 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Local Transport Bill [Lords] |
Local Transport Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Annette Toft,
Committee Clerks
† attended
the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 22 April 2008(Afternoon)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Local Transport Bill [Lords]Written evidence to be reported to the HouseLTB 01 Passenger
Transport Executive Group
LTB 02
Guide Dogs for the Blind
Association
LTB 03 Greater
Manchester Momentum
Group
Clause 3
Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 1, in
clause 3, page 5, leave out lines 39 to 43
and insert—
‘4D Guidance to
senior traffic commissioner by Secretary of
State
(1) The Secretary of
State may give the senior traffic commissioner guidance as to the
exercise of any of the senior traffic commissioner’s
functions.
(2) The senior
traffic commissioner must have regard to any guidance given under
subsection (1) above.”.’.—[Ms Rosie
Winterton.]
4
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing amendment No. 27, in clause 3, page 5, line 39, leave out
subsections (6) and
(7).
The
Minister of State, Department for Transport (Ms Rosie
Winterton):
Thank you, Lady Winterton. It is a great
pleasure to be serving under your
chairmanship.
Earlier,
I was in full flow explaining the difference between the general
directions that the Secretary of State currently issues to the senior
traffic commissioner and their replacement, the guidance that the
Secretary of State will issue in future. Following that, the senior
traffic commissioner will be able to issue guidance and general
directions to other traffic commissioners. It is all perfectly clear.
The idea is to increase the independence of the traffic commissioners
as a whole, but also for the senior traffic commissioner to have
greater powers to introduce consistency among other traffic
commissioners, while at every step of the way not interfering with
individual decisions, which will continue to be made on a
quasi-judicial
basis.
Mr.
Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): In
essence, my point boils down to whether the Minister can tell the
Committee where in the Bill it states that guidance issued by the
Secretary of State cannot amount to an instruction in a specific case.
If it is in the Bill, my argument falls and I will have nothing more to
say about the matter. However, if it is not in the Bill, my point
arises because the Minister’s amendment No. 1 gives the
Secretary of State the power to issue guidance and directs that the
senior traffic commissioner must
have regard to that guidance. It seems entirely reasonable that at the
same time we should have a statement that the guidance will be only on
the issue she mentioned and not in respect of a specific
case.
Ms
Winterton:
As I understand it, we have
not said that specifically in the Bill. Clearly, general principles
would be in the guidance. The Secretary of State could not direct a
particular case and say that a commissioner ought to find in a
particular way. The guidance is not legally binding—it is
guidance.
The type of
issue that might be covered could be that bus punctuality should
improve. The guidance would look to the traffic commissioners to do
that. General guidance to traffic commissioners might be to look at how
they can work to improve bus punctuality, but a traffic commissioner
would not be breaking the law if he or she did not succeed in improving
bus punctuality, because that would obviously be unreasonable. I assure
the Committee that the guidance will be about general principles. From
the senior traffic commissioner onwards to the other traffic
commissioner it would be about how to achieve; for example there could
be details about how other traffic commissioners might achieve bus
punctuality. The guidance is only about the exercise of the senior
traffic commissioner functions, not individual traffic
commissioners.
Norman
Baker (Lewes) (LD): While we are on the subject, may I
explore the meaning of the well-used phrase in legislation,
“with regard”? Does it mean that the senior traffic
commissioner is simply obliged to read the guidance from the Government
and cogitate on it, or that they are obliged to attempt to implement
those
guidelines?
Ms
Winterton:
The traffic commissioner should have regard to
the guidance, which means that they should take it into account in the
exercise of their duties. What it does not mean, as I have said, is
that they would be breaking the law if they did not manage to improve
bus punctuality. It comes back to the issue of how to do things such as
monitoring performance. The guidance would need to be about the
principles relating to how the senior traffic commissioner carries out
his functions.
Norman
Baker:
But if the Minister says to the senior traffic
commissioner: “We want you to improve bus
punctuality”—to take her example—is the senior
traffic commissioner obliged to try to improve bus punctuality or are
they free to conclude that there are other issues of more importance
that ought to take
priority?
Ms
Winterton:
Like any guidance in such circumstances, if
there were good reasons for divergence from the letter of the guidance
in a particular case, the senior traffic commissioner may be able to do
so. The idea of guidance is to guide, not to force in unreasonable
circumstances. That is why we have tried to make a distinction from the
previous situation where there were general directions that could have
been more specific. What we want to achieve in the Bill, to assist with
the issues of independence, is for the Secretary of State to be able to
set parameters
for how the senior traffic commissioner should operate, but not to
direct them. The senior traffic commissioner would then have greater
powers to achieve a consistent approach and to be able to direct the
work of other traffic commissioners, which at present can be done only
by consent and
agreement.
