Railways Bill

Public Bill Committee, 11 January 2005.

Standing Committee A

Railways Bill

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

May I begin by wishing everyone a very happy new year? I remind the Committee that we have completed consideration of clauses 1 to 5 and schedules 1 to 4, and are now due to consider clause 6.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. This point does not relate to what you just said and I do not necessarily ask you for a definitive ruling today, but you might reflect on it and perhaps raise it when you next speak to other members of the Chairmen's Panel.

For the past 10 months, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) has been applying to the Speaker for a debate in Westminster Hall on community railways. That debate was finally granted today and is taking place concurrently with our sitting this morning. Therefore, two members of this Committee—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope)—cannot be with us because they must answer that debate.

When sittings take place in more than one venue in this Palace, as has happened for centuries, it is sometimes difficult to co-ordinate business. However, given that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has been applying for a debate on railways for 10 months and that there would have been a clash with this Committee for only two sitting weeks during that time, those who advise the Speaker could have ensured that such a clash did not take place. I hope that someone will reflect on that.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

The right hon. Gentleman has made a genuine point of order, which is why I allowed it to be heard. The Chairmen's Panel is considering the issue, and evidence has already been given on the subject to the Modernisation Committee. I will pass on his remarks to the Chairman of Ways and Means.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Have you received any approach from the Government this morning to end this sitting early so that we can all witness the amazing spectacle of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor being in the same place and saying the same thing when they unveil a poster—

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I am not minded to hear the hon. Gentleman any further.

Column Number: 114Clause 6

Financial assistance etc. from the Secretary of State

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 6, line 15, leave out subsection (3).

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 53, in page 6, line 23, at end insert

'and fairly to all parts of the United Kingdom.'.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am not sure whether to speak further to my point of order, or whether wishing you, Mr. Amess, and the rest of the Committee a happy new year is the best way of resuming.

I do not want to delay the Committee for long on this pair of amendments. Clause 6(3) states:

''Agreements or other arrangements entered into by the Secretary of the State under this section may be entered into on whatever terms, and subject to whatever conditions, he considers appropriate.''

Contrary to the Minister's views, I listen to what he says and sometimes take it on board and think that he has a point. When my colleagues and I have tried to add something to the Bill, we have often been told that it is unnecessary.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Otiose.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I cannot rise to the levels of my right hon. Friend, who is a solicitor; I am a layman who does not quite get his mind around things. Unnecessary is what I think otiose means, and if not, I am sure someone will put me right.

I therefore say to myself that subsection (3) must be necessary because the Minister tells me so and has included it in the Bill. It is only when I try to add things to the Bill that I am told that they are unnecessary. Will he tell us why the subsection is necessary? Does he imagine that the Secretary of State will want to do whatever he fancies, including acting unreasonably? I would have thought that if the Secretary of State did something, we could leave it to a test of reasonableness in the courts. Presumably, the Government have in mind the Secretary of State acting utterly unreasonably, because the Minister is asking us to give a blank cheque to the Secretary of State to do whatever he likes—fair or unfair, reasonable or unreasonable.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will my hon. Friend explain why he feels that we should support amendment No. 52, which would leave out subsection (3)?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I would have assumed that in the absence of a subsection telling the world that the Secretary of State can do whatever he likes, however unreasonable, there must always be a test of reasonableness. That would be one way of ensuring that the Government behave themselves, rather than do just as they please. The Minister may say otherwise, but I am sure that if I had tabled an amendment saying that the Government were to behave reasonably, he would have told me that that was unnecessary, because the Government always behave reasonably. That is why, on this occasion, I have concluded that the Government do not intend to behave themselves, and that the subsection gives them a blank cheque.

The Minister has included in the clause a provision requiring the Secretary of State to act consistently, perhaps because the Minister feels that the Secretary of State might be inconsistent unless he is told not to be. However, I think that if he is required to be consistent, he should also be fair. The purpose of amendment No. 53 is to tidy things up and to help the Minister to present us with government that is both consistent and fair.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

May I start by wishing everyone a happy new year? I hope that, by the end of the year, hon. Members will find themselves in roughly the same positions as at the beginning of the year.

I believe that the amendment is not unnecessary or otiose, but inappropriate, because it would remove the explicit power of the Secretary of State to make grants, loans, guarantees or investments in respect of the railway on terms that he sees fit. Although the amendment would not prevent him from drawing up such contract arrangements on terms that he sees fit, I believe that it would muddy the waters and create a lack of clarity in relation to what he can or cannot pay for. The amendment should also be seen both in the context of the overall Bill and of the little but specific phrase ''under this section'', which links both parts of the clause. Any discussion of this matter needs to be seen in the context of the clause as a whole. I appreciate, as the hon. Gentleman implied, that the power is wide ranging, but we believe it to be appropriate.

Payment in respect of passenger franchises will form a large proportion of the payments made under the clause, and when financial assistance is given to a franchise holder, subsection (5) makes it clear that it can be given only in accordance with the franchise agreement. That locks down part of the supposedly wide-ranging powers in the subsection. All franchise agreements to which the Secretary of State will be party must appear on a public register, to comply with section 73 of the Railways Act 1993. For that chunk of the payments, we have provided proper transparency showing what the Secretary of State is buying from franchisees and on what terms.

Other payments that will be made under the clause will include payments of grant to Network Rail. As everyone knows, those will be set by the Office of Rail Regulation. Other payments will be made to third parties; those payments are designed to improve or develop the railway. Many of the disbursements provided for in the Bill will be routine payments via franchise agreements and via the ORR to Network Rail. Subsection (3) relates to the third category—payments to third parties that are designed to improve or develop the railway.

In that context, to get the best terms and conditions from any third party, the Government need flexibility on the terms on which they are permitted to pay, invest or guarantee. The amendment would remove that flexibility. The amendment would not have an impact on what the Government pay in terms of the ORR, Network Rail through the ORR or through franchise agreements, but it would have an impact on that third element—payments and disbursements to third parties. We need to retain flexibility in that area, because it could cover an array of payments and agreements. The amendment would remove that level of clarity and flexibility from the Bill, which is why I believe it to be inappropriate.

All the usual reporting arrangements through documents such as the Department's annual report will ensure that the Secretary of State remains fully accountable to Parliament for the spending and investment decisions that he makes. I hope that that is clear.

Clauses 9 and 11 give Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales authority to make funding and grants available to freight operators for activities within their respective devolved areas. A key principle of devolution is that it allows the devolved Administrations to adopt different funding and investment policies from each other and the rest of the UK, and from those that apply in the non-devolved areas. Amendment No. 53 would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to apply what is in effect a fairness of distribution test for funds under his control when looking at projects and schemes that are proposed and paid for by the devolved Administrations and that cuts right across the devolution spirit that we are trying to secure in the Bill. As those Administrations may well adopt different investment policies and have different levels of funding available to them for freight schemes, it would be inappropriate to place the Secretary of State under such an obligation.

I shall say this only once, but because of an error on the part of officials, my notes refer to a hope that my ''hon. Friend'' will withdraw the amendment. Given that it is our first sitting in the new year, let us leave the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) as an hon. Friend just this once. In that context, I ask my hon. Friend to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

May I echo the Minister's remarks and wish every member of the Committee a happy new year? I hope that we will all remain in our places, but as viewed through a mirror: in other words, on opposite sides of the Room.

Perhaps almost uniquely in our proceedings, I found that I agreed with pretty much everything that the Minister had to say about the amendments. I hope that in the light of what has been said my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Well, I am being got at from all sides this morning. What a new year. The Minister referred to me as an hon. Friend; I do not want to ruin his reputation further by thanking him for his Christmas card. Perhaps that tells us something. I have got him into trouble.

On amendment No. 52, I think that I know when I am beaten. As for amendment No. 53, I find it interesting that the Minister argued that he did not want to see the Government being made to act fairly. He put forward a good argument for why it should be necessary for the Government to be unfair.

One of my new year's resolutions was to listen carefully to the Minister, because later this year, when Conservative Members are on the Government Benches and it is argued that we are being unfair, I shall simply quote the former Member for Harrow, East, as the Minister will then be. I shall catalogue his arguments against me so that when we hear them later this year we will be able to say that in January the Government of the day said that it was alright to be unfair and so what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Notification of assistance from Secretary of State for freight services

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

We welcome this clause because we share the widely held view that more could and should be done to encourage the provision of rail freight services and to encourage companies to send by rail rather than road heavy goods that are going long distances. We are pleased to see the clause in the Bill and we will not divide the Committee on it.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I add my happy new year felicitations to the Committee.

The Liberal Democrats also feel that more should and could be done to assist freight on the railways. We are happy to see the clause in the Bill and will not seek to divide the Committee either.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

A happy new year was fine, but the felicitations were a touch otiose. However, that is by the by.

Clause 7, together with clauses 9 and 11, seeks to encourage the co-ordination of schemes for providing financial support aimed at securing the provision, improvement or development of rail freight. Given that rail freight activities clearly may cross borders between England, Wales and Scotland, there must be an overarching dimension that goes beyond what we seek to do in respect of devolution. There is broad consensus throughout the Committee that more can and should be done on freight. In terms of volume, freight is in a healthy position compared with where it was 10 or 15 years ago, but I fully accept that more can be done. We need this overarching clause along with clauses 9 and 11 to make that a reality in the new post-SRA rail industry. With that, I commend clause 7 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Franchising and financial assistance in relation to Scotland

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 27, at end insert

'(1A) The Secretary of State may not enter into a franchise agreement relating to services that are or include Scotland-only services unless the Scottish Ministers join with him as party to that agreement.'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 44, in page 7, line 43, leave out 'partly' and insert 'mainly'.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Amendment No. 12 is designed to test the commitment relating to devolution of power to Scottish Ministers. The Bill devolves to Scottish Ministers considerable powers relating to the railways that were formerly with the SRA. That is wholly correct. In fact, it has been said that this is one of the single largest devolutions of power since the Scotland Act 1998 took effect. That is appropriate and significant, and I commend the Government for doing it. As always, however, the devil is in the detail, and the Bill is a little unclear on the exact relationship between the Secretary of State exercising the functions formerly held by the SRA and the responsibilities of Scottish Ministers in the exercise of those powers in respect of Scotland.

Originally, I considered seeking to place an amendment somewhere in schedule 1, which seemed a more appropriate place, but I could not find in its various paragraphs anywhere where such an amendment might conveniently sit, so I chose clause 8.

The amendment states:

''The Secretary of State may not enter into a franchise agreement relating to services that are or include Scotland-only services''—

I stress that the amendment relates purely to Scotland-only services; there is no attempt to relate it to cross-border services—

''unless the Scottish Ministers join with him as party to that agreement.''

As we are devolving power to Scottish Ministers to take decisions, which I applaud, it seems wrong to allow a situation, even though it may not come about, in which Scottish Ministers may not wish to be party to a franchise agreement but can be overridden by the Secretary of State.

Would the Under-Secretary be kind enough to confirm what the Government's attitude will be towards the operation of responsibilities? If sufficient reassurance is given at this juncture, I shall not feel it necessary to press the amendment, but if she cannot give such an assurance, it may be necessary to test the opinion of the Committee.

I can offer the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) the reassurance that I think he needs. The Bill enables only Scottish Ministers to designate the Scotland-only services for franchising under section 23 of the 1993 Act as amended by the Bill. The Secretary of State for Transport in the UK Government may not do so. The Secretary of State is the appropriate designating authority in relation to all other services, although both the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers can designate, as I think the hon. Gentleman understands, cross-border services after consultation with one another. Our intention is to ensure that Scottish Ministers become solely responsible for Scottish franchises, which are those that provide the Scotland-only services and relevant cross-border services, which we discussed previously, and that the Secretary of State and the UK Government are responsible for other franchises. There is a slight difference in respect of the Wales-only services, which we may deal with later.

As the hon. Gentleman said, a fundamental principle of the Bill is to exercise devolution and to transfer functions in a way that many members of the Committee and people across Scotland see as very forward looking. In the light of my reassurances, I hope that he will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Before we proceed to a vote, or otherwise, will the Minister say whether she thinks that amendment No. 44 is a desirable minor modification of the Bill?

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

My inclination is that the amendment is unnecessary. It would limit the circumstances of Scottish Ministers where they might want to give resources to create services to provide a facility in Scotland. In a recent Scottish Committee there was a wide-ranging debate on whether it was appropriate in some instances for Scottish Ministers to seek to support services in other parts of the United Kingdom where those services have a direct impact in Scotland. It is a valuable option for Scottish Ministers to be able to use such facilities.

The right hon. Gentleman's amendment would curtail the responsibilities, rights and the decision-making authority of Scottish Ministers in making an assessment, whether or not there are some services outside the Scottish geographical area that would have a direct impact to the benefit of Scotland. The amendment would also limit Scottish Ministers' responsibilities and decision-making autonomy in supporting services that will have a direct impact inside Scotland's geographical boundaries.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

In the light of the Minister's reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Notification of assistance from Scottish Ministers for freight services

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Clause 9 is similar in effect to clause 7, which we supported. We therefore do not wish to make any adverse comment on the clause, which I am happy should remain part of the Bill. However, I place on record that silence from the Opposition Benches in future clause stand part debates should not necessarily be taken to mean unqualified support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Franchising and financial assistance in relation to wales

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Unfortunately, the hon. Member who tabled amendments Nos. 70, 71, 72 and 75 is not here, so they cannot be moved.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 9, line 34 leave out 'partly' and insert 'mainly'.

The amendment would do exactly what amendment No. 44 to clause 8 sought to do. I am still reflecting on the Minister's eloquence in explaining why the amendment should not be made and I am glad that she put it on the record. On reflection, I agree with what she said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: The hon. Member who tabled amendment No. 73 is not in his place, so it cannot be moved.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Notification of assistance from Welsh Assembly for freight services

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I rise only to place on record that I find it astonishing that an hon. Member who represents a seat in Wales, who sought a place on this Committee presumably to speak for Wales, does not have the decency to turn up.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I heartily endorse all that the right hon. Gentleman said, without reservation.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Perhaps I am being too charitable, but I hope that nothing untoward has happened to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas).

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Transfer schemes at end of franchising agreements

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Again, the hon. Member for Ceredigion is not present, so his amendment cannot be moved.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Railway functions of Passenger Transport Executives

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 12, line 6, leave out

'for an area in England have'

and insert 'has'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 89, in page 12, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate national authority'.

No. 90, in page 12, line 17, leave out 'in England'.

No. 91, in page 12, line 18, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate national authority'.

No. 92, in page 12, line 20, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate national authority'.

No. 93, in page 12, line 24, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate national authority'.

No. 94, in page 12, line 27, leave out 'in England'.

No. 95, in page 12, line 34, leave out 'in England'.

No. 96, in page 12, line 41, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate national authority'.

No. 97, in page 12, line 42, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate national authority'.

No. 98, in page 13, line 2, leave out 'in England'.

No. 99, in page 13, line 3, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate national authority'.

No. 100, in page 13, line 6, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate national authority'.

No. 101, in page 13, line 7, leave out 'in England'.

No. 102, in page 13, line 26, at end add—

'(10) In this section ''the appropriate national authority'' means—

(a) in relation to a franchise agreement to which the Secretary of State is a party, the Secretary of State; and

(b) in relation to a franchise agreement to which the Scottish Ministers are a party, the Scottish Ministers.'.

No. 103, in clause 59, page 58, line 10, leave out '(a) section 13;'.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to the amendments, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna).

The amendments are aimed primarily at ensuring a level legislative playing field for all Britain's passenger transport executives, including the Strathclyde passenger transport executive, of which I am a former employee. I was the chief public relations and marketing officer for three years until the 2001 general election, but as I am not paid as a consultant it does not appear in the Register of Members' Interests.

The amendments address my concern and that of others that if the Bill is unamended it will create a gap in the legislation in Scotland that will erode the SPTE's ability to intervene effectively in the specification and management of the Strathclyde network. As I said on Second Reading, the SPTE performs an invaluable role in the provision of public transport in my constituency and in those of many other west of Scotland MPs. More than a quarter of all fare-paying journeys in Strathclyde are made by rail and rail use in the area is higher than anywhere else in the UK apart from London.

That state of affairs did not come about by accident; it is the result of conscious political choice at regional level and more than 30 years' investment in the Strathclyde rail network by local taxpayers and passengers. The process has continued since privatisation; since 1997, Strathclyde passenger transport has invested around £50 million of discretionary local funding in the local rail network. Recent research by Ernst and Young and LEK Partnership showed that more than half of the growth in patronage and revenue on the Strathclyde rail network during the 11 years to 2001 was directly attributable to initiatives undertaken by SPT.

The Scottish Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen MSP, said:

''I still expect SPT to have a direct role in the management and development of rail services in the west of Scotland.''—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 June 2004; c. 9099.]

That is consistent with what the Secretary of State for Transport said. He told the House of Commons that

''local transport decisions are best taken by people who know what is needed locally.''—[Official Report, 15 July 2004; Vol. 423, c. 1548.].

The problem for planners in the west of Scotland is that they are being asked to take much of that on trust. Much of the proposed Scottish legislation will be enacted not through primary legislation, but through statutory instruments in the Scottish Parliament and so without any debate on the issues.

It is now clear that the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence in these areas will simply amount to the transferring of functions that are already defined in Acts of this Parliament. The Scottish Parliament will be unable to vary the fundamental railways legislation, which will remain a reserved matter. This goes back to some comments made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross when he talked about powers being devolved up to the Scottish Ministers. Responsibility is being devolved, but power remains with this Parliament. I agree with that but these amendments would make the transition in Scotland smoother.

When so much remains uncertain, or at least undefined and seeking political clarification at Holyrood, it is important that this Parliament should not foreclose legislative options by specifically striking the SPTE out of the statutory PTE rail provisions that will continue to be available south of the border. The Bill, as drafted, removes most PTE powers under the Railways Act 1993, but in their place—we have had reassurances on this from the Minister—provides specific powers for the Secretary of State for Transport to re-engage English PTEs in the franchising process.

