 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 CommitteeThursday 8 May 2008[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Local Transport Bill [Lords]9
am
Ordered,
That
the Order of the Committee [22nd April] be varied as
follows—
In
paragraph (1)(e), for ‘1.00 pm’ substitute ‘1.10
pm’.—[Mr.
Watts.]
Clause 73Power
to establish a new
ITA
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): I beg to move amendment No.
273, in clause 73, page 64,
line 6, at end
insert—
‘(2A) An order may
be made only if all of the constituent councils of the proposed ITA
have approved the scheme by means
of—
(a) a resolution,
and
(b) a public
referendum.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 10, in clause 73,
page 64, line 40, at end
insert—
‘(10A) Where all of
the constituent councils of a proposed integrated transport area agree
a resolution opposing the designation of the area as an integrated
transport area the Secretary of State shall not make an order under
this
section.’.
No.
11, in
clause 73, page 64, line 40, at
end insert—
‘(10A) The
Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section if one or
more of the constituent councils of a proposed integrated transport
area opposed the designation of the area as an integrated transport
area.’.
No.
12, in
clause 73, page 64, line 40, at
end insert—
‘(10A) Where a
majority of the constituent councils of a proposed integrated transport
area agree a resolution opposing the designation of the area as an
integrated transport area, the Secretary of State shall not make an
order under this
section.’.
No.
13, in
clause 73, page 64, line 45, at
end insert—
‘(11A) The
Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a
referendum of all electors within the boundaries of a proposed
integrated transport area has been held and a majority of electors are
in favour of the establishment of an integrated transport
area.’.
Stephen
Hammond:
In this part of the Bill, we shall be considering
integrated transport authorities, their new powers, how they might come
into being, several ways in which their powers may be exercised and
restraints on those powers. We shall be looking to probe the Minister
in a number of areas for clarification of exactly how the system will
work. Amendment No. 273 is grouped with four amendments tabled by the
hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley that are not dissimilar to mine.
They would result in a position whereby a new integrated transport
authority can be established only with the consent of the local
authorities that make up the new integrated transport authority, and
that consent could be judged in two ways.
First, the
elected members of each local authority could agree a resolution. That
would make perfect sense to the elected officials who will serve on the
new ITA. It would be wrong if the Secretary of State decided that
several local authorities would benefit from being amalgamated into an
integrated transport authority, but the elected people—those
sitting on the bodies—disagreed. Each and every local authority
should agree an affirmative resolution before they are made part of an
integrated transport
authority.
If
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s amendments correctly,
amendment No. 10 states that an ITA would not be created if all the
constituent councils pass a resolution opposing it. It is slightly
different from my amendment, but it is motivated by the same concerns.
Under amendment No. 12, an ITA cannot be created even if a majority of
councils oppose it, which again is similarly motivated. The second way
in which each local area must approve the creation of an integrated
transport authority is through a referendum, which is echoed by
amendment No. 13. The proposal is motivated by the simple factor that
local people are hugely concerned with local transport in their areas
and they should, or could, be given a direct say in how their local
transport is managed. I look forward to the Minister’s agreeing
to establish democratic consent for an integrated transport
authority.
Graham
Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): I will not repeat
what the hon. Gentleman has said. I tabled four amendments to elucidate
the Government’s thinking about the changes in the local
democratic process brought about by the Bill. I support the motivation
behind the Bill, which is to improve integrated transport in an area.
However, I tabled the amendments because I am worried that, with that
drive, the integrated transport authority does not run roughshod over
the electors or the local authorities in its area. There is the
potential for transfer of real highway authority powers to a body that
will not be directly elected and if a local authority is to lose those
powers, it should have some say in that matter. Three of the amendments
provide that a local authority should have a veto, that it should not
lose those powers if it does not want to, or that there should be the
agreement of a majority of or all the authorities. The amendments aim
to probe the Government’s
thinking.
The
final amendment addresses the change that removes power from the
electorate. At the moment, if the electorate want to dispute a bus lane
or if shopkeepers want to ask for better parking, they can do so, or
they can vote out the people responsible for such things. If those
powers are transferred to an integrated transport authority, the
electorate will no longer have a direct power to vote out the people
making the decisions. The final amendment provides that if those powers
are to be changed, it should be done after a referendum. Really, I am
speaking to the amendments to probe the Government’s thinking on
the relationship between improving public transport, which I think we
all want to do, and the democratic
process.
