|
Dr. Pugh: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 17, line 43, at beginning insert
'not fewer than five and.'.
The amendment would set a minimum of five members on the council with a maximum of 12, which would thereby establish a balance over the whole council. We have been concerned about the balance and setting a minimum number of members is normal in many walks of life, including company boards, other quangos and a wide range of organisations.
As it stands, the legislation allows the Secretary of State and the chairman of the council, who is appointed by the Secretary of State, to appoint one or as few as four members, which will skew the balance of the council as a whole and the votes of the representatives of London, Wales and Scotland would count for a lot more if voting took place. I agree that there is no ideal figure, but a minimum figure is desirable. We hope and expect that appointees will be men and women of great experience and considerable independence, who are capable of representing their own areas. Unfortunately, they could be toadies hoping for other quango appointments or superannuated party loyalists. We want the right representation and the wider the representation, the more likely that is. A small council, balanced in the way in which it could be balanced, is not the intention in the Bill and it would not hurt to impose a minimum number as well as a maximum number.
Mr. McNulty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the point of his amendment and I probably agree, although reluctantly, with the spirit of the amendment. However, it is superfluous because the wording that we have chosen merely replicates the wording in the current legislation for membership of the existing council, except that whereas there should be no more than six additional members on the existing council, there should be no more than 12 on the new council. Perfidious as many of them may have been, that has been the case since 1948. As ever, the rather obtuse but none the less logical what-if speculation from the Liberal Democrat Member may prevail, but it has not done so for almost 60 years and, short of anything changing rapidly in the future, I do not think that it will in future. We have expanded the council from no more than six to no more than 12 to reflect the need for it to be as all-embracing as possible, given its consumer focus, and far more readily able to focus beyond simply the regional dimension. We believe that that is about right.
The Secretary of State will not behave like some gauleiter, to use one of the favourite phrases of the hon. Member for Spelthorne, albeit in the context of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. I shall not provoke the hon. Gentleman to use the word, or we shall get jackboots and gauleiter together, which was a rough description of the terminal 5 inspection
Column Number: 186
team, but that is by the by. The Secretary of State will not, rather like some gauleiter, simply say ''We'll have him, her, him, her, him, her,'' in the fashion suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The appointments will be properly constituted through the OCPA process, which is clear and transparent. It is not about—it is tedious even to repeat it—sloppy Mickey Mouse politics such as toady this, toady that, political appointment this, that or the other. The Commissioner for Public Appointments is a formidable woman. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever met her. To suggest that she is a lackey appointed by the Government to appoint toadies to the various bodies is wrong, and demeans all that we seek to do in politics. Such allegations may be useful fourth-form alliterations for the Liberals, but they do not add to the body politic and party political processes. They are not Secretary of State appointments handed down from above; they are OCPA appointments made through a fundamentally transparent process, with all that that entails.
We have lifted the words from the original body of law. There was no difficulty in any way, shape or form, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, under the old RPC and we do not envisage any difficulty arising from having to put a minimum in the Bill. However, not least for some of the reasons suggested by members of the Committee, we accept that, for the OCPA to be an effective consumer voice with as broad a representation of rail passengers as possible, there should be no more than 12 additional members. We are comfortable with that; the RPC, old and new in terms of its national dimensions, is comfortable with that. We believe that that is the way forward, and I ask the Committee to resist the ''what if'' speculation in the amendment or I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Dr. Pugh: I am much relieved to know that gauleiter and patronage are things of the past. It is a great reassurance to all of us.
However, my point was not primarily about the mechanics of making the appointment. I accept that, with new guidelines, there is probably less direct patronage around than ever. The process is more transparent and evident. However, that is not in itself an argument for not putting a minimum in the Bill: a minimum would be a wise precaution.
None the less, the Minister asks me to trust the Government and go with experience. Who am I to argue? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Knight: As we have heard, these are important changes to the structure of passenger representation, and they are not without controversy, particularly among Government Members. Opposition Members hope that the changes will provide robust and effective consumer representation for all rail passengers. We want to see a strongly passenger-focused organisation
Column Number: 187
that champions passengers' needs and, where necessary, embarrasses and harasses Ministers when they are found wanting.
Does the Minister accept that the new organisation will need to be flexible and responsive to passenger needs to bring about national passenger benefits? Does he not only envisage that the new body will help to shape policies that affect passengers but sees its remit, as we do, as a national campaigning and lobbying organisation able to secure improvements in the quality of rail passenger journeys, which will help passengers to obtain better value for money, deal with passenger complaints and possibly even undertake research? Will the Minister confirm that the council will have the power to undertake research, if it wishes to do so, and that the changes brought about by the Bill will not prevent any of the activities that I have mentioned from being pursued? Will the new Rail Passengers Council also be able to publish, if it decides to do so, regular national passenger surveys to inform our future debates? Passengers should always be able to ensure that their voices are being heard, and be reassured that they are at the heart of the decision-making process. Will the Minister confirm that none of the changes made by the Bill will make those aims less possible?
We do not oppose the changes. We want passenger interests to be represented efficiently and the new body to become an effective consumer organisation, providing passengers and indeed Ministers with effective help and sound advice. If the Minister can reassure us that that is his intention, we will support him in keeping the clause in the Bill.
Mr. McNulty: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments. The Rail Passengers Council must be flexible and responsive. In the broad sweep of everything he said, I would be disappointed if it was not fulfilling those functions, including giving Ministers the proverbial kick that he suggests. If it is to be an effective consumer voice, much of what he described should prevail. As I understand it, none of the changes will prevent the new body developing or continuing in the direction that he suggests. It is in the interests of everyone in this House that there is an effective rail passengers' consumer voice. That is what we are seeking to achieve through this clause and schedule 5, and I am grateful for his support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Rail Passengers' Council Established By S. 19(1)
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Mr. Knight: This is a comprehensive schedule. I was going to start by asking the Minister whether he is satisfied that the scope of the schedule is sufficient to prevent any abuse, but as he has approved the drafting
Column Number: 188
of the Bill, I presume that he is content, so my question may be otiose. However, I wish to refer him to a point of interest that I have.
Part 6 of the schedule deals with the regulation of procedure, and paragraph 15(6) refers to the need for the Rail Passengers Council to keep minutes, which we would all expect it to do in any event. What is the position on publishing minutes? In the light of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and to engage the public in a wider debate on what they want from their rail network, does the Minister feel that minutes should be published unless anything contained in them refers to matters mentioned in paragraph 16 of part 6, in which case we accept that there would be a need to maintain confidentiality? Will the Council be encouraged as far as possible to publish its minutes so that it is engaging in a wider dialogue with the public, many of whom may not know what is going on at meetings?
I have another point to raise for my own curiosity. I notice that copies of the minutes are to be sent to the Secretary of State. When that happens in other instances, are the minutes sent in hard copy or does the Department now encourage groups to send them electronically? In this computer age, when a body or organisation has a duty to send a copy of its minutes to the Minister or to his Department, it should be done electronically. Will that be permissible under the wording of the Bill, and does it take place already?
5 pm
|