The purpose of my amendments is to make the same powers available to Scottish Ministers, so creating a level playing field north and south of the border. As the SPTE has the most extensive railway responsibilities of all of the seven PTEs in Great Britain it is important that the drafting of clause 13 should not leave an unintended gap in the legislative chain which might prejudice the proper delivery of integrated transport in the west of Scotland or fetter the future discretion of either the Westminster or Scottish Parliaments in this area.

If this legislation is passed unamended there is a real risk that the SPTE will fall between two stools. This House is proposing to take away its existing rail powers—its right to be a co-signatory to the ScotRail franchise, for example—but the Scottish Parliament would not have the ability to put anything else in its place, either along the lines of what is proposed for the English PTEs, or on a different basis. As these powers are mainly permissive, they would not commit Scottish Ministers to a specific course of action. The amendments would, however, help to avoid a situation where Scottish Ministers were statutorily debarred from involving the SPTE in rail franchising.

It is important that we should not foreclose legislative options by specifically striking the SPTE out of the statutory rail provisions that will continue to be available to PTEs south of the border. It is necessary to make these amendments as part of the UK Railways Bill because the Scottish Parliament does not have legislative competence to make a similar provision in a Scottish Act. These amendments are mainly to clause 13, but there is an important consequential amendment to clause 59. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the points that I have raised.

Rosemary McKenna (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I join others in wishing everyone a guid new year. I rise to support the amendments. I was briefly a member of the SPTE in my local government days in the mid-1990s. I want to record my appreciation and that of my constituents for the work carried out by the SPTE throughout the area, but particularly in my constituency. We have had tremendous additional provision such as a station at Greenfaulds and massively increased provisions at Croy station with additional car parking soon, we hope. That all links through to the rest of the UK and beyond. I consider the rail network to be a jewel in the crown. In order to ensure that that work continues, I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond positively.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

Like most people who have a base in the west of Scotland, I should also admit that I have some experience of the SPTE. Indeed at one point, as a member of the old Strathclyde regional transport committee, I was responsible for part of the management of the SPTE. That was many years ago—I was practically a child at the time—and I do not remember much about it, but I thought that I would place that on the record.

Having said that, I recognise the picture painted by my hon. Friends. The SPTE was in the vanguard of integrated transport in its time, and much of that had to do with the approach taken by the then Strathclyde regional council, which was a strategic authority for the west of Scotland. It went out of business in 1995 as a result of the then Government's reform of local government in Scotland.

As my hon. Friends made clear, the only PTE that does not fall under the provisions of clause 13 as drafted is Strathclyde, but as the White Paper ''The Future of Rail'' made clear, the Government intend to devolve greater responsibility for rail in Scotland to the Scottish Executive. That proposal has widespread support in the Committee and the House. In parallel, a new framework is being created in England and Wales. Those arrangements include the creation of statutory regional transport partnerships throughout Scotland, including the partnership for the west of Scotland. Scottish Ministers have made it clear that the SPTE's non-rail powers will be transferred to the new west of Scotland RTP, and the relevant rail powers will be transferred to Scottish Ministers. The outcome will be that the SPTE will not have any powers or functions; these will have been transferred elsewhere.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I understand what my hon. Friend is detailing, but does she agree that there is an added danger that because the Scottish transport Bill has yet to make its way through the Scottish Parliament, there may well be a legislative gap between the passing of this Bill into law and the introduction of the Scottish transport Bill? That would leave the SPTE in a political no-man's-land for at least a time.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

My inclination is to say that that will not be the case, but if, before I finish speaking, I happen to have a bit of inspiration that tells me that there will be a gap, I will obviously confirm that to the Committee. It does seem a bit superfluous and confusing at the moment to amend clause 13 in the way—[Interruption.] There will be no gap between the two Bills—inspiration has just hit me—because ScotRail has just signed off the situation in Scotland.

My role this morning in Committee is to be a reassuring Minister, and I hope that I can reassure hon. Members that the significant role that rail has in the west of Scotland will not be diluted. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna), representing a large new town, is interested in the extension of transport infrastructure, particularly rail infrastructure, but Scottish Ministers have made it clear that the west of Scotland RTP will have a role in the development, management and monitoring of the franchise in the west of Scotland.

I can also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). The Transport (Scotland) Bill includes provisions that would allow Scottish Ministers, if they so wished, to transfer or share their transport functions with the new transport partnerships. Therefore, if they wish to involve the SPTE in rail franchising, that is within the remit of the new transport Bill. It does not statutorily debar Scottish Ministers from involving other parties in that rail franchise. I hope that that gives my hon. Friends enough assurance to allow the amendment to be withdrawn.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I know that she, like all MPs in Scotland, regards the matters that we are discussing as very important to our constituents' quality of life. With her customary diligence and courtesy, she has gone over some of the points that I raised, but I disagree with her in one respect. I do not believe that the amendments are at all—I cannot remember the word that was used.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

Superfluous.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Yes, superfluous. I believe that the amendments are finely crafted and honed, and would have added a great deal to the Bill. However, on the basis of the reassurances given by my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 12, line 7, at end insert

'(aa) entering into a franchise agreement in respect of such services following the receipt of tenders in response to such an invitation, or'.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 78, in page 12, line 9, at end insert

(c) requiring or agreeing to significant changes to such services following the entering into of a franchise agreement in respect of such services.'.

No. 79, in page 12, line 10, at end insert

'in relation to the proposed specifications for or changes to such services, which notice may include the proposed levels of quality, specifications relating to the operation of stations in the Executive's area and any proposed requirements with respect to fares, or any changes to any of them.'.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The amendment is relatively straightforward, and would amend what I am sure is an oversight in the Bill. Although the Bill allows the Secretary of State to consult passenger transport executives, it does not place on him a statutory obligation to re-consult when there have been significant changes in the specifications or the franchise agreement. The purpose of tabling amendments Nos. 77 and 78 was to include such an obligation. The purpose of tabling amendment No. 79 was to define the remit of further consultation in the event of significant changes occurring.

David Clelland (Labour, Tyne Bridge)

I wish to support the comments made by my hon. Friend. I am sure that this must have been an oversight by the draftsmen because, if it makes sense for the Secretary of State to consult the PTEs initially, it must also make sense for him to consult them if changes are made subsequent to those consultations. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am grateful to my hon. Friends for explaining the reasoning behind the amendments so succinctly—namely, that PTEs should be consulted after the invitation to tender but before entering into a resulting franchise agreement, and on any significant changes to the specifications during the franchise, and that PTEs should be consulted on the level of service and the quality of services and stations and fares within their areas. I agree with the aims behind my hon. Friends' amendments, but I do not believe that the amendments are necessary to give the PTEs the reassurance that they seek, nor do I believe that the legislation is the best place for that level of detail.

From a range of meetings that I have had, I am aware that PTEs are concerned that, without the amendments, it would be possible for the Government to consult them on one specification and then, either after issuing the invitation to tender or during the franchise, make changes to the specifications that could be detrimental to the PTEs without further consultation. I accept that that is a concern. However, that is not the Government's purpose.

In practice, the procurement rules restrict the scope for making significant changes to the specification after the invitation to tender stage and before letting the franchise. The Government would want to avoid making significant changes to franchise specifications after the invitation to tender stage, as that could be unfair to other potential tenderers and might make it more difficult to obtain the best value for money bid for the franchise. Given that it is unlikely that the Government would make significant changes to franchise specifications after issuing the invitation to tender, it seems over-bureaucratic to create a system in which the PTEs must be statutorily consulted twice on every franchise specification. In most cases, that would be two consultations on exactly the same thing.

The Government would obviously consult the PTEs on significant changes to the franchise specifications in their area if such changes did occur, both during the procurement process and during the running of the franchise. However, we believe that that level of detail is better suited to guidance rather than being set out in statute, particularly as amendment No. 78 refers to an ambiguous concept of ''significant change''. An ambiguous concept such as that could be much more effectively defined in guidance rather than in legislation, and in drawing up the guidance we could agree with the PTEs more precisely the circumstances in which they should be consulted. We therefore intend to define the exact detail of consultation arrangements for inclusion in the guidance that we are drawing up in consultation with the Passenger Transport Executives Group. That guidance will be issued next year. As I said on Second Reading, and at least once in Committee, as and when—sooner rather than later, and hopefully during the Committee stage—I am in a position to give at least the high-level framework of what is likely to be in the consultation guidance, I will do so.

Under clause 13, the PTEs are to be consulted on more franchises than they currently co-sign and co-specify. They will naturally be more involved with franchises that include more services in their area than those that do not. It is appropriate for the guidance to reflect that with a flexible approach to PTE involvement with franchises, both at the letting stage and during mid-franchise management, rather than creating an inflexible and over-bureaucratic statutory system.

On amendment No. 79, I again believe that guidance rather than legislation is the more appropriate place for such detail. The elements that my hon. Friends identify—service specification, fare levels and quality of service at stations—are precisely the type of issues that we plan to consult PTEs on. We will include the details of that in the guidance that we are developing in consultation with the Passenger Transport Executives Group, which will be issued next year.

Amendment No. 79 goes further than amendment No. 78 in suggesting that PTEs should be consulted on every change to the franchise specification, no matter how small. That goes much further than the need to consult on significant changes, and would create a system whereby the Secretary of State could spend all of his time consulting PTEs. We intend to set out in guidance how and when the Secretary of State will consult PTEs on significant changes to the franchise during its operations. However, I do not think that a process in which the Secretary of State must consult PTEs on every change is practicable or desirable.

I know that a lot will be left to guidance rather than put in the Bill. My fellow Minister was not seeking to suggest that I was anything less than accommodating when she said that she would be the reassuring and accommodating Minister on the Committee; I also seek to be accommodating.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Except when I suggest something.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Yes, I fully accept that with pride. Let us wait to see the high-level elements of the guidance on consultation that I shall try to bring before the Committee as soon as possible. Hopefully, that will allay fears and concerns about the PTEs' role on guidance. If not, hon. Members will have an opportunity to return to the subject during the parliamentary process. In the light of my assurances about guidance rather than the Bill being the right and proper place for certain details, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I thank my hon. Friend for that detailed, thorough and intellectually rigorous proclamation of the Government's position.

Gillian Merron (Labour, Lincoln)

As always.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

Indeed it is, as my hon. Friend the Whip says. I accept those assurances and will withdraw my three amendments. However, in doing so I shall make one point that may become relevant in the further debate. I am happy to accept my hon. Friend the Minister's assurances that he will behave reasonably and that such matters can be dealt with in guidance, but unfortunately we must consider that some time in the distant future, other less reasonable Ministers and Secretaries of State—possibly even from other political parties—may not always behave as reasonably. It is worth considering here and elsewhere in the Bill whether it is better to put protection for the passenger transport executives and other interested parties in the Bill, rather than to rely on the common sense and decent behaviour of Ministers. I have no doubt that Ministers in this Government will behave reasonably, but that has not always been and will not necessarily always be the case.

David Clelland (Labour, Tyne Bridge)

I support what my hon. Friend said and his intention to withdraw the amendment, but I would like to draw attention to some of the Minister's comments. I do not know how rigorously intellectual his response was, but he said that the Government were unlikely to do this and that the Secretary of State did not intend to do so. Yet he described our use of the word ''significant'' as overly ambiguous rather than unduly specific. That seems a little bit like the frying pan calling the kettle black. However, as my hon. Friend has said, we wait to see what further information the Government put forward.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 80, in clause 13, page 12, line 10, at end insert—

'(1A) An Executive that has been consulted under paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) may before the expiry of a period of 60 days following the date on which that consultation began, make a statement to the Secretary of State specifying—

(a) the services in which that Executive has an interest which the Passenger Transport Authority for the area in question considers it appropriate to secure to meet any public transport requirements within that area;

(b) any minimum level of quality to which any services so specified are to be provided;

(c) any requirements with respect to the fares to be charged to persons using any services so specified; and

(d) any minimum level of quality with respect to the operation of any station within the area in question which may be required by any such franchise agreement.

(1B) Where a Passenger Transport Executive for an area in England submits a statement under subsection (1A), the Secretary of State shall ensure that the services, and any minimum levels of quality or requirements with respect to fares, specified in that statement are provided for in any franchise agreement into which he may enter in respect of the services in which the Executive has an interest.

(1C) The Secretary of State need not do anything under subsection (1B) if, or to the extent that it would—

(a) have an adverse effect on the provision of services for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway (whether inside or outside the area in question); or

(b) increase the amount of any expenditure of the Secretary of State in respect of railways under agreements or any other arrangements entered into with any franchise operator, any franchisee, or any servant, agent or independent contractor of a franchise operator or franchisee, and the Secretary of State considers that the Executive would not fund that increased expenditure.'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 81, in page 12, line 11, leave out ''subsection (1)'' and insert

'subsections (1), (1A) and (1B)'.

No. 82, in page 12, line 16, at end insert—

'(2A) Where a Passenger Transport Executive for an area in England submits a statement under subsection (1A), the Executive shall be a party to any franchise agreement in respect of any services specified in the statement.'.

No. 84, in page 13, line 12, at end insert—

'(8A) If the Secretary of State considers it desirable to do so in relation to any franchise agreement in respect of services for the carriage of passengers by railway—

(a) having regard to the proportion of those services that are proposed to be provided within one or more passenger transport areas, or

(b) for the purpose of securing expeditiously that the agreement is entered into,

he may give a direction to the Passenger Transport Executive, or Executives, for the area, or areas, concerned providing that any one or more of subsections (1A), (1B) or (2A), or any part of any one of those subsections, shall not have effect with respect to that franchise agreement.'.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The amendments go to the heart of both the Government's intentions and the concerns that passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives have expressed about clauses 13 and 14. I say now what I probably should have said at the start of the debate on the previous clauses: I do not think that this is a declarable interest, but for 13 years I was a member of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority.

The Government have stated clearly that they want to devolve power to the PTAs and PTEs, which, as they know their areas better than the Government ever can, can make reasonable decisions about whether to invest in rail, light rail, buses or other forms of public transport. I agree with those aims. My concern is that the proposals remove the rights of the PTEs to specify what should go to franchisers. That is the subject of amendment No. 80. The right of the PTEs to be a signatory to the franchises has also been removed. Is that an improvement? Is it devolving power? Is it streamlining the process, or is it likely to make it less efficient and more centralised? It is probably worth taking a minute to go through the current process and see how it will change. We then can examine, in the light of amendments Nos. 80 and 81, whether the Government's stated aim has been achieved.

The Government said on Second Reading and in various statements that there are two reasons for the change. First, the PTEs have an ability to write their own cheques, incurring extra expenditure to the public purse, without the responsibility of raising the money. Secondly, the current process whereby the PTEs sign the franchises is complicated and cumbersome and the proposals will streamline things. Currently, the Secretary of State indicates that there will be a franchise and the Strategic Rail Authority will go out to tender. It will consult the PTE on how it would like to specify the services. I will come back to what is specified in a little while. The lowest or most appropriate tender—price is not the only consideration—is then accepted. That specification then becomes part of the contract.

The proposal is that the Secretary of State states his intention that there will be a franchise—of course, the Strategic Rail Authority will be abolished—goes through the franchising process and consults the PTE, but does not put its consultations and specifications into the contract. That will have a number of consequences that do not streamline the process, because for any change that is to take place, the PTE has to negotiate with the franchisee via the Secretary of State—in reality, Department for Transport officials. That is likely to be a much more difficult process than negotiating directly as a partner.

To justify what they are doing, the Government must come up with real evidence that a PTE has at some stage used its position in specifying services to increase public expenditure for which it had no responsibility. Having consulted all the PTEs, I am assured that although there have been discussions about changing specifications, the SRA has been tough and no such extra expenditure has taken place. I should be interested in the Minister's evidence on that.

I think that it has been said that the Strathclyde PTE delayed franchising to give itself an edge and a corner in negotiations. However, I am told that, although it negotiated on specifications, that franchise was not delayed. It is important that the ability to specify what is in the contract remains with the PTE. I have come across no evidence that PTEs are being problematic.

If we consider the specifications and what rights are given when a PTE signs a franchise, we can see how important the matter is. With your permission, Mr. Amess, I shall read out some of the rights that PTEs have when they sign franchises. PTEs have

''The right to require current frequencies, capacities and rolling stock quality within PTE areas to be maintained, subject to PTEs themselves meeting any additional resulting costs and subject to the SRA's right at any time to override these requirements following consultation . . . The right to information on passenger demand and the right to be consulted on service changes aimed at meeting this demand . . . The right to information on local rail fares and to include fares within the fares regulation regime where these would not otherwise be reasonably constrained . . . The right to approve increases in local fares above regulated levels where such increases are to be used to fund service improvements . . . The right to require participation in multi-modal ticketing schemes, integrated transport schemes and concessionary travel arrangements . . . The right to receive performance information in respect of punctuality, cancellations, provision of capacity and the results of service quality audits . . . The right to be consulted on such matters as proposals to reduce the staffing of local stations and improvements to disabled access at stations . . . The right to be notified and consulted on temporary timetable changes within PTE areas . . . The right to impose requirements in respect of timetable formats and to require co-operation with PTE promotion of local services.''

I am talking about PTEs specifying services and having those rights within the franchise agreements. Let us imagine that the Secretary of State has put something out to tender. The franchise is with FirstGroup to run a train service, and there are some side agreements. The PTE asks for information on passenger demand because it is concerned about the level of services, which is one of the rights that it currently has, and FirstGroup says, ''We think that this is commercially sensitive, get lost!'' In that situation, what can the PTE do to enhance the local transport system? What powers does it have to rectify that situation? The answer is that it has very few powers.

In an ideal world, FirstGroup or Arriva or whichever other company will behave reasonably, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister does on all occasions. However, we have evidence of similar situations in which those companies run buses, and when the PTE has asked them for information about passenger demand or timetables they have said no or been dilatory. FirstGroup, which operates buses in my constituency, is not a model company, and does not provide that information, which makes it more difficult for the PTE to carry out its statutory obligations to oversee transport in its area.