The
Minister of State, Department for Transport (Ms Rosie
Winterton):
It might help if I explain a little bit of the
background to setting up a new integrated transport authority. As
clause 73 makes clear, the Secretary of State can make an order
establishing a new integrated
transport authority and an integrated transport area where the local
authorities in that area have carried out a review of existing
governance arrangements in their area and have published a scheme
proposing that an ITA be set
up.
Where
a new ITA is to be established, it can usually cover only those
geographical areas included in the proposals for a new ITA made by two
or more local authorities—county councils, metropolitan district
councils and unitary councils. The authorities themselves, having
decided that they want a new ITA, would carry out a review of the
governance for transport in their area and put it to the Secretary of
State. It is very much a bottom-up
approach.
Norman
Baker (Lewes) (LD): Could the Minister help us by
explaining what the situation would be in a city council area that is
to go ahead with an ITA where there are, say, five other councils
surrounding the city council in a kind of doughnut arrangement? If
three or four of those councils wanted to go ahead and one did not,
would that one effectively have the opportunity to scupper the scheme,
which would become unviable if it did not
participate?
Ms
Winterton:
Councils would not have the right to veto
schemes. We would look for evidence that there had been thorough
consultation and that the proposed changes would improve transport in
the area. What we found during the consultation was that many
authorities said that they found it difficult, for example, to
introduce bus lanes, because one particular area might say, “We
do not want to
play.”
If
it is obvious that public transport requirements cannot be met, we
would want a thorough review of the governance procedures. The only
exception to the bottom-up approach would be where the Secretary of
State had actually directed authorities not only to undertake a review
of all or part of their area, but also to prepare and publish a scheme
for the establishment of a new ITA in that area or part of an area.
However, we think that would be quite rare. It would have to be very
obvious that the provision of transport in the area had
failed.
By and large,
we expect that local authorities would say that they wanted to improve
public or integrated transport in their area and would, therefore, want
to carry out their own review and come forward with proposals to the
Secretary of State. Furthermore, there is the procedural safeguard in
the Bill of consulting representatives of appropriate authorities and
the fact that any governance order would be subject to affirmative
resolution in the House.
With the
safeguards in the Bill and that explanation of how we believe that this
would happen, I do not feel that we should be requiring a local
referendum when establishing a new ITA. The approach we have taken is
the correct one. It is very much a bottom-up approach to improving
integrated transport in the area, so I ask my hon. Friend the Member
for Manchester, Blackley and the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press
their
amendments.
Norman
Baker:
Like the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley and
others in the Committee, I am in favour of the construction of ITAs and
believe that they will deliver benefits to public transport users in
the communities
they serve. However, there is a need to balance the creation of a more
streamlined arrangement with the democratic views of people in the area
concerned.
The parallel
in my mind, to which we might return later, is the issue of congestion
charging and road charging in Manchester, in which a number of local
authorities wish to participate and a number do not. There has been an
interesting debate as to whether or not the majority can outweigh the
minority on the imposition of such a scheme should they wish to do so.
The question that applies in that case, and in the provisions we are
discussing, is whether, for the greater good, the views of a particular
area can be overridden to deliver a comprehensive and sensible scheme,
or whether authorities can have a veto.
The Minister
says authorities do not have a veto. I understand that they do not have
a veto in the formal sense of being able to stop the scheme. However,
if there is a key geographical component that must be included to make
an ITA work, because of the transport arrangements—the transport
corridors—and if the implementation of the scheme would be
scuppered by the area not participating, the issue is whether it is
right in those circumstances to compel that area to be part of an ITA,
whether or not its local elected councillors wanted to participate. The
other side of the argument is whether if individuals asserted their
right for the local communities not to participate, they would be
thwarting the weight of other democratically elected councillors in
other areas who want a comprehensive scheme. There is a
balance.
I have looked
at the four alternatives proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester,
Blackley. There is not quite one that I would ideally like to vote for.
