Local Transport Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Taylor. On my way to the Committee, I noticed that one of the lifts that serves this floor was out of order. It beggars belief that, on the second day back after a two-week recess, a lift is not working. Can you draw the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities because it could impede the work of this and other Committees? I had to wait six minutes for the other lift. I appreciate that I could have used the stairs, but I did not expect to have to wait that long. It is something that should be looked at.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

That is a fair point. It is not specifically to do with our proceedings; nevertheless it is an important point and will be drawn to the attention of the House authorities for early correction.

I welcome the Committee to the first sitting of our proceedings on the Local Transport Bill. Before we begin, I have a few announcements to make. Members of the Committee may, if they wish, remove their jackets during our proceedings. Will all hon. Members ensure that mobile phones and pagers are turned off or switched to silent mode during our sittings? There is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the room. I remind members of the Committee that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairman, Ann Winterton, do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that might be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee. I ask the Committee first to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper for which debate is limited to half an hour. We shall then proceed to a motion to report written evidence, which I hope will be taken formally.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Ms Rosie Winterton):

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 22nd April) meet—

(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 22nd April;

(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 24th April;

(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 29th April;

(d) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 6th May;

(e) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th May;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 7; Schedule1; Clauses 8 to 41; Schedule 2; Clause 42; Schedule 3; Clauses 43 to 72; Schedule 4; Clauses 73 to 102; Schedule 5; Clauses 103 to 114; Schedule 6; Clauses 115 to 121; Schedule 7; Clauses 122 to 125; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th May.

I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members of the Committee when I say how pleased we are to be sitting under your expert chairmanship, Mr. Taylor, and that of Lady Winterton. The programme motion sets out the times and dates for the Committee to discuss the Local Transport Bill. We propose to meet twice on Tuesdays and Thursdays over three weeks, but not on Thursday 1 May—it being local election day. That gives the Committee a total of 10 sittings spread over five days. I am sure that the usual channels have been in touch about the timings in relation to the Bill and that the programme motion will allow more than sufficient time for full and thorough consideration in Committee. I very much hope that we shall be able to achieve that because the Bill is extremely important.

The Bill is a direct response to points made by local authorities, transport users and operators about the different challenges and circumstances that they face. It follows on from the consultation document that was published in the summer of 2006, after which there was a review that resulted in “Putting Passengers First”, published in December 2006. Following that document, we published a draft Local Transport Bill.

Subsequently, there was public consultation and a thorough process of pre-legislative scrutiny by the Transport Select Committee. I pay particular tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, Gwyneth Dunwoody, who, as usual, did a very good job, supported by some members of this Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley. The Bill was scrutinised in detail and we were therefore able to make some significant improvements before it was introduced to Parliament.

I also pay tribute to the local authorities, transport operators, transport user groups and many other organisations that made vital contributions to the development of the Bill. Many of those groups gave evidence to the Select Committee.

Following discussion in the other place, I believe the Bill now stands in extremely good shape. We made some amendments, particularly on competition law and on the issue of TUPE—the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and 2006—following representations from trade unions. We believe that the changes proposed in the Bill will make a real difference to how public transport is delivered, particularly in regard to buses.

Buses lie at the heart of our public transport system but, frankly, for too long and in too many of our communities, bus patronage has been on a downward trend. Deregulation in the mid-1980s certainly failed to stem that decline. The Bill will give local authorities stronger powers to work with bus operators to deliver the high quality services that the travelling public need and deserve. It will give transport users a stronger voice, by enabling the creation of a statutory bus passenger champion. It will strengthen community transport and make possible more coherent, integrated delivery of transport in many areas of our country.