There is a real conflict between the Government's intentions and what will actually happen on the ground. That is why the four amendments have been tabled: to establish the status quo, which works. We have found no evidence that the existing system is causing problems, but there is evidence from the bus industry that similar systems to those proposed by the Minister would be unlikely to provide a better system.

I realise that I have not dealt as thoroughly with amendment No. 84, which would broadly preserve the current statutory provision under which the Secretary of State can, in appropriate cases, disapply the SRA's obligation on the PTE's right under section 34 of the 1993 Act. That is a sensible proposal with which to round off the amendments.

I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister's replies to those points. I certainly agree with the general direction of the Bill. It is right to take responsibility for how public money is spent, and the intention to devolve is right, but the practical implications of the changes to the rights and responsibilities of PTEs are wrong, and they will not lead to decentralisation, devolution and a better public transport system.

David Clelland (Labour, Tyne Bridge)

The amendments rest on the belief that the proposals in the Bill are based on a misconception and an incorrect interpretation of the current law. The White Paper said that PTEs

''are not directly exposed to the consequences of their decisions on fares and service levels.''

We would argue that that is manifestly wrong. PTEs currently have no right—statutory or contractual—for increased franchise payments resulting from PTE requirements to be reimbursed through SRA grant or through any other funding channel. PTEs have no expectation of receiving a blank cheque for local rail services. There is also no basis for removing existing PTE specification rights on the grounds that

''the more services PTEs specify, the more funding they receive''

as ''The Future of Rail'' White Paper also incorrectly states.

Passenger transport executives have a continuing statutory duty to secure the public transport services necessary to meet the public transport requirement in their areas. We argue that PTEs are better placed than civil servants and, with respect, Ministers in London to judge rail services and needs in their own areas. We are asked to trust Ministers and the Secretary of State to do the right thing by our localities. We can trust that anything that the current Ministers and Secretary of State do will be in the interests of our areas. However, this Secretary of State and these Ministers will not necessarily be there for ever, although we hope that they will, and there could be a change. We are told that we are coming up to a general election and who knows what might happen. The Prime Minister tells us that we should not be complacent and we are not. We might even conceivably have a change of Government, although that is unlikely. Therefore, we should develop legislation that incorporates the values of the party in power—the Labour party—and obliges future Governments to introduce new legislation to make changes, rather than leaving the door open for relationships to be changed because the Secretary of State changes.

There is also the question of the Bill making it clear that the primary reason for the proposal is to avoid the additional costs and complexities, including bureaucratic complexities, that greater PTE involvement generates. Can the Minister give us the evidence of the additional costs and complexities that are referred to? As for bureaucratic complexities, we argue that the proposals would introduce more rather than less bureaucracy into the system, as each PTE would need to enter into separate arrangements with the Secretary of State. The Minister might also like to give us the evidence for the statement by the SRA that 30 to 40 per cent. of the time that train operating companies spend negotiating a franchise is with PTEs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) listed the additional important rights that PTEs have under the current arrangements. Will the Minister assure us that those rights cannot be diminished as a result of the measures before us today? In summary, our argument is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley and for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) for again explaining the points that their amendments make, namely, that PTEs should continue to exercise their current powers to co-specify and to co-sign franchises for rail passenger services in their area. My hon. Friends will know that we are constantly thinking about and reflecting on this issue. The two ends of the continuum are the status quo and what was set out in the White Paper. To remind the Committee, the White Paper clearly stated in July that we would end any ability of PTEs to co-sign franchises. Between July and the production of the Bill, we have reflected on that, and this proposal is the result of that reflection.

There are two main reasons why we are not willing to accept the amendments. First, they would not restore the status quo and the position of PTEs prior to the Bill, but extend the right of PTEs to co-specify and to co-sign franchises far beyond their current powers. I understand why people assume that there is a conundrum or contradiction at the heart of the Bill in terms of devolution, but the second and more significant reason not to accept the amendments is that the current right to co-specify and to co-sign means that PTEs are not directly exposed to the consequences of their decisions on fares and service levels.

The amendments would mean that PTEs could co-specify and co-sign any franchise with a service within, to or from their area—far beyond their current right to co-sign franchises for services within their area—but I am sure that that was not the intention behind the amendment.

At present, the English PTEs co-sign two franchises. If the amendment were accepted, they could co-sign up to 11. Given that one of the aims of the rail White Paper was to streamline the franchising process—the PTEs acknowledge that having three parties to a contract is more complicated than two—the amendment works against the spirit of the White Paper. If accepted, the amendment could mean that if the Secretary of State wished to make a change to a Virgin West Coast service between Penrith and Carlisle he would have to seek the signatures of Centro, Mersey Travel and Greater Manchester PTE. That clearly cannot be right. It is illogical that the Secretary of State, as strategic specifier and funder of the railways in England, should need to seek the approval of the PTEs to make changes to services some distance from their areas.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I am grateful to the Minister for making those points. Some of them will be dealt with in future amendments. While he is talking about what will happen in future franchises, will he assure the Committee that he intends to allow those PTEs who are currently signatories to franchise agreements in the north and the midlands to continue?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is an entirely fair point and one that I will return to later. I am sure that my hon. Friend will remind me if I do not.

I am aware that amendment No. 84 seeks to mitigate the possible impact by giving the Secretary of State the right to direct PTEs not to be a co-specifier and co-signatory. That makes up only a small fraction of cases, where there is a desire to sign a franchise quickly. That amendment, too, would run counter to the White Paper by creating a new level of bureaucracy. Just saying that things are not bureaucratic and complex does not make them any less bureaucratic and complex potentially.

Amendment No. 84 also invites confrontation as there are sure to be differing opinions on what constitutes direct and proportionate services and about what co-specification and co-signing should be necessary. The system we propose would be more streamlined and would remove the confrontation and the need for repeated directions from the Secretary of State. There are already powers to direct in the Railways Act 1993, which have been used relatively sparingly. They may prevent wasteful disputes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley is right to suggest that the Strathclyde example was not about money or blank cheques. However, it is a matter of record that, in 2003, when signing an interim franchise agreement for Arriva trains northern franchise, SPTE attempted to become a co-specifier and co-signatory to that franchise on the basis that one morning service a day went to Glasgow via Motherwell. That opened up full co-signatory and co-franchiser rights. The SRA was able to persuade SPTE to withdraw its claim but only a week before the franchise was due to be let. There was a danger of a delay in the franchise.

David Clelland (Labour, Tyne Bridge)

My hon. Friend has given one example and we are aware of that example. Perhaps he could give us one or two more to strengthen his case.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I have not finished yet.

David Clelland (Labour, Tyne Bridge)

I was hoping that he would come to that. If, as we argue, the Bill does not go far enough in involving PTEs in the process and if, as he argued, our amendments go too far, why cannot we simply have a compromise and leave well alone?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am tempted to be facetious and say that I am not the man my hon. Friend is looking for if he wants a compromise. That is in the general sense. I will give another example both on this and later clauses. I emphasise again my starting position. The fundamental objection to the amendments is that they extend provisions. What we seek is far more explicit both in terms of franchises and in terms of all the parties that have any role in them. We want to get greater clarity and accountability into the process.

Although the possible extension of the PTE's right to co-specify and to co-sign franchises is a reason to reject the amendment, in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley said, I know that that is not its intention. I am aware that PTEs are concerned about the loss of the right automatically to co-specify and to co-sign franchises involving services within their areas. However, I reassure my hon. Friends that we have looked closely at the issue and we do not take these decisions lightly. I fully accept that PTEs play an important role in planning and reviewing local rail services and we are keen that that should continue.

I repeat: the current procurement arrangements mean that PTEs are not fully exposed to the financial consequences of their decisions on fares and service levels. The Government are committed to the devolution of responsibility but that can happen only when there is clear financial accountability so that decisions are taken on a level basis. At present, PTEs can, and sometimes do, use their right to co-sign to indulge in brinkmanship. In the past, that led to Opraf and the SRA buying off PTE demands rather than risk delaying franchises because PTEs refused to sign them.

PTE demands are frequently not subjected to a business case or value-for-money test. Of course, PTEs do not want to change arrangements that pass on financial responsibility for their decisions to the taxpayer. The current system involves an expensive procurement process with protracted uncertainty for TOCs and there is duplication, extra bureaucracy and over-prescription in the monitoring arrangements. The PTEs' current ability to be a co-signatory of the franchise agreement lies at the heart of a lack of financial accountability and additional time and cost in the procurement process.

As set out in ''The Future of Rail'' and ''The Future of Transport'' White Papers, the Department is keen to devolve greater decision making to local and regional bodies. The rail White Paper sets out much greater flexibility for PTEs to make choices about the balance of expenditure across modes of transport. I repeat: devolution can happen only where there is clear financial accountability. We cannot perpetuate a system that is opaque and leaves open options for brinkmanship.

We are aware that PTEs are worried about the loss of their right to co-sign and although we are confident that the new system will enable the PTEs to continue to play an important role in their local rail services we have listened to their concerns. That is why we moved away from simply abolishing the right to co-sign and included the right for PTEs to co-sign at the invitation of the Secretary of State.

At the risk of repeating what I said on another occasion, the exact circumstances in which the Secretary of State would invite PTEs to be co-signatories will be set out in the guidance that is being developed in consultation with the Passenger Transport Executives Group. However, given the overall objectives of the rail review to drive up performance and to get costs under control, it is clear that the Secretary of State should invite PTEs to co-sign only when it can be seen to contribute to those aims.

Under the new system, PTEs will continue to have an important role in franchise specification in their area. In future, the PTEs will be consulted on the level of baseline specification and feed in to its development. When the baseline has been set, the PTEs will still be able to make cost-neutral changes to the specification for their area, to buy additional services or to reduce services and retain savings, as laid out in the rail White Paper. The process will be laid out in detail in the guidance issued to PTEs next year.

In principle, it is likely that the Secretary of State will accept any proposed changes as long as they do not interfere with other rail services or add costs that the PTEs are unwilling to meet. In effect, the co-specification right is retained but, in the new system, a quantity of national funding is available to spend in the PTE areas, rather than by the PTEs, as happens at present. We may need to make it more explicit in guidance or through some other channel how those co-specification powers will remain in place in the new world of the rail industry after the Bill is enacted.

Given that the Secretary of State's role is as strategic specifier and funder of railways in England, it is correct that things should be that way round, without losing the ability of PTEs to do what they can at local level. The system outlined in the White Paper still gives PTEs the freedom to shape the make-up of services in their area. In that context, there must be a distinction between co-specification and co-signatory status. Perhaps we need to be more explicit in the guidance about what we mean by co-specification. Underpinning the thrust of where we are coming from in the White Paper and the Bill is the fact that of course local input and a local dimension are very important, but the balance needs to be redressed ever so slightly between financial accountability and the rights at local level. In that context, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

It is not incumbent on me to repeat in detail arguments that the Committee has already heard. I shall merely place on record my agreement with those arguments. In so far as the Minister referred to the amendments as cumbersome and bureaucratic, we agree with that conclusion. My fear is that, if implemented, the amendments could lead to the decision-making process grinding to a halt, so I can see why he wants the Committee to resist them. That said, I hope that he will reflect on his comment of a few moments ago that he is not the man for compromise. We know that he likes to sustain a hard man image, but I hope that if an hon. Member from any party proposes at any stage of our proceedings on this or any other aspect of the Bill an idea that, on reflection, has merit, he will be prepared to reflect on the arguments advanced and to compromise.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I am disappointed but not surprised at the response of my hon. Friend the Minister to the amendments. I would not defend every word and detail of them, but this has been a useful debate about whether the measures in the Bill that refer to PTEs are really devolving power or centralising it.

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and the Minister expressed worry that the amendments would lead to more bureaucracy. My answer is that the present system works. The intent behind the amendments is to return to the status quo. I certainly do not want to create anything more bureaucratic. I suspect that anyone who has tried to deal with commercial interests via officials at the Department for Transport, however willing and well motivated they may be, will know that the proposed new system is not an ideal way to go about influencing local transport plans. In fact, the more side agreements there are, the more bureaucratic the system might be than the current one. The current system looks potentially cumbersome, but it works. It enables publicly elected bodies in the major metropolitan areas, certainly of England, to get train operators to sit around a table and discuss delivering decent public transport services for the area.

My worry about what my hon. Friend the Minister has said is that there will now be no mechanism locally to ensure that those companies sit around the table. Some of them have a very poor record of dealing with the public. There is a mixed bag of train and bus operating companies in the new deregulated privatised world that we live in—some are good and some are bad—but there is no easy mechanism for the appropriate public body or passenger transport authority to get the highest quality of service, stations and rolling stock and the best protection for people. What does he rest his case on? I simply do not believe that officials at the Department for Transport will make the proposed centralised process easier.

On the subject of the costs that might increase, my hon. Friend says that PTEs are not fully exposed to the consequences of their decisions. He has failed to provide evidence that actual costs have been placed on the public sector by the decisions of PTEs. Surely, it would not be beyond the wit of the draftsmen of the Bill to include a provision to enable PTEs to sign franchises, be party to negotiations and specify the right service for their area without being able to write a blank cheque. I suspect that what he is proposing is more bureaucratic and centralised than the current system, which works.

Strathclyde is one example of a local body using its position to try to gain advantage but not going outside the period in which it constitutionally had to sign the contract. The nature of devolution and decentralised decision-making bodies is that decentralised bodies with elected representatives will occasionally do things that are uncomfortable and awkward for the centre. My hon. Friend's dangerous centralising argument seems to be that if PTEs are difficult, all power will go to the Secretary of State for Transport. I do not agree with that view. I hope that he did not mean that, but that is what is being proposed, not decentralisation.

I will seek leave to withdraw my amendment, but I expect that discussion and debate will continue on Report and Third Reading and in the other place, because many members of PTEs representing the great urban conurbations in England believe that the proposals will make their job of providing good public transport facilities that much more difficult. I will leave open until Report and Third Reading the challenge to my hon. Friend to come up with real examples of where extra costs have been incurred because of the existing process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 83, in clause 13, page 12, line 34, leave out subsections (5) to (7).

When there are drafting mistakes, it is not always healthy to say when looking at the legislation that there will be a general exemption below a particular level. It is better to get the legislation right than rely on passing more powers to the Secretary of State, because we may not always have such reasonable Ministers as we have at present.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining those points, with which I broadly agree. The PTE should be allowed to enter into agreements with franchisees and franchise operators, and its right to do so should not be fettered by the need to receive approval from the Secretary of State. The aim of the provisions is not to prevent PTEs from entering into beneficial and necessary agreements with franchisees. The provisions enable the Secretary of State to give broad general approval for agreements between PTEs and franchisees, which means that PTEs will not have to come back repeatedly to him to seek approval for minor routine agreements.

I am mindful that we have previously discussed the notion of Christmas tree legislation and what will be included in the Bill and in subsequent guidance. Let me correct one thing that I said earlier. I was still in 2004 mode, so when I constantly referred to guidance being produced next year, I meant 2005. I have caught up during our deliberations, and I assure hon. Members that I mean that the guidance will be published in 2005. The guidance is being developed in consultation with the Passenger Transport Executives Group and will include the types of agreement to which the Secretary of State will give general approval. We are discussing with the Passenger Transport Executives Group what that should entail.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will the Minister be a little more specific about the publication of the guidance? We are in January, and saying that the guidance will be published this year could mean that it will be published within anything from one week to almost a year. Can he give us any indication as to whether the guidance will be published before the predicted summer recess or in the early part of this year? Can he be a bit more specific about when we will be able to see the guidance?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If I was in flippant mode, which of course I am not, I would say that the guidance will be available before 31 December 2005. However, as I indicated earlier, I hope that I can get the high-level elements of what will be contained in the guidance to the Committee before we finish our deliberations. That will be a first cut—a first look at the high-level elements of what will be in the guidance. As soon as possible after what I hope will be the successful passage of the Bill through the parliamentary process, we plan to be at a stage where the guidance will be ready to go out to consultation in a more formal sense, and hope that it will be in place and dealt with by summer 2005. We might ask who knows what impending activities might intervene between now and the summer, but I welcome the notion that the guidance should be ready and in place prior to any summer recess—a timetable that I shall certainly work towards.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that information, which is helpful to the Committee. May I underline how important it is for him to publish the headline parts of the guidance before Report? That will enable hon. Members in the Committee and in the House to make points on Report that they feel are crucial in relation to what should be included in the guidance when it finally crystallises.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am keenly aware that it will aid the scrutiny process if the publication at least of the shape and form of the guidance is in the public domain so that the points that I have made—if people are being ungenerous, they might say that I have sought to hide behind them during our deliberations—will be more exposed and give hon. Members the assurances that they seek. We are not trying to get rid of the notion of agreements with the PTEs and franchisees. Clearly there will be agreements where it is right for PTEs to enter into with franchisees as they will be beneficial for the working of railways.

Within the context of the White Paper and our aims of controlling and driving down costs and driving up performance and streamlining the franchise process, the PTEs should assess the agreements that they enter into to determine those that are beneficial. We deal with that in the guidance. Therefore these provisions will mean that for agreements that do not come under the general approval of the Secretary of State, PTEs will have to justify and elaborate a little more why they are necessary and beneficial. No one would oppose the need to ensure that PTEs should enter only into agreements that are necessary and beneficial. Much of that will be discussed and determined with the Passenger Transport Executives Group through guidance.

