| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
‘(1) An order under section 73 may make, in relation to the ITA,—
(a) provision about its constitutional arrangements (within the meaning given by section 78(2)),
(b) any provision which may be made by an order under section 79, 80 or 81.
(2) An order made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) which includes provision about the number and appointment of members of the ITA must provide—
(a) for a majority of the members of the ITA to be appointed by the ITA’s constituent councils (see subsection (3)),
(b) for those members to be appointed from among the elected members of the constituent councils, and
(c) for each of the representative councils (see subsection (4)) to appoint at least one of its elected members as a member of the ITA.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the constituent councils of an ITA are—
for an area within the integrated transport area of the ITA.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), the following councils are representative councils in respect of an area to be designated as the integrated transport area of an ITA—
(a) if that area includes the whole of a county, the county council;
(b) if that area includes a metropolitan district or a non-metropolitan district comprised in an area for which there is no county council, the district council;
(c) if that area includes one or more districts in a county but does not include the whole county, either the county council or the council for each of those districts (as determined by or in accordance with the order in question).
(5) If an order made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) provides for members of an ITA to be appointed otherwise than from among the elected members of its constituent councils (see subsection (2)(a) of section 78), it must provide for those members to be non-voting members (see subsection (2)(b) of that section).
(6) The voting members of an ITA may resolve that provision made in accordance with subsection (5) is not to apply in the case of the ITA.’.— [Paul Clark.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Paul Clark: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendments (a) and (b) to Government new clause 10.
Government new clause 11— Provision that may be made in an order under section 78: membership of ITA.
Amendments (a) and (b) thereto.
Amendment No. 11, in clause 73, page 64, line 6, in clause 73, at end insert—
‘(2A) An order may be made only if all of the constituent councils of the proposed ITA have approved the scheme by means of—
Amendment No. 29, page 64, line 31, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(b) for those members to be appointed from among the elected members of the constituent councils in such numbers as to be proportionate to the representation of political parties on those councils’.
Amendment No. 12, page 64, line 32, at end insert
‘, and
(c) for those members to be appointed from among the members of the different political parties represented in the constituent councils, in such numbers as to be proportionate to the representation of political parties on those councils’.
Amendment No. 13, page 64, line 32, at end insert—
‘(8A) Only those members appointed from among the elected members of the constituent councils under subsection (8) will be permitted to vote in the ITA’.
Amendment No. 26, in clause 78, page 68, line 29, at end insert
‘but which arrangements must provide that members of the ITA who are not elected members of the ITA’s constituent councils may not vote unless this is unanimously agreed by the ITA’s elected members.’.
Amendment No. 101, page 68, line 37, at end insert—
‘(c) for the ITA to determine what matters members of the ITA who are not elected members of the constituent councils may not vote on (which may include any matters relating to the funding or expenditure of the ITA, whether of a capital or revenue nature).’.
Government amendments Nos. 156 and 157.
Amendment No. 64, in clause 87, page 74, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Chapter unless the Secretary of State has laid a draft of the order before each House of Parliament and the remaining provisions of this section have been complied with.
(3) The Secretary of State must have regard to—
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament; and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament on the draft order,
made on or with regard to the draft order during the 60-day period.
(4) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to make an order in the terms of the draft, he must lay before Parliament a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (3)(a); and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(5) The Secretary of State may after the laying of such a statement make an order in the terms of the draft if it is first approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) However, a committee of either House may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (4) and before the draft order is approved by that House under subsection (5), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
(7) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (6) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in that House under subsection (5) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(8) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to make an order consisting of a version of the draft order with material changes, he must lay before Parliament—
(a) a revised draft order; and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under subsection (3)(a); and
(9) The Secretary of State may after laying a revised draft order and statement under subsection (8) make an order in the terms of the revised draft if it is first approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(10) However, a committee of either House may, at any time after the revised draft order is laid under subsection (8) and before it is approved by that House under subsection (9), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft order.
