Clause
66
Removal
of certain disabilities and requirements for
consent
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 266, in
clause 66, page 56, line 19, leave
out subsection
(2).
Subsection
(2) repeals the provisions set out in the Transport Act 1985, which
state that when a local authority votes on matters relating to the
activities of a transport company owned by the council, any councillors
who are directors of that company are not allowed to vote without the
Secretary of State’s permission. When I read the explanatory
note saying that that obligation would be dispensed with, I was
slightly at a loss. It seems a perfectly sensible and logical provision
that preserves independence of decision making, so I am surprised that
the Government want to delete
it.
Mr.
Leech:
Would that not be covered under the councillors
code of conduct, which precludes councillors from voting on matters in
which they have an
interest?
Stephen
Hammond:
It may or it may not—the code of conduct
certainly requires them to declare an interest—but saying so
explicitly on the face of the Bill would add weight to what should
happen. I see no reason why the Government should want to repeal that
provision. I am sure that in a moment the Minister will use her
extraordinary powers of persuasion to tell me why I am wrong, but she
will have to go a long way in this
case.
Ms
Winterton:
If enacted, clause 66 will remove two forms of
central Government control over bus companies that are owned wholly or
partly by local authorities. If those companies include elected members
on their boards, which I believe they all do, they must be unpaid,
non-executive directors. Current legislation, which goes back to 1985,
requires those elected members to obtain a dispensation from the
Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers before speaking
or voting on matters affecting their company. That was intended to
prevent possible conflicts of interest between their roles as
councillors and as directors.
Of course that
is still important, but local government has changed. Under more recent
local government legislation, the conduct regime for councillors allows
such dispensations to be granted by local standards committees. The
role of the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers is no longer needed,
and the clause will fulfil a long-standing commitment to remove it.
That is fully supported by the Department for Communities and Local
Government and by Welsh
Ministers.
The
amendment would retain the dispensation provisions in the 1985 Act,
meaning that councillors would effectively need two sets of
dispensation, one from their local standards committee and one from
central Government. The Bill provides an opportunity to get rid of an
unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, and I am afraid that the amendment
would deprive us of that opportunity. I ask the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw
it.
Stephen
Hammond:
That may be what the Minister wants, but it is
not what she has left us with. She says that it will be recognised that
the standards bodies are the appropriate bodies to give dispensation,
but that point needs to be in the Bill. I am not persuaded by what she
says, so I shall press the amendment to a
Division.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
15
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 66 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause 67
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
68
The
Public Transport Users’ Committee for
England
Mr.
Leech:
I beg to move amendment No. 232, in
clause 68, page 57, line 22, leave
out ‘by sub-committees with members’ and insert
‘on a regional basis by
persons’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 233, in
clause 68, page 57, line 39, after
‘policies’, insert ‘, including regional transport
policies,’.
Mr.
Leech:
Amendment No. 232 would enable the functions of the
new watchdog to be carried out on a regional basis. Although we would
not favour the establishment of a large regional structure or a
regional committee structure for the new watchdog, it should have a
regional dimension.
Bus travel is local in
character, and multiple operators are involved in its provision,
including a host of very small local operators. It is far less easy for
a single national organisation to have a good grasp of all the local
variations than it is in the case of rail, where there are a limited
number of players, and information on them and their performance is
readily available and easily assimilated. In addition, key changes to
services, for instance fares and frequencies, do not happen at the same
time and with ample warning, as they do in rail. Again unlike rail,
there is no guiding hand in Whitehall that influences the extent and
quality of service provision, other than by indirect measures such as
grant and subsidy regimes, vehicle regulations and so
on.
7
pm
Most
of the key decision makers on the quality of service that bus
passengers receive are regionally based, and thus the influence and
credibility of a purely national watchdog—especially if it is
London based—is arguable. Given that, there is a strong case for
the bus watchdog to have a limited regional dimension, especially if it
will eventually take on an appeals role for complaints, liaise
effectively with the main actors on bus services in each region, and
act as a credible voice for passengers in the deregulated regions,
whenever major problems or issues arise.
Ms
Winterton:
The amendments are directed at the powers
included in the Bill to establish a Public Transport Users’
Committee for England. However, on 8 April, the Secretary of State
announced that subject to further consultation on the details, it is
proposed to confer additional functions on the Rail Passengers Council,
Passenger Focus, to enable it to represent the interests of bus
passengers. Amendments to the clause will not, therefore, have any
immediate effect. I assure the hon. Gentleman that were we to set up a
committee in that way, the powers in the Bill would be wide enough to
enable a regional sub-committee network to be established if that was
thought desirable. As I have indicated, those are matters for the
future, and I hope that my reassurances will enable the hon. Gentleman
to withdraw his amendment.
Mr.
Leech:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 267, in
clause 68, page 57, line 23, at
end insert—
‘(ea) about the
making of an annual report on the discharge of functions and financial
situation of the Committee
to—
(i) the Secretary of
State,
(ii) all local transport
authorities,
(iii) both Houses
of Parliament, and
(iv) such other person, if any, as the Secretary of
State may determine.’.
