Local Transport Bill [Lords]


[back to previous text]

Clause 74

Authorities’ review: new ITA
Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 277, in clause 74, page 65, line 25, leave out ‘and’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 278, in clause 74, page 65, line 26, at end insert ‘and
(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area,’.
No. 279, in clause 75, page 66, line 10, at end insert ‘and
(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area.’.
No. 280, in clause 75, page 66, line 28, at end insert ‘and
(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area.’.
No. 281, in clause 76, page 67, line 7, leave out ‘or’.
No. 282, in clause 76, page 67, line 8, at end insert ‘and
(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area,’.
No. 283, in clause 77, page 67, line 33, leave out ‘or’.
No. 284, in clause 77, page 67, line 34, at end insert ‘and
(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area,’.
No. 285, in clause 77, page 68, line 7, at end insert ‘and
(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area.’.
Stephen Hammond: This large group of amendments deals with the reason why an integrated transport authority might be created, why the boundaries of an existing one may be changed, changed, and why review of existing arrangements might be carried out. Currently, such a move must satisfy two criteria: first, it would improve the exercise of statutory functions relating to transport in the area; and, secondly, it would improve its effectiveness and efficiency. There is no dispute about that; they are important criteria and I support them. However, one criterion is missing.
Local authorities have a responsibility to provide transport and other services to local people cost-effectively. Local people will be paying for those local services and the idea behind the amendments is a variation on a theme, perhaps not surprisingly. The amendments provide that when deciding whether to change the structure of local transport governance, due consideration must be given to the ability to provide local transport in a cost-effective manner. My plea is simple. Can the Minister reassure us that the cost implications of provision will be part of the decision-making process of the establishment of the ITA? When creating an integrated transport authority, the burden of cost should be a factor of consideration.
Ms Winterton: I am quite clear that reviews will need to consider cost-effectiveness but it will come under the headings of effectiveness and efficiency. Under clause 89, the Secretary of State is able to issue statutory guidance which will set out the matters which could and should be the subjects of a review and which authorities will need to take into account. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that cost-effectiveness will also be one of the series of considerations that the Secretary of State will take into account in deciding whether to direct authorities to carry out a review. I hope that with that reassurance the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.
Stephen Hammond: The reassurance was short, but definitive. On that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

Secretary of State’s power to direct a review: new ITA
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Norman Baker: I shall be brief. The clause appears innocuous, but the power it confers could be far reaching. Will the Minister say something about how often and in what circumstances she anticipates the power will be used?
Ms Winterton: As I said earlier, the situation in which the Secretary of State directs two or more local authorities in an area that does not have an ITA to carry out a review of transport in their areas and issues a direction to publish a scheme containing proposals for establishing an integrated authority would be quite rare. It would happen if there were, for example, indications that the delivery of transport in an area was failing and that governance issues meant that what the local authority might be trying to achieve through its local transport plans was not happening. I am thinking of when there might be strong concern that authorities in an area were not delivering good transport systems.
Norman Baker: Does the power require constituent local authorities to carry out a review, or does it imply that in due course an ITA can be imposed by the Secretary of State as a consequence of such a review?
Ms Winterton: Again, if the Secretary of State directed authorities to come up with a scheme, any governance order would still have to come back to Parliament for decision under the affirmative procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Authorities’ review of arrangements
10 am
Graham Stringer: I beg to move amendment No. 131, in clause 76, page 66, line 31, leave out ‘one’ and insert ‘two’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 132, in clause 76, page 66, line 31, after ‘may’, insert
‘in conjunction with the relevant ITA,’.
No. 133, in clause 76, page 66, leave out line 34.
No. 134, in clause 76, page 67, line 3, leave out ‘one’ and insert ‘two’.
No. 135, in clause 77, page 67, line 14, after ‘direct’, insert ‘an ITA, or’.
No. 136, in clause 77, page 67, line 14, leave out ‘one’ and insert ‘two’.
No. 137, in clause 77, page 67, line 15, after ‘description)’, insert
‘, in conjunction with the relevant ITA,’.
No. 138, in clause 77, page 67, leave out line 18.
No. 88, in clause 77, page 67, line 36, at end insert
‘and must be addressed to every authority falling within subsection (2) whose area or part of whose area lies within each integrated transport area or proposed integrated transport area to which the direction relates.’.
Graham Stringer: The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government’s thinking on reviews and how vexatious reviews are stopped. In an ideal world, one council calling for a review might be completely sensible, but as we have discussed previously, occasionally—more than occasionally sometimes—relationships between councils and bodies can become very bad. There could be a vexatious review with a lot of associated costs.
The amendment provides that two councils need to co-operate and agree before a review can take place, and that the review must include the ITA. If relationships were very poor there could be a situation where a local authority employed a group of consultants at large cost, held a review and did not consult and involve the integrated transport authority. I want the Minister to reassure the Committee that such a situation could not happen, but the amendments are to probe the Minister’s thinking on how vexatious reviews would be stopped.
Ms Winterton: As I have said before, the approach we have taken in the Bill is that there should be flexibility in undertaking a review. For a new ITA area the Bill says that any review would need to be undertaken by two or more authorities; obviously it would be a bit silly for an authority to carry out a review of itself.
In existing ITA areas, however, the Bill says that any review would need to be undertaken by one or more authorities. That is because authorities in an existing ITA area might wish the ITA itself to carry out the review, so it would be possible for that to be the one body that was undertaking the review. Where a review is vexatious and does not have the support of other authorities in the area, it is unlikely that a Secretary of State would bring forward a governance order.
There is a provision for one authority to carry out a review because authorities within an existing ITA area might wish the ITA itself to carry out the review.
Graham Stringer: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78