I would not vote for the proposal that there has to be a simple
majority—that is a dangerous arrangement—nor is it right
that one authority should be able to thwart the implementation of the
scheme. There needs to be a higher threshold than one, but less than a
majority, whereby perhaps a third of local authorities would need to be
opposed to a scheme to exercise an effective veto on
it.
Stephen
Hammond:
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if the
proposal were structured in such a way that it required say, two-thirds
consent, that is what he is looking for in terms of the consent for
procedures?
9.15
am
The Minister
talks about reserve powers whereby a scheme may be imposed, if
necessary. It is probably necessary to have those powers for the
reasons I have given, so it is important that we fully understand
exactly when those powers will be exercised and what opportunities
local councils and individuals will have to make their views known. I
am uncomfortable with the idea that the views of local areas may be
overridden for the greater good, particularly if there is no public
referendum or other expression of
support.
A
referendum may seem over the top, but on the other hand town and parish
councils, or town areas, are given the opportunity to have a referendum
on all sorts of stuff. We had a referendum in Lewes about three or
four years ago on a not terribly important matter because the local
authority powers allowed that to occur. Local referendums are already
established as a concept and are exercised by communities up and down
the
country.
If
we are to have a referendum, the question is whether it will work on
the basis of a simple majority across the proposed ITA area, or whether
there will be a referendum in each particular constituent authority,
which will also provide a veto. If we have a referendum only on the
whole area, that will be no different from having the constituent local
authorities. On the other hand, if we have a referendum only in one
area, we will have the same problem with the veto that I referred to a
moment ago. There is no simple solution to the problem, but it is an
important matter to get right from day one. Otherwise, there will be a
danger of having complaints further down the line about lack of
democracy.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened carefully to the debate and I
think that we probably need more reassurance, but having listened to
the Minister I do not intend to press the amendment. I shall go away
and look closely at her answer and at our discussion. Perhaps we might
discuss the matter on Report to ensure that we have the right balance
between the ITA and local authorities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Graham
Stringer:
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
clause 73, page 64, leave out lines 29 to
32 and insert
‘that all members of
an ITA shall be elected by a ballot of all the electors within the
boundary of the proposed integrated transport
area.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 274, in
clause 73, page 64, line 29, leave
out ‘for a majority
of’.
No.
275, in
clause 73, page 64, line 32, at
end insert ‘, and
(c) for those
members to be appointed from among the members of the different
political parties represented in the constituent councils, in such
numbers as to be proportionate to the representation of political
parties on those
councils’.
No.
139, in
clause 78, page 68, line 29, after
‘member)’, insert
‘,
and for the ITA to determine what matters members of the ITA who are
not elected members of the ITA’s constituent councils may not
vote on (which may include any matters relating to the funding or
expenditure of the ITA, whether of a capital or revenue
nature).’.
No.
238, in
clause 78, page 68, line 29, after
‘member’, insert
‘,
but which arrangements must provide that members of the ITA who are not
elected members of the ITA’s constituent councils may not have a
vote’.
No.
286, in
clause 78, page 68, line 34, leave
out ‘for a majority
of’.
No.
140, in
clause 78, page 68, line 35, after
‘councils’, insert ‘from among their elected
members’.
No.
287, in
clause 78, page 68, line 35, leave
out
‘and’.
No.
141, in
clause 78, page 68, line 36, leave
out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(b) for all other members of the ITA to be
appointed by it (whether or not on the nomination of any other person
or
body).’.
No.
288, in
clause 78, page 68, line 37, at
end insert ‘, and
(c) for those
members to be appointed from among the members of the different
political parties represented in the constituent councils, in such
numbers as to be proportionate to the representation of political
parties on those
councils’.
Graham
Stringer:
The amendment tries to deal with the problem we
have just discussed, but from the other end. The reason we do not have
integrated transport authorities goes back to the abolition of the
metropolitan counties in the mid-1980s. What the Bill is trying to do,
in many ways imperfectly, is put right some of the problems created by
the deregulation of buses and the democratic deficit left by the
abolition of the met counties.