For that reason, I was surprised that the Opposition voted against the Bill on Second Reading; I am surprised that Conservative councillors throughout the country have not made representations, because the ones I meet believe strongly in the changes that we want to make through the Bill.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

We may as well start early. The Minister talked about Conservative councillors; I have indeed received a number of representations from Conservative councillors up and down the country, who are very concerned that quality contracts will cause a decline in the number of bus services in their area.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I am absolutely fascinated to hear that, because it is certainly not my experience when meeting councillors from all parties—

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. It is acceptable and in order to make brief introductory remarks during the programme motion. There will be plenty of opportunities in the days and weeks that lie ahead for comments such as those the Minister and the spokesman for the official Opposition are making.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that I am sure we shall have a lively debate given the Second Reading comments that were made from both sides of the House. Obviously a fine body of men and women are serving on the Committee. I look forward to all the contributions and hope that the programme motion will allow adequate time for debate; I am sure it will.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

As I said on Second Reading, I am sure the whole Committee will share some unanimity over large parts of the Bill. It will undoubtedly be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and that of Lady Winterton, because I see that the Committee includes a number of hon. Members who served last year on the Crossrail Bill Committee, whose proceedings were completed in an efficient, good-mannered, good-natured and constructive manner. I am sure we will be able to do the same in this case, despite a number of relatively contentious issues.

As the Minister said, the Bill is very different from some of the other Bills that have been introduced in the transport arena over the last few years. The last two or three that we have considered in Committee have been technical Bills, but this one is not. It includes a broad array of topics, ranging from bus services and road pricing to community transport and local transport governance. I was, therefore, grateful that the Minister and her officials gave us the opportunity of a pre-briefing session, and answered a number of questions. We were grateful because that will help the scrutiny of the Committee.

I am also grateful that we were able to negotiate the possibility of the Bill being timetabled for 10 sittings. The Bill is, as the Minister said, an important one. There are large elements of agreement. Even where there is agreement, however, there are issues on which we need to understand the detail of the Government’s thinking. There are also issues of clear contention, and the Minister seemed almost theatrically surprised about some of them. She expressed her surprise several times on Second Reading, which made me wonder what she was auditioning for. None the less we are grateful for the time to explore the issues in Committee.

The only surprise for the Opposition about the timetabling is that we are starting the Bill before 1 May. However, like most of the Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity not to be here on 1 May so that we can go out, to attack or to defend, and help our colleagues in local government in one way or another.

I reinforce the point we made on Second Reading: we support large elements of the Bill, but there are elements that we cannot support. The Minister talked about the decline of bus patronage, which I am sure we will explore in more detail. However, it cannot have escaped her notice that the vast bulk of bus patronage decline happened before deregulation. Deregulation is emphatically not the cause for the decline in bus usage, so re-regulation is not the way to arrest that decline.

The role of the Committee will be to try to improve the Bill. We will try to do so constructively. Effective partnership is clearly the way to successful bus networks, which, as the Minister, her officials and the Committee will have noticed, is the thrust of our amendments in that section. I suspect that it will take up a large amount of our timetable.

I am in clear agreement with the Minister about one more thing. I want to place on record the condolences of the official Opposition to the family of Gwyneth Dunwoody. Her presence or her comments have been writ large over any debate concerning transport in the House over the last few years. Her presence will be felt on the Bill, even though she is not here. We express our sincere condolences to her family.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor, and congratulate you on your appointment.

I begin where the hon. Member for Wimbledon left off. I add my support to the condolences expressed about Gwyneth Dunwoody. Genuinely, many of us feel that she was a hugely important figure in the House. She was associated, more than almost any other MP, with the transport issue. She was independent, while still being loyal to her party. It is a tremendous loss to the House that she is no longer with us. I am very sorry that is the case.

As the Minister knows, we broadly welcome the Bill, which we supported on Second Reading. Although we have differences about particular issues, we shall approach the Committee proceedings constructively. We want to make sure that our concerns, which are not necessarily the same as those of the Conservatives, are properly allocated time. I am sure that they will be. I am content with the allocation of 10 sittings.

I gently ask the Minister that when she berates the Opposition—which she may have good cause to do, for all I know—she is careful to talk about the Conservative Opposition, because I would hate to be associated with some of the policies coming from the Conservative Front Bench, affable though the hon. Member for Wimbledon undoubtedly is. The issues that we want particularly to flag up swing in the opposite direction from the Conservatives, as will become apparent. We want more localised power and will encourage the Government to go further, rather than retracting from their position. Those are all my comments for now. I look forward to the discussion.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I associate myself with the remarks made about your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor, and that of Lady Winterton. I very much associate myself with the remarks made about Gwyneth Dunwoody. As the Minister may remember, I referred to Gwyneth in my speech on Second Reading, saying that I heard she had been ill, and that I wished her a speedy recovery. During the last sitting before the recess, I met her in the Speaker’s Corridor and she announced that she was back in rude health. It was a shock to see that she had had a serious relapse during the recess, and this place is much the poorer for her passing. She was fiercely independent, but we always listened to what she said because she always had a valid point to make. She will be missed in all parts of the House.

