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
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
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.
| 