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): I want to
tease a little bit more from the Minister. We have talked about the
Secretary of State issuing guidance about improving bus punctuality,
which is general guidance. My right hon. Friend the Member for East
Yorkshire might ask whether the intention is that the Secretary of
State can say to the senior traffic commissioner: “You must
improve bus punctuality in Manchester, Southampton and other
places”. Is there to be instruction about a specific point? That
is the concern.
Ms
Winterton:
I thought the right hon.
Gentleman’s concern was that if the traffic commissioner was
sitting on a case involving a disciplinary matter, the Secretary of
State would somehow direct the traffic commissioner on how to find in
the case. That is the point that the right hon. Gentleman made and I
confirmed that it was not the case because in those circumstances the
traffic commissioner would be sitting in the quasi-judicial capacity
that we have talked about. The idea behind issuing guidance to the
senior traffic commissioner is that it would generally be what the
Secretary of State would like to see the traffic commissioners do in
carrying out their duties. I used the example of bus punctuality
because I think it is appropriate to the Bill, given the discussions
that we will be having on the operation of bus companies. It is not
about how to find in individual cases when we are talking about a
quasi-judicial function.
Amendment No. 27 would remove
the power that the Bill would give the Secretary of State to issue
guidance to the senior traffic commissioner about the exercise of his
or her functions. Because the whole point of the Bill is to give the
Secretary of State power to issue guidance, rather than the general
directions that exist at present, I am afraid that we wish the
Committee to reject the amendment. The point of the changes is
to enable the issuing of guidance and as the proposal remove that
provision it rather undermines the purpose of our changes.
Amendment agreed
to
.
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Knight:
Can the Minister give us an idea
of the sort of salary that a senior traffic commissioner will receive?
How does that compare with the current salary of a basic traffic
commissioner? I shall quite understand if she needs to consult about
that question.
On the
power to give guidance and directions, on page 5, subsection (4)
states:
“The
senior traffic commissioner must consult each of the following persons
before giving any guidance or directions under subsection
(1).”
It
then lists a number of people who were referred to in our previous
debate. Can the Minister confirm that in practice it will be
“consult as appropriate”? For example, why would the
senior traffic commissioner want to consult Scottish Ministers about an
issue or concern
that relates only to England? Does the subsection mean that in practice
the senior traffic commissioner must consult all those people when it
applies to them, or must he consult them even if they have no locus
standi in the particular
problem?
Ms
Winterton:
As I understand it—I
will correct this if it is wrong—an ordinary traffic
commissioner receives a salary of approximately £90,000 per
year, while a senior traffic commissioner receives £100,000. On
the right hon. Gentleman’s point about consultation, if we refer
back to the Bill, it reads “subsection (1) above”. I
believe that is because it is about the exercise of the traffic
commissioners’ functions under any enactment. The key may be in
“enactment”. However, I confess that I would be more than
happy to come back with further information about the meaning of
enactment. I suspect that it is not about every single decision taken,
but that in particular instances relating to an enactment, the
commissioner would have to consult with the appropriate
people.
Norman
Baker:
Perhaps I can help the Minister.
Subsection (5) includes a specific reference to a situation whereby a
Scottish traffic commissioner is consulted.
Graham
Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): Although I said
that I wanted to take part in the debate on clause 4 stand
part, with your permission, Lady Winterton, I think that my comments
are more appropriate to clause 3.
As I listened to the debate
about senior traffic commissioners and traffic commissioners, their
terms and conditions and how long they are appointed for, a number of
issues and questions arose, not least whether members of the Committee
have ever met a traffic commissioner or senior traffic commissioner.
There is a sense in which this debate has taken place—as in one
sense it should—in a theoretical vacuum, without really
understanding the terms and conditions, what traffic commissioners have
done in the past and how they have been appointed. We must remember
that if the Bill goes through unamended, it will give traffic
commissioners considerably more powers than they have had in the
past.
4.15
pm
I am worried
about some of these things. My experience of traffic commissioners is
that some of them have been extremely hostile to local government and
that some of them have known more about the regulations of Her
Majesty’s services than they have about traffic
regulations.