I listened
carefully to my right hon. Friend’s reply on the previous
amendment, dealing with how to create ITAs. I believe that, although it
is not her intention, it will be possible on controversial issues to
repress the strongly held wishes of both the electorate and councils in
those policy areas. This is about more than bus lanes—there are
good and bad bus lanes and not all proposed bus lanes are right, but at
the heart of the debate in Greater Manchester, as the hon. Member for
Lewes said in the previous debate, is a new tax for going into the
centre of
Manchester.
It
is proposed that, before that happens, Bolton council will hold its own
referendums. That council is under no overall control, but its elected
representatives feel so strongly that this is a difficult issue that
they will put it to their own people. Bury—now a Conservative
controlled authority—motivated by concern about this new tax,
has sufficient signatures to trigger a ballot to decide whether to have
an elected mayor. There is no doubt that behind that is dissatisfaction
with the position previously taken on the congestion
charge.
I
was not totally satisfied—I think we shall return to this issue
on Report—with all the parliamentary mechanisms that involve the
local electorate, but there is another way of dealing with it, which
used to be there and is now here in London, whereby direct elections
are allowed. I have not yet heard the argument—if one is going
to create these powerful ITAs—in favour of secondarily elected
members rather than directly elected
ones.
We
opposed very strongly the abolition of the metropolitan county
councils, but there is an opportunity now to ensure that—in the
best possible way, which is by having direct elections—if the
electorate do not like the transport schemes, the bus lanes or the new
taxes, they can throw the rascals
out.
The
Government need to give a serious response to this probing amendment
and explain why it is not currently their view that we should have
direct elections. There are three issues: how to get to an ITA while
consulting the people—I worry about the consultation process and
the repression of electorates and councils; having direct elections;
and, finally, the parliamentary process, which we will come to later.
For what is a local government reorganisation, having one affirmative
resolution as the procedure is not good enough.
I do not mind
at which end of the process the matter is tackled from, but there is
insufficient balance between the generally good idea of having ITAs and
the democratic process, either in this place or with the electorate or
district
councils.
Norman
Baker:
I rise to speak to amendment No. 238,
which relates to another clause but is tangential to the points just
made. It is very important that the ITAs are as democratic and
accountable as possible. It concerns me that we might have individuals
on ITAs who are not elected, but appointed, and exercising perhaps
disproportionate power. It is possible for an ITA—theoretically,
at least—to have members appointed who are sympathetic to its
views, in order perhaps to thwart the result of a forthcoming election,
which may change the political balance in any particular
area.
For
that reason, my amendment No. 238 suggests that, while there should be
no restriction on those who are added to an ITA who may have relevant
experience, the only people who should exercise votes are those who are
elected members of the ITA’s constituent councils. The vote
should not be extended to those who are simply
appointed.
Stephen
Hammond:
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for
Manchester, Blackley and I share a number of his concerns about
consultation the and establishment of ITAs and about the need to ensure
democratic accountability and proper democratic representation on these
bodies.
I
will not repeat what the hon. Gentleman said about the possibility of
having separate elections. Although we have them in London, as he said,
those people fulfil more than a function of the authority of the ITA.
My amendments Nos. 275 and 288 go to the same point, but through a
different way. They would ensure that an ITA reflected the political
make-up of the underlying councils. Again, that would protect the
public’s wish to see proper accountability and
representation.
The
amendments would also offer protection in that a political party, of
whatever hue, with a slim majority on a local authority could appoint
only its members to an ITA. Ensuring that there is political
proportionality in the representation on the body would protect the
views of the electorate in an area and, indeed, views
overall.
Norman
Baker:
I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is
making, but does he accept that it could still be thwarted unless my
amendment No. 238 is
adopted?
Stephen
Hammond:
Potentially, but I am not absolutely certain.
What we have is local people voting for their councillors; it is an
open and democratic process. This time last week, all of us were
heavily involved in that process in various parts of the country. In
areas where there is no ITA, local people elect their councillors, who
go on to implement local policy such as that on transport authorities.
Therefore, in ITA areas that process, or something similar to it, is
preserved. My amendments would achieve that by ensuring that the
members of the ITA who make and implement the transport policy were
drawn from a pool of locally elected councillors. I question the need
for direct elections, although I understand that that process would
have even greater direct linkage.