We are not against the agreements. This is about what should be disposed of through general agreements. We all agree that we do not want PTEs to go back and forth for every little change or to get permission for every single agreement. Let us determine what can be discussed that way in the general sense and what agreements are far more substantive and perhaps need to be discussed further with the Secretary of State. That is all that the clause seeks to do. I hope that crystallisation, clarity and elaboration will follow in due course with guidance. In that context I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment. I have not forgotten the point about reassurance on existing co-signatory status for PTEs, but that belongs more to the next set of amendments, so we will discuss it then.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I am grateful for that explanation and reassurance. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect a little on what he has just said about the Government's intentions to drive up performance and efficiency and to drive down costs. The Committee would agree with all of that but there is a dangerous connection that somehow the Secretary of State and officials at the Department for Transport know better how to do these things than people in local areas. I am a strong supporter of this Government, but the evidence is not always there that officials and Ministers in the Department for Transport know best how to drive down costs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Clelland (Labour, Tyne Bridge)

I do not oppose the question, but it is worth repeating an important point of principle here. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley reiterated the point in relation to devolution and local power. He is not a supporter of regional government, but is nevertheless a supporter of the concept of devolution. Notwithstanding the result of the referendum in the north-east, which I greatly regret, the old wisdom that devolution is a process, not an event, remains true. Some of us are concerned that these measures will be seen as centralising rather than decentralising, and as such contrary to the policies on which our party stood at the last election and will no doubt stand at the next election. I hope that Ministers will reflect on those issues between now and Report to see what can be done to overcome the concerns that those of us who want to continue the devolution process have about the clause.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, I profoundly disagree with him. There is a range of ways in which one can decentralise and devolve power. One way is simply to move things on to an absolutely federal and regional basis and have all the powers at local and regional level, but that also involves financial accountability. Another way is to enter into an agreement about what the centre should do and what the locality should do in terms of proper devolution. Again, that involves a financial trail and financial accountability. What we are doing is not contrary to the thrust of the rest of the Bill in terms of devolving power to local level, but local devolution and decision making must come with clarity and financial accountability. That is all we seek to achieve in this clause and other clauses. I ask the Committee to resist my hon. Friend's objection to the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 141

Repeals and savings relating to Passenger Transport Executives

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 13, line 37, leave out 'Subject to subsection (3),'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 86, in page 13, line 40, leave out 'or in section 13'.

No. 87, in page 13, line 41, leave out subsection (3).

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I shall not repeat the discussion that we had on clause 13 and my disagreements with the regulatory impact assessment's evaluation of the costs of the current franchise arrangements. What is slightly dangerous about this clause is that it is potentially retrospective legislation. The Minister has said that he will explain the Government's position and whether they intend to use the powers in the clause to amend the two current franchise agreements. I think that it would be wrong if they changed those two franchises, but I am happy at this stage to listen to the Minister's explanation as to whether that is their intention.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Like my hon. Friend, I shall not rehearse all the arguments about co-signatory status or otherwise, but this is my opportunity to give him the assurances that I hope he is seeking. I agree with him that Centro PTE should remain party to the central franchise agreement. Therefore, I can state now that these powers will not be used to remove Centro as a party to the central franchise before the end of that franchise in 2006.

The Northern franchise—the other one that is currently co-signed by PTEs—was signed only in October, and we have never considered removing the PTEs from it immediately. Therefore, the PTEs will remain a party to the Northern franchise too for the time being. I say ''for the time being'' because in advance of any future re-specification of that franchise we would consider whether it would be beneficial to remove the PTEs as co-signatories. At the moment, however, neither I nor anyone else knows the exact nature of that re-specification and quite when it will be. As I understand it, the first opportunity for re-specification of the Northern franchise is 2006. I do not think that it is appropriate for us to utilise the powers in any way, shape or form before the re-specification, but who knows what that will be? In terms of the immediate future between now and the end of the central franchise, it is not our intention to remove PTEs as co-signatories.

In the context of the newly signed Northern franchise, the first opportunity for any re-specification will not be until 2006 and I would not envisage the Government using any power between now and then. I do not know what the re-specification will entail and what shape or form it will take; it will be a matter for discussion at the time. It is profoundly not our intention before securing Royal Assent for the Bill by May, or whenever the parliamentary process allows, to put hobnail boots on and throw our weight around in respect of these powers with franchises to which PTEs are currently co-signatories. In the light of that assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I am 70 per cent. reassured by the Minister's response, which is sufficient for me to withdraw the amendment. I know that Ministers hate hypothetical questions and the use of words such as ''significant'' that are subject to all sorts of interpretations, but I seek from my hon. Friend, preferably in writing after this sitting, reassurances about the basis on which he would consider intervening in the Northern franchise in 2006. One would expect any responsive rail service to change; the travelling public changes and so does the economy, and one would expect there to be changes and improvements, even if there were only tiny changes in the specifications of services. I want reassurance from my hon. Friend that if the nature of the franchise was not fundamentally changed or in a sneaky sort of way extended for an extra 10 years—I do not know if that is possible as I have not seen the wording—or no extra burden was placed on the Treasury, which has been a consistent refrain of my hon. Friend, he would not unreasonably intervene.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the Committee knows whether the Minister is prepared to write the letter that he requested—I presume that it would be copied to other members of the Committee—because it may change how we view the matter on Report?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. Before I withdraw the amendment, I would be happy to give way to the Minister if he can say whether he will write to me and to other members of the Committee.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am always delighted to engage in correspondence with my hon. Friend. I will write to him in the terms he outlined and in the context of our brief debate on the amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

With copies to the Committee?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I will send copies of anything that I write to one member of the Committee to the other members.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

With that delightful intervention, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I will not delay the Committee but I may need to apologise to the Minister. Earlier, I said that he was not interested in fairness; he has been equally fair and nasty to both sides of the Committee, having for years dismissed all my amendments and now all his hon. Friends' amendments.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Duty of Secretary of State and Transport for London to co-operate

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 15, line 3, after 'services', insert ', within Greater London,'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 35, in page 15, line 3, after 'services', insert

', within Greater London and an area no further than five miles from the border with Greater London,'.

No. 36, in page 15, line 3, after ''services'', insert

', within the boundaries of the M25 motorway,'

No. 37, in page 15, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 38, in page 15, line 14, leave out 'places outside Greater London' and insert

'from a mainline terminus in Greater London'.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

We now come to the London aspect of the Bill. I share some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley and for Tyne Bridge about the relationship between central Government and local devolved authorities. Everyone would accept that the Secretary of State should have a duty and responsibility to co-operate with Transport for London. Therefore, there is little dispute that there needs to be some sort of co-ordination. However, we on the Conservative Benches wish to articulate a number of concerns, and I hope that I will be allowed to give a bit of background, which I suspect will preclude the necessity for a stand part debate once the amendments have been discussed.

I stress that the Conservatives have a distinctive and positive vision of the running of the railways in the capital, notwithstanding the concerns that we are expressing in these amendments. The key question is, for whose benefit should our railways be run? The Government's vision, as set out in the Bill, is for a Treasury-led rail system beholden all too often to politicians and specifically to the Secretary of State for Transport as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether in Scotland, Wales, or here in the capital, where the Mayor of London should have more authority, our contention is that passengers' interests should be key. With that in mind, it is surely not too much to expect the train operating companies to have a greater say. After all, I hope that the Minister will agree that those organisations are often closest to the needs of the customers—the fare-paying public.

Conservatives in London entirely accept the need for a strategic body co-ordinating transport within the capital, but we aim to make Transport for London a streamlined and, above all, accountable operation concentrating on delivering an optimum transport service at the most efficient cost. We anticipate that the role of a strategic body is to work with both public and private service operators to provide a safe, punctual, comfortable and responsive service to meet the needs of London's travelling public. In short, we do not believe that the role or remit of Transport for London should be broadened. It should not be handed either control or responsibility for further parts of the transport system in London until it gets the management of the parts over which it currently has control right.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I listened with great care to the precise words that my hon. Friend used. In arguing that no more responsibility should be given to Transport for London within London, is he also saying that nothing more should be given to it outside London?

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I know that this matter is very close to my hon. Friend's heart, as his constituency abuts Greater London. Many people who go through places such as Staines and Shepperton might assume that they are in the capital, but I appreciate his concerns. If he will forgive me, I will come to those matters when dealing with some of the specifics of the amendments. I know that he has tabled amendments dealing with the concerns of many people who live in the home counties but rely on rail travel into central London. He rightly alludes to the fact that the suggestion from the Government is that far more power would be in the hands specifically of Transport for London and by implication of the Mayor of London, who is in no way accountable to my hon. Friend's constituents, although he is to mine and to those of the Minister in Harrow, East.

The amendments are, in part, probing amendments. It is accepted that the boundaries of Greater London are historic only in the sense that the Greater London council was created in 1965. Although they are not entirely arbitrary, there is still some confusion. I am sure that my hon. Friend will point out that the suggestion was that his constituency should have been part of what became Greater London, and that was a great debate in his area some 35 years ago.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and I again listened with the greatest of care. It may be that some arbitrary decisions were taken when setting up Greater London, one of which was to include what is now the borough of Spelthorne within it. However, there was such a huge fuss that it was left out. It was anything but arbitrary when my constituency was left out. We want it left out for ever.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I very much take those concerns on board. My hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that it is not in my gift to decide which bits of Middlesex, or former Middlesex, or Surrey should remain in Greater London.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sorry, but a precision of words is necessary. I heard the words ''former Middlesex'' and ''Surrey''. If my hon. Friend were attaching them to my constituency, my constituency is still in God's own county of Middlesex, as is the Minister's constituency; it is most certainly not in Surrey.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

As my hon. Friend will recognise, I am not a great geographer at the best of times—[Interruption.] It is only a matter of time.

As I said, we tabled probing amendments in order to debate which areas should be within the confines of the power of Transport for London, in so far as the Government get their way and can extend the powers beyond the boundaries of the Greater London authority. We must ask how best to ensure continuity for the key stakeholders—the passengers. It is possible that dividing at the M25 would be a better guide, but parts of Surrey, large parts of south Hertfordshire, and a big conurbation around Watford would feel very differently about being included within TFL's powers.

I should be interested in the Minister's views about substitution services—for example, bus for rail. I ask him to explain how the current system operates. Although we accept that there have been vast improvements in capacity in London, which may be subject to the jealous eye of people outside, they have come at great costs, which I suspect many in the home counties would be unwilling to bear.

How does the Minister envisage the operation changing under the new regulations for bus substitution services? They are increasingly important given the large-scale investment that continues in the infrastructure of the railway system. Substitution has almost become the norm in many parts of suburban London in recent years, especially at weekends and during the summer. There has been successful substitution when planned works have closed down the tube. How would that co-ordinate with companies outside Greater London?

The Conservative party accepts the case for London control of rail services in the capital and would like the greater influence that Transport for London could have over London commuter rail services, fares and station standards to be accompanied by moves to make that body more directly accountable. As the Minister, who represents a London constituency, will accept, there is little doubt that for residents, transport is one of the key London issues, especially as so many of the powers have been devolved from Parliament to the Greater London authority. However, they are concerned that too little of the financial authority has been devolved with it, which gives the impression of a power grab rather than anything else. Many Londoners are worried about the Mayor of London's track record, which does not inspire much confidence.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee A

Clause 15 - Duty of Secretary of State and Transport for London to co-operate

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments:

No. 35, in page 15, line 3, after 'services', insert

', within Greater London and an area no further than five miles from the border with Greater London,'.

No. 36, in page 15, line 3, after ''services'', insert

', within the boundaries of the M25 motorway,'.

No. 37, in page 15, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 38, in page 15, line 14, leave out 'places outside Greater London' and insert

'from a mainline terminus in Greater London'.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was summing up my comments on the amendments. I wish to endorse the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) made on Second Reading:

''There will be anxiety too among train operators about how decisions over the allocation of franchises will be taken under the new regime. Most alarming of all, however, is the Government's proposal to hand more power over the railways to Ken Livingstone.''

Those hon. Members who have been in the Tea Room may have seen today's Evening Standard, in which Melanie McDonagh refers to the notion that the Mayor of London can no longer be believed on transport-related matters. We have seen only today the concerns about the efficacy, or otherwise, of the oyster card.

One of our great concerns in relation to the clause is that some two out of three rail journeys begin or end in London. Therefore, the proposal is worrying, especially for passengers travelling to or from stations outside the area for which the Mayor of London is responsible. Passengers may find that it suits the Mayor to stop their fast trains on the edge of London in order to pick up a few more voters. They may also find that fares go up because Transport for London and, by implication, Ken Livingstone, decrees it.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said on Second Reading:

''Just this week, Ken Livingstone's officials at Transport for London caved in to trade union demands for tube workers to be given longer holidays than anyone else in the country. That is a warning of what lies ahead. I wonder whether it was Ken's attitude to cost control that tipped the balance when Ministers in the Department for Transport were deciding about handing over to him a bit more say about how our railways are run. Giving Ken Livingstone power over how trains are run is a sure-fire way to discourage the extra private investment that railways need to attract.'' —[Official Report, 25 November 2004, Vol. 428 c. 261.]

I reiterate my hon. Friend's question: where will the real accountability lie? Will local authorities in places as far flung as Birmingham, Rugby—I am sure that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) will make a contribution in a moment or two; it will make a change from his great concerns about airports—Milton Keynes and Watford be given a say about the trains that run from outside London into central London? It is quite clear that the proposed expansion of powers to Transport for London will affect constituents from far afield, not just those in the GLA area.

I hope that the Minister will have something positive to say on this matter. The amendments are partly probing because it is almost unprecedented to see the powers of Transport for London and therefore the Mayor being pushed into this much broader area. We in London take the Mayor's democratic accountability for granted. We want to see some suggestions that will ensure that the Mayor of London is properly and fully accountable to home counties areas such as Epping Forest—I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) is also here—Spelthorne and many other areas that potentially find themselves under the cosh of the ever increasing power of the Mayor and Transport for London.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My apologies, Mr. Amess, for being a moment or two late. I have just got off one of Transport for London's trains. I am not sure whether that has anything to do with what I might say.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said that some of his comments would be stand part issues. If I may go with that, although you may wish to rule otherwise, Mr. Amess, I will be content to cover under these amendments the ground that I want to cover and to accept that there will not be another chance to do so.

I have a dilemma as to whether to say everything that I want to say about the amendments and the clause in one go, or to do so in small bits. I might sometimes give the impression of talking at length for the sake of it, but there are occasions when there is genuinely a fair amount to say. It is entirely in the hands of hon. Members as to whether they hear me out or go out and get a cup of coffee. I do not mind.

There is another point worth making by way of introduction. Some Government Members helped me out when they talked about areas north of Watford, explaining where they were and what the issues were. It might be helpful on this occasion if I put my contribution into some sort of context. I hasten to add that I am probably speaking far more as a constituency Member of Parliament than as one of the usual channels. In fact, I am probably not speaking as one of the usual channels. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) often points out when he disagrees with me, I am probably not speaking even on behalf of my party, but I am at least, I think, speaking on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the 70,000 people whom I represent.

My constituency is part of God's own county of Middlesex, as I said earlier. When the Greater London council area was debated and set up, there was to be one more borough than there is, which was to be based on my constituency. It was before my time, but a huge row broke out because, although we are certainly proud to be people from Middlesex, we see ourselves as having nothing in common with London or Greater London—call it what you will. A battle was fought to make it clear that we should not be part of Greater London and that battle was won, although some people think that my constituency is an extension of suburban London. Many arguments will be advanced as to whether control in respect of rail services for Greater London ought to extend to the whole commuting territory, and that is at the heart of the contribution that I want to make. We are wholly outside London but we are slap-bang next door to it; we share a big boundary with it.

There is another difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster suggests alternatives in relation to Transport for London's sphere of influence. One of his options is the area within the M25, to which I say, ''God forbid'', because the whole of my constituency is within the M25. We most certainly want no part of what is suggested in the Bill. We were deliberately left out of London, and the last thing that any of us wants is to come back within that sphere of control. I will advance some arguments about what might be done in respect of integrated transport, but one of them is not to put us under any sort of control of anyone in Greater London. There are those of us who could advance arguments against the current Mayor and the current system, but that is not the point. It does not matter what is set up. A wholly Conservative dictatorship could be running Greater London. I would still want no part of it as far as this measure goes.

That is the background. On the proposals and arguments to extend Transport for London's sphere of influence, that is wrong in principle. I shall come on to Transport for London's views, because they are also included. There are those who think that it would be a good idea, at least in my part of the area immediately next to London, to extend some input into the rail services. I cannot speak for any other of London's neighbours, but I can speak for the people in my area, and such an idea shows a total misunderstanding of the issues.

Transport for London sees the proposal as an opportunity to do some good for people in Greater London. I do not blame Transport for London for that—it is what it is there for—but it assumes that, because it speaks for places such as Twickenham and Richmond, which are part of the commuting suburbs, its influence can be extended. These tiny minds, without any understanding of what is over the London boundary, think that that area must be the same and that, if only they could extend their influence a bit, that would make life better. It may make life better for people in Greater London, but I am elected to represent not their interests, but those of the people of my constituency. Not many of my constituents commute into London; more people commute into my constituency than commute out of it. If we want to pursue arguments about the control of Transport for London being extended outside the boundaries, and about the convenience of commuters, perhaps we should suggest that we take over Transport for London—how would it feel about that?

The significance of my constituency in this argument is that we look for employment more towards Heathrow airport—as the Minister will say in due course, it was not likely to be long before I mentioned that—than we do towards central London. Someone will undoubtedly point out in a moment that Heathrow airport is in Greater London, so perhaps I have shot myself in the foot. However, that is not the point. We are a group of people who are determined to keep our independence from London and who do not believe that we will benefit from such an extension of powers.

If people in the Committee and elsewhere cannot accept my argument that it is wrong in principle to extend the interests of Transport for London beyond the Greater London boundary, they must join a debate about how far beyond that boundary those interests should extend. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster offered several suggestions: not extending at all, which is the suggestion that I agree with, extending for 5 miles, or extending as far as the M25. If he wants me to vote for the latter suggestion, he will have to do an awful lot more persuading.

The question of how far the extension should go is an interesting one. I came into the Committee a minute late, and heard some mention of places such as Birmingham. It seems that, as the Bill stands, the limits could be extended anywhere. I decided that I would not join what might become a spurious debate because I can readily accept that Transport for London does not want to run services as far as Manchester. However, I made it my business to ask Transport for London how far out it wanted to have some influence.