The Committee
will not be surprised to learn that the amendment does not require much
in the way of introduction. It continues the theme that I have followed
throughout about consultation and accountability. The new bus passenger
watchdog should make an annual report in which it describes its
activities during the year and the state of its finances. We should
state in the Bill exactly where that report should go. It should go to
the Secretary of State and all local transport authorities and it
should be available to both Houses of Parliament and—in the
usual exhaustive
provision—
“such
other person...as the Secretary of State may
determine.”.
The
amendment would effectively give the Secretary of State power to
include a provision about such a report in the order that she makes,
for the purpose of establishing the Public Transport Users’
Committee for England. It should not be controversial. If we are to
create that body and put it on a statutory basis, we must ensure that
it is accountable and does the job it was set up to do. All other
organisations produce similar annual reports, which generally prove a
relatively effective way of reviewing their work. I hope that the
Minister will be persuaded to accept my entirely sensible
amendment.
Ms
Winterton:
The amendment would add to the list of
provisions that could be covered in any order made by the Secretary of
State to establish a public transport users’ committee. Again,
as the Secretary of State announced on 8 April, it is now proposed to
confer additional functions on the Rail Passengers Council, Passenger
Focus, to represent the interests of passengers, so in a sense the
amendment is not relevant to the body that we will establish. I assure
the hon. Gentleman that we probably will require the new body to
publish some kind of annual report, but we do not want to put that
requirement in the Bill. I therefore ask him to withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
Obviously, I think that the requirement would
benefit from being included in the Bill. None the less, I am persuaded
by the Minister’s reassurance that she will put it in guidance
that the body must produce an annual report. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Leech:
I beg to move amendment No. 234, in
clause 68, page 58, line 25, at
end insert—
‘(1A) The
Committee may consider representations (including complaints) made by
or on behalf of users of any public passenger transport services or
facilities in England and, where it appears to the Committee to be
desirable, make and publish recommendations or representations in
respect of those services or
facilities.’.
The
amendment would create a complaints role for the passenger transport
users’ committee. The consultation document did not envisage the
watchdog having any complaints role; instead, it argued that operators
should be the primary complaints bodies with the industry-funded bus
appeals body taking on the appeals role. That contrasts with existing
arrangements for rail passengers
everywhere and for all transport users in London. For rail passengers,
the system is that complaints are made first to operators and can then
be appealed to the statutory watchdog, Passenger Focus. In London, the
user of any transport mode complains first to Transport for London and
can appeal to the statutory watchdog, London TravelWatch. We would like
to see the same system for bus travel outside
London.
Stephen
Hammond:
I support the amendment, which has a lot of
merit. It concerns the functions of the new body. If that body is to be
effective, it must have powers of representation and complaint. It is
worth putting those things explicitly in the
Bill.
Ms
Winterton:
As I have said, instead of setting up a public
transport users’ committee, we intend to confer additional
functions on the Rail Passengers Council, Passenger Focus, so that it
can represent bus passenger interests. The amendment applies to a
public transport users’ committee and so would not have an
immediate effect on what we are doing. If we set up a committee, the
Bill will allow the Secretary of State to confer complaint and
representation functions to it, should that be
required.
In
the meantime, I hope that it will reassure the hon. Member for
Manchester, Withington to learn that we will be working with Passenger
Focus over the coming months on future arrangements and on whether it
should have a direct complaints-handling role. That work will feed into
any secondary legislation, on which we shill consult before bringing it
to the House for the affirmative resolution procedure. The point that
he is making about Passenger Focus, which is where I assume he meant
the amendment to be directed, will be taken into account in the
consultation. I hope that reassures him and that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Leech:
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 268, in
clause 68, page 58, line 30, leave
out paragraph
(a).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 269, in
clause 68, page 58, line 33, leave
out paragraph (d).
No.
272, in
clause 68, page 59, line 13, leave
out subsection
(9).
Stephen
Hammond:
The amendments are designed to probe the powers
and functions of the committee and the powers of the Secretary of State
in relation to the committee. First, I am slightly confused by
subsection (3)(a) to proposed new section 125B, which will be inserted
in the Transport Act 1985. It states that the Secretary of State
may
“confer further
functions on the
Committee”.
Given that the
committee already has the power by virtue of the preceding subsection
to consider and make recommendations on
“any such matter if asked to do so
by the Secretary of State”,
I am left wondering what further functions
the Secretary of State might want the committee to have. The Minster
will need to clarify that for hon. Members.
The same subsection
states that the Secretary of State may
“transfer any functions of the
Committee to another person (including the Secretary of
State).”
I would be
interested to know in exactly what circumstances the Minster thinks
that that is likely to occur. I cannot think of any circumstances in
which it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to transfer
the functions of the committee to themselves and thereby act as the bus
passenger champion. For instance, does the same provision exist when
the committee acts as the rail passenger watchdog and, if so, has it
ever been used?
Finally, I would like to probe
subsection 9 of proposed new section 125B, which states:
“The Committee may do
anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or
incidental to, the discharge of any of its
functions.”