We have a
process whereby elected officials can sit in a democratically
accountable way on an ITA, but unless the ITA reflects the political
proportionality, democratic representation and democratic consent are
removed. The issue boils down to democratic
accountability.
Having
seen the range of amendments on the issue, the Minister will be aware
of the concerns among members of the Committee. I look to her for
reassurance, but I give notice that if I do not feel that she has
reassured us, I shall push amendment No. 275 to a
vote.
Ms
Winterton:
It is important that ITAs are properly
accountable to local people. Clause 73(8) requires a majority of the
members of each new ITA to be elected representatives from the councils
that make up the ITA area.
If
authorities were carrying out a governance review in their area, they
could propose that all members of the ITA should be local authority
representatives, if that is what they desire. I know from discussions
that I have had around the country that some people in some areas with
existing passenger transport executives—which, by the way
already work under a system of, in a sense, indirect
representation—might want to have a passenger representative
sitting on the transport authority. Through the Bill, we are trying to
give that flexibility, but also to say that the majority must be
elected members.
In terms of
political balance, existing PTAs are already subject to section 15 of
the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which requires that the
political balance of the local authority representatives who sit on a
PTA reflect the political balance of the constituent councils, which
make up the passenger transport area. Any governance order establishing
a new ITA could apply section 15 to the
ITAs.
Stephen
Hammond:
Where in the Bill are the provisions of section
15 of the 1989 Act, putting that protection clearly in
place?
There has
perhaps been some expression of feeling that each transport authority
should be represented on the ITA. I am prepared to look at whether we
might require that in the Bill. I am happy to consider the issue and
perhaps return to it on Report. Overall, however, I feel that the
current provision allows for that democratic representation and for the
majority of members to be democratically elected people from
constituent councils. Therefore, I feel that the amendments are
unnecessary.
9.30
am
Norman
Baker:
I do not object to the idea that a passenger
representative should be on the ITA; the issue for me is whether they
should have a vote. Is it not possible to have an arrangement whereby
that expertise is available, but cannot skew any vote? The passenger
representative would be there in a non-voting
capacity.
Ms
Winterton:
We tried to retain the flexibility for people
coming forward with the governance order to decide what kind of rights
they want individuals to have. In some areas, they may want such people
to have
voting rights. However, we are clear that the majority must be
democratically elected councillors from the constituent councils. If
local authorities suggest in the governance order that they want to
have some people with voting rights and others without them, they
should propose that in their governance review. We are trying to allow
maximum flexibility, while including some
safeguards.
Graham
Stringer:
I am listening to the Minister’s
comments. In local government there is a lot of experience of having
co-opted or non-elected members on police authorities and education
committees and, in the past, on social services committees. How can
political balance be maintained if the ITA has non-elected members who
may well have political allegiances, but those have not been put to the
test with the electorate? That has been the experience of police
authorities: magistrates have had political allegiances and have
changed the political balance on those
bodies.
Ms
Winterton:
The people drawing up the governance order may
wish to maintain political balance under section 15 of the 1989 Act,
but again that is up to individual authorities to decide. They may
decide that they want to co-opt other people on to the authority, and
they may say in their governance order that they want a political
balance in those co-opted members. There are ways to achieve that
through the public appointments process, as I know well from the
national health service. However, we want that flexibility so that
local authorities considering governance in their area can decide for
themselves the best approach.
Norman
Baker:
I am sorry to press the point, but it is important.
Let us suppose that one party has a slim majority over another on the
ITA but believes, because of the national situation or whatever, that
it will lose support at the next local elections, thus changing the
political balance on the ITA. What in the Minister’s
arrangements would prevent the ITA from appointing a large number of
co-opted members who are, in effect, party stooges, to thwart the
wishes of the electorate at the forthcoming local
elections?