The response that I received was fascinating. So that, in due course, I am not accused by Transport for London of getting it wrong, I note that I met one of its senior executives on 19 October to ask that very question. The answer that I received was that Transport for London wants to extend its influence or control—whichever way one looks at it—to where it can turn a train round. I asked what that meant and was told that it meant, ''As far as we send a train to bring it back again.'' I asked what it meant in my constituency, and was told that, on the Shepperton line, that meant as far as Shepperton, which was no great surprise because the line stops there, so it would be difficult to go any further. In other words, Transport for London wants to take over control of the whole of one of the lines in my constituency—not just part of it.

I then asked how far Transport for London would want to go on the other line, and was told, ''We want to go as far as Staines, because that is where we will turn trains round.'' That line goes to Windsor or Reading, and my impression is that the trains that go through Staines turn round at both Reading and Windsor.

From my questioning of Transport for London, I concluded that it had an agenda that it was not prepared to own up to—it would turn trains round where it fancied doing so, or where it suited it to do so, rather than where it suited my constituents. Not once was I told that it would do that for the benefit of my constituents—[Interruption.] There is a map coming for the Minister; he will find that what I am saying is correct. The line from Staines really does go as far as Windsor and as far as Reading, unless the Government have plans to close those routes.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Have you met Martin Salter?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes. Obviously one of the hon. Members for Reading has also had a go about that issue.

I then asked myself what the significance was of turning the train round at Staines. Transport for London could have turned the train round at Feltham, which is in London, or at Ashford, which is not. I became suspicious at that point, because I realised that Transport for London was seeking to gain control of the rail network in the whole of my constituency. I then decided that I needed to look at what the Mayor of London had been saying about his great empire. Surprise, surprise, I discovered that what was going on was not Transport for London wanting to improve rail services. It is probably part and parcel of a land and power grab by the Mayor, wanting to use TFL to get control of the rail network in the Spelthorne constituency and to say, ''We might as well go back to the original Maude report, which suggested having another London borough.'' The Mayor actually said that.

The fact that I feel strongly about it, and am determined to resist it at all cost, is partly because of the rail services, partly because of my constituency and partly because of the power-crazed approach of Greater London. I would say the same things about what the Mayor appears to be up to if he were a Conservative trying to get his grubby little hands on my constituency. We do not want any part of that.

Taking Transport for London at its word, the Committee needs to consider what TFL intends to do if it gets some input, which is really control. I asked TFL what it imagined it would do to the railways in my constituency and presumably elsewhere if the Bill went through unamended. In reply, it said a number of interesting things. It said: ''This is what we really want to do. We want to get control of the fares.'' Transport for London wishes to determine the fares that my constituents will pay.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theories. I expect to hear the phrase ''black helicopters'' at any minute. For the sake of clarification, can he name the individual from Transport for London who is giving him so much information? It would be very useful for the rest of the Committee to double-check his source.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes, of course. It is Mr. Peter Field, who was in charge of South West Trains and is now one of the senior people responsible for the development of Transport for London rail services in constituencies such as mine. I was trying to shield him from being got at by people such as the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing secret about it. I did my level best to go to the correct source—I was not just chatting to a ticket collector on my way home—the official, authoritative voice of Transport for London. It was agreed that what was said to me was on the record, which is why I have a note of it. It was a question of what Transport for London wanted to do: to get control of the fare structure and the timetables and insert its priorities.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of what he said is contained in a document issued on notepaper headed ''Transport for London'' with the words ''Mayor of London'' on the bottom? Paragraph 3,on the ability to set fare levels for rail services, states:

''In order to harmonise fares across transport services and zones, it will be necessary to change fare levels on National Rail and bring them in line with Travelcard and Oyster. To do this the Mayor will need to have the ability to set the fares for all transport modes in London.''

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes. However, the document states ''in London''. My point is about outside London. The source is not only Mr. Peter Field but whoever wrote the document from which my right hon. Friend quotes.

I was told that TFL also wants to gain control of decisions on investment priorities. At present, we can conduct negotiations with South West Trains, Network Rail and any other organisations that the Government leave in existence, and decide what should be spent at Windsor, for example, or at Egham or Staines and so on, until we get to Greater London. I have no confidence whatever in Transport for London giving any consideration to the bits round the edge when it comes to its priorities for investment. I can envisage the money currently allocated by South West Trains for the platforms at Staines, or whatever else it has in mind, being hijacked by another scheme, be it the bid for the Olympics or something else. When I asked how the Government are going to fund the improvements, one answer was from fares. I am sorry, but I do not see why my constituents should be expected to pay extra fares on their railways only for somebody to decide to spend the money somewhere else rather than those who pay receiving the benefits. I am against the proposal on the basis of the investment priorities.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

Would my hon. Friend go even further and say that on this issue there is what is fashionably called a democratic deficit? Our constituents depend on transport in, to and from London, but they do not have a vote to cast in the election for the Mayor of London, so why should the Mayor and Transport for London spend any money benefiting those outwith Greater London when they will gain no electoral benefit from it? Forgive me if that is cynical, but it is true.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I could not have put it better myself; that is exactly right. I was going to talk about accountability later, but my hon. Friend has put me on this course—I nearly said down this track, but perhaps I should not under the circumstances. I shall give an example of how true her point is.

Perhaps in the name of accountability, the Government decided that there should be a police authority for London. On balance, I agreed with them that instead of responsibility falling to the Home Secretary, there should be a police authority of elected people. Because the Metropolitan Police district had historically always included the whole of the county of Middlesex, my constituents were policed by the Metropolitan police. The moment that there was to be accountability to the London assembly, the issue arose of how those of us outside Greater London would have any input into the accountability to the general public of the Metropolitan police.

When we raised the question with the then Home Secretary, he put it to us that there were probably two choices: we could either join London and be part of the democratic process in London, or my constituency and others around the edge of London could be policed by somebody else. It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Amess, that we chose to be policed by Surrey police, which raises a certain amount of difficulty when I protest that we are not Surrey. However, we would far rather be policed by the aliens from Surrey than by aliens from Greater London.

That was the view that we took, and we will take it again in discussions about accountability of the railways. Of course there must be an input, and there are amendments to another clause about what consultation should take place, which I shall pursue later. There is precedent for these issues of accountability, and one of the options appears to be putting places like mine into London for a number of purposes, of which accountability is one. All I would say is that we do not want any part of it. The way to solve the accountability argument is to have the debate about how people in Greater London want accountability for their rail services and leave us to decide how we want accountability for rail services that have got nothing to do with Transport for London.

As far as I am concerned the employment profile of my constituency is such that anything that may undermine the success and prosperity of Heathrow airport automatically threatens the jobs of my constituents and the house prices that people have had to pay. The last thing that they want is for their houses to drop in value because Heathrow is no longer the success that it is currently. That is particularly relevant because when I spoke to Transport for London, I asked it what its view would be about investing in air track if it got control of the rail services in my constituency.

For those who are not familiar with air track, it is the proposal to do for the south of Heathrow what the Heathrow express did for the north. It would give a discrete, direct express service to the south of the airport from Staines, through my constituency. It could then go on to the south coast, Waterloo or anywhere else south of the airport. The reply I received took my breath away. I was told, ''We're not really interested in air track. It would be built outside London and it has nothing to do with commuting passengers.''

We have had an attack on the Gatwick express, and on the Heathrow express, and now I have been told that Transport for London could not care less whether air track is built because it is not its passenger priority. It is my constituents' priority. Anything that would stand in the way of improving surface access to Heathrow by public transport is something we are not best pleased with. One has only to consider the state of the M25, and the state of air quality, to see that. Here is something that the Strategic Rail Authority, BAA and others were almost ready to do until a load of changes came about. We are now told that it is to go right down to the bottom of the list of priorities because it does not fit with those of London.

In case the Minister is tempted to say that I am being totally negative and attacking anything he might suggest—he is too nice a man to say such things, but he will think them—there is an alternative. I am perfectly willing to join a debate about a better way of running railways in the south-east than the current one. My constituents are prepared to join such a debate, but we are not prepared to be handed over to the Mayor of London and Transport for London.

If the case for the service delivery of rail services to the south-east is better made in a different way, why do the Government not set up some sort of independent rail company? I shall not go into the argument of whether it should be the private sector or the public sector. I could, but that is not the point I want to make. If the view is that there should be a larger area, the Government should set up something special and independent with accountability right the way across, rather than handing the matter over to Transport for London and the Mayor. The Minister can argue for the service benefits if he wants to, but he will not persuade me that the Mayor of London has to get his grubby little hands on my railways.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

My contribution will be in the same vein, in the sense that this is the first time we have introduced the notion of London's role in the new rail structure. My comments will go ever so slightly further than the amendment, with your permission, Mr. Amess.

I would like to welcome everyone back and say happy new year to those who were not here this morning, which clearly includes Plaid Cymru again. I hope that we have that nice blend that we had this morning—I fear we shall not—of alacrity and scrutiny. Things should be scrutinised well, but with a degree of alacrity. That is not a dig at the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)—the matters are important, and this is the first real opportunity we have had to debate them in any substantial way. I was going to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) about intellectual rigour, in the sense that on Second Reading we certainly did not have a real in-depth discussion of the London aspects of the Bill with any degree of rigour, intellectual or otherwise. For those who do not know, I remind the Committee that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster prays in aid the hon. Member for South Suffolk, which is Suffolk in East Anglia, not Southwark as in south London. He is not trying to pass off the hon. Gentleman as a London Member. The comments made by the shadow spokesperson on Second Reading were, as I said at length back then, quite fatuous, showing a complete lack of regard for and experience of London and its rail network, where we start from with transport in London—the Greater London Authority Act 1999—and the fact that heavy rail was not part of that Act.

I entirely and readily accept the honesty and sincerity of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, including his honesty in saying, ''Hands off my railways, whether you are Conservative, Tory, Labour or anything else.'' Conservative and Tory are the same thing, I know that.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Are they?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Well, they are not actually, if the hon. Gentleman wants to go into a history lesson about it, but we will pass over that. I am not going to go into Tory Ireland and vagabonds, thieves and scavengers as the root of ''Tory'', so we will pass over that.

The hon. Gentleman's point has a particular Spelthorne dimension. He is profoundly wrong, but I accept the sincerity from where he starts. In a legislative context, we start by enabling and no more at this stage. There is still a lot of thought, reflection and work to be done. There is a clear gap in the Mayor's and Transport for London's powers to be filled by heavy rail. I am not surreptitiously attacking the 1999 Act. I had the great privilege of spending about three months of my early parliamentary life on it. It was enormous fun and a wonderful introduction to all things parliamentary, including the parliamentary ''Call My Bluff'' word-game process we go through with legislative scrutiny in Committee. It was right and proper at that time not to throw heavy rail into the mix that finally emerged as the democratic settlement for London, partly for the many reasons that hon. Members have outlined.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is right: some 70 per cent. of rail journeys start or finish in London. So, if we accept the notion momentarily for the purpose of debate that the heavy rail network is an important dimension to Londoners as well as the wider London and south-east commuter network, how do we get to the stage where Transport for London has a greater say and a clearer role in heavy rail? It is essential to achieving a greater level of transport integration in London. How do we fit that in with the notion that the London and south-east commuter network should not conveniently stop at particular boundaries, which is the reason why I object to the amendments?

We deliberately said to TFL in the July White Paper that the process will need to be ongoing and evolving. The Bill deliberately does not say in enormous detail how TFL will have a role in the London and south-east commuter network. It does not, again quite deliberately, define boundaries, so I understand the comments that, if we blink, TFL will somehow become responsible for the Oldham loop and all rail services throughout the west midlands. It is not true, but I understand how people start from that perspective. We have captured the process in legislation by defining the services in which TFL can and cannot be involved.

If one pursued the journey—no pun intended—in the direction that the hon. Member for Spelthorne hinted, one obvious place to start would be effectively to reinvent Network SouthEast. It has some logic, capturing some—not all—of the commuter traffic in and out of London.

On the question of giving TFL a greater role because we think it needs it to integrate public transport all the more readily in a London context, is re-establishing Network SouthEast the answer? Clearly from our perspective it is not. Whatever influence the Mayor may or may not have over South Eastern Trains, South West Trains, Southern Trains and some of the other commuter services around London, there is probably an imbalance. That is not a direction in which we seek to go.

The London Transport Users Committee has some weird boundaries that go far beyond even the suggestions offered by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. They are really quite skewed and go all the way up to Bedford in one direction, Bicester in another, and to the south encompass Gatwick airport. Of course the lovely Spelthorne is entirely within the LTUC boundaries, given that it is adjacent to London. That is another obvious place to start. Again we need to look at that and reflect on it.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne was broadly right. Are there discrete services within London? Clearly there are, but not many in terms of heavy rail. Most of them stop outside the GLA boundaries. About the closest we get to an almost discrete commuter service in London—our discussions with the Mayor will consider this—are the various Siverlink services, most of which are in London, save for three to five miles through my constituency up to Watford Junction. All but that last little bit is within the GLA area. We have just renewed the franchise on that for two years. During those two years we will look at how that might be the template for TFL's future role.

I will happily provide the maps that TFL gave me of the area it is thinking about if we go in this direction. Yes, it still includes Spelthorne, but it is much narrower than the LTUC boundaries. At various stages it is either contiguous with or close to contiguous with the GLA boundaries. It has a red line around London. In its northern extremities it probably comes just north of Welwyn. It would include St. Albans, Watford, Croxley Green and Amersham. Much of the transport provided in the constituency of the hon. Member for Epping Forest is London-based. Perhaps we should look for more money from her for Epping station and the bits of the Central line that go out there. I do not know whether there is more than one station in her constituency, if indeed Epping station is within it. I do not know the geography sufficiently well.

We have these untidy boundaries. We rightly start from the premise that some five or six years on from TFL and the GLA coming into existence, to get to where we want to get to in terms of a fully integrated public transport system in London it is worth at the very least looking at heavy rail with all the difficulties of those commuter lines going in and out of London. I am closer to being persuaded on the TFL boundaries—what they call the minimal operational London region inner suburban—than by anything else.

To suggest the M25 is, with the greatest respect, nonsense. It is as arbitrary as any line one can draw. It was not drawn with any notion of administrative or political convenience in any way. If one looks in detail at a map it does not work with the commuter services in any sort of way. We could take an arbitrary route, which, given all the confusions and complexities that we already have in London to reflect where the PTEs are at present, which is 25 miles beyond the borders. That also draws a strange map round London in how it dovetails with commuter-land.

I emphasise that this is a matter for subsequent debate. Even if the Bill secures Royal Assent, we are not handing over as a land grab—or whatever else it may be called—that map, any of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster or any other variation, such as the map going to, in extremis, the east coast main line, the west coast main line, et al, simply because they start in London. With the exception of some details that I want to come on to, the Bill is about enabling that process at least to start. We start from the premise that it is worth reflecting on that gap in terms of a heavy rail responsibility for Transport for London.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

First, the Minister referred to the maps that Transport for London supplied him with and said that he would let the Committee see them. Presumably he also received some correspondence or briefing from Transport for London with the map. Is he willing to share that with us as well before Report so that we can see whether some of the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne are misplaced or whether he has some basis for expressing those concerns?

Secondly, the Minister referred to the clause as being enabling. When the Government have formed a view about what they are prepared to enable, what consultation does the Minister envisage taking place with Members of Parliament, either collectively or involving those Members who represent the seats affected?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

TFL might have sought to brief me, but I do not get briefed by outside third parties. There have been discussions with TFL on the issue, as there have been with the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and a range of other interested parties. So, from my perspective, there is no corresponding correspondence—if that is not a tautology—but submissions have been made by TFL to the Department in this context. If they are in the public domain, I will happily provide the Committee with them. I suspect that, whether they are in the public domain or not, they are FOI-ed, if I can coin a new verb. So, if I can provide those submissions, I will.

On the second point, whichever direction we go in will ultimately be the subject of a memorandum of understanding between TFL and the Government. Before we get to that stage, which is some way off—perhaps notwithstanding the example that I gave of the Silverlink services, which may come on stream before that—there will be extensive consultation with all interested parties. If I have anything to do with it, that consultation will include MPs, both those affected and more generally because, after all, the issue is the use of London's rail network. Even though it is in the main about parts of the commuter network of London and the south-east, that impacts, as hon. Members have suggested, on the wider efficacy and efficiency of the London and south-east transport system and, by definition, many of the other lines coming into and out of London that are not defined as simply being commuter services. So, I will try to make sure that consultation with MPs, as well as with everyone else, is as wide as possible.

That is the end game—a memorandum of understanding between TFL and the Government about the direction in which they can go. So, what does the clause do at this stage? It defines what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster sought to redefine—what London means in this case. It means that TFL will be able to buy additional services, invest in stations, provide bus substitution services, which it does already, and be consulted more readily on franchises in the area that we determine. That is important because that is all it does for now. I emphasise that, having considered and consulted on the issue, the end game is how to plug a gap in terms of integrated transport, in that TFL has total control of buses, the tube and everything else inside London, as well as wider traffic management duties, but it does not have any significant input into commuter services that clearly have an impact on London.

In all honesty, therefore, it is not a land grab. I carefully followed some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. He might not like it, but it would be entirely appropriate for TFL to say to him, ''Actually, air track's nothing to do with us, guv, and we're not terribly interested in it.'' In the wider context, should the transport authority for London be interested in how the airports in London and the south-east are linked together and whether they are linked with public transport? Of course it should, but while it would have some interest in a link from somewhere outside London to Heathrow, it would not have a direct responsibility or interest, and neither should it.

The Gatwick Express has been a relative success. We are working on a case-by-case basis to develop a route utilisation strategy that will optimise the existing capacity of each of the lines. It is true that usage on the Brighton commuter line has increased by some 70-plus per cent. over the past three or four years. How that interleaves with the Gatwick Express in a limited capacity must be worth considering. I do not yet know how that will be addressed by the utilisation strategy, but it should at least be considered in some detail.