(11) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (10) in relation to a revised draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft order in that House under subsection (9) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(12) Where a person making representations under subsection (3)(a) has requested the Secretary of State not to disclose them, the Secretary of State must not disclose them under subsections (4)(b) or (8)(b)(i) if or to the extent that to do so would (disregarding any connection with proceedings in Parliament) constitute a breach of confidence actionable by any person.
(13) If information in representations made by a person in response to consultation under subsection (3)(a) relates to another person, the Secretary of State need not disclose the information under subsection (4)(b) or (8)(b)(i) if or to the extent that—
(a) it appears to the Secretary of State that the disclosure of that information could adversely affect the interests of that other person; and
(b) the Secretary of State has been unable to obtain the consent of that other person to the disclosure.
(14) Subsections (12) and (13) do not affect any disclosure that is requested by, and made to, a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order.
(15) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (9) an order is made in the terms of a draft order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.
(16) In this section the “60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before Parliament under subsection (2).’.
Paul Clark: I shall also discuss new clause 11 and amendments Nos. 151, 152, 153, 156 and 157, in the name of the Government. All these amendments deal with the membership of integrated transport authorities.
The strengthened powers for local authorities to improve bus services in their areas—which we discussed under the previous group of amendments—will be most effective if they are supported by the right arrangements for taking decisions at a local level. There is a clear consensus that in our larger urban areas outside London the current leadership and delivery arrangements for transport do not work as well as they might and that they need to be updated to reflect changing patterns of transport. The current governance arrangements in our major cities date from 1968. The Transport Act 1968 allowed
for the establishment of passenger transport authorities with overall responsibility for public transport services across each of those cities. By the time of the establishment of the metropolitan county councils in 1974, there were six of these PTAs, covering the west midlands, south and west Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear and Merseyside. One was also set up north of the border in Strathclyde. Although the PTAs survived the abolition of the metropolitan county councils in the mid-1980s, the power to create further PTAs was removed from the statute book, even in circumstances where local authorities themselves were keen to see new ones set up. So, the broad arrangements for local transport decision making have, almost unbelievably, effectively been frozen since then.
Over the last quarter of a century, there have, inevitably, been many changes in the transport needs and patterns of different areas—for example, in the distance that commuters are prepared to travel to their workplaces—yet the existing legislation offers very little flexibility to update local arrangements for the planning and delivery of transport, or for one PTA area to do things differently from another, where local needs differ; hence our provision in this part of the Bill.
I come now to the Government’s amendments. At present, membership of each of the six English PTAs consists entirely of local councillors representing each of the local authorities that make up the passenger transport area. The Bill offers greater flexibility, both to areas that are considering setting up a new integrated transport area and authority and to those where the existing PTA has become an ITA, as to whether they would prefer to broaden the membership of their ITA to allow a wider range of bodies or persons to be represented on it. At the same time, a majority of members of each ITA would still have to be elected members of the local authorities that make up the integrated transport area.
Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend explain how the changed membership of the ITAs could, together with their new functions, allow better integration of local bus services with rail services?
Paul Clark: I shall come on to those points shortly, but let me say that the ITAs will be able to draw together responsibilities for integrated transport. The title of integrated transport authority itself highlights that this is not just a simple change from passenger transport authorities to ITAs, but that it is very much about bringing together all the transport requirements—a point that covers exactly the issue that my hon. Friend raised.
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): The hon. Gentleman has just explained how responsibilities will be broadened under the ITAs. Will he explain how ITAs might include my mode of transport hither and to across the Solent—ferries?
Paul Clark:
First, let me say that it is up to local authorities to make a decision to review their transport arrangements and to come forward with a proposal to establish an ITA. Therefore, it would be within the scope of the authorities in the hon. Gentleman’s area of the Isle of Wight to have discussions and look at
whether some form of ITA could be created within those authorities. It is not for the Secretary of State, or central Government in general, to dictate what the local authorities should do; it is up to them to come forward with proposals as to how they might take advantage of the Bill.