I shall
put that into the context of what I am about to say, because at the
heart of the Government’s decisions about independence and
accountability and whether or not there should be long or short-term
contracts for senior traffic commissioners is the real tension between
independence and accountability. I think that they are contradictory,
and that the hon. Member for Lewes was getting to that point. If a
senior traffic commissioner is independent, however one tries to
surround that commissioner with regulations and contracts, he is still
independent. If, however, the strength of the regulations is such and
the period of the contracts is so short that they are very constrained
in what they are doing, they are not independent.
My core
question for the Government is whether they really mean independent, or
whether they mean what a Conservative Minister once said to me when we
were asking for lottery money to be applied to the Commonwealth
games—it could have applied to anything. She said that what was
wanted was for the Government to “breathe” on the lottery
funding bodies. I get the impression that these rules and
regulations and short-term contracts are about
“breathing” on the traffic commissioners. Will all these
people be independent? If so, they need long-term contracts, fixed or
otherwise, because when I have employed people and wanted to control
them—apart from their expertise—I have had them on a very
short leash and a very short contract. If one wants them to be
genuinely independent and come to independent views, they should either
be given long fixed-term contracts, or be made permanent. I would like
an answer to that
question.
Given
my experience of traffic commissioners and their expertise in other
areas— not necessarily the problems of transport in
Manchester—I would like to know what sort of training and
qualifications will be proposed as entrance requirements for what are
important positions. I suggest—I am interested in my right hon.
Friend’s reaction either now or in the future—that the
senior transport commissioner should be subject to interview and
interrogation by the Transport Committee. In the Prime
Minister’s proposals for constitutional change he listed a
number of posts for which people should be interviewed by Select
Committees before appointment. The new post of senior transport
commissioner is important, and if this Bill is passed as it is, that
person will have immense influence over any quality contracts scheme
and over the bus network in this country. It seems to me—my
right hon. Friend the Minister may not have thought about
this—that that is exactly the kind of person who should be
subject to interrogation and interview by the appropriate Select
Committee. I would be pleased to hear her response on that
point.
I
may have spoken too harshly about the influence that the Government
tend to want over independent people. I know that the Government were
badly burned by the actions of the rail regulator after the Hatfield
crash, when the rail system effectively came to a halt. The rail
regulator, who was independent, was responsible for billions of pounds,
but the Government would not necessarily have endorsed the expenditure.
The debt now carried by Network Rail is the result of that
person’s actions. The Railways Act 2005 abolished that
position.
I recast my
question. I want to know whether the position of senior traffic
commissioner is proposed simply to avoid independence and to keep some
sort of control—as I said earlier, either through guidelines or
short-term contracts—so that we do not suffer a repetition of
that problem, although it would be at a lower level because that sort
of money is not now available. I should be grateful if my right hon.
Friend would clarify those points.
Ms
Winterton:
My hon. Friend was in
Committee this morning, and that is exactly the point that I made when
explaining why we rejected the idea of short-term contracts. Amendment
No. 152, tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes, would have introduced a
short-term contract, and my hon. Friend may even have voted on
it, but the Government’s response was that that is not the right
approach. It is important for the traffic commissioner to be able to
build up experience, particularly given the quasi-judicial role, and it
is important that he should not always need to keep an eye on what
might happen a year down the line. To ensure independence, it is
important that the commissioner does not feel that his job will be up
for renewal every three years; it should be a full-time
appointment.
Hon. Members
need to bear in mind that we believe that the Secretary of State should
issue guidance rather than general directions, which is the position
now, because it will improve the independence of the traffic
commissioner. We have clarified why we want to change the
position.
My hon.
Friend asked about the issuing of guidance. It is important that
traffic commissioners should be independent when making quasi-judicial
decisions. It is important also that they should be accountable for the
way in which they use public money and for their overall efficiency in
carrying out their duties; and there should be accountability to
Parliament, as the Secretary of State can issue guidance on some of the
principles of operation. The traffic commissioner’s work will
involve decisions about large sums of public money. In future he may
also have to make decisions about bus services. It is important to
ensure that the Secretary of State has the ability to issue guidance in
that way. I would have thought that right hon. and hon. Members would
think it rather odd if that were not the case given that the
implementation of any Government’s transport policies depend on
them being able to consider what guidance they want to put
out.
With regard
to training and experience, the main criteria is the ability to run a
tribunal and have experience or knowledge of road transport law and
practice. Those are the main qualifications for a traffic commissioner.
I am not sure that I can see the Transport Committee as some kind of
interviewing panel for the position of senior traffic commissioner. I
do not know whether that would be appropriate if we want to ensure
independence. It is a matter for the Select Committee to decide who it
invites to give evidence. During the draft Local Transport Bill, I
recall the traffic commissioners being summoned before the Transport
Committee. I know that the Committee commented on the traffic
commissioner proposals, particularly pointing out that it wanted to
ensure that there was adequate funding. Therefore, it is up to the
Transport Committee to be able to summon whoever it wants as witnesses.
I hope that that is
helpful.
Graham
Stringer:
Of course the Select Committee can invite
anybody it wishes to attend. The point that I was making is that the
Prime Minister has suggested that Select Committees should look at
important public appointments, and that before a person takes up a
post, they should discuss with them their attitude to the job. I was
asking my right hon. Friend whether she thought that this important
position should be one of those posts in which the applicant is
automatically interviewed by the Select
Committee.
Ms
Winterton:
If those are general criteria that are decided
on a cross-Government basis—I have not seen the detail of those
proposals to know exactly who they are thinking about in those
circumstances—then they should be taken into consideration. I am
sure that we
would all like to see more detail of that proposal to assess whether
this was an appropriate appointment to bring before the
Committee.
Norman
Baker:
I shall be brief because we have
gone around the houses on this. The contribution of the hon. Member for
Manchester, Blackley has been extremely helpful in crystallising some
of the issues that we have been discussing. He is right to say that
they are to some degree a trade-off between independence and
accountability. He is also right to draw attention to Tom Winsor and
the history of the rail industry. If in doubt, we should come down on
the side of accountability because we are talking about public funds
and the discharge of important public functions. There is considerable
potential for an individual, with or without Government guidance, to
behave in a way that is not sympathetic to Government policy, to the
local authority in the area that they look after or to the needs of bus
passengers and others.
I hope that the Minister will
accept that we need to improve accountability procedures. She has
already given one or two hints that she might be willing to look at
matters such as annual reports and so on. Without over-egging the
pudding, it is important that we have some answers. With the best will
in the world, the Government want to see bus services improved. They
may try to adapt the Transport Act 2000 to bring about those
improvements and they will have support from many people in the country
and in this House. However, there is a danger that they could be
thwarted by the actions of individual traffic commissioners who will be
beyond control from the systems put in place by the Government. When
the Minister reflects on those matters, I hope that she will consider
whether we need further controls. I do not mean day-to-day controls on
the traffic commissioners—no one is suggesting that they be
micro-managed or that their individual decisions be regulated on a
day-to-day basis—but there should be regular checks to ensure
that they are doing their job properly and are in line with public
policy. I do not think that there are mechanisms for doing so. I have
suggested a fixed-term contract as one way to do it. If the Minister
does not like that, we must find a different way, but we cannot just
allow people to be appointed—I agree with the point about the
Select Committee, by the way; it is a useful suggestion—and then
run off to do their own thing irrespective of what the public at large
need or what local authorities or indeed Ministers want them to
do.
4.30
pm
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 3,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 4Amendments
of Schedule 2 to the PPVA
1981
‘(7) Paragraph 1
of Schedule 2 to the PPVA 1981 (grounds for dismissal), as amended by
this section, shall apply to deputy traffic
commissioners.’.
I apologise,
Lady Winterton. When I intervened earlier, I failed to welcome you to
the Chair. I remember that you chaired the Standing Committee on the
Crossrail Bill last year. I enjoyed it immensely, and I am sure that we
will enjoy this Committee immensely under your chairmanship as
well.
This is a
sensible amendment that I am sure the Minister will want to accept. It
concerns deputy traffic commissioners, and in particular their
dismissal. I genuinely hope that it will not prove controversial,
because it appears to me that there is a loose end in the Bill. As
things stand, the Secretary of State has the power to appoint traffic
commissioners and to dismiss a traffic commissioner
who
“(a) has
misbehaved; or
(b) is
unable, unfit or unwilling to perform the functions of traffic
commissioner to a standard which the Secretary of State considers
satisfactory”.
I do not
think that anyone has a problem with that provision.
The Secretary
of State has the power to appoint deputy traffic commissioners, who
have a number of set functions. They carry out many if not all the
functions of regular traffic commissioners. However, as I read them,
the measures and their parent Act contain no provisions for dealing
with a deputy traffic commissioner who misbehaves or is unwilling or
unable to carry out his duties. If both traffic commissioners and
deputy traffic commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State
and have the same functions, and if there are provisions for the
dismissal of the former, should there not also be provisions for the
dismissal of the
latter?
Mr.
Knight:
I can see why my hon. Friend might want that point
in the Bill, but would not his concerns be covered by proposed new
paragraph (3)? It
states:
“Appointment
as a deputy traffic commissioner for England and Wales shall be upon
such terms and conditions, including conditions as to the time to be
devoted to the duties of the office, as the Secretary of State may
determine.”
It
seems that the Secretary of State could quite easily put into the
contract identical disciplinary and dismissal provisions to those for
full-time
commissioners.
Stephen
Hammond:
I dispute that. It might well be possible, but
the proposed new measures contain set conditions for the dismissal of
traffic commissioners. As the Bill states the set conditions for
appointments, it seems normal to put in an amendment such as mine. As
far as I can see, my right hon. Friend’s comment refers to
conditions that may apply but would not necessarily do so, whereas my
amendment would cover the eventuality and give the Secretary of State
the power necessary to dismiss deputy traffic commissioners. I hope
that the Minister can either give me some reassurance that I missed the
point altogether or accept my
amendment.
Ms
Winterton:
I would not like to imply
that the hon. Gentleman had missed the point altogether, but I hope to
give a little clarification that might assist him. The amendment, as he
said, would extend to the 17 current deputy traffic commissioners the
clearer powers under clause 4 to dismiss poorly performing traffic
commissioners. As we discussed earlier, the competence with which
traffic commissioners exercise their statutory duties can have a
dramatic effect on individual operators. Delays in processing licensing
applications or granting variations to existing licences can mean that
new businesses cannot start, existing ones cannot expand or that
business is lost perhaps with disastrous consequences for the
livelihood of operators and their
employees.
Currently,
as we have discussed, and which will continue under the Bill, a traffic
commissioner is appointed until retirement and can be removed from
office only by the Secretary of State on the grounds of inability or
misbehaviour. As I said earlier, the Government believe that such power
is not explicit enough. For example, it does not make clear what
inability means. It does not state whether it refers to those who do
not have the professional expertise to perform their functions in a
competent and proper fashion, whether it means someone who does not
work efficiently or someone who is just unwilling to perform their
functions to an acceptable standard. The Government believe that the
power should encompass all such situations and that all commissioners
must have the professional competence to carry out their functions and
be properly accountable for ensuring that they do so in as efficient
and effective way as possible. That is why we want clearer
powers.
However,
deputy traffic commissioners work on a part-time and pro rata basis.
They are paid only for the work that they do, and they work only at the
request of the full-time traffic commissioners usually when they have
an enormous amount of work and need helping out with particular cases.
Unlike the traffic commissioners, the deputies are appointed on fixed
three-year contracts. In the case of poor performance, it is true that
the Secretary of State can decide not to renew their contract or that
another new deputy could be recruited to the area. It would be possible
simply not to use the deputy traffic commissioner if it were felt by
the traffic commissioner that they were not competent. That would not
be at a cost to the public purse because deputy traffic commissioners
are paid only when they
work.
Under
the other powers in the Bill, the senior traffic commissioner would
have the power, for example, to use deputies from other areas to cover
short-term needs until, if necessary, a replacement was found. We do
not consider it necessary to have within the role of the deputy traffic
commissioner the same powers and the same need to go through the
dismissal process that applies to a full-time traffic commissioner.
That would complicate matters. The position, as it rests at the moment,
provides the necessary mechanisms to take appropriate action in respect
of poorly performing deputy traffic commissioners. I hope that I have
been helpful, have clarified the position and given the hon. Member for
Wimbledon the reassurance that I expect he
seeks.
Stephen
Hammond:
The Minister was certainly
extremely helpful. It was interesting to learn that deputy traffic
commissioners are on a fixed term of office. I certainly understand her
point that, given that it is a short three-year term of office, it
might just be easier to leave someone on the list who would otherwise
fall into the category of unwilling to perform functions to the
standard required without going through all the dismissal procedures. I
assume that that is what the Government would
prefer, rather than taking the power to dismiss them. I assume that the
Government are saying that because people are only appointed for such a
short period, we do not have to use them. We can have them on the list
of deputy traffic commissioners, not renew their contract after three
years and not go through the disciplinary procedures that would be
associated with getting rid of them. I think that is what the Minister
is effectively saying to us. My amendment was offering the Government
powers to get rid of people who are incompetent. I understand that
exercising such powers may be too
difficult.