So, with the best will in the world, we cannot accept a restriction to ''services within Greater London'' or

''within Greater London and an area no further than five miles from the border with Greater London'',

or any arbitrary cut-off point, because that will not configure nicely and neatly with some of the commuter lines. The same applies to the M25 and the other matters in the amendments.

Nobody can consider that matter with any seriousness without bumping into the very inconvenient but factual notion that commuter services in London go beyond GLA boundaries. How can we come up with a compromise between the obvious notion of TFL having control or influence over matters outside the GLA boundary, the democratic deficit, which we will come on to, and how those who use the services from outside London can provide input? That subject arises very quickly if one begins with the premise that TFL having a greater role in heavy rail is a good starting point for London and the commuters of the south-east.

In the smaller context of the amendments, we do not accept the proposed boundary changes. I urge colleagues to go back to the discussion in the White Paper about how TFL's role fits into the broader context. A working group has already been established in the Department. It includes the Strategic Rail Authority, the train operating companies and TFL, and considers where we go next with such discussions.

I emphasise that no final decisions have been taken on the scope of the Mayor's responsibilities. It is still early days on that, but the London working group is considering the next phase and matters such as rationalising fare structures and ticketing technology, travelcard fares going further, the greater role of discrete services in London, the ability to buy additional services, the possibility of specifying service levels directly and, importantly, taking revenue risks on services within the GLA's boundaries. The discussion is about TFL's role within the GLA boundary and discrete services there, and a potential role on the rail network in an area slightly larger than the GLA area; it must be slightly larger, because of the accidents of history and settlements that have prevailed around London in years past. Before the hon. Member for Spelthorne rushes to speak, let me say that I am not describing Spelthorne or Staines, God forbid, as an accident of history. It is just that the way in which things have developed around London has not been entirely convenient for the bureaucrats, politicians and planners.

Our underlying emphasis—I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Amess—is TFL. In the interests of Londoners and those beyond London's boundaries in terms of commuter services—services not just for commuters—we need to start to look at how to integrate heavy rail within all the other public transport on offer in the GLA area. That necessarily leads to the next point about the GLA boundaries. In that context, I ask the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who is, of course, half a Middlesex Member himself, to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. Before I call Mr. Field, I advise the Committee that I am minded not to have a clause stand part debate because I feel that the issues have been well aired.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster makes his winding-up speech, there are a couple of points that require a little more comment than an intervention would have made possible. First, I can go along to a great extent with some of the things that the Minister says in advancing the argument for co-ordination of heavy rail services around the London area. I can willingly join in a discussion about that, but saying simply that co-ordination is a good idea in no way offers any sort of argument as to why that co-ordination has to be controlled by Transport for London. It is but one of many options. To simply say that co-ordination is necessary and a good idea—a view that I buy into—does not answer the argument about giving the Mayor of London, whoever he may be, and the GLA any extra power for themselves. That is not the way to do it, as I tried to indicate. I do not buy into the conclusions that the Minister reaches from a starting point with which I have some sympathy.

The Minister either did not understand or is unaware of the issues regarding air track. To say ''Ah well, it's not in London and therefore it's not surprising that Transport for London has not got involved,'' misses two points. The reason why Transport for London does not want to get involved is that its priority is commuting passengers. That underlines the point that I was making about the priorities being wrong for people on the edge of London. The only thing that will drive Transport for London's decisions on investment, timetables and fares will be the commuters going to and from work, and places such as Heathrow and Gatwick airports can go hang. That really suggests that Transport for London is not the right body to co-ordinate things.

The other thing that concerns me about the argument on air track is that the Minister seems not to have caught up with the idea—perhaps he has forgotten about it—that the Mayor of London wants to slap congestion charging on private vehicles going to Heathrow so that people use public transport. How is it reasonable to contemplate trying to get cars out of Heathrow if the Minister says ''It's not surprising that Transport for London doesn't want to be bothered with air track'' and the Mayor of London will not even get involved in building public transport to make it possible for people from south of the airport to leave their cars behind? The Minister did not deal adequately with that issue.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

We have had a full debate on this matter. I understand the concerns that the Minister has expressed about the need for co-ordination and co-operation between the Secretary of State for Transport and the Mayor of London, but I have great concerns that there is a large and important democratic deficit. We will discuss that matter further when we consider clause 17, in respect of proposing the membership of this new Transport for London including areas outside London.

The Minister was right to stress that the London Transport Users' Committee, which we will discuss in respect of schedule 6, currently extends well outside London, but as he rightly said, places such as Bedford and Bicester are on large commuter lines; Bedford is on Thameslink and Bicester is on the line that comes through to Marylebone station. The key question, however, which I raised almost in my first sentence—it was several hours ago, but not several hours of debate, thank goodness—is for whose benefit our railways should be run.

We have a grave concern that was reflected in discussion of earlier clauses this morning and made clear by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley: lack of accountability and far more centralisation of powers. Many people in London feel concerned about that centralisation, and I suspect that many in the home counties, whose railway services would be determined by Transport for London and therefore, by implication, by the Mayor of London, feel even more concerned about it.

We have had a useful debate, and I thank the Minister for making suggestions in relation to amendments Nos. 35 and 36. I entirely understand that we are already concerned about one set of arbitrary boundaries, so we should not necessarily position ourselves to create another set, but there are grave concerns none the less. The issue will resonate strongly in many areas outside London, and there may be significant revenue implications both in the longer term in relation to council tax and in the immediate term in relation to fares. Many commuters from places as far-flung as Luton, Windsor and places in Surrey will feel that they have no say in those matters, because of the democratic deficit to which I referred. Accordingly, I should like to press amendment No. 34, but I shall not seek to press the other amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 12.

Clause 16 - Relaxation of contractual restrictions on Transport for London

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The clause deals with financial matters and the relaxation of contractual restrictions on Transport for London. The question that arises in my mind is: how wise is it that those restrictions should be relaxed? I remind the Minister that TFL's five-year investment programme addressed several issues, including buses in particular. The financial losses have been colossal and I want to know who will ultimately pay the bill. Most people who use buses in London probably take the view that services have improved. As an irregular bus user, I do not deny that, but it has been at an enormous cost—about £500 million has been lost in the current financial year and that is likely to rise to losses of £1 billion in 2007-08.

The congestion charge also comes under the auspices of Transport for London. In February 2003 when the central congestion charge scheme was set up, it was envisaged that it would raise about £200 million a year, which would be reinvested in buses and other transport improvements, but, at best, it has raised only about £65 million a year. It is small wonder that there is a proposal for a 60 per cent. increase in the daily charge, from £5 to £8, which may be introduced in the next 12 months. Many small businesses, especially in central London, have suffered as a result of the charge, but above all it has failed to bring in the relevant amount of money. Many Londoners have concerns about the notion of contractual restrictions on TFL being relaxed.

Prudential borrowing was much vaunted. It has allowed £2.9 billion to be borrowed, effectively on the back of council tax payers, for an undefined period. I welcome the fact that that borrowing will allow the East London line to be built, as without it there is little chance of regeneration in east London or of the Olympic bid having any realistic chance of success. However, that is notional prudential borrowing—not Government expenditure but borrowing on the back of the goodwill of Londoners for Transport for London. That raises the question whether it is right that TFL and, by extension, Mr. Livingstone, should be given such enormous potential increases in their powers. As a London Member, the Minister does not need reminding of their record on industrial relations.

I referred earlier to the latest RMT deals. RMT members now have 15 rest days a year and 29 days of annual leave—it is 52 days in total when the bank holidays are included—and a 35-hour working week. They earn from £19,000 a year for a station assistant to £33,000 for a station supervisor. Likewise, Transport for London has put into place a separate deal for tube drivers that will ensure that they earn £33,000 a year for a 35-hour working week with 43 days' holiday a year. That comes not just at a long-term cost but at an immediate cost for fare payers, people who are living in London or who have to commute from outside the capital.

Bus fares are set to rise by 20 per cent. Tube fares have risen by 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. on top of the usual increase— an inflation-busting increase. Silverlink fares, of which the Minister's constituents in Harrow and Wealdstone will be well aware, have gone up by between 4 per cent. and 7.2 per cent., depending on which stop on the line they use, and there have been increases of well over the rate of inflation on the Chiltern and other lines into central London.

That underlines the concern that many of us feel about the notion of relaxing contractual restrictions on TFL. I hope that the Minister will have at least some input on the matter. I appreciate that in trying to regularise the arrangements there is some benefit in giving TFL additional powers, but, until TFL has shown that it can put its house in order in many of the areas over which it already has authority, many Conservative Members have grave concerns about those powers being extended.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

If I were an ungenerous person, which I am not, I would say that, while I appreciate your laxity, Mr. Amess, in deciding that our discussion of the previous group of amendments was broad enough to include a stand part debate, allowing an interesting but irrelevant Second Reading contribution on a clause stand part debate is probably stretching things a bit too far. However, that would be seen as slightly challenging to the Chair and I do not seek to do that. Although interesting, nothing that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has just said had any connection with the clause.

Clearly, if we are, in the wake of the previous debate, moving on from that and trying to work out what the role of TFL should be in terms of heavy rail, those restrictions need to be relaxed and that is what we intend in the clause. However, we are profoundly not saying that for London and the south-east the Secretary of State can no longer be bothered to take a national strategic role because we will give it to Ken Livingstone or TFL. We must lift the restrictions as outlined in section 201 of the principal Act—the 1999 Act—and, at the same time, prohibit TFL from going its own sweet way and doing whatever it wants to do with the assorted franchises in London, unless with the agreement of the Secretary of State.

That is not unlike the position that we spoke of this morning in respect of PTEs, with the one distinction, of course: TFL was never a co-signatory to franchise rights. We are not going from section 201 of the principal Act to a blank cheque and a free-for-all for TFL. We must in law lift the restrictions on it operating with national rail franchisees, but in such a way—this is what the clause does—that it needs to discuss with the Secretary of State what direction it can go in terms of national rail and to get the permission of the Secretary of State. The restrictions are being lifted, but will be replaced with a prohibition—the permission of the Secretary of State.

Many of the points that people make about TFL having a free-for-all in the entire network used by commuters in London and the south-east are well made. However, if we are to move any way along the policy development that we seek to get heavy rail into the equation of what TFL provides, with the caveats about GLA borders, we need to lift the restriction, in the context of a full discussion with and permission from the Secretary of State for TFL to go down that road and to become more involved in national rail. The clause is a little contradictory, but it must be in place, not least to start to deal with some of the wider problems to which hon. Members have referred in respect of the broader commuter network.

Even if Opposition Members do not agree with the public policy principle of getting TFL more involved in heavy rail, they should heartily welcome the clause before us, of all the clauses that cover London, for restoring the strategic dimension to London and the south-east commuter network and for allowing the restriction to be lifted, but only in the context of the permission of the Secretary of State. Rather than challenging the provision, they should broadly welcome it and I commend it to the Committee.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I need no assistance from anyone other than the Clerk in chairing the Committee. If I decide that something is out of order, I shall make that clear.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 4.

Clause 17 - Membership of Transport for London

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 16, line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:

No. 40, in page 16, line 13, leave out

'regional planning body for each'

and insert

'leader of the county council or borough council, whichever is relevant,'

No. 54, in page 16, line 21, leave out from '(2A)' to end of line 23.

No. 55, in page 16, line 37, leave out 'regional planning bodies' and insert

'leaders of the county council or borough council'.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The clause deals with the membership of Transport for London. At this juncture, these are probing amendments. I am obviously interested to enter a debate on them, which I suspect will be quite broad-ranging. If we can, with your indulgence, Mr. Amess, discuss these matters in detail, we may not necessarily need to have a clause stand part debate.

The current arrangements, as the Minister will be aware, enable Transport for London to have an eight to 15-strong board, all appointed by the Mayor, yet the far-reaching proposals to expand the tentacles of Transport for London's powers beyond Greater London surely have an impact on this element. I understand that that is part of what the Government have in mind with the initial provisions of clause 17. We hope that four rather than two members might be appointed from beyond the boundaries of Greater London, or that there might be some reference to county councils in the clause.

I was trying to work out whether any great railway-related songs had made it to the upper echelons of the charts. I think that the very year in which the Minister was born—1958—was the year of ''Last Train to San Fernando''. That is the last one that I could remember. I am sorry to have developed this discussion in such a way that I have given away the Minister's age. I will not do that to the Under-Secretary, other than to say that I am sure she is glad that Elvis Presley is once again at the top of the UK charts.

Seriously, let me explain one of our great concerns since the demise of much of the agenda for regional government in this country. It relates to the fact that one of the great raisons d'etre for such regional authorities was as a planning authority. It is therefore unarguable that any decisions relating to inter-city services coming into London should be made only in concert with other authorities that have an interest in a given service, in order that the integrity of our inter-city services be properly maintained. It should not be a decision for Transport for London alone. I should be interested to have some idea from the Minister of how he envisages that the democratic deficit to which my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Epping Forest have referred can be properly addressed.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The hon. Gentleman just mentioned making decisions in concert, but the amendments endeavour to take out regional planning bodies and put in leaders of the county councils and borough councils. Why is he taking those out? Why does he not leave them in as well?

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The problem is that, in a sense, many of the regional authorities have been dead ducks since 4 November and the end of the plan to have fully devolved government in England. Again it goes back to the issue of democratic deficit. Instead of appointed members of a regional planning authority, members elected for a specific purpose, such as leaders of councils, should have more say in this regard.

Equally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that we envisage Transport for London being put out to the broadest possible membership, which may go some way to addressing his concerns. To add only two members from outside London to a body of eight to 15 members will be insufficient, given the increase in Transport for London's powers beyond the capital's current boundaries.

National policy makers must meet the demands of London's travelling public. Transport for London has made it clear that an increase in capacity might be needed on some of the routes to which we have referred. We would be keen to ensure that there is better value for money. However, above all, if we are to drive the agenda forward, there must be input from all the areas that will be covered, not simply from central London, for which the current Transport for London appointees will be put in place.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance. It is clear from the clause that the Government are at least alerted to the possibility of a democratic deficit. I hope that he will at least be able to give us an idea of the Government's thinking in this regard. One of the gravest concerns of many people in London, where transport is a major issue, is Transport for London's lack of accountability: it is very much in the hands of the Mayor of London to appoint the board. Where and how will the appointees from outside London be brought in? Will they be appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport or will the process take place in tandem with negotiations with the Mayor of London? At the moment it is something of a mess. I do not criticise the Government for that, as inevitably we are in uncharted waters. The Government have at least recognised that bodies from outside London must have a say in this matter. Our fear is that the increased powers in clause 15 and later will have a significant effect. If these bodies are to have any authority, particularly outside London, important additional appointments must be made from outside our area.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will wish to address this issue, because he has also tabled amendments relating to it. I hope that, once the Minister has had an opportunity to listen to the debate, he will be open-minded enough, if not to take on board some of our amendments, at least to consider them before Report.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I want to see whether I can be helpful to the Minister on this occasion, because I recognise, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, that the Government have realised that there is an issue here: if Transport for London is to have a controlling input into rail services outside Greater London, how does one deal with democratic accountability? Therefore, the Government have alerted themselves to the issue and have decided to try to resolve it.

I want to make two points to the Minister about the representation—the two or four members—on which he may care to reflect before Report. In doing so, again, if you will allow me, Mr. Amess, I will use the amendments, because I want to make some technical points and would not want to come back in a stand part debate, even if you were to allow us to do so.

I realised before Christmas, when I looked at my two amendments, that had I been thinking as clearly as I should have been I would probably have tabled two different amendments. Therefore, like the Government, I was aware of the problem, but was not sure whether I had the right solution to it. I hope that the Government will approach their Bill in the same way.

The Government say that there should be two members, while my hon. Friend has advanced an argument that there should be more. I agree with him, but that is not the point that I want to pursue now.

In line 7 on page 16 the Bill says that the two members must ''represent the interests of'' and it goes on to say who. I think that that is wrong. I believe that the two members should represent people, not the interests of people. In other words, they should be elected by people living outside London. At present it is open to the Mayor to say to two people living in the constituency of my hon. Friend, ''I am appointing you to represent the interests of people in Spelthorne'' or Hertfordshire or somewhere else, and I am sure that that is not what the Minister intends. I am sure that he wants those of us outside to have a direct voice from people whom we choose and not from people who have come from somewhere else and are somehow given guardianship of our interests. That is not democratic; to be honest, it is mildly patronising.

The other point that concerns me about these two members—or is it four?—is that line 13 says:

''Before making an appointment . . . the Mayor must consult''.

That will not do. Appointment to these two places must be made by the people who have elected those members to represent them on Transport for London. They must not be open to the Mayor's veto; else we have somebody elected by a different group of people for different reasons. People in Greater London vote for the Mayor for their Greater London reasons. They do not vote for a Mayor of London on the basis of what is good for people outside London, nor should they. I have no problem with that. If the two places are there for people to represent people outside Greater London, the decision as to who they are should be in the hands of people from outside Greater London and it should not be for the Mayor to decide after he has consulted. I am entirely with the Minister on the principle that he is trying to achieve, but he has not gone as far as I hoped he would be willing to go to make the democratic accountability crystal clear. I commend those two points to him before Report.

I want to say something about the regional planning body. It was my misfortune to serve on the Committee considering the first part of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, before it came back again and somebody else had another go at it, and I made my views on regional planning policy clear then. Again I accept that certain issues need a regional perspective, if only we could decide what regions are. What I am clear about is that the notion that there is a thing called the south-east region of England is barmy. The idea that my constituents would stand up and sing ''God save the glorious south-east'' as our regional anthem is preposterous. It will not happen, that notion does not exist, and thankfully the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire have put the boot in to save us from having to do it later on—we are eternally grateful to the common sense of the people from up in that part of England who wanted nothing to do with that.