A range of issues relating to ITA membership was explored in detail in Committee. In particular, concerns were raised as to whether it was appropriate for those members of an ITA who were not elected representatives of a local authority to be able to vote on matters in the integrated transport authority. As we explained at the time, we are keen not to be too prescriptive in the Bill about the details of the structure of each ITA and how it will operate. As I indicated to the hon. Gentleman, we think that it is far better for us to leave different areas the flexibility to do things differently if they so wish, including deciding whether non-elected members of ITAs should be able to vote.
Mark Hunter: Just a few moments ago, when we were discussing the previous group of amendments, the Minister agreed about the importance of local democratic accountability. He made the point forcefully that the local authority would have the final say on quality contracts, and that it would not be left to advisers. Will he explain to the House why this is a different principle? Why does he feel that the matter that we are discussing now should be at the discretion of local authorities, and why is the principle of democratic accountability not just as important on this matter as on the one that we were talking about just a few moments ago?
Paul Clark: The ITAs will consider all the transport options that exist. We are still giving the final say to local authorities, and in fact it is provided that they will be in the majority on any ITA board. Representatives of the local authorities will make up the larger number, and there will be a minimum of one representative from each authority in the ITA area. Equally, it would be right for them to bring in others, potentially including representatives of users—that option would be open to the ITA and local members—to be involved in their deliberations and discussions. Whether they had voting rights would be decided by the elected members of the ITA. I hope that that covers the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Rob Marris: May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to new clause 10(5)? I am clearly reading it differently from him. It states that
“it must provide for those members to be non-voting members”—
“must” not “may”. As I interpret it, he appears to be saying that they may be non-voting members. The wording in the bit that I am reading, which may not be the bit that applies to what he is saying, states that they must.
Paul Clark: I thank my hon. Friend. It is certainly the case that if an ITA decides that it wishes to include other representatives, for example of bus users, operators or a number of other groups depending on local requirements, it will have the ability to do so. It will then be able to decide on which matters those non-elected, non-local authority members will vote. That is exactly the provision.
Perhaps if I turn my attention particularly to new clauses 10 and 11, I may elucidate on what I have just said. Members of all parties recognised that voting arrangements are best decided locally, which was why we were happy to respond with new clause 10, which applies to secondary legislation setting up new ITAs, and new clause 11, which applies to secondary legislation covering ITAs that already exist. They provide that it will be for each ITA to decide for itself whether those of its members who are not elected members of the local authorities but who are appointed by them should be able to vote, and if so, on which issues. That is instead of the issue being determined in the governance order to be made by the Secretary of State.
Graham Stringer: I have been puzzling over new clause 10(5) and (6) since I first read them. Subsection (6) clearly provides for local determination on the voting rights of non-elected members on a committee, but will that be reversible on a meeting-by-meeting basis?
7.15 pm
Paul Clark: It will be for the local ITA to decide how that provision will operate. It might decide on voting rights on issues that appear on the agenda for a given meeting, or it might well decide on broad categories of provisions. It could agree that non-elected members cannot vote on finance issues, or another such category. There will clearly be supporting guidance to help ITAs through that process, but it will be for them to deem how they run their own affairs.
Graham Stringer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way on a difficult point. My concern is this: if a party in control of an ITA can bring people on to it and give them voting rights on everything from capital and revenue expenditure to the network route, will it be able to say that those people have voting rights for four years, potentially undermining any elections in its constituent authorities? That is not clear from the new clauses.
Paul Clark: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. If I recall correctly, the authorities themselves will be able to review provisions under the new clauses periodically. I shall return to that issue shortly, but I recall that they will certainly be able to review them as and when required. Of course, there is a requirement for the ITAs to follow the rules and regulations on political balance, to reflect the constituent local authorities that make up the ITA.
Mr. Leech: Surely it would be far more straightforward to get that expertise on board with an ITA but give non-elected members no voting rights.
Paul Clark: That course of action would be open to individual ITAs. As I have said, it will be up to an ITA to decide locally whether those members have voting rights. That will be entirely its decision to make, and the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) has indicated could be taken into account.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |