|
Dr. Pugh: I have a couple of observations to make on schedule 5. Most of the schedule is procedural and entirely necessary, although one inspects it for hidden traps. There are sections on members and staff, finance, financial procedures, status and supplementary powers and procedure itself. What the schedule is light on is spelling out the exact functions of the body. They are presumed and mentioned in the schedule and also in clause 20, and there is also much talk about the delegation of the functions, but does the RPC simply inherit all the functions as specified in the 1993 Act or can it acquire new ones? Is that the intention of the provision?
The schedule states that the Secretary of State has the power to give out a grant as he may determine. The grant is not related to any specific purpose, and it would be nice to hear what is anticipated and to some extent excluded. The Secretary of State can also direct the RPC to convene sub-committees, but it appears that the council itself has no power to generate its own sub-committees or regional committees if it so wishes. The council and how it develops over time remains in part a creature of the Minister.
A provision for the annual report states that the RPC
''must have regard to the desirability of excluding from the report . . . what would or might seriously and prejudicially affect the interests''
of individuals or a corporate body. If one adds to that the carte blanche definition of confidentiality in paragraph 16(3), and that in paragraph 16(4), where it is again defined as something that is prejudicial to the
Column Number: 189
interests of the individual or corporate body, it would seem—I may have misunderstood it—to hamper unduly what the RPC may produce. Could the RPC, for example, be critical of a TOC or operator of some kind if the operator were to allege that it was detrimental to his commercial interests to have certain data disclosed? If the confidentiality clauses are so restrictive that the annual report is unduly limited, it is a template if not for a toothless body then for a muzzled one. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister.
Mr. McNulty: The point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about the RPC not only securing minutes but providing them to the Secretary of State is an entirely fair one. It has to provide them because it is a non-departmental public body and the Department for Transport is the sponsor Department. It is foreseen that the minutes will be sent electronically. We have gone beyond someone on a bicycle having to wheel round a hard copy for everybody as well. The RPC will continue to operate under a freedom of information regime. The caveats about confidentiality against the body corporate or individual are entirely fair—a stock phrase that is inserted in most Bills these days. I know that it is tempting to run round with a magnifying glass looking for an elephant trap like a junior Sherlock Holmes because the nasty Government are trying to cover up everything, but they are not. The provisions are elements of the new freedom of information regime, stating that in all circumstances there are or will be items of confidentiality that are germane to the RPC on a corporate, individual or other level. Those aside, both the annual report and the minutes of meetings will be put in the public domain.
The powers of the new body will be the existing powers of the RPC under section 76 of the 1993 Act. Those same powers are rolled forward. We are seeking to make the newly configured RPC a better and more effective consumer voice, rather than change the substance of what it does. Schedule 5 is precisely about putting in place the enabling framework for the RPC to do what it does. It does not outline what the RPC's functions are or are likely to be. It is entirely right that it is a skeletal framework of how it will carry out its business rather than going into substantive detail about the functions. In that context I commend schedule 5 in all its glory to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Functions retained by London Transport Users' Committee
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Column Number: 190
Mr. Field: I shall not detain the Committee for long. I wanted to put on the record one or two of our concerns. The schedule applies specifically to the London Transport Users Committee. In the previous debate it was made clear—I thank the Minister for that—that that committee already takes on people from outside Greater London. It reflects the importance of Thameslink and other cross-London railway links. In view of the expansion that we have looked at in clauses 15 and 17, what action is being taken to ensure that the composition of the LTUC remains truly representative?
I should also like to touch on the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley. His point in the debate on clause 13 related to the variable quality of franchise holders and the need to ensure proper and effective scrutiny. Paragraph 3 of schedule 6 relates to the duty of the LTUC to investigate the record of franchise operators. Perhaps the Minister will have something to say both about the safeguards to prevent delays in investigating concerns about the record of particular franchise operators and, being even-handed here, to ensure that there are safeguards to prevent vexatious claims, especially in the run-up to franchise renegotiations. I neither wanted to detain the Committee overlong, nor to cover ground that we had already covered in the debate on clause 17.
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman makes fair points, which are slightly misplaced. All schedule 6 does is to restore the status quo for the LTUC once the principal legislation from which the LTUC springs—in other words the RPC legislation—disappears. We have got rid of that and must somehow put it back in because we have left the LTUC on its own as an RPC. Much of what the schedule does is simply to restore the status quo.
I will be entirely frank with the hon. Gentleman and the Committee: there are one or two issues where the LTUC thinks that that is not quite the case and is looking to see whether we can get some clarity there. I am fairly convinced that the schedule simply maintains the status quo, but I remain to be advised otherwise. I will happily meet the LTUC again, with or without the hon. Gentleman, if that is how we need to take things forward. It is important that it is a substantive voice.
As the map showed, the TFL land grab—that is purely shorthand for want of a better phrase—will have to go some way until it reaches the current LTUC boundaries. So the point about the LTUC keeping in step with an expanding TFL boundary is fair, but it is not of concern in the immediate future. If the hon. Gentleman knows the LTUC boundaries, he will know that there is some logic to them. When I spoke earlier, I was not suggesting that there was no logic to them, just that it was not necessarily the same logic that would dictate where the GLA boundary for rail services went in the first instance. So I am comfortable that the point about the LTUC keeping in step with the TFL boundary is not a burning issue and that it is not likely to be so in the immediate or mid-term future. The LTUC also raised that matter.
Column Number: 191
Let me go back to first principles. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, given the uniqueness of London in the railway world, which we have rightly dwelt on, given all that the LTUC does and given its existing, complex relationship with the GLA and with TFL, it is more appropriate to leave the matter in situ and outwith what we are doing with a newly reconfigured RPC and consumer voice for the rest of the country.
I take the points on board. I have reflected on and addressed them. In substance, schedule 6 simply restores the status quo for the LTUC, after much of
Column Number: 192
what we have done with the old RPCs had taken it off the statute book. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and I commend schedule 6 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 13 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.
| 