Even if there is a case for co-ordination over a wider area—this goes back to my point about the need for heavy rail—and a need to consult and look for democratic credentials beyond an area, it is a mystery to me what representatives from the Isle of Wight can contribute to the rail interests of my constituents. It is nutty to say that we should ask people from a huge area. Why on earth we should have to consult representatives from Kent to decide what to do west of London is beyond me. The Government have missed the obvious point that the people who should be consulted are those whose railways are going to be brought into Transport for London's area of control. If the wonderful map that the Minister produces indicates that railways from Staines and Shepperton will be included, the right people to consult are the councils representing the interests of those areas, not those representing the interests of Southampton or Portsmouth.

As the area of Transport for London's control is extended, if that is what the Government are going to do, the area from which we have to consult will get bigger. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing special about saying that we will decide now over what area consultation will take place. It will change depending on the nature of Transport for London's responsibilities.

Whether two, four or however many people should be elected from the areas outside London, they should be chosen by the people outside London, not by the Mayor. Whether consultation should be with a council leader or the whole council is a matter for detailed debate, and I am happy to listen to the Minister on the subject. It would probably be obvious because some areas around Greater London are covered by unitary authorities and some are not. In a unitary case it is obvious who to consult. The question of transport responsibilities can be blurred in two-tier areas, but I am sure that there is a definition of a transport authority. The body that should be consulted is the transport authority for the area affected by the change in control of the railways.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Perhaps in view of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I should declare that 30 years ago I co-composed a song called ''The Great Central Line'', which was about the great central railway. Unfortunately, it was not a hit and was not up to the standard of ''Long Train Running'' by the Doobie Brothers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne raised a number of legitimate concerns, which I hope the Minister will answer in summing up this debate. How does he see the clause working, whether it is unamended or amended as we are proposing? The more that I reflect on the clause, the more that I am concerned about its provisions. As my hon. Friend said, the clause states:

''The Mayor must exercise his powers under this paragraph so as to secure that at least two members of Transport for London are able to represent the interests of the persons living, working and studying in areas outside Greater London that are served by railway passenger services''

and so on.

Does the Minister take that to mean that the Mayor should nominate two additional members, or that two existing members should take on extra responsibilities? The latter would appear to be the case, with the Mayor nominating two people who should focus on the interests of those living outside Greater London. The more that members of the Committee think about that, the more I hope that they will see that it is not at all satisfactory. It is rather like someone saying to the Minister, ''In addition to representing the views of the people of Harrow, you should also represent the views of the people of Spelthorne when a certain issue is debated.''

We all know what would happen. We are all here because more people have voted for us than any other candidate in a particular geographical area. If someone is faced with dealing with the interests of those who can vote for them and a body of people that the Mayor of London told them to look after but who cannot vote for them, that person is not going to spend the same amount of time considering the concerns of those people who cannot vote for them anyway, even if they are grateful for what was done.

I would be interested to hear the Minister explain how he envisages the process working effectively to represent those who will be disfranchised, even if we amend the clause. In the meantime, I would like the Committee to reflect on the amendment, which is fair and reasonable. After all, Greater London has four compass points: north, south, east and west. Surely, therefore, it makes sense to have four people representing those areas and looking after their interests.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I have come round to the view that the Conservatives have put forward: this is a rather puzzling set of clauses. I accept the point that has been made that the Bill would allow the Mayor of London to nominate two people already representing other areas inside London to become the tribunes, as it were, for those outside London. If that is a correct reading of the clause, any consultation would be fairly otiose and redundant because we would be talking about a limited number of people to pick from, whom the regional planning bodies may not know much about anyway. There is a need for substantial clarification on where the clauses are leading us.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

This has been a fair and reasonable debate. We must start from the premise that the clause would be necessary if we went down the road of extending TFL's powers beyond the current GLA boundaries. If we did so, there would be a need to get some sort of representative voice from those outside London who would be affected by TFL's control of or influence on services. I think that everyone agrees on that premise.

Wherever one starts from on the question of whether TFL should have its powers extended, if those powers extended beyond GLA boundaries there must be some input of consideration. The only part I do not take to heart much is the last point because when the clause is considered as a whole, it is clear that two out of the 15 referred to must represent people outside London. One can read that in a formal, logical way but, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire will know, legalese and logic are often but passing acquaintances.

I am assured that the clause means that two out of the 15 are there to represent those outside London. That should be seen in the context of a fairly elaborate, prescriptive list in the principal Act—the Greater London Authority Act 1999—of other representations and interests that the Mayor must reflect in the membership.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Is the Minister willing to put on the record that what he just said means that those two people must be directly elected by a principal council outside the Greater London boundary?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

It means nothing of the sort. That is not what I said at all. I simply explained what the role of the two must be. An earlier point seemed to suggest that there could be an interpretation suggesting that of the existing 15, two could be nominally appointed as outwith-GLA members. That is not the case in relation to the entire clause.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Does the Minister accept that we need clarification on the matter? The concern is that one or both of the two members could live in Greater London but be, for example, the principal of a further education college at which most of the students lived outside Greater London. That person would therefore qualify as someone who could represent the interests of those studying outside Greater London. Surely it is imperative that both members have as their main home a property outside Greater London, so that they can take on the representative role that is envisaged.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I take on board the spirit of that point. Herein lie some of our difficulties. I will start at the beginning. The principal Act says clearly that there should be 15 members of the TFL board. In that context, TFL and Ken Livingstone have said to me, ''Of course we recognise that if our boundaries are to be expanded just for this one function there needs to be a voice from outside Greater London, but there is a prescriptive list in the 1999 Act about what sort of representation we should have on the board. Is it possible for those two to be additional to, rather than part of, the 15?'' The Mayor is told in schedule 10.2 of the 1999 Act to ensure that

''the members of Transport for London between them have experience in—

(a) transport (including in particular the impact of transport on business and the environment),

(b) finance and commerce,

(c) national and local government,

(d) the management of organisations, and

(e) the organisations of trades unions''.

That is a flavour of the representations that are supposed to be on the board.

So, the Mayor's side recognises, as I think does everyone here, that if we go down the road of expanding beyond the GLA boundaries, there needs to be a voice for those outside the boundaries. What the Mayor's side is saying—that those two members from outside the GLA should be in addition to the 15 members of the board—is in one sense entirely fair and something that I will reflect on. Given that fair point, I do not think that I can accept that four out of 15 members should represent those beyond the GLA boundaries.

Starkly put, there are 5.9 million bus and 3 million tube journeys in London every weekday, which is what TFL already provides for. Given the area that we are talking about, this proposal might bring in another 500,000 commuters. Notwithstanding the point made about those communities having a voice above and beyond commuter traffic, four out of 14 members of the board, taking the Mayor out of the equation, is probably a bit excessive considering the populations represented by those from outside the GLA boundaries and those in them. So I suspect that, accidentally or otherwise, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster are closer to the Livingstone and TFL line than they would perhaps like to be. However, they make a fair point.

I start from the premise that if we go beyond the GLA boundaries, those outside the boundaries must have some voice. I freely accept that I do not have a monopoly on how to capture that voice. Without being a futurologist, I think I can say clearly that, essentially, those involved would be from the east and the south-east and that we will not be worrying about the south-west or the west or east midlands representatives on TFL. I would be surprised if representatives were not forthcoming from the regional planning bodies who take up many of the transport issues for the two regions. Their representatives are all directly elected county and unitary councillors for their areas. It is a slightly more legitimate form of election than those for South West trains or Southern trains board of directors, if we are talking about a democratic deficit.

There does need to be that voice. We think that having two distinct outer GLA members representing that voice is right. I take on board the concerns about consultation. That needs to be locked down more readily, but not necessarily in the Bill. However, I do not claim a monopoly. I am more than happy to reflect on the numbers and the broad positions to which hon. Members have referred, but if I do not have the answer in clause 17 as it stands, I am absolutely clear, with the greatest respect, that none of the amendments offer me the answer either.

Lawyers usually charge a fortune to say ''without prejudice''. With those words at the top of my imaginary letter to the Committee, I will happily reflect on the real concerns of the Committee, the Mayor and TFL in order to see if we can capture what is necessary—the voice of the regions.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The Minister is saying that there will be two additional members for Transport for London and that they will not necessarily be elected representatives but representative of people in outer London. If that is what he is saying and if that is the thrust of the clause, it ought to be tidied up so that it says so. The problem with wording can easily be addressed. However, by that process are we actually amending the constitution of the GLA or Transport for London? Are there any consequential effects?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The clue is in the opening phrase of the clause, which says:

''Paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c.29) (membership of Transport for London) is amended as follows.''

That should provide the hint that the clause will mean changes to the GLA and TFL. It is not terribly subtle.

The wording does not need tidying up. The hon. Member for Spelthorne knows that on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill I quite readily apologised for the sometimes sticky and opaque legalese. These words, however, say what we intend to do, which is that two members of the TFL board shall reflect the interests and be representative of those outside London. The issue is about the nature of those members—whether they come through regional planning bodies or are separate. It is also about the nature of the appointment—how much the Mayor has to take on board the concerns of those outside London. I have not spoken to him about it, but I would suggest that a list is submitted by whatever region puts forward a suggestion and that the Mayor chooses from it.

The representatives will not be directly elected to the board; the existing members are not. They will not be elected representatives of one form or another. Susan Kramer was given a job on the TFL board when she failed so miserably in the first mayoral elections. No one elected her to the board, and I do not remember her complaining about the legitimacy of her position. The issues are the nature of the voice and the numbers—two or four members out of the existing 15, or, as the Mayor and TFL have suggested to me, two in addition to the 15 prescribed in the 1999 Act.

I must reflect on those elements, because they are genuine concerns. Whether or not one agrees with the caveat that the GLA boundaries should be expanded in the interest of national and commuter rail, we all start from the premise that there is that voice from the regions if TFL's responsibilities go beyond GLA boundaries.

I will reflect on the issue with those weasel words of lawyers ''without prejudice'' at the top of my letter, so that I am not committing myself to anything other than reflection with due diligence on the serious points made in Committee and by others, including TFL and the Mayor. The amendment does not offer a way out of or a solution to the matters under discussion, so I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I always knew that there was a nice man hiding behind the Minister's exterior. I sense a chink of light. I do not think that the plates are shifting, but we are making a little bit of progress, and I am grateful for that. The Minister said that he wanted to reflect on how he could include the voice of the regions, and I am not trying to reopen the debate on regionalism, but I hope that when he does his thinking he will try to find a way to get the voices of the people who are affected heard. In some cases, it might be the whole region; in other cases, it might not be. In any event, it would be churlish of me not to say that I appreciate that little chink of possible change.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The Minister has been uncharacteristically compromising in this debate, which has been worth while and has dealt with several of our concerns. I initially pointed out that the amendments were probing amendments. I entirely appreciate that they were intended to provoke a debate, and I hope that we will have a little more feedback from the Minister on Report.

It seems clear that the common-sense interpretation of clause 17(2) must be that the two members who are appointed to represent the interests of those who live, work or study outside central London would themselves fit into that category and live, work or study, in any permutation of those three things, outside central London. I hope that when the time comes, in so far as the Minister comes back to us without any major amendments to the clause, the Mayor of London will have had an opportunity to read some of the debate. Given the concerns of those outside London, perhaps he will ensure that more than two members ordinarily resident outside Greater London are appointed to take on this important representative role.

This has been a worthwhile debate, and I thank the Minister for his understanding and his summing up. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - The Rail Passengers' Council

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 17, line 39, leave out 'Ministers' and insert 'Parliament'.

The purpose of the amendment is to tease out from the Minister the justification for the words used in the Bill. What is wrong with widening the process? The amendment would allow far wider consultation as to who the council members should be, and yet the party or coalition of parties that form the Administration in the Parliament would still have the final say on who was appointed.

The amendment also mirrors the wording used in the next paragraph. That is an important point. In subsection (2)(c), the Government have deemed that the National Assembly for Wales should appoint a member. My amendment seems fair. It would ensure wider consultation, and it is consistent with the approach in paragraph (c). I hope that the Minister will accept it.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I rise to speak to amendment No. 104.

Sir David Amess (Conservative, Southend West)

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying slightly.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I thank the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire for his amendment and for his explanation as to why he thought that it was appropriate to table it. I challenge in the nicest possible way, however, his claim that it would still allow Scottish Ministers to have the final say on any appointment. My understanding is that in fact the appointment would be made by the Scottish Parliament, not Scottish Ministers. I am not sure how that sits with his comment that the amendment would still allow Ministers in Scotland to have the final say on the appointment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The point that I was making is that the Scottish Parliament is run either by one particular party or by a coalition of parties. If it is the Parliament that makes the decision, the ruling Administration will effectively decide, but that will ensure the widest possible debate and the decision will be taken not in a smoke-filled Cabinet Committee room, but on the Floor of the Parliament.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

If the right hon. Gentleman scans the Scottish press any day of the week he will see that the last thing that one can say in Scotland is that anything is either kept hidden or conducted in a smoke-filled room.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Sadly.

Anne McGuire (Labour, Stirling)

I would not necessarily endorse what my hon. Friend says.

Perhaps I can explain to the Committee the rationale behind the clause and why I would respectfully ask the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire to seek leave to withdraw his amendment. I appreciate that, in tabling the amendment, he is motivated by a desire to create an apparent parity between the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. Currently, the chairman of the Scottish rail passengers committee and, as such, the member of the Rail Passengers Council, is appointed by Scottish Ministers. It is our view that Scottish Ministers should continue to be the appointing body. We have established these policies in consultation with the Scottish Executive and we are satisfied that that is an appropriate function to be given to Scottish Ministers and that it should be continued in that vein. On that aspect alone, we therefore consider that the amendment is perhaps unnecessary.

Having the Scottish Parliament make a public appointment would also be unprecedented, as unlike the National Assembly for Wales and the Greater London Authority, the Scottish Parliament is not established to exercise that type of function. That is to do with the way in which the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament have been established within different legal frameworks.

In addition, this is not an issue of parity between Scotland and Wales. In Wales there is no direct equivalent in law to the Scottish Ministers. The Welsh Assembly Government exercise functions delegated to the First Minister by the National Assembly, but they do not have the same legal status as Scottish Ministers. It is an appropriate function to be given to the Assembly but not to the Scottish Parliament.

Again, I should like to assure the Committee that we have developed the provisions in consultation with our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government and we are satisfied that the power has been given to the correct body. There is a difference in terms of the legal standing and framework under which the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly of Wales operate.

We understand the motivation of the right hon. Gentleman in as much as he wishes to extend the consultation, but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that, in our experience, both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have been diligent in the way that they consult in a great many areas under their responsibility. Given the reassurances about the consultation and the explanation about the different legal frameworks between the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In essence, she was making a case for diversity. As a Conservative, I am not normally against that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 17, line 42, after 'Committee', insert—

'(da) a member of the six English Passenger Transport Authorities, acting jointly;'.

As my hon. Friend the Minister explained, clause 19 represents the current constitutional settlement in this country. It is about how power is arranged and devolved in part. In Scotland, there is a Parliament, and its Ministers will determine who represents the interests of passengers there. In Wales, there is an elected Assembly, so the Assembly will determine the matter. In London, there is the Greater London authority, so it will have that power. For England, the Secretary of State will determine the chair and appoint up to 12 other members.

Although that represents the constitutional arrangement in this country, it does not seem fair or right, and there seems to be no necessity to replicate it in the structure of the Rail Passengers Council. I can see that if a parliamentary draftsman or woman is instructed to draw up the constitution of a new Rail Passengers Council, he or she will look at what the arrangements are and come up with the arrangement that we are discussing. However, I do not think that we have to be so restricted in considering the Bill.

There are six PTAs in England. I have just done a rough, back-of-an-envelope calculation and I think that they represent about one quarter, or probably slightly more, of the population. They are composed of elected councillors. It seems to me that at least one person from those PTAs should be on the RPC to consider the interests of passengers. In many cases, that is why people are elected. I would have no objection if there was more than one such person among the 12, but this is a probing amendment and I should be interested in the Minister's reply as to why the PTAs, which have such an important function in overlooking rail, bus and transport services generally in the great metropolitan areas of this country, should not be represented on the RPC. I think that they should be and I hope that he will consider this small but important amendment.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

For a second or two I imagined that I was transported to the Report stage.

I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment. It has been apparent from the debate as it has evolved that PTAs have special interests and worries and there seems to be no convincing argument as to why they should not have special representation. In fact, why that did not occur to the drafters of the Bill I cannot imagine. I can only assume that there is a London-centric bias when people tidy up legislation.

David Clelland (Labour, Tyne Bridge)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley. He again draws attention to something of a constitutional dilemma, with the devolution process having been stalled to some extent. It is, as he pointed out and as the Bill makes clear, quite easy for the Government to decide on representatives from Scotland, the National Assembly for Wales and from London, because there are bodies to which the Secretary of State can refer. However, that is not the case for the rest of England. I know that my hon. Friend is reflecting on his position on regional government—perhaps he is having a rethink. Regional government would certainly have resolved some of the problems.

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an extremely important point. Outside London, the PTAs represent the huge conurbations and big cities in the rest of the country, and therefore are extremely important players when it comes to transport. I entirely agree that the important role that they play ought to be recognised by appointing their representatives to the RPC.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

However important PTEs are—I concede that they are important, and have been doing so for much of the day—this is a consumer body that represents rail passengers. We have said quite deliberately, and the RPC of old has agreed, that we want to move away from the rigid and frankly not terribly successful model of regional passengers committees to a new, nationally focused commuter and consumer body.

David Clelland (Labour, Tyne Bridge)

The Minister referred to the fact that PTEs were not representative. The amendment refers to passenger transport authorities, which feature elected representatives of the travelling public.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

With respect, that is pedantry in the extreme. Of course, I meant PTAs. In rail passenger terms, which is what this is about, the PTAs cover less than 15 per cent. of all rail passenger journeys. If we were talking about a truly reflective and representative rail passenger body, seven out of 10 members would be from London. It is not simply about reflecting the varying weight and importance of passenger numbers from around the country. As a London MP, I would certainly not advocate that 70 per cent. of the body—the consumer voice for rail passengers—should be from London, which would reflect very mechanistically the importance, in numeric terms if nothing else, of rail passengers.