Ms
Winterton:
Obviously, there are PTAs where political
balance may change—I think we have that in our own area, in
South Yorkshire. It comes back to the drawing up of the governance
order in the first place. I am sure that there would be discussions
during the drawing up of a governance order, because the process is
that the local authorities concerned decide how they feel governance
could best be improved. The proposal goes to the Secretary of State and
then to Parliament for a decision under the affirmative resolution
procedure. I am sure that if, during that process, it was felt that
there was an attempt to try to skew things for the future, that would
be reflected in the debates in the House. It is not necessarily always
possible to prevent some of the problems that we are discussing. It may
be that, as a result of that, those coming forward with governance
orders might not want co-opted members to have voting rights, for
example, although they might wish them to sit on the authority. Our aim
is to achieve what people feel is the best approach for their own
area.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): To pick up the
point that the hon. Member for Lewes made, the police authority is in
some ways a model for how things should work, or how they could work
badly, for an integrated transport authority. The elected members from
the various constituent councils are put on the police authority in
proportion to the political balance of those councils. That balance
changes after an election, and the council will then review membership.
However, the so-called independent members of police authorities are
elected for a period of time and could, therefore, alter the political
balance of that authority, irrespective of what happens at local
elections for constituent councils. Therefore, if an ITA co-opted
members, stuffing it full of members of one political party, that could
negate the effects of elections in the constituent councils in coming
years.
Ms
Winterton:
What we have done with safeguards in the Bill
is to say that the majority should be elected members. It is difficult
to anticipate further down the line. We have to accept, as
democratically elected people, that sometimes the political balances,
even on existing PTAs, may change. We have to accept that. We cannot
get away from that, nor should we necessarily want to. However, section
15 of the 1989 Act requires appointments to be reviewed as soon as
practicable after any occasion on which changes in political balance
occur. There are some safeguards, which emphasise the importance of the
democratically elected side, saying, in a sense, that if the political
balance changes within councils, then that should be reflected at
integrated transport authority level.
There are, of
course, no easy answers. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester,
Blackley believes that there should be direct elections to all the
authorities, but we do not think that that is appropriate. We are
trying to devolve decision making to local level and to enable local
authorities to decide what is best in their area. There is no
requirement for authorities to co-opt if they do not want to, nor is
there a requirement to give co-opted members voting rights. The only
requirement is that the majority should be elected members. I hope that
with that reassurance my hon. Friend will withdraw his
amendment.
Graham
Stringer:
I am not particularly wedded to any of the
remedies proposed here or in later amendments, be they referendums,
which I am normally sceptical about, or direct elections, which create
two tiers—there are real problems with that. I am not against
having co-opted or appointed members on those bodies. What I am
concerned about is that, throughout the Bill, the balance between the
electorate, constituent councils and the need to make really quite
difficult decisions is not correct. I hope my right hon. Friend will
reflect on that, particularly when we come to consider the
parliamentary process
later.
I
was also concerned by the answers to these problems of political
balance. If four or five parties are represented on a council, it would
be difficult to reflect that if there were only one or two elected
representatives on an
authority. It may actually be quite difficult to ensure that
representation is proportionate.
Stephen
Hammond:
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, exactly right
that there may not be absolute proportionality, but there are, as we
both know, accepted proportionality rules already in place for
appointments of councillors to outside bodies, and those rules could
apply equally well to ITAs.
Graham
Stringer:
I accept that point and I think that those rules
should apply to ITAs. I was really making another point—that
even in that system, for instance, 10 per cent. of every council in an
area such as Greater Manchester could agree that it would never get
representation on the overall body because that is how it works. So it
may end up with some unfairness within the system that is difficult to
see how to correct. I think that should be looked at.
I am
concerned that, once a structure has been set up that allows appointed
members, they could change that political balance. I hope my right hon.
Friend will look seriously at this. There is the possibility, as my
hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe said, of an outgoing
administration trying to load the authority, which would be
reprehensible. I suspect we would quickly pass primary legislation to
stop it, if that happened, whichever political party was responsible.
Politicians are in the business we are in to win power, and these
things happen—I have seen it happen.
However,
rather than the stooges of the Labour party, the Conservative party or
the Liberal Democrats being appointed to ITAs, it is much more likely
that “experts” will be appointed, on the model of
Transport for London. Those experts, as we discussed on the first day
in Committee, may well have very strong views about the levels of bus
fares and taxation, on the congestion charge, and on the level of
investment, and it seems to me that that could change the balance. It
seems wrong to me—I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend
could reply to this, or cogitate on it—for those appointed
members to be able to vote on the levels of taxation, congestion charge
and bus fares, which they would have the power to do in quality
partnerships and quality contracts, and the level of investment. All
those issues have direct consequences for council tax payer—and
income tax payers for that matter, given where most of the money comes
from. Overall, the balance of packages to make the good measures in the
Bill work, is wrong, and I hope my right hon. Friend will think hard on
that before
Report.
