|
Mr. Wilshire: Is the Minister willing to put on the record that what he just said means that those two people must be directly elected by a principal council outside the Greater London boundary?
Mr. McNulty: It means nothing of the sort. That is not what I said at all. I simply explained what the role of the two must be. An earlier point seemed to suggest that there could be an interpretation suggesting that of the existing 15, two could be nominally appointed as outwith-GLA members. That is not the case in relation to the entire clause.
Mr. Field: Does the Minister accept that we need clarification on the matter? The concern is that one or both of the two members could live in Greater London but be, for example, the principal of a further education college at which most of the students lived outside Greater London. That person would therefore qualify as someone who could represent the interests of those studying outside Greater London. Surely it is imperative that both members have as their main home a property outside Greater London, so that they can take on the representative role that is envisaged.
Mr. McNulty: I take on board the spirit of that point. Herein lie some of our difficulties. I will start at the beginning. The principal Act says clearly that there should be 15 members of the TFL board. In that context, TFL and Ken Livingstone have said to me, ''Of course we recognise that if our boundaries are to be expanded just for this one function there needs to be a voice from outside Greater London, but there is a
Column Number: 175
prescriptive list in the 1999 Act about what sort of representation we should have on the board. Is it possible for those two to be additional to, rather than part of, the 15?'' The Mayor is told in schedule 10.2 of the 1999 Act to ensure that
''the members of Transport for London between them have experience in—
(a) transport (including in particular the impact of transport on business and the environment),
(b) finance and commerce,
(c) national and local government,
(d) the management of organisations, and
(e) the organisations of trades unions''.
That is a flavour of the representations that are supposed to be on the board.
So, the Mayor's side recognises, as I think does everyone here, that if we go down the road of expanding beyond the GLA boundaries, there needs to be a voice for those outside the boundaries. What the Mayor's side is saying—that those two members from outside the GLA should be in addition to the 15 members of the board—is in one sense entirely fair and something that I will reflect on. Given that fair point, I do not think that I can accept that four out of 15 members should represent those beyond the GLA boundaries.
Starkly put, there are 5.9 million bus and 3 million tube journeys in London every weekday, which is what TFL already provides for. Given the area that we are talking about, this proposal might bring in another 500,000 commuters. Notwithstanding the point made about those communities having a voice above and beyond commuter traffic, four out of 14 members of the board, taking the Mayor out of the equation, is probably a bit excessive considering the populations represented by those from outside the GLA boundaries and those in them. So I suspect that, accidentally or otherwise, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster are closer to the Livingstone and TFL line than they would perhaps like to be. However, they make a fair point.
I start from the premise that if we go beyond the GLA boundaries, those outside the boundaries must have some voice. I freely accept that I do not have a monopoly on how to capture that voice. Without being a futurologist, I think I can say clearly that, essentially, those involved would be from the east and the south-east and that we will not be worrying about the south-west or the west or east midlands representatives on TFL. I would be surprised if representatives were not forthcoming from the regional planning bodies who take up many of the transport issues for the two regions. Their representatives are all directly elected county and unitary councillors for their areas. It is a slightly more legitimate form of election than those for South West trains or Southern trains board of directors, if we are talking about a democratic deficit.
There does need to be that voice. We think that having two distinct outer GLA members representing that voice is right. I take on board the concerns about consultation. That needs to be locked down more readily, but not necessarily in the Bill. However, I do
Column Number: 176
not claim a monopoly. I am more than happy to reflect on the numbers and the broad positions to which hon. Members have referred, but if I do not have the answer in clause 17 as it stands, I am absolutely clear, with the greatest respect, that none of the amendments offer me the answer either.
Lawyers usually charge a fortune to say ''without prejudice''. With those words at the top of my imaginary letter to the Committee, I will happily reflect on the real concerns of the Committee, the Mayor and TFL in order to see if we can capture what is necessary—the voice of the regions.
Dr. Pugh: The Minister is saying that there will be two additional members for Transport for London and that they will not necessarily be elected representatives but representative of people in outer London. If that is what he is saying and if that is the thrust of the clause, it ought to be tidied up so that it says so. The problem with wording can easily be addressed. However, by that process are we actually amending the constitution of the GLA or Transport for London? Are there any consequential effects?
Mr. McNulty: The clue is in the opening phrase of the clause, which says:
''Paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c.29) (membership of Transport for London) is amended as follows.''
That should provide the hint that the clause will mean changes to the GLA and TFL. It is not terribly subtle.
The wording does not need tidying up. The hon. Member for Spelthorne knows that on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill I quite readily apologised for the sometimes sticky and opaque legalese. These words, however, say what we intend to do, which is that two members of the TFL board shall reflect the interests and be representative of those outside London. The issue is about the nature of those members—whether they come through regional planning bodies or are separate. It is also about the nature of the appointment—how much the Mayor has to take on board the concerns of those outside London. I have not spoken to him about it, but I would suggest that a list is submitted by whatever region puts forward a suggestion and that the Mayor chooses from it.
The representatives will not be directly elected to the board; the existing members are not. They will not be elected representatives of one form or another. Susan Kramer was given a job on the TFL board when she failed so miserably in the first mayoral elections. No one elected her to the board, and I do not remember her complaining about the legitimacy of her position. The issues are the nature of the voice and the numbers—two or four members out of the existing 15, or, as the Mayor and TFL have suggested to me, two in addition to the 15 prescribed in the 1999 Act.
I must reflect on those elements, because they are genuine concerns. Whether or not one agrees with the caveat that the GLA boundaries should be expanded in the interest of national and commuter rail, we all
Column Number: 177
start from the premise that there is that voice from the regions if TFL's responsibilities go beyond GLA boundaries.
I will reflect on the issue with those weasel words of lawyers ''without prejudice'' at the top of my letter, so that I am not committing myself to anything other than reflection with due diligence on the serious points made in Committee and by others, including TFL and the Mayor. The amendment does not offer a way out of or a solution to the matters under discussion, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Mr. Wilshire: I always knew that there was a nice man hiding behind the Minister's exterior. I sense a chink of light. I do not think that the plates are shifting, but we are making a little bit of progress, and I am grateful for that. The Minister said that he wanted to reflect on how he could include the voice of the regions, and I am not trying to reopen the debate on regionalism, but I hope that when he does his thinking he will try to find a way to get the voices of the people who are affected heard. In some cases, it might be the whole region; in other cases, it might not be. In any event, it would be churlish of me not to say that I appreciate that little chink of possible change.
4.15 pm
Mr. Field: The Minister has been uncharacteristically compromising in this debate, which has been worth while and has dealt with several of our concerns. I initially pointed out that the amendments were probing amendments. I entirely appreciate that they were intended to provoke a debate, and I hope that we will have a little more feedback from the Minister on Report.
It seems clear that the common-sense interpretation of clause 17(2) must be that the two members who are appointed to represent the interests of those who live, work or study outside central London would themselves fit into that category and live, work or study, in any permutation of those three things, outside central London. I hope that when the time comes, in so far as the Minister comes back to us without any major amendments to the clause, the Mayor of London will have had an opportunity to read some of the debate. Given the concerns of those outside London, perhaps he will ensure that more than two members ordinarily resident outside Greater London are appointed to take on this important representative role.
This has been a worthwhile debate, and I thank the Minister for his understanding and his summing up. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
