it is not withdrawn, I ask the House to resist it because a stronger provision is already included in the Bill.

The existing requirement on the SRA to maintain a code of practice is contained in section 71B of the Railways Act 1993. Paragraph 29 of schedule 1 to the Bill preserves that requirement, substituting the Secretary of State for the SRA. The Secretary of State's duty will extend to the whole of Great Britain, with the Scottish Executive's code applying only to services that they procure, including the ScotRail franchise. The schedule 1 provision is stronger than the terms of the new clause in that it additionally requires the Secretary of State to promote the adoption and implementation of the code, but the new clause would require him only to revise and publish the code from time to time. The requirements in the new clause would not achieve anything for disabled passengers. Schedule 1 also makes transitional provision to continue in force any existing SRA code and to enable the Secretary of State to draw on any consultation already undertaken by the SRA. That will provide continuity between the position as it stands under section 71B of the Railways Act 1993 and the position in the post-SRA period. That is important, but the new clause would mean the loss of that continuity.

Amendment No. 60 seeks to add an additional requirement on the Scottish Ministers as to which bodies they must consult before publishing a code of practice for disabled rail users in Scotland under clause 47. The clause currently requires consultation with the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which is the body that SRA must currently consult when preparing a code of practice under the Transport Act 2000, and the body that the Secretary of State will be required to consult when he acquires the SRA's duty. Therefore the third element of the new clause is redundant, because it provides for something that already happens and will continue to happen under the new system.

I am following the Minister's argument with some interest. He makes a powerful argument that the measures in the Bill are stronger than the new clause. On the question of consultation, can he say whether the SRA is—or the Secretary of State will be—under any obligation to consult the Disability Rights Commission, which has been established since the 1993 legislation?

That is a fair point, but I will have to get back to the House on it. I am not completely au fait with the legislation that established the DRC, so I do not know whether it drew in all consultation requirements in extant legislation. I half think that the DRC automatically has a general role in any aspect of disability provision, including transport and the railways. I will certainly get back to the hon. Gentleman and the House on that point.

The amendment would add the Mobility and Access Committee Scotland as a second consultee, after the disabled persons transport advisory committee, for Scottish matters. I freely concede that the amendment raises a very good point. MACS has been established by the Scottish Parliament to fulfil a similar role in Scotland to that of DPTAC in Great Britain and the Scottish Executive have advised that MACS is very important, but we need to take a step back. I have some sympathy with the principle behind the amendment, but we still think that it is unnecessary. As the matter is convoluted, let me go through it briefly.

The Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland was established by the Scottish Parliament in 2002, and fulfils a similar role to DPTAC. DPTAC was established under legislation that pre-dated devolution, but equal opportunities law, including the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, is reserved to Westminster. So, on the face of current legislation, DPTAC continues to have a role in Scotland.

However, DPTAC and MACS work closely together. They have a concordat between them that will ensure that their work is complementary and that while DPTAC will deal with all issues that are reserved to Westminster, MACS will deal with issues that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I can imagine a much greater role for MACS in future with the additional devolution proposed by the Bill, but believe me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have looked into how one might unpick the pre-devolution legislation that established DPTAC—pre-devolution legislation that established much of the framework of our equal opportunities legislative framework—and I have discovered that a great many amendments would be needed to get it all in order to such an extent that we could simply say that in Scotland, given where we have got to with greater devolution on rail, MACS should be consulted, and in the rest of the country DPTAC should be. Although it is convoluted, I think that that explanation renders the amendment unnecessary.

So, there would be a much greater role for MACS in future, given the additional devolution proposed by the Bill. However, a duty for Scottish Ministers to consult DPTAC but not MACS, however silly it sounds, should not adversely affect the existing role of MACS. Existing arrangements should ensure that DPTAC involves MACS or refers to it where an issue relates to devolved matters. I am also sure that when the Scottish Executive do consult on the code of practice, they will involve as wide an audience as necessary.

Although I have, as I have tried to explain, enormous sympathy with amendment No. 60, I think that, for many of the reasons that I have suggested in terms of the legislative complexities, it is unnecessary; equally, given the increasingly strong relationship between DPTAC and MACS, if the import of the amendment is to ensure that the Scottish voice of disabled transport users is as fully involved and consulted as possible once these rail matters have been devolved to the Scottish Executive, the House can have, I think, my assurance that we will work together with the Scottish Executive to ensure that what the amendment seeks to do will prevail. But please do not ask me to take the matter back and come back with what will be, I would guess, anything from 30 to 50 amendments just to get all the legislative elements lined up so that what we all want can prevail strictly and purely in law. Rather, I ask hon. Members, please accept the assurance that it will prevail in reality. We do not want to go unpicking pre and post-devolution legislation and the statutory framework. In that context, I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn and the amendment will not be pressed.

I note that the Minister has responded in great detail. We shall read what he has said and then consider whether we should come back with this amendment or something similar in the other place, but in the meantime, bearing in mind that there is only about 15 minutes left to discuss all the remaining amendments on the amendment paper, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.