| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Norris: I shall complete my point, as the hon. Lady might like to reply to it. I do not propose to detain the House; I simply wish to respond to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will not allow the Minister to detain the House on that subject. I have shown more than usual tolerance. The Minister must now return to new clause 1, which is before the House for consideration.
Mr. Norris: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Logic suggests that you are correct, and that those who
have sought to divert the debate are trading too much on your customary courtesy. Leaving clearly on the record the Government's commitment to the scheme and the rationale behind my right hon. Friend's statement--both of which, if one looks at them independently and objectively, are perfectly rational and are evidence of a well-structured policy--I now turn happily to new clause 1 moved by the hon. Member for Newham, South.
The new clause requires LRT to include in its annual report not only a description of the purpose and scope of any agreement entered into under new section 3(2A) but a similar account of any subsidiary agreements that are entered into. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the existing legislation requires LRT to report any contracts which have been entered into that will affect the co-ordination of public passenger transport services. That is the qualification on the obligation to publish. In clause 4(2), the Bill extends the requirement to publish similar contracts--those that are made under the new powers--in the same way as those contracts made under the old powers. To the extent that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about ensuring a continuity of the duty to publish, I am happy to reassure him that that provision is contained in clause 4(2).
I fear that new clause 1 is unduly onerous--I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of London Regional Transport, so he will understand why I say that. For example, it would require the publication of the details of contracts that are, quite rightly, commercially confidential. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that is not a cloak under which Ministers can hide, but a perfectly proper commercial arrangement that ensures that LRT is able to go about its normal commercial activities. For example, new clause 1 would affect the contractor's financial backers in relation to any arrangements that LRT might make under the Bill. Therefore, I believe that the new clause would not sensibly extend the powers of disclosure, but would prove extremely unhelpful to LRT.
As to amendment No. 3, proposed subsection (2B) in clause 1 enables LRT to enter into subsidiary agreements with persons other than the contractor to allow a main private finance initiative deal to be achieved. It is important to bear that in mind, as it is the cornerstone of the Bill. It follows that some of the projects that we envisage will result from the PFI shall involve contracts of considerable value. Therefore, we believe that it is reasonable for both LRT and the contractor's financiers to be able to give each other a direct assurance in respect of their rights if the contractor should default for any reason. LRT has no powers to enter into such agreements under the London Regional Transport Act 1984--hence the need for the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment proposes that those subsidiary agreements should be subject individually to the consent of the Secretary of State. As it stands, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to give his prior consent to any agreement that LRT proposes to sign under proposed section 3(2A). In giving that consent, the Secretary of State has powers under existing legislation to impose conditions that could, in theory, extend to cover the details of any financial issues. Therefore, it is difficult to see what additional protection the amendment could provide.
In practice, I think that the small print in the contractor's financial arrangements is best left to the experts to determine. Without casting any doubt on the immense abilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I do not think that he needs to be involved in details of that sort. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting--to put it simply--that the House is capable of managing the affairs of LRT. The House is obviously not in a position to do so, and it should not attempt it.
LRT advertises its major commercial opportunities publicly in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It usually announces publicly the award of major projects, giving an idea of their value and duration when that information is not commercially sensitive. That is the correct way to advertise: to attract potential bidders at the outset and to inform passengers at the conclusion. Hon. Members are also in a position to ask questions if they require further information about a particular project. I see no value in imposing an obligation on the Secretary of State to notify Parliament in all cases when he has given his consent under section 3, and to do so before the agreement has been concluded.
In light of the reassurances that I have given about the publication of information about PFI contracts, I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South will feel able to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Spearing:
With the consent of the House, I shall refer in passing to the questions regarding crossrail, on which perhaps the Minister could comment later. He referred to contracts, but I have heard nothing so far that would prevent London Regional Transport from entering into a big contract with, shall we say, crossrail plc to construct the central part of the line from Paddington to Stratford--the Minister is correct in saying that I would welcome such a project--under the Bill. Perhaps we can deal with that issue on Third Reading.
Mr. Norris:
I remind the hon. Gentleman of our original discussion concerning the purpose of the "mouse of a Bill", to quote the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. Norris:
The hon. Gentleman must know that I am his good friend in the House. That is the ultimate kiss of
Nothing in the Bill alters the fundamental obligation placed on London Regional Transport by the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to--I shall paraphrase the legal language--provide or ensure the procurement of public passenger transport services in London.
The hon. Gentleman referred to an agreement that London Regional Transport may enter into with crossrail--he mentioned a body such as Crossrail plc and, for the purposes of the argument, we shall forget about Railtrack and assume that such an entity will emerge with a plan to deliver the scheme. That plan could be delivered under the provisions of the 1984 Act.
The disclosure provisions--including the disclosure of commercially sensitive information--would be precisely those that apply at present. The Bill extends into those areas where LRT previously had no power--where services provided by contractors are ancillary to the main services provided by LRT, but which will involve LRT as a partner in the agreement. That is the key to the hon. Gentleman's point and I hope that on that basis he will see that his crossrail line of questioning is, to some degree, misdirected.
Mr. Spearing:
I am grateful to the Minister for that most interesting and lengthy intervention. I am reminded of the famous phrase about the lady protesting too much.
I have used crossrail as a test case of the visibility and reportage of agreements, but I see from the Bill that agreements can be made containing provision for
Subsection (2) is, of course, in the existing London Regional Transport Act 1984.
We have to leave the argument here, but I cannot see why a project for a crossrail plc could not be reported to the House and why the consent of the Secretary of State is not possible. I shall pass over the merits of crossrail, but given the possibility of its construction by a contractor, I still think that the Bill might be rather more than a mouse. The Minister has not yet convinced me that it is not a mouse of a Bill.
On the question of reports to the House under new clause 1, the Minister claims that we cannot require them because of commercial confidentiality. We now know that if contractors, in the health service or anywhere else, have to bid for projects, public accountability is prevented by the chasm of commercial confidence. I understand the Minister's reasons, but they make accountability all the more important.
On amendment No. 3, the Minister claimed that the Secretary of State would not have to give consent to the second layer of agreements because LRT and the contractor would deal with them. We do not know how big those contracts will be and I find the Minister's explanation unconvincing.
On amendment No. 4, the Minister claimed that the notifications do not need to be laid before the House. They do not include confidential or financial information, since amendment No. 4 states:
What is the Secretary of State afraid of? The Minister said that we need not worry because the notification will be laid in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Why cannot it be laid before the House? I find the Minister's explanations unsatisfactory.
"the carrying on by the contractor of such activities as are mentioned in subsection (2) above".
"the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament notification of his consent together with a general description of the purpose and scope of any such agreement, not less than one calendar month before the agreement is to come into effect."
3 Apr 1996 : Column 434
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |