Railway Safety Levy Regulations 2006
Lord Faulkner of Worcester:
My noble friend will be aware from our correspondence towards the end of last year that, initially, there was considerable unhappiness in the heritage railway sector about the proposals—not least because they run counter to assurances that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey gave to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, during the passage of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. My noble friend made clear then that heritage railways would continue to be exempt from the safety regime. I wrote to my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham about that. In his reply, he told me that the policy context had changed.
Further to that, discussions have taken place in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, described. There is now broad satisfaction that the Government have moved from what appeared to be a more extreme position. I think that it is fair to say on behalf of the heritage sector that there is broad satisfaction with the threshold limits that are now proposed. However, I reiterate the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, of whether the limits will be inflation-proofed. I would also like the Minister to confirm whether there are aspects of heritage railway business that will not be included in the turnover calculation. Can he, for example, confirm that the relevant turnover will not include VAT, retail sales, catering or engineering work carried out for external organisations, museums or other educational activities? If the threshold applies strictly to railway operations, that will be acceptable to the sector. But it is important, first, that the amounts are inflation-proofed, and, secondly, that the ancillary activities of the railways are not caught by the turnover limits.
© Lords Hansard 30 March 2006
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, who has asked a couple of questions that I intended to put to my noble friend. I should declare an interest as a member of the legal services committee of the Heritage Railway Association.
My noble friend will be aware from our correspondence towards the end of last year that, initially, there was considerable unhappiness in the heritage railway sector about the proposals—not least because they run counter to assurances that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey gave to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, during the passage of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. My noble friend made clear then that heritage railways would continue to be exempt from the safety regime. I wrote to my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham about that. In his reply, he told me that the policy context had changed.
Further to that, discussions have taken place in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, described. There is now broad satisfaction that the Government have moved from what appeared to be a more extreme position. I think that it is fair to say on behalf of the heritage sector that there is broad satisfaction with the threshold limits that are now proposed. However, I reiterate the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, of whether the limits will be inflation-proofed. I would also like the Minister to confirm whether there are aspects of heritage railway business that will not be included in the turnover calculation. Can he, for example, confirm that the relevant turnover will not include VAT, retail sales, catering or engineering work carried out for external organisations, museums or other educational activities? If the threshold applies strictly to railway operations, that will be acceptable to the sector. But it is important, first, that the amounts are inflation-proofed, and, secondly, that the ancillary activities of the railways are not caught by the turnover limits.
Perhaps my noble friend could comment on those points.
© Lords Hansard 30 March 2006