Clause
2
Traffic
commissioners
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 17, in
clause 2, page 2, line 10, after
‘For’, insert
‘each traffic
area constituted
for’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 18, in clause 2,
page 2, line 10, at end
insert—
‘(za) at least one
commissioner;’.
No.
149, in
clause 2, page 2, line 12, after
‘appropriate;’, insert
‘but to be no fewer than
seven’.
No.
28, in
clause 4, page 6, line 33, at
end insert—
‘(1A) For each
traffic area constituted for the purposes of this Act there shall be at
least one deputy traffic
commissioner.’.
Stephen
Hammond:
The first set of amendments, certainly amendments
17 and 18, fall into the probing category. We regard large parts of
part 1 of the Bill as uncontroversial. It makes some changes to the
current structure of the traffic commissioner network. Traffic
commissioners do a good job and, within some constrictions, are
generally perceived to be doing decent jobs—in some areas, very
well, in others, not so—and any plans that will enhance the work
they do has our support. At present there is one traffic commissioner
for each of the eight traffic areas—western, north-eastern,
north-western, west midlands, Wales, eastern, south-eastern and
metropolitan, and Scotland—and the Bill seeks to change that
arrangement.
The
traffic areas, with the exception of Scotland, while existing in the
sense that they are there, will cease to exist to the extent that the
Secretary of State can, or will, appoint as many traffic commissioners
as she sees fit and then it is up to the senior traffic commissioner,
to whom we will come later in the debate, to tell them what to do and
where to do it. The proposal does not link, as previously, traffic
commissioners with traffic areas and I want to understand the thinking
behind it. Most guidance and discussion about traffic commissioners has
focused on the new powers they are to be granted under the Bill rather
than on the new network of traffic commissioners. I want to hear from
the Minister the rationale behind the changes and how, in practice,
even if the Secretary of State wanted to appoint more traffic
commissioners than there are areas—which in many ways would be a
good thing—it would help by not aligning at least one traffic
commissioner with an
area.
In
the opening remarks about consultation and representation, the issue of
regional representation was mentioned. At the moment, each traffic area
has one traffic commissioner and although that system may be far from
ideal—in the north-west, I understand, from Liverpool all the
way to Leeds, there is only one traffic commissioner and two
staff—it at least ensures that there is some certainty of a
dedicated traffic commissioner for a dedicated area. Under the new
system, that seems no longer to be the case.
The
relationship between a local authority, local passenger groups, the
local bus operator and the regional traffic commissioner
will be lost. Different
traffic commissioners could be appointed by the senior traffic
commissioner to deal with different cases in the area at different
times, so yet again the benefit of local knowledge and experience would
be
lost. The
purpose of my amendment is to provide that each of the existing traffic
areas will have at least one traffic commissioner. The Secretary of
State would retain the flexibility to appoint as many traffic
commissioners as she sees fit. Presumably, if I understand the later
parts of the Bill, on the guidance of the senior traffic commissioner
she can appoint as many traffic commissioners as she wants, but at
least one of them should be dedicated to one of the current regions.
That process has all sorts of merits that it would be disappointing to
lose.
Amendment
No. 28 is consequential on amendments Nos. 17 and 18 and needs to be
seen in that context. If I understand amendment No. 149, it is about
what is appropriate. We need a regional traffic commissioner for
regional areas. My only concern about the amendment is that it could
leave the Secretary of State too much discretion. The principle of
“no fewer than” is correct, but I do not know whether
seven is the right number. At least “no fewer than” gives
the possibility that a senior traffic commissioner could direct to
those areas in England and Wales a dedicated traffic
commissioner.
It
seems that there is an overriding and overwhelming benefit in the
current system. The Bill will provide benefit by allowing the Secretary
of State to appoint more traffic commissioners than there are areas, so
I hope that the Minister will consider amendment No. 17 in the spirit
that it would genuinely enhance local consultation, local
representation and the effectiveness of the traffic
network.
Norman
Baker:
The thread of our amendments to clause 2 relates to
the need for the increased accountability of the traffic commissioner.
Amendment No. 149, which I shall explain in a moment, refers
particularly to that. It is important to recognise that the Bill
generally gives extra powers to traffic commissioners in significant
ways. I am already concerned that few people know who the traffic
commissioners are out there in the big wide world, and certainly my
engagement with traffic commissioners in my constituency—limited
though it has been—has not been such as to give me confidence
that they have sufficient resources and local accountability to deliver
what is asked of them already, let alone what will be asked of them in
increasing areas of public importance as the Bill unwinds. As the
Minister knows, the Bill will give them powers over bus services that
are not currently in force. The issue of accountability is
important.
One
of the ways in which accountability can be achieved is by the
assumption that there will be a specified traffic commissioner for a
particular area—a point made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon.
The Minister’s colleague in the House of Lords, Lord Bassam of
Brighton, gave an assurance that, for practical purposes, individual
commissioners will still be allocated on an administrative basis to
individual traffic areas. We would welcome the right hon. Lady
repeating that assurance
today.
I
understand the need for flexibility, so I would not wish the Minister
to be hidebound in too constricted a way as to where the areas might
be. As a general
principle, a traffic commissioner for each specified area must be right.
The clause 1 stand part debate is relevant to the point that there may
be a case for a rejigging of the areas. Given the reasons stated by the
right hon. Lady, there might be a better fit in terms of allocation per
region and so on. It makes sense and, indeed, I would encourage her to
look down those lines, because if there is an area of responsibility
that is coterminous with some other public sector area, that too will
increase accountability. Our
amendment No. 149 seeks to ensure that there is no reduction in the
number of traffic commissioners, which is also a matter of
accountability, because our regional government framework is imperfect
in many ways. Much of it is unelected, as indeed are the traffic
commissioners, but at least there is some coherence to a regional
structure, which people are beginning to understand. That coherence
will be lost if there were to be any reduction in the number of traffic
commissioners, who would represent even wider areas than at present.
The opportunity, therefore, for people to understand the local
relationship with a traffic commissioner would be weakened. There is
thus a strong case for ensuring that the number of traffic
commissioners at least stays where it is, or increases—as in my
judgment it should—along the lines stated by the Minister, to
take account of the regional
variations.
Stephen
Hammond:
I assume from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks
that he accepts the principle behind amendment No. 17, which would
deliver the same result as his amendment No.
149.
Norman
Baker:
It would not deliver quite the same result. I
accept that the broad principle, the idea of linking a traffic
commissioner to a specific area, is correct. However, I want to give
the Minister a little flexibility, not least to increase the number of
traffic commissioners. Between us we could have an arrangement that
might work—with the two amendments
combined.
I
have made my point, but the Minister needs to recognise—as I
hope she does—the general
principle.
Graham
Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): I think I
understand the hon. Gentleman’s case, but where there are large
concentrations of population, such as in the west midlands or Greater
Manchester, would it not be sensible to have traffic commissioners
based on those larger conurbations, rather than on an artificial
region?
Norman
Baker:
There is an issue running through the Bill about
balance in its effects on urban and rural areas. It is easy when
designing transport systems and administrative arrangements for
transport to construct something that works well for urban areas, where
it fits much more easily. Passenger transport executives, for example,
fit more easily in urban areas. It is more difficult to factor in rural
areas, which, if we are not careful, can be forgotten about. We need to
be careful not to construct a system whereby rural areas are further
disadvantaged in transport terms than at present. That is my concern
about the hon. Gentleman’s
suggestion.
In
conclusion, I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is an
issue about the accountability of traffic commissioners. If we are to
give them even more powers
than they already have, we need to make sure that they become known in
the public radar and that there is some way of holding them to account.
Having a minimum number and some sort of geographical location is a way
of achieving
that.
Ms
Winterton:
I shall start by explaining the thinking behind
the clause. It would allow the Secretary of State to appoint as many
traffic commissioners in England and Wales as are considered
appropriate. By doing so, a pool of commissioners would be created, who
could act in all traffic areas. However, as now, a single traffic
commissioner would continue to be appointed for the Scottish traffic
area. The clause also clarifies the powers that the traffic
commissioners in England and Wales would be able to exercise in
Scotland, and vice
versa.
Mr.
Knight:
The Minister mentioned Scotland. Can she give us
an unequivocal assurance that there is no intention to devolve more
power to the Welsh Assembly under the
provision?
Ms
Winterton:
Certainly, traffic commissioner functions in
Wales are not devolved to the same extent as in Scotland. The Bill does
not change
that.
Mr.
Knight:
I am grateful to the Minister, but I was already
aware of what she said in her answer. I am asking whether she will
confirm that there are no discussions taking place in her Department
with a view to giving the Welsh Assembly more power in that
area?
11.15
am
Ms
Winterton:
It is certainly not something that Welsh
Ministers have approached us about with regard to making any changes,
so consequently we have no plans to do so. That would depend on Welsh
Ministers coming forward and asking for a different
situation.
During the
debate on the previous clause, I said there are eight traffic areas in
the UK. Under current legislation, one traffic commissioner must be
appointed in each and a traffic commissioner has jurisdiction only in
the area to which he or she is appointed. The problem is that that
arrangement is very rigid and does not permit commissioners to be
deployed flexibly to address fluctuations in work load between traffic
areas. Traffic commissioners play an important role in regulating the
goods vehicle and bus sectors. That is vital; we want them to exercise
all their functions as efficiently as possible.
We are
trying to address two issues. The first is work load pressures. It is
true that under the Bill traffic commissioners will take on more
responsibilities and functions: in certain areas at certain times there
may be a greater work load, and we want that flexibility. Secondly, it
is important to recognise that there may be areas in which traffic
commissioners might specialise. I am thinking of issues such as bus
punctuality or the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
Eccles and the hon. Member for Lewes on the particular needs of urban
or rural areas. The changes will allow the flexibility for people to
become specialists or experts in particular areas and that will add
value when implementing some of the other changes that we want to
make.
Ms
Winterton:
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I was
going to address his other point, but will do so
afterwards.
Norman
Baker:
The Minister mentioned the work load of traffic
commissioners. My limited experience on my own patch suggests that they
are already under considerable pressure, which is why we need to
balance their work load. This measure will put extra pressures on
traffic commissioners. Will the Minister tell us what further resources
she plans to make available for traffic commissioners across the
country—extra staffing and budgets—to deal with the extra
responsibilities that she envisages giving
them?
Ms
Winterton:
We have made it clear that traffic
commissioners will require an administrative support system capable of
delivering an improved and much more robust method of, for example,
capture and analysis in relation to bus performance data. Broadly,
there are two options for paying for an increase in activity within the
traffic commissioner system—through either the Department for
Transport’s budget or existing or new fees relating to local
service
registrations.
Both
those options bring advantages and disadvantages, but we will be
working with stakeholders—the Bus Partnership Forum, for
example—to look at detailed proposals for implementing some of
those changes. Clause 47, which was inserted into the Bill in another
place, would extend the range of fees that could be prescribed in
relation to bus service registration. We are not unaware that we may
need extra resources, and we will look at
that.
I
want to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Lewes about
ensuring that there is still a relationship with a local area. While we
want the new flexibility that I have mentioned, we will ensure that
traffic commissioners can continue to use their local knowledge when
considering cases. As I have said, the intention is that the existing
traffic commissioners will continue to be administratively appointed to
their home area. The point is that they will also be able to work in
other areas if that is required and if it provides added
value.
The
amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon would, as he said,
require a traffic commissioner and at least one deputy traffic
commissioner to be appointed to each of the eight traffic areas. That
would revert to what is in existing legislation, under which the
commissioner has jurisdiction only in the area to which he or she is
appointed. Deputy traffic commissioners can also act only in their own
traffic area. That is too rigid and does not permit commissioners or
their deputies to be deployed flexibly to address changes in work load.
Due to the changes that we want to make—the extra
responsibilities—there will be that important new
flexibility.
The
amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Lewes and for Manchester,
Withington would require at least seven commissioners to be appointed
in England and Wales, but it is important to point out that, currently,
only six people are appointed as commissioners in England and Wales, as
a single commissioner acts in both Wales and the west
midlands.
The Secretary
of State has the responsibility for ensuring that enough traffic
commissioners are appointed to fulfil all their statutory obligations.
The proposal to pool the commissioners will not change that
requirement. The Secretary of State will also continue to be
responsible for ensuring that the pool contains enough traffic
commissioners to do all the work. The problem with the proposal made by
the hon. Member for Lewes is that, regardless of whether there was
enough work for everyone to do, which I do not envisage, there would be
inflexibility due to always having to have a certain number of traffic
commissioners.
I understand
the points that Opposition Members have made in trying to probe the
thinking behind the clause, but I hope that the reassurances that I
have given enable the Committee to reject the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened carefully to what the Minister
has said, to try to understand her thinking. Her comments take us some
way in understanding, but they do not put across what my amendments or
those proposed by the Liberal Democrats would do. They would enhance
what is in
place.
The
Minister talks about work pressure; clearly, there is already work load
pressure, and I cited the example of the north-west region. There is
going to be greater work load pressure, and as the Minister has just
conceded that she does not expect the work load to go down, it is
highly likely that the Secretary of State might choose to use the
powers to appoint more traffic commissioners.
The Minister
also talked about specialisation of function. It is not unknown for
people to have not only specialisation of function, but geographic
responsibility. A report on any major corporate company would show that
that is quite often the case. To take the Minister’s argument,
it would be perfectly possible for a traffic commissioner based in the
south-west to carry out their function and to specialise on, for
instance, bus timings. That is a normal arrangement in the corporate
world.
Ms
Winterton:
But that is exactly why we want to change the
Bill—traffic commissioners cannot function outside their own
areas. A traffic commissioner in the south-west specialising in
punctuality can talk about punctuality only in the south-west, not
elsewhere, and we want to remove that
inflexibility.
Stephen
Hammond:
Basically, there is no reason why a person in the
south-west would have to go to another area, if that is the
Minister’s objection. Such a person could give advice or be
consulted.
On
the intervention from the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, my
amendment would overcome his concerns. It would not only give a traffic
commissioner to a traffic area, but still allow the Secretary of State
the flexibility that the Minister requires. Putting both in the Bill
would certainly allow the Secretary of State and the Minister that
flexibility, so I must confess that the Minister is failing to convince
me in her
argument.
Ms
Winterton:
Perhaps I can clarify the point. The difficulty
is that a commissioner could not determine cases outside their area.
The ability to act outside their area is not within their power, which
is exactly what we are trying to change. I hope that is
helpful.
Stephen
Hammond:
It is helpful in a noises-off way. If that is
what the Minister really wants, that is how she should have changed the
Bill. That is not what she has done. I am not persuaded by the
Minister, so I will ask the Committee to consider my amendment and ask
my colleagues support it.
Question
p
ut,
That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
11.
Division
No.
1
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Stephen
Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in
clause 2, page 2, line 15, after
‘State’,
insert
‘, following
consultation with the Senior Traffic Commissioner and such
organisations representative of local government as the Secretary of
State thinks
fit,’.
We
have already said that the duty of appointing traffic commissioners
lies with the Secretary of State and I do not think anybody is going to
dispute the fact that the Secretary of State has the seniority to carry
out that task, but it would be no bad thing if, in the interests of
local accountability, she were placed under an obligation to consult
with the person in charge of the traffic commissioner network, who
would ultimately be managing that
appointee.
I
also think it would be no bad thing if the Secretary of State were to
consult local government representatives for the area in which the
commissioner might—or, as we now see, might not—be
primarily
active.
11.30
am
We
know from the previous debate that traffic commissioners will not
necessarily be attached to local areas, but none the less I do not
think that that negates the purpose of the amendment. Consultation with
representatives of local government would be
valid.
The
Secretary of State will need local guidance in ensuring that
appropriate resources are allocated to the specific areas that are
required when she appoints traffic commissioners. It therefore seems
that local authorities are best placed to give at least some guidance
as to the transport needs within their boundaries and to provide some
assistance to the Secretary of State in ensuring that the correct
resources are allocated. The benefit of consultation in the process of
appointing traffic commissioners therefore seems to be
clear.
A
consequential benefit would be linkage between the traffic commissioner
and an area to which—if we are to accept the reassurances from
the Minister in another place, which we do—such a person will
primarily be appointed. The relationship between the traffic
commissioner for an area and the local authority would no doubt be
stronger if the authority were to have at least some input to the
appointment process. The senior
traffic commissioner should also be included in the process. Under the
Bill, the senior traffic commissioner is being put on a statutory
footing, so his or her involvement in appointing traffic commissioners
seems to be essential. He or she will be tasked with managing the
appointee, deploying them and assessing which geographical or
functional responsibilities they should have. He or she will be the
person who looks at the budgetary restrictions in place and knows the
number of traffic commissioners that need to be appointed. Therefore, a
post-appointment relationship between the traffic commissioner and the
senior traffic commissioner is likely to be improved if the senior
traffic commissioner has at least some role in that consultation
process.
Nothing in
the amendment would take away from the power of the Secretary of State
to consult any other body. It merely states that two of the bodies
should be statutory consultees. Nothing in the amendment would take
away from the Secretary of State the fact that the sole power of
appointment lies with him or her. It would merely place in the Bill a
minor obligation to consult two bodies, which would undoubtedly improve
the post-performance
arrangements.
As
I understand it, a near-identical amendment was discussed in the Grand
Committee in the other place. The Minister there said that he agreed
with the principle behind it. His argument, as we have heard quite
often, was that we do not need the amendment in the Bill because the
Secretary of State will naturally consult those people anyway. That may
or may not be so, and I am sure that this Secretary of State would
consult those people, but there may well be Secretaries of State who
choose not to do so. Therefore, there is always a benefit of putting in
the Bill things that one intends, or believes, will happen.
While the
amendment would not restrict or place a burden on the Secretary of
State, it would clarify what the Secretary of State is obliged to do.
It would also take away the possibility of mistake and
misinterpretation. I hope to hear from the Minister that that
Government have considered what the Minister said in the other place
and agree with him that the principle behind the amendment is sound and
that the Secretary of State—even if this Secretary of State
would consult those people—should place a minor obligation on
future Secretaries of State in that that this proposal should be in the
Bill. It is not controversial, nor does it represent a sizeable or
onerous burden on the Secretary of State. However, it seems to me that
it would have an extraordinary beneficial impact on the relationship of
traffic commissioners with the future senior traffic commissioner and
with local traffic
areas.
Norman
Baker:
I support the amendment. The traffic commissioners
that I mentioned in the previous string of amendments are not
particularly accountable to the local areas. Therefore, the idea that
there can be some involvement with elected representatives at an
earlier stage before an appointment is made is desirable in increasing
accountability. I am not suggesting that local authorities should have
a say in whether it is person A or person B, but it is important that,
before an appointment is made, there is an opportunity for the
Secretary of
State, or his or her representatives, to discuss with the local
authorities in the area the issues arising and therefore the skills set
that would be important for any
appointee.
To
pick up the Minister’s earlier point, there might be an issue
with punctuality, so it would be useful to appoint a commissioner with
expertise—one who shows promise—in that area. That
information can come from a local area more easily than from Whitehall,
so the amendment is entirely sensible and I hope the Minister will
support
it.
Ms
Winterton:
The amendment would require the Secretary of
State to consult the senior traffic commissioner and such
representatives of local government as the Secretary of State thinks
fit when appointing traffic commissioners. I have listened carefully to
Opposition Members, but I do not think the requirement that their
amendment would impose would sit well with the independence of traffic
commissioners.
It
is one of the great strengths of traffic commissioners that they have
independence from other stakeholders—Government, local
authorities and the bus and lorry industries. The decisions that they
reach when exercising their statutory functions are based purely on the
circumstances of the individual case, as the law requires, and the
Government believe it important, in the light of all the stakeholders
who may be involved in the decisions that they take, that their
independence be preserved so that they can carry out their functions
without being seen to be beholden to any
stakeholder.
Mr.
Leech:
Does the Minister accept that consultation does not
necessarily mean asking local authorities whether they thought someone
was suitable for a job? It would be asking local authorities what
issues were important in deciding who the appointee should
be.
Ms
Winterton:
That is not exactly what the amendment says and
it would not be the effect of that amendment. Traffic commissioners are
recruited by open competition and assessed purely on their ability to
undertake a commissioner’s statutory
functions.
To
address the point about consulting the senior traffic commissioner, the
position is that the administrative senior traffic commissioner is an
integral part of the process. For example, earlier this year, during
the last recruitment campaign to fill a vacancy for a traffic
commissioner in the eastern region and six deputy commissioner
vacancies across the country, the senior commissioner was a member of
all the sift and final interview panels. He also set and graded a
case-study examination that tested each candidate’s ability to
produce written decisions on a range of hypothetical cases that
mirrored those faced by real
commissioners.
The
Government believe that that input is vital if the Secretary of State
is to select the best candidate for the job, which is why we believe
that a hands-on role should continue—not simply consultation,
but involvement in the process itself. We believe that it is important
that that role continues. A requirement for the Secretary of State to
consult only the senior traffic commissioner when making appointments
would erode the role that the senior traffic commissioner has. It is
not appropriate to provide in legislation a role that is necessary on
practical grounds
anyway.
Norman
Baker:
A requirement to consult does not preclude the
involvement of the senior traffic commissioner in the appointment
process. However, with respect to the Minister, two issues are
involved. She is addressing one, but not the other. I agree that it
would be inappropriate for local authorities to be involved in the
specific appointment process, for the reasons of independence that she
gave. However, I and other members of the Committee were talking about
a process that should take place much earlier to identify the skills
set required by the applicants to enable the appointment panel to
choose the most appropriate
person.
The
Minister does not like the amendment, but will she accept the case for
local authority involvement at an earlier stage and for finding a way
to incorporate
it?
Ms
Winterton:
When the Secretary of State issues guidance on
the role of the senior traffic commissioner, it might be right, if
appropriate, to consult a range of stakeholders on the general
principles of the job that a traffic commissioner should be doing. That
is different from what is proposed in the
amendment.
The
traffic commissioners are quasi-judicial office holders and it is
important for them to have that independence in their appointment. That
should be done in terms of their ability, and certainly not by saying
what would be the preference of particular local authorities. In
general terms, a balance will be struck when holding discussions and
issuing guidance on the roles of traffic commissioners by consulting a
variety of stakeholders. I wish to stress that, because it is
important. However, we must not compromise the quasi-judicial function
of traffic commissioners and their independence must be quite
transparent in that
process.
I
hope that I have clarified the position and reassured the Committee on
the general principles of consultation. However, the amendment is not
appropriate and I urge the Committee not to support
it.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am scratching my head a bit. The
Minister’s logic started off on one track and then jumped to
another. The second track seemed to negate the first completely.
Nothing in the amendment would undermine the independence of the
traffic commissioners. Nothing in the amendment would preclude the
senior traffic commissioner from taking part in the process. Nothing in
the amendment would do anything other than place a minor obligation on
the Secretary of State to consult representatives of local authorities
and the senior traffic
commissioner.
There
has clearly been a move in the Government’s thinking, but the
Minister has not explained it. An almost identical amendment was
discussed in the other place. If Lord Bassam was minded to accept it
and thought the principle behind it sound and good, I am not sure why
the Government are moving in such a way as to say that such a proposal
is wholly
unnecessary.
Despite
the fact that this Minister says that the Secretary of State might
consult such people, she is not convincing me that there is any reason
why the amendment should not be accepted. I am therefore again minded
to test the will of the
Committee.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
2
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly
negatived.
11.45
am
Norman
Baker:
I beg to move amendment No. 152, in
clause 2, page 2, line 15, after
‘State’, insert
‘for a term of
three years, subject to
reappointment,’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 151, in
clause 3, page 3, line 12, leave
out from ‘for’ to ‘but’ in line 13 and
insert
‘a term of three
years;’.
Norman
Baker:
We return to the theme of accountability. I
encourage the Minister to mention accountability when she answers me.
As I understand it, the situation in the Bill and under the Public
Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 is that traffic commissioners are appointed
by the Secretary of State for an indefinite period until they retire,
resign or, indeed, are dismissed. Being dismissed is a control factor,
but rather a nuclear option in dealing with a traffic commissioner who
is not performing his or her duties to an acceptable standard. It is,
effectively, a lifetime
appointment.
The
Minister will be aware that the public sector generally—the
private sector as well—is moving away from lifetime appointments
and more towards fixed-term contracts. There are many advantages to
fixed-term contracts, not least that it sharpens the mind of those
occupying particular posts if, to be reappointed, they effectively have
to reapply for their jobs after a fixed term. The other side of the
coin with individuals with lifetime appointments is that sometimes,
those consequences are not entirely desirable—I am thinking of
Sir John Bourn, if I am allowed to refer to him, who presented the
Government and all of us with a difficult
problem.
The
idea of fixed-term contracts used to be an entirely desirable one.
Nothing prevents a traffic commissioner from being reappointed after
three years; indeed, it may be entirely appropriate for such a person
to be reappointed. I imagine that that would be the normal process.
However, if a person is on a fixed-term contract, then at each
three-year stage there will be an opportunity to assess that
person’s performance. If a person was not up to scratch, that
would be an easier way of dealing with the matter than the heavy-handed
use of schedule 2 to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the
amendments in clause 4 of the Bill on the dismissal of traffic
commissioners generally. Amendment No. 151 applies the same argument to
senior traffic
commissioners.
Mr.
Knight:
What the hon. Gentleman is saying makes a good
deal of sense. However, if he were drafting the
amendment again, might it not be better for the senior traffic
commissioner to have a longer term of
office?
Norman
Baker:
It might well be. I am not fixing a particular
time. If we want to debate the merits of three years or five, I am open
to argument. What is important is that there be some constraint and
control in the interests of public accountability on those individuals,
who are delivering increasing amounts of important duties for the
public sector, the Government and, indirectly, local authorities. We
need to find some way, collectively, to ensure that the traffic
commissioners are more accountable than they presently are. The
arrangement whereby they are hidden people—unknown to the local
area, in shadowy offices no one has heard of, answerable only to the
Secretary of State, without proper local authority
involvement—is not acceptable. If we are going to give them more
powers, we have to find some way of placing on them constraints that
increase and enhance accountability. Fixed-term contracts is one way to
do that, and I hope that the Minister will look at it
sympathetically.
Stephen
Hammond:
There are many public offices in our country, and
the balance between fixed-term and non-fixed-term appointments is
uneven. For instance, there are non-executive directors of NHS trusts
on fixed terms, but judges tend to enjoy their office during good
behaviour. Even if it is a quasi-judicial function, there could be a
case for saying that traffic commissioners could be appointed and
remain during good behaviour, or, indeed, for the retention of
essential competencies. That is essentially what the Bill leaves us
with.
I
listened to the hon. Gentleman make the case for a fixed term, and his
point about public accountability is strong. We will come later to the
grounds for dismissal, but the argument for a fixed-term
appointment—nothing in that would preclude
reappointment—is interesting. However and as my right hon.
Friend the Member for East Yorkshire pointed out, there is the
contentious question of whether three years is the right term. That
could involve one year getting into the job, one year doing it, and one
year lobbying for reappointment. My concern is the consequential
amendment, but having listened to the hon. Member for Lewes, there is a
powerful case for a fixed term. I hope that the Minister will accept
that, and that the Government will table an amendment on Report that
deals with the length of term and perhaps with reappointment, even if
they are not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman’s amendment
at this stage.
Ms
Winterton:
As the hon. Members for Lewes and for Wimbledon
said, traffic commissioners are currently appointed by the Secretary of
State until retirement. The only exception to that rule is the
appointment of a traffic commissioner as the senior traffic
commissioner, which is fixed by the Secretary of State for a renewable
period, currently 12 months. That should cover the transition to a
statutorily appointed senior commissioner under the provisions in
clause 3. That post will be for a fixed term as determined by the
Secretary of State. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Lewes
would require all traffic commissioners to move from their current
position to fixed-term renewable appointments of three years’
duration.
The
Government and, I believe, the industries and stakeholders whom they
serve hold commissioners in
high regard. However, it is true that time has moved on since traffic
commissioners were first appointed 77 years ago—obviously not
the existing ones—and in preparing the Bill I looked closely at
the issue of moving to fixed-term appointments, but I felt that it was
not appropriate in these circumstances. The hon. Member for Wimbledon
highlighted some of the issues associated with fixed-term three-year
appointments that might be applicable in this
case. I also felt
that there was a strong case, which I discussed with traffic
commissioners to gauge their views, for saying that a build-up of
experience, particularly on the quasi-judicial side, is important in
maintaining a good system for the service that traffic commissioners
deliver. That is why in other parts of the Bill there are clauses,
particularly clause 4, to clarify the terms under which
commissioners who are systematically underperforming can be dismissed.
I accept that parliamentarians and the public want to know that if
there are problems with particular commissioners, there are relevant
powers to ensure that such people can be
dismissed.
In
addition, under provisions in clause 3 the senior traffic commissioner
will have the power to issue directions and guidance to other
commissioners about the exercising of their functions. At the moment,
that has to be done by consensus. The senior traffic commissioner will
have greater powers to do this, which will improve accountability and
consistency of decision making. I have tried to get the balance right
between ensuring that we have independence and experience, and ensuring
that there is accountability and the ability to dismiss those who are
not performing well.
Mr.
Leech:
Will the Minister tell the Committee how many
traffic commissioners have been dismissed in the last 77
years?
Ms
Winterton:
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman added
“the last 77 years” because that makes it easy for me to
say that I do not know how many have been dismissed in the last 77
years. I suggest that we might narrow down the matter, unless he really
wants to know about the last 77 years.
Important
issues are at stake here. I take into account the points that have been
made about ensuring that the system functions well, and about dismissal
if a commissioner is underperforming, but I have tried to strike the
balance between a fixed-term appointment and the ability to build up
independence and expertise.
Mr.
Knight:
Will the Minister clarify the position so far as
the senior traffic commissioner is concerned? Is she saying that the
senior traffic commissioner is on a fixed-term contract of one year and
that if that contract is not renewed, they are then unemployed, or do
they default back to being a general traffic
commissioner?
Ms
Winterton:
First, the transition is allowed for in the
Bill, and it is a fixed 12-month period. The actual period of the fixed
term from then on has yet to be determined by the Secretary of State
and will be decided after consultation. If a fixed-term period comes to
an end, the senior traffic commissioner will revert to being an
ordinary traffic commissioner, as is the case at the
moment.
Jeremy
Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): I understand what the
Minister is saying, but given what she has already said about the
Government’s intention regarding traffic commissioners who have
specialisms and knowledge of particular subjects within the field of
transport policy, and given that transport policy moves on and the
specialism requirements may change, would it not be sensible for the
Secretary of State to retain the opportunity at the end of a fixed-term
contract to replace a traffic commissioner with a different
commissioner who has another
specialism?
Ms
Winterton:
That goes slightly against the points that were
being made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon about traffic commissioners
having to be tied to a particular region. The point that I made in
response was that it is important to look at whether there are issues
associated with specialism. The Bill would not prevent more traffic
commissioners from being appointed in specialist areas if that were
appropriate; that is exactly the point about the flexibility of the
Bill. As I said, I did think very carefully about this and decided
that, on balance, it was better to have a robust system of monitoring
and reviewing the performance of individual commissioners than a system
in which people are on very short term contracts. I did not consider
that the right approach in these
circumstances.
12
noon
Mr.
Knight:
I ask the Minister to think again. She has
been honest enough to say she regarded this as an “on
balance” judgment. All we want is a little more from
her—to say that between now and consideration on Report she will
reflect on the issue again. I do not know what attitude my hon. Friend
the Member for Wimbledon would take about that, but I hope that we
would not then push the proposal to a vote. It is an important issue
and the Minister will know that, under employment law, there is a world
of difference between mounting a campaign to get rid of someone who is
useless in the job and simply not renewing their
contract.
The
threshold one has to achieve to get rid of someone who is mediocre and
second rate is quite high. The process often leads to claims for unfair
dismissal if the person is being disposed of in a shorter period than
stated in their contract. If their contract is indefinite one has to go
through that process to get rid of them if they are under retirement
age, whereas if the Minister were willing to move to fixed-term
contracts, it would be far easier for a Secretary of State to say
“This man has not been outrageously bad, but he is second rate,
mediocre and not a good traffic commissioner: I do not think I will
reappoint him”. There would then be no question of public money
having to be used to fight a case of unfair dismissal. It seems to me
that the case for a fixed term contract is overwhelming, and I hope
that the Minister will think again.
Ms
Winterton:
I simply want to add that I think we
should we should base our discussions on how to create a good system,
with people building up expertise over a long period of time, rather
than on the best way to get rid of people, which is the thinking in the
Opposition amendment. That is the wrong way to approach the matter, so
I ask the Committee not to support the
amendments.
Norman
Baker:
I am disappointed by the Minister’s
response, because we are making a sensible point. All she had to do was
accept that there was a case, agree to reflect on it and see whether
better wording could be offered on Report. If she wants to argue that a
period of five or 10 years is better than one of three years, that is
fine. Unfortunately, however, she is not arguing that case; she said
that the amendment is about trying to get rid of people who are not
very good. It is partly about that, but it is also about ensuring that
the expertise of traffic commissioners is of the highest possible
standard. That is how I put it, and as the right hon. Member for East
Yorkshire rightly says, the reality is that if someone is mediocre,
they may be in a position where they cannot be dismissed under the
“nuclear option” in the Bill, but they are nevertheless
occupying an important and unique role in their area, and what they do
affects hundreds of thousands of people.
In those
circumstances, we need a different rule for such people, particularly
as they are not elected. Let us face it, we in this place are held to
account; we are on fixed terms and can be dismissed by our electorates
when the election comes around. The commissioners cannot be dismissed.
The Minister talks about them as being quasi-judicial. She is right,
but that makes it even more important that they are appointed on fixed
terms.
The
Minister said that traffic commissioners should be exempt from improper
influence from local authorities and so on, and I accept that on a
day-to-day basis. However, when people are in independent positions, as
in the case of Sir John Bourn—I am sorry to pick on him
again—particularly if they have been protected from involvement
with democratic politicians either locally or nationally because it is
important that they should not be subject to influence, where is the
accountability for them? There is a tenuous thread back to the
Secretary of State with a nuclear
option.
We
can make a comparison with the European Commission. If Members of the
European Parliament are unhappy with the European Commission, the whole
lot have to be sacked. That is the nuclear option in those
circumstances. Some might think that it is a good idea—indeed,
it might be in respect of some Commissioners. However, it would be much
more sensible if there was something other than the nuclear option to
deal with problems that arise in the European Parliament, rather than
such an unwieldy and rather ridiculous all-or-nothing process. We are
being given all or nothing in the
Bill.
The
Minister says that she does not want to compromise the building-up of
expertise. I understand that. It is right to encourage the build-up of
expertise. As she will have noticed from the previous amendment, I am
not against some of the specialisms that she wants to encourage. In
reality, there is nothing to stop people being appointed after three or
five years, or whatever the period may be. I imagine that the
presumption would be that in most cases they would be reappointed, but
the provision allows an escape clause, which would not otherwise exist,
for an important job. It also concentrates the mind of the post holder
on whether they are doing the job to the best of their
ability.
I
am not advancing such an argument as a general principle, but some post
holders might say, “This is a nice job that I’ve got for
life. I don’t have to be reappointed by anyone. I am not elected
by anybody. Nobody knows who I am and this is how I am going to do my
job. It
doesn’t matter particularly if the job changes. If the skills set
required is altered, I shall just carry on because they can’t
get rid of me because those were the terms on which I was
appointed.” That is not serving the population of the country or
the population of the area to which the traffic commissioner is, by and
large,
appointed. It
is true that we can get rid of people, but do we want to go through
that process with all the angst involved—the negotiations and
the unsatisfactory behaviour of the person who is in
post—knowing that the intention is to move that person out when
he or she would be there for some time? It is much better to have a
fixed-term arrangement, which is cleaner, more satisfactory and
becoming more the norm. To come back to Sir John Bourn, we recognise
the mistake and that post will now be fixed term. The amendment would
ensure that we do not make the same mistake in respect of the traffic
commissioners.
The
Minister has so far rejected the idea of town local areas. She has
rejected a number of our suggestions about minimum numbers. She has
rejected local government consultation and she now appears to be
rejecting fixed-term contracts. We need to know what she will do to
improve the accountability of traffic commissioners. We have heard no
suggestions so far because they are mainly
unaccountable.
Ms
Winterton:
That is exactly what I did explain. I said that
we were making changes, particularly in clause 4 and clause 3, to
improve the accountability process and to give the senior traffic
commissioner the ability to issue directions to other traffic
commissioners. At the moment, they have to reach agreement by
consensus. The Bill changes that. It also changes the process of
monitoring and reviewing performance to address the very points that
the hon. Gentleman has
raised.
Norman
Baker:
With respect to the Minister, she is confusing
managerial competence and managerial process with public
accountability. Nothing that she has said increases public
accountability one iota. It may improve the management of individual
traffic commissioners, but it does not improve public accountability. I
do not know whether we will have votes on every string of amendments.
We seem to be doing so today. I did not start my remarks with the
intention of voting on the amendment, but the Minister has driven me to
demand a
Division.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
3
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 20, in
clause 2, page 2, line 22, leave
out from ‘Wales’ to end of line
25.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 21, in
clause 2, page 2, line 28, leave
out from ‘Area’ to end of line
31.
No.
22, in
clause 3, page 3, line 43, leave
out from ‘Wales’ to end of line
44.
No.
23, in
clause 3, page 4, line 4, leave
out from ‘Wales’ to end of line
6.
No.
24, in
clause 3, page 4, line 13, leave
out from ‘out’ to ‘as’ in line 15 and
insert
‘such of the
functions of traffic commissioner for the Scottish Traffic
Area’.
No.
25, in
clause 3, page 4, line 19, leave
out ‘England and Wales’ and insert
‘Scotland’.
No.
29, in
clause 4, page 6, line 36, leave
out from ‘Wales’ to end of line
39.
No.
30, in
clause 4, page 7, line 4, leave
out from ‘Wales’ to end of line
5.
No.
31, in
clause 4, page 7, line 10, leave
out from ‘Wales’ to end of line
11.
No.
32, in
clause 4, page 7, line 14, leave
out subsection
(6).
Stephen
Hammond:
Members of the Committee are well aware that one
of the effects of devolution has been to complicate a number of
arrangements and existing legislation—some provisions are
applicable to England only, some to England and Wales, and some to the
whole of the United Kingdom. At times I have difficulty in following
what exactly will refer to what. Some of the changes in respect of
traffic commissioners seem to be especially complicated and confusing,
and the amendments would bring some
clarity.