9.45
am
Stephen
Hammond:
I want to test the Minister one more time. I was
initially listening to her very carefully and I thought I was going to
be persuaded by her arguments that my amendment No. 274 was actually
wrong-headed and that the need for flexibility and local decision
making should be preserved. I think that that argument is right, but
having listened to some of the points made by the hon. Members for
Lewes, for Sheffield, Attercliffe and for Manchester, Blackley, it
seems to me that I should have preserved amendment No. 274 and had a
new paragraph (c) that would allow co-opted appointees to be non-voting
members. I therefore hope
that, having heard all the arguments and not only her arguments for
flexibility, the Minister will reflect on that and consider the
powerful points made by the
Committee.
I
asked, where is section 15 of the 1989 Act mentioned in the Bill? The
Minister’s answer was that it is in clause 86. Clause
86 is a wide-ranging catch-all clause that I want to explore in some
depth when we come to it. I am therefore not reassured by the right
hon. Lady’s answer and wish to push amendment No. 275 to a
vote.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
proposed: No. 275, in clause 73, page 64,
line 32, at end insert ‘,
and
(c) for those members to be appointed
from among the members of the different political parties represented
in the constituent councils, in such numbers as to be proportionate to
the representation of political parties on those
councils’.—[Stephen
Hammond.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
16
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 276, in
clause 73, page 64, line 38, leave
out ‘and’ and
insert—
‘(aa) the Public
Transport Users’ Committee for
England,
(ab) the Rail
Passengers’ Council,
and’.
Consultation
is a recurring theme in my amendments. It seems to me that there is
real inconsistency throughout the Bill when it comes to consultation.
In some areas, the Government have produced a relatively long and
complete list of people who should be consulted. In other areas, the
list is extremely short and we have the catch-all phrase, “as
the Secretary of State sees fit”. This clause falls into the
second category.
The creation
of an integrated transport authority is an extremely important move. We
have all agreed that it could present some laudable benefits for the
local area. It will have a wide-ranging effect on the provision of
local public transport and thus on the everyday lives of thousands. As
for whom the Secretary of State is obliged to consult, it strikes me
that
“such
representative of the appropriate
authorities”
as
she sees fit is again extraordinarily loose wording. I think that
representatives of some organisations should
be statutory consultees, which is why my amendment would insert into the
clause the Public Transport Users Committee for England and the Rail
Passengers Council. It is only fair that the users of public transport
should also be
consulted.
Those
two organisations were set up specifically to represent the views of
users, and they are ideally placed to provide useful, sensible and
constructive input into the decision-making process. I accept that the
amendment would put a further obligation on the Secretary of State to
consult not only local government, but the new Public Transport Users
Committee for England—which will become Passenger
Focus—and the Rail Passengers Council, but the burden would not
be particularly onerous. It would not be a problem for her. The
amendment is uncontroversial. It is utterly sensible and I am sure that
the Minister will agree with
me.
Ms
Winterton:
I accept that the hon. Gentleman is continuing
his campaign for consultation. Obviously, passenger representative
bodies have a valid interest in the setting up of the new ITAs, but as
I explained, the problem with specifying individual bodies in
legislation is that naturally many other important organisations will
consider that they, too, should have been
included.
Stephen
Hammond:
My amendment would not preclude any other
important bodies from being consulted, but merely states that those two
very important organisations that represent users should be
consulted.
Ms
Winterton:
Of course I accept that, but my argument
stands. If the House passes the Bill, we shall publish guidance on
governance reviews later in the year, which will emphasise the
importance of authorities consulting widely on their proposals for
governance change. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall draw
attention to bodies of the type that should be consulted. With that
assurance, I hope that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened carefully to the Minister. I am
sure that we shall often have similar discussions. I accept her
argument in part, but unfortunately I do not seem to be making any
great progress in persuading her of my point. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
73 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 9 May 2008 |