Clearly, despite what I have said about numbers, rail is important to PTE areas that are governed by elected PTAs, as it is important to the whole country. I know that the RPC is keen to engage with PTEs on the future structure and role of the new RPC. It has already met with Roy Wicks of the PTE group to discuss how the RPC can develop more effective relationships with PTEs and PTAs. I think that the RPC, through Stewart Francis, has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley saying that it does not think that the amendment is desirable. In future, rather with the grain of what we are trying to do—get a more effective consumer body—he wants RPC members chosen for their experience and expertise, rather than their geographic location.

The importance in the context of a previous clause is that, at least in part, that consumer voice should reflect the devolution structures in the new post-SRA rail industry—hence the voice for Scotland, Wales and London,. It is not because London, Scotland or Wales are more important than the PTA areas or the rest of England. The provision reflects the impact of the new structures on consumers and gives them a voice.

I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's wish that the new RPC should represent regional and national concerns. From discussions with Stewart Francis and others, I am convinced that it will. I am pleased that they are talking seriously with Ray Wicks and others from the Passenger Transport Executives Group and I am sure that they will happily meet elected members from PTAs. The RPC must speak to PTAs and PTEs and reflect regional and national issues in order to become the effective body that we wish it to be.

The Newcastle members will be expected to pick up regional issues, including those that concern passengers in the city regions, which largely reflect PTA areas. We also expect members to recognise and represent the full range of rail passenger interests and concerns, irrespective of their regional background. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley will know that the proposals for the internal structure of the new RPC put forward by the chairman provide further assurance that regional issues will be covered, given that each rail franchise area will be covered by RPC front-line staff, who will engage with the full range of regional passenger interests.

It is not necessary or appropriate to take the mechanistic route to ensure that there is at least one representative of the six PTAs on the new RPC. In one sense, the suggestion itself challenges the validity of doing so: without wishing to sound like the hon. Member for Spelthorne, how can a bona fide PTA member from the west midlands adequately reflect the regional concerns of Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester or South or West Yorkshire?

I repeat that the RPC is essentially a consumer body, designed to represent the views, concerns and interests of all rail passengers. Members are not selected simply on a regional basis, as happened with the old rail passenger committees, nor are they selected because of their directly elected political background. To go down that road would change the nature of the beast—we want to achieve a new, effective voice for rail passengers as consumers—before the new process has started.

I will get back in touch with Roy Wicks and Stewart Francis to ensure that there is a dialogue and to give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks in terms of PTAs collectively and individually ensuring that their concerns are heard in the new RPC structures. However, I will resist this incredibly mechanistic response.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Subsection (2)(b) allows a member to be appointed by Scottish Ministers and subsection (2)(c) allows a member to be appointed by the National Assembly for Wales. Is the Minister's understanding that that could be an elected representative on those bodies, and that it need not necessarily be someone who is simply a consumer? Is it a correct reading of the clause that there could be a politician from Scotland and from Wales on the body?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

To be frank, I am not entirely sure, but I hope that I will be enlightened and then I can enlighten the Committee. Judging from the nuances of my reading of the Bill, I hope that that is not the case and that these are not political appointees, certainly not from London. The Bill has left London Transport Users Committee in place because of its unique position in a London context. In the light of what I have just said about PTAs, if, on reflection and with due inspiration, it appears that the Bill allows politicians to take a place on the council, I will resist it. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

On the last point, my hon. Friend is a brave politician in many ways. I know that from the number of times that he has debated the tram system in Greater Manchester with people from Greater Manchester and the north-west. However, he would indeed be brave if he were going to tell Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Assembly whom they should or should not appoint.

This simple amendment has led to a useful debate and may stimulate me to table another amendment on Report. It has several aspects. One is whether, because we have a constitutional arrangement under which there is not a number of separate bodies that represent England, we should assume that the Secretary of State should be responsible for taking all those decisions. My answer to that is that we should not.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Is not the logic of that argument that areas that do not vote for regional government are de facto discriminated against?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I do not particularly want to go down that route and do not wish to encourage the hon. Gentleman. No part of England has voted for or, in my opinion, is likely to vote for elected regional assemblies. We are therefore left with the situation in which either the Secretary of State takes the decision, which is the central point of the clause, which deals with who the English representatives on the Rail Passengers Council should be, or we look to some other mechanism.

I would not defend the view that PTAs are the ideal bodies to do that, although they are bodies with an interest in transport. They are not drawn just from the producer side: like elected representatives in virtually any council or elected body in this country, they represent both the consumer side and also, in some cases, the producer side. Some of our quangos can be over-professionalised and miss out on the common sense and common experience of politicians in other areas. I therefore do not completely accept my hon. Friend's argument that politicians could have nothing whatever to say in the context of a consumer group—that is an extreme argument. However, I can see that they might not be the only people to have a say.

In tabling the amendment, I tried to consider an alternative to the Secretary of State appointing people to the RPC. I accept that there are some arguments against PTAs. One could advance an argument that included county councils as well as the PTAs. All sorts of mechanisms would probably be better than appointment by the Secretary of State and would give better representation. If one accepts that some form of professionalism should be included, that can be provided by the secretariat.

I would not totally dismiss the argument in favour of regionalism. I know that the vast majority of rail journeys in this country take place in the south-east. However, that does not mean that rail journeys to the Yorkshire dales or in the west midlands, even though they represent a tiny percentage of the rail journeys that take place in England, do not need some form of consumer representation. I believe that my hon. Friend accepted that there was no simple linear relationship between the number of passenger journeys and the representation on the council. What I am saying is that every area of England should be considered and represented in some way. There are very poor and inadequate rail services in many parts of England, which is one reason why the people in those areas should be represented.

I shall be happy, as ever, to withdraw the amendment, which has provoked some interesting points. In response to the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who represents the Liberal Democrats, my intention was never to produce something that was symmetric, but to start a debate about how people should be chosen. My view is that they should not be chosen by the Secretary of State. They should not be chosen just on a professional basis: there should be a regional element and even a democratic element in the representation on the Rail Passengers Council.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 17, line 43, at beginning insert

'not fewer than five and.'.

The amendment would set a minimum of five members on the council with a maximum of 12, which would thereby establish a balance over the whole council. We have been concerned about the balance and setting a minimum number of members is normal in many walks of life, including company boards, other quangos and a wide range of organisations.

As it stands, the legislation allows the Secretary of State and the chairman of the council, who is appointed by the Secretary of State, to appoint one or as few as four members, which will skew the balance of the council as a whole and the votes of the representatives of London, Wales and Scotland would count for a lot more if voting took place. I agree that there is no ideal figure, but a minimum figure is desirable. We hope and expect that appointees will be men and women of great experience and considerable independence, who are capable of representing their own areas. Unfortunately, they could be toadies hoping for other quango appointments or superannuated party loyalists. We want the right representation and the wider the representation, the more likely that is. A small council, balanced in the way in which it could be balanced, is not the intention in the Bill and it would not hurt to impose a minimum number as well as a maximum number.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the point of his amendment and I probably agree, although reluctantly, with the spirit of the amendment. However, it is superfluous because the wording that we have chosen merely replicates the wording in the current legislation for membership of the existing council, except that whereas there should be no more than six additional members on the existing council, there should be no more than 12 on the new council. Perfidious as many of them may have been, that has been the case since 1948. As ever, the rather obtuse but none the less logical what-if speculation from the Liberal Democrat Member may prevail, but it has not done so for almost 60 years and, short of anything changing rapidly in the future, I do not think that it will in future. We have expanded the council from no more than six to no more than 12 to reflect the need for it to be as all-embracing as possible, given its consumer focus, and far more readily able to focus beyond simply the regional dimension. We believe that that is about right.

The Secretary of State will not behave like some gauleiter, to use one of the favourite phrases of the hon. Member for Spelthorne, albeit in the context of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. I shall not provoke the hon. Gentleman to use the word, or we shall get jackboots and gauleiter together, which was a rough description of the terminal 5 inspection team, but that is by the by. The Secretary of State will not, rather like some gauleiter, simply say ''We'll have him, her, him, her, him, her,'' in the fashion suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The appointments will be properly constituted through the OCPA process, which is clear and transparent. It is not about—it is tedious even to repeat it—sloppy Mickey Mouse politics such as toady this, toady that, political appointment this, that or the other. The Commissioner for Public Appointments is a formidable woman. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever met her. To suggest that she is a lackey appointed by the Government to appoint toadies to the various bodies is wrong, and demeans all that we seek to do in politics. Such allegations may be useful fourth-form alliterations for the Liberals, but they do not add to the body politic and party political processes. They are not Secretary of State appointments handed down from above; they are OCPA appointments made through a fundamentally transparent process, with all that that entails.

We have lifted the words from the original body of law. There was no difficulty in any way, shape or form, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, under the old RPC and we do not envisage any difficulty arising from having to put a minimum in the Bill. However, not least for some of the reasons suggested by members of the Committee, we accept that, for the OCPA to be an effective consumer voice with as broad a representation of rail passengers as possible, there should be no more than 12 additional members. We are comfortable with that; the RPC, old and new in terms of its national dimensions, is comfortable with that. We believe that that is the way forward, and I ask the Committee to resist the ''what if'' speculation in the amendment or I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I am much relieved to know that gauleiter and patronage are things of the past. It is a great reassurance to all of us.

However, my point was not primarily about the mechanics of making the appointment. I accept that, with new guidelines, there is probably less direct patronage around than ever. The process is more transparent and evident. However, that is not in itself an argument for not putting a minimum in the Bill: a minimum would be a wise precaution.

None the less, the Minister asks me to trust the Government and go with experience. Who am I to argue? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

As we have heard, these are important changes to the structure of passenger representation, and they are not without controversy, particularly among Government Members. Opposition Members hope that the changes will provide robust and effective consumer representation for all rail passengers. We want to see a strongly passenger-focused organisation that champions passengers' needs and, where necessary, embarrasses and harasses Ministers when they are found wanting.

Does the Minister accept that the new organisation will need to be flexible and responsive to passenger needs to bring about national passenger benefits? Does he not only envisage that the new body will help to shape policies that affect passengers but sees its remit, as we do, as a national campaigning and lobbying organisation able to secure improvements in the quality of rail passenger journeys, which will help passengers to obtain better value for money, deal with passenger complaints and possibly even undertake research? Will the Minister confirm that the council will have the power to undertake research, if it wishes to do so, and that the changes brought about by the Bill will not prevent any of the activities that I have mentioned from being pursued? Will the new Rail Passengers Council also be able to publish, if it decides to do so, regular national passenger surveys to inform our future debates? Passengers should always be able to ensure that their voices are being heard, and be reassured that they are at the heart of the decision-making process. Will the Minister confirm that none of the changes made by the Bill will make those aims less possible?

We do not oppose the changes. We want passenger interests to be represented efficiently and the new body to become an effective consumer organisation, providing passengers and indeed Ministers with effective help and sound advice. If the Minister can reassure us that that is his intention, we will support him in keeping the clause in the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments. The Rail Passengers Council must be flexible and responsive. In the broad sweep of everything he said, I would be disappointed if it was not fulfilling those functions, including giving Ministers the proverbial kick that he suggests. If it is to be an effective consumer voice, much of what he described should prevail. As I understand it, none of the changes will prevent the new body developing or continuing in the direction that he suggests. It is in the interests of everyone in this House that there is an effective rail passengers' consumer voice. That is what we are seeking to achieve through this clause and schedule 5, and I am grateful for his support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Rail Passengers' Council Established By S. 19(1)

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

This is a comprehensive schedule. I was going to start by asking the Minister whether he is satisfied that the scope of the schedule is sufficient to prevent any abuse, but as he has approved the drafting of the Bill, I presume that he is content, so my question may be otiose. However, I wish to refer him to a point of interest that I have.

Part 6 of the schedule deals with the regulation of procedure, and paragraph 15(6) refers to the need for the Rail Passengers Council to keep minutes, which we would all expect it to do in any event. What is the position on publishing minutes? In the light of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and to engage the public in a wider debate on what they want from their rail network, does the Minister feel that minutes should be published unless anything contained in them refers to matters mentioned in paragraph 16 of part 6, in which case we accept that there would be a need to maintain confidentiality? Will the Council be encouraged as far as possible to publish its minutes so that it is engaging in a wider dialogue with the public, many of whom may not know what is going on at meetings?

I have another point to raise for my own curiosity. I notice that copies of the minutes are to be sent to the Secretary of State. When that happens in other instances, are the minutes sent in hard copy or does the Department now encourage groups to send them electronically? In this computer age, when a body or organisation has a duty to send a copy of its minutes to the Minister or to his Department, it should be done electronically. Will that be permissible under the wording of the Bill, and does it take place already?

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I have a couple of observations to make on schedule 5. Most of the schedule is procedural and entirely necessary, although one inspects it for hidden traps. There are sections on members and staff, finance, financial procedures, status and supplementary powers and procedure itself. What the schedule is light on is spelling out the exact functions of the body. They are presumed and mentioned in the schedule and also in clause 20, and there is also much talk about the delegation of the functions, but does the RPC simply inherit all the functions as specified in the 1993 Act or can it acquire new ones? Is that the intention of the provision?

The schedule states that the Secretary of State has the power to give out a grant as he may determine. The grant is not related to any specific purpose, and it would be nice to hear what is anticipated and to some extent excluded. The Secretary of State can also direct the RPC to convene sub-committees, but it appears that the council itself has no power to generate its own sub-committees or regional committees if it so wishes. The council and how it develops over time remains in part a creature of the Minister.

A provision for the annual report states that the RPC

''must have regard to the desirability of excluding from the report . . . what would or might seriously and prejudicially affect the interests''

of individuals or a corporate body. If one adds to that the carte blanche definition of confidentiality in paragraph 16(3), and that in paragraph 16(4), where it is again defined as something that is prejudicial to the interests of the individual or corporate body, it would seem—I may have misunderstood it—to hamper unduly what the RPC may produce. Could the RPC, for example, be critical of a TOC or operator of some kind if the operator were to allege that it was detrimental to his commercial interests to have certain data disclosed? If the confidentiality clauses are so restrictive that the annual report is unduly limited, it is a template if not for a toothless body then for a muzzled one. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about the RPC not only securing minutes but providing them to the Secretary of State is an entirely fair one. It has to provide them because it is a non-departmental public body and the Department for Transport is the sponsor Department. It is foreseen that the minutes will be sent electronically. We have gone beyond someone on a bicycle having to wheel round a hard copy for everybody as well. The RPC will continue to operate under a freedom of information regime. The caveats about confidentiality against the body corporate or individual are entirely fair—a stock phrase that is inserted in most Bills these days. I know that it is tempting to run round with a magnifying glass looking for an elephant trap like a junior Sherlock Holmes because the nasty Government are trying to cover up everything, but they are not. The provisions are elements of the new freedom of information regime, stating that in all circumstances there are or will be items of confidentiality that are germane to the RPC on a corporate, individual or other level. Those aside, both the annual report and the minutes of meetings will be put in the public domain.

The powers of the new body will be the existing powers of the RPC under section 76 of the 1993 Act. Those same powers are rolled forward. We are seeking to make the newly configured RPC a better and more effective consumer voice, rather than change the substance of what it does. Schedule 5 is precisely about putting in place the enabling framework for the RPC to do what it does. It does not outline what the RPC's functions are or are likely to be. It is entirely right that it is a skeletal framework of how it will carry out its business rather than going into substantive detail about the functions. In that context I commend schedule 5 in all its glory to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 - Functions retained by London Transport Users' Committee

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I shall not detain the Committee for long. I wanted to put on the record one or two of our concerns. The schedule applies specifically to the London Transport Users Committee. In the previous debate it was made clear—I thank the Minister for that—that that committee already takes on people from outside Greater London. It reflects the importance of Thameslink and other cross-London railway links. In view of the expansion that we have looked at in clauses 15 and 17, what action is being taken to ensure that the composition of the LTUC remains truly representative?

I should also like to touch on the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley. His point in the debate on clause 13 related to the variable quality of franchise holders and the need to ensure proper and effective scrutiny. Paragraph 3 of schedule 6 relates to the duty of the LTUC to investigate the record of franchise operators. Perhaps the Minister will have something to say both about the safeguards to prevent delays in investigating concerns about the record of particular franchise operators and, being even-handed here, to ensure that there are safeguards to prevent vexatious claims, especially in the run-up to franchise renegotiations. I neither wanted to detain the Committee overlong, nor to cover ground that we had already covered in the debate on clause 17.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman makes fair points, which are slightly misplaced. All schedule 6 does is to restore the status quo for the LTUC once the principal legislation from which the LTUC springs—in other words the RPC legislation—disappears. We have got rid of that and must somehow put it back in because we have left the LTUC on its own as an RPC. Much of what the schedule does is simply to restore the status quo.

I will be entirely frank with the hon. Gentleman and the Committee: there are one or two issues where the LTUC thinks that that is not quite the case and is looking to see whether we can get some clarity there. I am fairly convinced that the schedule simply maintains the status quo, but I remain to be advised otherwise. I will happily meet the LTUC again, with or without the hon. Gentleman, if that is how we need to take things forward. It is important that it is a substantive voice.

As the map showed, the TFL land grab—that is purely shorthand for want of a better phrase—will have to go some way until it reaches the current LTUC boundaries. So the point about the LTUC keeping in step with an expanding TFL boundary is fair, but it is not of concern in the immediate future. If the hon. Gentleman knows the LTUC boundaries, he will know that there is some logic to them. When I spoke earlier, I was not suggesting that there was no logic to them, just that it was not necessarily the same logic that would dictate where the GLA boundary for rail services went in the first instance. So I am comfortable that the point about the LTUC keeping in step with the TFL boundary is not a burning issue and that it is not likely to be so in the immediate or mid-term future. The LTUC also raised that matter.

I take the points on board. I have reflected on and addressed them. In substance, schedule 6 simply restores the status quo for the LTUC, after much of what we have done with the old RPCs had taken it off the statute book. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and I commend schedule 6 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 13 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.