Constitutional Arrangements
Amendment proposed: 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’.—[Norman Baker.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.
Division No. 17 ]
AYES
Baker, Norman
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Hammond, Stephen
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Scott, Mr. Lee
Wright, Jeremy
NOES
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Kidney, Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
McCarthy, Kerry
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Stewart, Ian
Stringer, Graham
Watts, Mr. Dave
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Question accordingly negatived.
Graham Stringer: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in clause 78, page 68, line 38, leave out ‘subsection (3)’ and insert ‘subsections (3) and (8)’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 83, in clause 78, page 69, line 22, at end add—
‘(8) An order under this section may be made only if each of the constituent councils has consented to the constitutional arrangements provision, for which is to be made in the order.’.
Graham Stringer: These amendments are less fundamental than the debate we had previously about the constitution and construction of ITAs and how they related to the democratic process. These provisions are about the mechanism of appointments and their purpose is to elicit the Government’s thinking about whether the power to appoint should be only with the ITA. If there are external nominations, the control of both the appointment and the voting rights should remain only with the ITA. The amendments are of lower importance than those in the previous debate but I would be interested in the Government’s thinking on the issues.
Ms Winterton: We return to the theme we were discussing earlier about the Bill allowing flexibility as to what arrangements can be put in place in particular areas. Of course it is desirable that authorities should be able to reach complete agreement among themselves about what the new constitutional arrangements should be, and that the proposals they put forward reflect that. We have to accept, however, that sometimes it may not be possible.
I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that there are safeguards to protect the interests of individual authorities. The Secretary of State will want to take into account the views of affected authorities in deciding whether to make the necessary secondary legislation to implement the proposals for change that areas bring forward. Indeed, the Bill requires her to consult them on any draft order that she introduces. She would also have to be satisfied that the order is likely to improve the exercise of statutory transport functions or the effectiveness and efficiency of transport within the area concerned. Moreover, in making an order, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. We are trying to strike a balance between flexibility and ensuring there are safeguards for individual local authorities.
Graham Stringer: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 289, in clause 78, page 69, line 2, after ‘of’, insert ‘the executive of’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 290, in clause 78, page 69, line 2, leave out from ‘ITA’ to end of line 3.
Stephen Hammond: Clause 78 provides that the Secretary of State may by order make provisions about the constitutional arrangements of ITAs, and we have been exploring some of those aspects. It also allows her to make provisions regarding executive arrangements and their functions. With the amendments, I seek some clarity about the role of the executive and the orders the Secretary of State might anticipate making in relation to the executive. Passenger transport areas already have passenger transport executives, which have their own set of statutory powers in part II of the Transport Act 1968. However, it would be possible, as I understand it, to set up a different executive body reporting to the ITA through secondary legislation if the area proposed to do so.
The executive arrangements mentioned in the clause do not have a specified form. Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2000 sets out certain specific forms for such arrangements, but section 11(5) also allows the Secretary of State to specify other forms. It will, therefore, be for each integrated transport authority to make its own proposals about what form executive arrangements should take in its area.
Subsection (5) defines what is meant by executive arrangements in the context of the orders that can be made, but the definition includes
“the functions of the ITA...which may be discharged by a committee of the ITA or by a body other than the ITA”.
I am testing that definition. I am unsure how executive arrangements can include functions that fall outside the remit of the executive body. What functions does the Minister think will be delegated, and in what manner? The amendments are intended to probe and gain clarity about the executive arrangements.
Ms Winterton: In essence, when the Bill refers to an executive body, it refers to the passenger transport executive for the area in question. At present, each PTA area has a passenger transport executive and a passenger transport authority. The PTE is the body that delivers the transport policies of the PTA. However, when the Bill refers to an executive of an ITA rather than an executive body, it refers to something different.
The hon. Gentleman was quite right to refer to the 2000 Act, as amended by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, under which local councils were generally required to establish executives with responsibility for certain of their functions. In other words, a council with 30 councillors, for example, could have an executive of perhaps half a dozen councillors responsible for day-to-day decision making. At the moment, it is not possible for a PTA to adopt similar arrangements, although it is possible that an area might see benefits in establishing an executive along similar lines. That is why the Bill refers to an executive and executive arrangements. Clause 78(5) goes no further than the equivalent provision made in relation to local councils in the 2000 Act. I hope that is helpful in clarifying what the Bill means by “executive”.
Stephen Hammond: That is helpful. I thank the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 9 May 2008