That seems
like a wide remit, and I wonder what the committee might do in
practice. There are well-stated powers, obligations and
responsibilities, so what is the “anything” that the
committee may do? We are obviously in favour of giving powers to
Passenger Focus to become the bus passenger watchdog, but I am looking
for reassurance that the body will have the appropriate
powers.
Ms
Winterton:
As I have said before, and as I think the hon.
Gentleman understands, it has now been decided that Passenger Focus
will be the new bus passenger champion, so we have no immediate plans
to use the powers to establish a new Public Transport Users’
Committee for England. However, if we decided to use the provisions in
the future, we would want the flexibility to confer additional
functions on that body and perhaps transfer functions to another
body.
I shall explain
a little more about that. First, the Bill specifies only two functions
for any future PTUC—it is important to distinguish it from
Passenger Focus, which we propose to establish as the bus passenger
champion. The first function is to consider and make recommendations or
representations to the Secretary of State about public transport
services. The second function is to consider and make recommendations
about matters that are referred to the committee by the Secretary of
State. It is possible that the PTUC might usefully undertake other
functions as well. It might want to make representations to someone
other than the Secretary of State, such as bus operators, local
authorities or traffic commissioners. If amendment No. 268 were
accepted, it would not be possible to give the committee such
functions.
Secondly,
one might decide after a period of time that a function being carried
out by the PTUC could usefully be performed in the future by someone
else. Had the PTUC been given a remit to consider bus
passengers’ complaints, for example, in the light of experience
one might conclude that in the area of quality contracts schemes it
would be better for the local authority to take on that remit. Again,
if amendment No. 269 were accepted, there would be no power to transfer
that function.
Thirdly, there
are many actions that the PTUC might wish to take in order to carry out
its functions, but it would not be sensible to list them on the face of
the legislation. That is why we have included the catch-all power that
commits the committee to undertake tasks that allow it to do its job of
representing passengers. For example, the PTUC might be asked by the
Secretary of State to consider and make recommendations about bus
performance in a particular area. The committee might feel that without
outside help it would not have the right expertise to do that. It might
want to hire a team of people to carry out a survey of passengers or
distribute questionnaires to households and then employ consultants to
analyse them. Amendment No. 272 would prevent it from doing
so.
7.15
pm
As I have said,
at present, we are looking to Passenger Focus to take on those powers,
but if we wanted to establish a PTUC in the future, we would want to
have the flexibility that the amendments would remove. I hope that,
with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I understand exactly what the Minister is saying,
but she did not answer my question, certainly in respect of amendment
No. 268. I understand about further functions, but she did not address
my point. The future PTUC
can
“consider and make
recommendations...about any such matter if asked to do so by the
Secretary of State.”
I
cannot see the difference between “any such matter” and
why it would need the further function. I remain somewhat surprised by
that.
7.16
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
7.31
pm
On
resuming—
Stephen
Hammond:
I was saying that I am slightly perplexed by the
Minister’s arguments about further functions and the phrase
“any such matter”, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 270, in
clause 68, page 58, line 43, after
‘body’, insert
‘representative of the users of
public
transport’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 271, in
clause 68, page 59, line 1, after
‘body’, insert
‘representative of the users of
public
transport’.
Stephen
Hammond:
According to subsection (5) of proposed new
section 125B of the Transport Act 1985, the committee will have the
power to arrange for other bodies to discharge its functions on its
behalf. Will the Minister explain exactly in what circumstances she
would expect the committee to ask some other body or individual to
discharge those functions? It is not
absolutely clear why that would be necessary or to whom it would ask
functions to be discharged. Will the Minister guide us through that
matter?
Ms
Winterton:
As I have explained, although there are
powers in the Bill to set up the committee, the Government announced on
8 April that, in fact, we would use Passenger Focus as the bus
passenger champion, so we do not have any immediate plans to use the
powers, although we propose to retain them.
To answer the hon.
Gentleman’s question, when we consulted on the draft Bill last
year, many people told us that passengers needed better representation
nationally by a body with statutory powers, which is why we are
introducing them. In crafting the powers, we recognise that future
consultation will be necessary to ensure that we set up the type of
body that meets the actual needs of passengers. At the same time, we
want to ensure that we do not create duplication between different
bodies. We wanted the maximum flexibility for the passenger transport
users committee to take on functions that are currently carried out by
another body, and vice
versa.
It is likely
that any such transfer of functions would be between bodies with an
interest in consumer representation, but they might not be directly
representative of public transport users. If the PTUC were established,
we might want to transfer functions to it from the National Consumer
Council or vice versa. That group represents consumers, including those
of transport services, but it is not directly representative of public
transport users.
The
amendment would reduce the flexibility of the committee to take on, or
to give to another body, functions that, with hindsight, might have
been best carried out elsewhere. It is therefore contrary to the idea
behind the clause, and I hope that what I have said gives the hon.
Member for Wimbledon the clarification that he was looking
for.
Stephen
Hammond:
Yet again, the Minister’s powers of
persuasion overwhelm me. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
68 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