The
Secretary of State will now be able to appoint a pool of commissioners
to serve England and Wales—in essence, disbanding the previous
regional relationship—but there will still be a single
commissioner for the Scottish traffic area. Clearly, given my previous
logic, I am happy about that. However, as we read further into the
Bill—here I am looking for the Minister’s help—the
Scottish traffic commissioner will have powers in England and Wales,
and the English and Welsh traffic commissioners will have powers in
Scotland. Given that there will still be a traffic commissioner
specific to Scotland, when does the Minister anticipate those powers
being
deployed?
I
am in favour of granting the Secretary of State the flexibility to
ensure the best allocation of resources—that is what my previous
amendment did—but why make provision for a single commissioner
in Scotland if there is to be such a porous border? Why have a
dedicated Scottish commissioner on any given day, but then find them
registering a local bus service in Manchester, Lewes or Wimbledon on
another day? Why have an English commissioner? The Minister explained
why she wants the English traffic commissioner, but there is a whole
issue about where England and Wales are and indeed where the whole
United Kingdom is. Traffic commissioners should be given adequate
resources to carry out their important duties. Why does the Minister
want no allocation in one area, yet for allocation to
remain in another area? Why has the Minister left Scotland as a discrete
area? It argues against all her previous logic. The Minister needs to
explain why she wants to go down that road in this part of the Bill,
even though she was arguing vociferously against it a few minutes
ago. My
amendments Nos. 21 to 25 and 29 to 32 are merely consequential upon
amendment No. 20.
Ms
Winterton:
The hon. Gentleman’s amendments would
prevent the Scottish traffic commissioner and any of that
person’s deputies from working on cases involving English and
Welsh operators. They would also prevent traffic commissioners in
England and Wales, and any deputies, from considering Scottish cases.
Again, that would reduce the flexibility of the senior traffic
commissioner to deploy traffic commissioners to reflect work pressures
in different parts of the
country.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am sorry to intervene on the Minister so early,
and I am grateful to her for giving way. Why does there need to be a
Scottish traffic commissioner at all, if she is taking them away from
everywhere else and not dedicating them to a particular area? That
seems to go against the whole of her previous
argument.
Ms
Winterton:
There needs to be a particular Scottish traffic
commissioner because a number of functions are devolved in Scotland.
English and Welsh traffic commissioners will have only reserved powers
in Scotland. A number of discrete functions can only be carried out by
a Scottish commissioner because of the devolution of powers. However,
in some cases it may be possible, if necessary because of work load
issues, for an English or Welsh traffic commissioner to help out. That
could work the other way around where there were work load
problems.
The majority
of the traffic commissioner’s functions in
Scotland—dealing with licence applications, variations and
disciplinary matters, for example—are not devolved or even
region-specific. In relation to those functions, it would be possible
for a Scottish commissioner to work elsewhere and vice versa, if
required, giving the flexibility that I explained
earlier.
12.15
pm
Norman
Baker:
To be clear, is the Minister saying that the
English traffic commissioners who might be operating in Scotland will
be legally barred from undertaking particular functions? Or is she
saying that it is a matter of good practice because they are not
trained to discharge those functions and therefore will not be able to
do so? Which one is
it?
Ms
Winterton:
Certain issues are devolved and therefore only
a Scottish commissioner could work on those. Others are not devolved,
so it would therefore be possible for any commissioner from England and
Wales to carry out that work—it also applies the other way
around.
Norman
Baker:
It is a legal matter.
Ms
Winterton:
It is certainly to do with the devolution of
powers so there are certain areas that could be dealt with only by the
Scottish commissioner, but in other matters it would be possible for
other traffic commissioners to do so. We are trying to achieve a
balance by saying,
“Yes, there are certain issues that can only be dealt with by a
Scottish commissioner, but there are others where it would be possible
to have flexibility if required”. This is a probing amendment. I
hope that those remarks help to explain our
position.
Stephen
Hammond:
I think that the Minister is saying that, as a
result of devolution, there are certain things that only a Scottish
traffic commissioner can do and therefore a Scottish traffic
commissioner has to be in place. That is probably the thrust of her
argument.
Ms
Winterton:
Indicated
assent.
Stephen
Hammond:
I see the Minister nodding assent and that
therefore explains where I was probing with the amendment. It would be
helpful if at some stage the Minister could provide us with a list of
those things that it is legally necessary to have done by a Scottish
traffic commissioner only. I am grateful for her assurance on that.
Much as I have enjoyed the Divisions this morning, the Minister has
reassured me on this point and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Norman
Baker:
I beg to move amendment No. 150, in
clause 2, page 2, line 31, at
end insert—
‘(3C) The
Traffic Commissioners shall jointly
publish—
(a) an annual
report detailing their activities in the previous financial year,
and
(b) information relating to
expenses incurred by the Traffic Commissioners in the previous
financial year on an annual
basis,
no later than three
months after the end of the financial year to which the information
relates.’.
I
return to the theme of accountability. The Minister mentioned
accountability in her last answer so we are making progress. Her
colleague in another place recognised that there is a need to balance
the autonomy of the traffic commissioners on the one hand with public
accountability on the other. The amendment is yet another attempt to
find a way of doing so.
The
amendment would require an annual report to be published jointly by the
traffic commissioners detailing their activities in the previous
financial year and indicating how much they have spent on expenses.
Such a report should be published no later than three months after the
end of the financial year to which the information relates.
The concept
of an annual report is well established. It has been adopted by the
Government in a number of different regards. It seems to be well
understood by the public and provides a means of accountability for
various Departments and public bodies. Bodies that are not elected and
not in the public eye have even more reason to publish an annual report
than bodies that are subject to endorsement or otherwise at the ballot
box and are regularly in the public spotlight. Traffic commissioners
cannot, of course, be elected in that sense—I am not suggesting
that they should be as it would be rather difficult if they
were—but it is important to understand the work they have
done.
As
ever-increasing functions are devolved to the traffic commissioners,
which increasingly impinge on the activities and lifestyles of
individuals—such as how buses operate, for example—it is
important to understand how they have undertaken their work for the
year. An annual
report would be another useful way of measuring what they have done and
of contrasting and comparing the work of individual traffic
commissioners, thereby setting standards to which others could rise and
encouraging better performance by traffic commissioners in a
non-threatening
way.
Stephen
Hammond:
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that each traffic
commissioner should produce an annual report, or that the body of
traffic commissioners should produce a
report?