I have
listened to the Minister and am reassured that there are means of, if
not getting rid of, at least sidelining deputy traffic commissioners
who are not performing their functions. The key is being able to
perform to the standards we are all concerned about so, with that
reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Knight:
I still have concerns from our
earlier debate about the question of guidance issued by the Secretary
of State. When one looks at clause 4, a ground for dismissing a
commissioner is that that commissioner has misbehaved. Will the
Minister give an assurance to this Committee that misbehaviour will
never be deemed to have to taken place where a traffic commissioner
ignores guidance that, in effect, emanates from the Secretary of State?
Unless she is able to give that assurance, it seems to me that the
Secretary of State could, by issuing specific guidance, interfere with
the quasi-judicial functions of a traffic
commissioner.
Norman
Baker:
I understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is
making, but I would be more concerned, pursuant to his argument, about
subsection 2 (b) which allows a dismissal on the basis that the traffic
commissioner has not performed to a standard which the Secretary of
State considers satisfactory. That is more of an open goal than
misbehaviour.
Mr.
Knight:
The hon. Gentleman anticipates my journey, which I
do not criticise him for. In addition to my concerns over this phrase
“has misbehaved”, as the hon. Member for Lewes has
rightly said, it may well be that a traffic commissioner feels his duty
to a particular area is to make, or not to make, a certain decision and
that it could be argued under this clause that he was
unwilling—not unable, not unfit, but unwilling—to perform
the functions of a traffic commissioner. It goes to the heart of how
independent these commissioners will be in practice in the light of the
wording of this
clause.
Ms
Winterton:
What we need to consider is
the fact that traffic commissioners are appointed and employed to carry
out a public service on behalf of Government, through Parliament.
Whatever Government were in power, if the Secretary of State wished to
issue guidance as to how, for example, a senior traffic commissioner
should operate their service, Parliament would expect that there should
be some appropriate action if somebody
wilfully ignored any direction or guidance that was issued through the
Secretary of State, because these powers are given in an Act. It is
important that we preserve that principle, because many people carry
out public service duties and Parliament and the Secretary of State
have a role in ensuring they are carried out in line with the will of
the Government and of Parliament through particular Acts that are
passed. That is an important principle to bear in
mind.
4.45
pm
I
emphasise the fact that the Government hold traffic commissioners in
high regard. We would only be talking about going through an entire
dismissal process in extreme circumstances, for example, if a traffic
commissioner consistently refused to comply with directions issued by
the statutory senior traffic commissioner appointed under clause 3, or
if there was clear evidence that a commissioner had acted improperly,
such as acting for personal gain. I emphasise, however, that if one is
talking about an appointment lasting until retirement, as opposed to a
fixed-term contract, all of the processes would be open to an
individual if they alleged that they were being dismissed for having
made a particular decision.
It is quite clear that the
Government do not want to use this power to erode the
commissioner’s independence. We have come forward with the power
because it was felt that there was a decision to be made about going
down a line of short, fixed-term contracts. As I replied to my hon.
Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, we did not want to do that
because we did not want to erode that independence and perhaps be faced
with somebody coming to the end of their three-year contract. How would
a person feel in those circumstances? Would their decisions be
influenced? One would hope not. My judgment was that it is better to
have a normal process of recruitment and dismissal to overcome the
feeling that people might be coming to decisions because they are
reaching the end of their contract.
The powers
that we are taking will extend only to the administrative competence of
the commissioner. Their judicial competence, the decisions they make
about individual operators, will remain a matter for the existing
appeal mechanisms, the transport tribunal and the court of appeal. I
emphasise that this goes hand in hand with the belief that not having
short, fixed-term contracts is a more appropriate way to ensure traffic
commissioners’ independence. However, we want to reflect some of
the concerns that have been raised about the fact that it is not
possible to take action if an individual consistently refuses to comply
with directions issued from the senior traffic commissioner. We have
tried to get the balance right and we believe that we have done so, but
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not talking about
interference with quasi-judicial decisions.
Mr.
Knight:
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply.
I would like to reflect on the points she has made; I am not entirely
convinced that more does not need to be done, but that can be left for
another day and I shall not seek to divide the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 4
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 23 April 2008 |