|
Mr. McNulty: However important PTEs are—I concede that they are important, and have been doing so for much of the day—this is a consumer body that represents rail passengers. We have said quite deliberately, and the RPC of old has agreed, that we want to move away from the rigid and frankly not terribly successful model of regional passengers committees to a new, nationally focused commuter and consumer body.
Mr. Clelland: The Minister referred to the fact that PTEs were not representative. The amendment refers to passenger transport authorities, which feature elected representatives of the travelling public.
Mr. McNulty: With respect, that is pedantry in the extreme. Of course, I meant PTAs. In rail passenger terms, which is what this is about, the PTAs cover less than 15 per cent. of all rail passenger journeys. If we were talking about a truly reflective and representative
Column Number: 182
rail passenger body, seven out of 10 members would be from London. It is not simply about reflecting the varying weight and importance of passenger numbers from around the country. As a London MP, I would certainly not advocate that 70 per cent. of the body—the consumer voice for rail passengers—should be from London, which would reflect very mechanistically the importance, in numeric terms if nothing else, of rail passengers.
Clearly, despite what I have said about numbers, rail is important to PTE areas that are governed by elected PTAs, as it is important to the whole country. I know that the RPC is keen to engage with PTEs on the future structure and role of the new RPC. It has already met with Roy Wicks of the PTE group to discuss how the RPC can develop more effective relationships with PTEs and PTAs. I think that the RPC, through Stewart Francis, has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley saying that it does not think that the amendment is desirable. In future, rather with the grain of what we are trying to do—get a more effective consumer body—he wants RPC members chosen for their experience and expertise, rather than their geographic location.
The importance in the context of a previous clause is that, at least in part, that consumer voice should reflect the devolution structures in the new post-SRA rail industry—hence the voice for Scotland, Wales and London,. It is not because London, Scotland or Wales are more important than the PTA areas or the rest of England. The provision reflects the impact of the new structures on consumers and gives them a voice.
I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's wish that the new RPC should represent regional and national concerns. From discussions with Stewart Francis and others, I am convinced that it will. I am pleased that they are talking seriously with Ray Wicks and others from the Passenger Transport Executives Group and I am sure that they will happily meet elected members from PTAs. The RPC must speak to PTAs and PTEs and reflect regional and national issues in order to become the effective body that we wish it to be.
The Newcastle members will be expected to pick up regional issues, including those that concern passengers in the city regions, which largely reflect PTA areas. We also expect members to recognise and represent the full range of rail passenger interests and concerns, irrespective of their regional background. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley will know that the proposals for the internal structure of the new RPC put forward by the chairman provide further assurance that regional issues will be covered, given that each rail franchise area will be covered by RPC front-line staff, who will engage with the full range of regional passenger interests.
It is not necessary or appropriate to take the mechanistic route to ensure that there is at least one representative of the six PTAs on the new RPC. In one sense, the suggestion itself challenges the validity of doing so: without wishing to sound like the hon. Member for Spelthorne, how can a bona fide PTA
Column Number: 183
member from the west midlands adequately reflect the regional concerns of Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester or South or West Yorkshire?
I repeat that the RPC is essentially a consumer body, designed to represent the views, concerns and interests of all rail passengers. Members are not selected simply on a regional basis, as happened with the old rail passenger committees, nor are they selected because of their directly elected political background. To go down that road would change the nature of the beast—we want to achieve a new, effective voice for rail passengers as consumers—before the new process has started.
I will get back in touch with Roy Wicks and Stewart Francis to ensure that there is a dialogue and to give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks in terms of PTAs collectively and individually ensuring that their concerns are heard in the new RPC structures. However, I will resist this incredibly mechanistic response.
Dr. Pugh: Subsection (2)(b) allows a member to be appointed by Scottish Ministers and subsection (2)(c) allows a member to be appointed by the National Assembly for Wales. Is the Minister's understanding that that could be an elected representative on those bodies, and that it need not necessarily be someone who is simply a consumer? Is it a correct reading of the clause that there could be a politician from Scotland and from Wales on the body?
Mr. McNulty: To be frank, I am not entirely sure, but I hope that I will be enlightened and then I can enlighten the Committee. Judging from the nuances of my reading of the Bill, I hope that that is not the case and that these are not political appointees, certainly not from London. The Bill has left London Transport Users Committee in place because of its unique position in a London context. In the light of what I have just said about PTAs, if, on reflection and with due inspiration, it appears that the Bill allows politicians to take a place on the council, I will resist it. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Stringer: On the last point, my hon. Friend is a brave politician in many ways. I know that from the number of times that he has debated the tram system in Greater Manchester with people from Greater Manchester and the north-west. However, he would indeed be brave if he were going to tell Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Assembly whom they should or should not appoint.
This simple amendment has led to a useful debate and may stimulate me to table another amendment on Report. It has several aspects. One is whether, because we have a constitutional arrangement under which there is not a number of separate bodies that represent England, we should assume that the Secretary of State should be responsible for taking all those decisions. My answer to that is that we should not.
Dr. Pugh: Is not the logic of that argument that areas that do not vote for regional government are de facto discriminated against?
Column Number: 184
Mr. Stringer: I do not particularly want to go down that route and do not wish to encourage the hon. Gentleman. No part of England has voted for or, in my opinion, is likely to vote for elected regional assemblies. We are therefore left with the situation in which either the Secretary of State takes the decision, which is the central point of the clause, which deals with who the English representatives on the Rail Passengers Council should be, or we look to some other mechanism.
I would not defend the view that PTAs are the ideal bodies to do that, although they are bodies with an interest in transport. They are not drawn just from the producer side: like elected representatives in virtually any council or elected body in this country, they represent both the consumer side and also, in some cases, the producer side. Some of our quangos can be over-professionalised and miss out on the common sense and common experience of politicians in other areas. I therefore do not completely accept my hon. Friend's argument that politicians could have nothing whatever to say in the context of a consumer group—that is an extreme argument. However, I can see that they might not be the only people to have a say.
In tabling the amendment, I tried to consider an alternative to the Secretary of State appointing people to the RPC. I accept that there are some arguments against PTAs. One could advance an argument that included county councils as well as the PTAs. All sorts of mechanisms would probably be better than appointment by the Secretary of State and would give better representation. If one accepts that some form of professionalism should be included, that can be provided by the secretariat.
I would not totally dismiss the argument in favour of regionalism. I know that the vast majority of rail journeys in this country take place in the south-east. However, that does not mean that rail journeys to the Yorkshire dales or in the west midlands, even though they represent a tiny percentage of the rail journeys that take place in England, do not need some form of consumer representation. I believe that my hon. Friend accepted that there was no simple linear relationship between the number of passenger journeys and the representation on the council. What I am saying is that every area of England should be considered and represented in some way. There are very poor and inadequate rail services in many parts of England, which is one reason why the people in those areas should be represented.
4.45 pm
I shall be happy, as ever, to withdraw the amendment, which has provoked some interesting points. In response to the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who represents the Liberal Democrats, my intention was never to produce something that was symmetric, but to start a debate about how people should be chosen. My view is that they should not be chosen by the Secretary of State. They should not be chosen just on a professional basis: there should be a regional element and even a democratic element in the representation on the Rail Passengers Council.
Column Number: 185
With those comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
| 