Norman
Baker:
The amendment says—I hope that it
does—that there should be a joint report produced by the traffic
commissioners. I am open-minded about whether there should be one per
traffic commissioner, or a joint one. In the interests of not creating
bureaucracy, a joint one is a sensible way forward. I hope that the
Minister will be sympathetic to the
concept.
On
the issue of expenses, we have heard a lot about MPs’ expenses,
but at least that has been in the public domain. We have had to respond
to that as MPs and we now have a process that I hope will lead to
improvements in public confidence. The problems with expenses are far
worse with other bodies that we have not heard of. For example, the
chairman of the South East England Development Agency spent over
£50,000 on taxis last year and I am afraid that the instances of
excessive expenditure by individuals who are not elected but have
access to public moneys is quite worrying. We should find some way of
dealing with
that.
I
undertook a random survey of 23 public bodies to see which published a
breakdown of board members’ expenses—only one of the 23
did so. I have no reason to think that traffic commissioners are
running up gigantic bills—perhaps they are not— but the
great safeguards for the public purse are always openness, transparency
and accountability. Amendment No. 150 seeks to enshrine that by
requiring an annual report including information relating to
expenses.
Ms
Winterton:
As the hon. Gentleman has said, this amendment
seeks to require the traffic commissioners to publish an annual report
on their activities during that year within three months of the end of
the financial year and requires them to publish information on their
expenses. Under section 55 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981,
each of the traffic commissioners is already required to submit an
annual report of their activities during the past year to the Secretary
of State. Although the Government are under no legal obligation to
publish them, they have always done so in the interests of
transparency. They have been published alongside an overview by the
administrative senior traffic commissioner and detailed statistical
information on, for example, the number of applications processed.
These reports are available for download from the Department for
Transport
website.
Historically,
those annual reports are published approximately a year after initial
drafting and, while I accept that there is an inevitable delay in the
reports moving to final draft and publication, I agree that the process
is unnecessarily lengthy. Therefore, we have included a new power under
clause 3 for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the statutory
senior traffic commissioner and I hope that I can reassure the
Committee
by putting on record that it is our intention to use this power, among
other things, to tighten the framework for drafting and publishing
annual
reports. The
hon. Gentleman’s talked about the expenses of traffic
commissioners. It is important that the activities of the traffic
commissioners are as open and accountable as possible—I hope it
will reassure the Committee to know that we want the Secretary of State
to issue statutory guidance under clause 3—and that should be
considered along with other budgetary data to be consulted upon at the
time of publication. We would like to consider the issue when we
consult on the kind of data that should be included in this
guidance—whether it is personal expenses or other budgetary
data—but we do not want to put it in primary legislation. We
want to consult properly on all types of information that might be
published during that time. When we are considering those issues, I
hope that the Committee will accept that it is right to have a full
public consultation on the matter. I can reassure the Committee that we
will return to those issues when we publish the
guidance.
Mr.
Knight:
I am a little bit disappointed and puzzled by that
response. Here we have a Government who are committed to openness and
who introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Prime Minister
has said that those in public life should be transparent with their
expenses, and yet the Minister has given us the pledge that they will
consider consulting on these matters. I find it difficult to understand
why she cannot accept the principle and say, “Yes, we will
publish those items. We will consult on the precise scope, but the
actual publication is not something that we will consult on because we
will do it.” If that is what she meant to say, I am happy to
give way to her. As I understand it, she is going to consult on whether
or not the information should be released. I have to say that I do not
think that that is good enough. The details should be published. Of
course, one must have discussions about how it is done and what the
scope is, but I would have thought that she could have given a pledge
on the principle to the Committee today. She has failed to do that, and
because of that I am minded to support the amendment of the hon. Member
for
Lewes.
Ms
Winterton:
Hon. Members are often criticised for deciding
the minute detail of what we intend to do before any consultation. I
can assure the Committee that we will be consulting on these issues. It
is important that we maintain the principle that when we set the
parameters of guidance and give a commitment that we will be consulting
on it, we stick to it. If we end up going through every single bit of
the guidance and removing any right of public consultation, we are not
fulfilling our
principles.
Norman
Baker:
Will the Minister give
way?
Stephen
Hammond:
Will the Minister give
way?
The
Chairman:
Has the Minister
concluded?
Norman
Baker:
I was trying to be helpful, but the Minister had
already sat down. What a shame. There is nothing wrong with
consultation. If it is carried out
genuinely, it is a useful process. I tend to support the right hon.
Member for East Yorkshire when he says that the consultation here
should be about the how rather than the
whether.
Another
principle that the Minister has not elucidated on entirely is that of
accountability of public finances. There is an absolute duty on those
who have access to the public cheque book and on those who can write
cheques, not just in their job but for themselves, to ensure that such
moneys are publicly recorded and accounted for. I hope that the
Minister will accept that principle—it is not one that can be
negated by consultation. Does she accept the principle that when people
have access to public money, particularly when they can spend it to
their own benefit, it must be open and transparent? There is another
principle, one of consultation, which I hope that the Minister accepts.
If she says that she does—I am looking to see whether she nods,
as opposed to nodding off—that would be very welcome.
[
Interruption.
] She has neither nodded nor nodded
off, so I am no further
forward.
12.30
pm
The
Minister talks about tightening the framework and that is useful. She
has hinted that a time scale of 12 months for the production
of reports is too long, so I assume she agrees that it should be
reduced. I hope she also agrees that we need a more user-friendly
report than has been the case hitherto. It ought to be given greater
prominence, and as the role of the traffic commissioners is increased,
so too should be the prominence of their reports in the public domain.
For example, one report per year could be provided as a written
ministerial statement from the Secretary of State for Transport, so
that people were aware that the report had been published. It is not a
great burden on the Secretary of State, but it requires a ministerial
statement to say, “Here it is.” At the moment, things are
put on the website but that depends on whether someone can find the
website and is looking in the right place; it is not a sufficient way
of making the information public. I am in some doubt as to whether to
push the point, but I think I will not because the Minister has sort of
been helpful.
Ms
Winterton:
If it helps the hon. Gentleman in his
deliberations, let me say that of course I accept the principle that he
mentioned about publishing details where public funds are
concerned—we will consult on the detail of the publication,
including other budgetary issues on which we will consult. That is
important.
Norman
Baker:
I am grateful because that response allows me to
withdraw the amendment. I do not wish to be churlish, but there are
other amendments where the Minister has been much more unreasonable
than on this one. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
The
Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the
clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in
the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith
put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That
the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question
agreed
to.
Clause
2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