I am rather surprised that we are here today. On 17 April, the Leader of the House made it clear—mainly in response to criticisms from the Conservative party, but also following comments made by the Liberal Democrats—that the Government intended to honour the long-established practice of purdah. She gave a commitment that, before 1 May, no announcements would be made that could influence the local elections, either by being of a local nature or by being something that local newspapers could treat as such. However, we are being asked to start our consideration of the Local Transport Bill—never mind not sitting on 1 May, it would have been better if we had not sat until after that date.

I am not happy with the programme motion. That is not due to any lack of time given to debate the measure, although it is arguable that more time should have been given. I just do not think that the motion is necessary at all. In 18 months’ time, when my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon will be sitting on the other side of this room as Transport Minister, I hope that he does not put a programme motion before a similar Committee before it has started its deliberations.

Some years ago, I had the honour of serving as a Whip in the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and Sir John Major. At that stage, it was common practice for a guillotine motion to be used in Committee only when there was a clear attempt to filibuster by the Opposition, and when that filibustering had gone on for several days. We did not need to use a guillotine motion in any of the Committees that I whipped for the Government. Indeed, the last Committee that I whipped was a most enjoyable affair where all aspects of the Bill were agreed by me and the Labour party’s Home Office spokesman. That spokesman was Tony Blair, and he was as good as his word throughout the Committee’s proceedings. Such agreement helps the Committee to focus on those aspects of a Bill that are of concern to the Opposition.

It is important that the Opposition voice on any measure that seeks to change the law is properly heard, and when we have a Conservative Government I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon will not put such motions before Committees. This motion is not necessary and I would like him to oppose it, even though he may have agreed to its content.

The Minister continues to express concern about why the Bill was opposed on Second Reading. Quite simply, many of us do not agree with the concept of road charging. The Liberal Democrats did not want to be associated with some of our policies—

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. Those are matters for debate in the days that lie ahead.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Taylor. Let me say briefly that we would not want to be associated with the Liberal Democrat policy on transport either. As I understand it, the Liberal Democrats complain that the price of petrol is not high enough.

I do not think that the motion is necessary and it would have been much better if we had waited until after 1 May before starting such deliberations. I hope that, under a future Government, such ritual motions will not regularly be put before Committees.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

In relation to an earlier remark, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the out date is set by the House, not by the Committee.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Good morning, Mr. Taylor. I, too, miss Gwyneth already.

I welcome the programme motion and the fact that 10 sittings have been allocated to what is and has been one of the most important issues to my constituents throughout my time in the House, since 1997. I am a veteran of consideration of the Transport Bill in 2000, when the Government attempted to push the boundaries of voluntarism—quite rightly so. We should encourage a voluntary approach within the transport industry. However, at that time, some of us expressed the view that voluntarism has limitations and the Government have shown good sense in developing this Bill, which will address those limitations.

The concepts in the Bill will be welcomed by my constituents and by people across the country. The Bill also looks clearly at consulting people, such as those who use buses. I am in favour of furthering the consultation process, along with other members of the Committee.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I add my welcome to you, Mr. Taylor, and to Lady Winterton when she replaces you in the Chair. I also add my condolences over the death of Gwyneth Dunwoody, the former Member for Crewe and Nantwich. As a member of the Transport Committee, I was often on the receiving end of anti-Liberal Democrat comments from Gwyneth, but I think that everyone who has an interest in transport would say that on transport issues she was always an honourable friend and never an opponent.

I support the Bill. There are significant changes that we would like to be made to improve the Bill, but it is welcome, certainly for one reason, which I shall illustrate with an example. In my Manchester constituency, deregulation has resulted in some services being successful and others not being very successful. Where an operator has challenged the existing operator on a route, specifically the 85 and 86 routes from my constituency into Manchester—

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Order. I have indicated that flexibility is given to the Chairman of a Public Bill Committee to allow Front-Bench spokesmen to make introductory remarks. That is not normally extended to Back Benchers and others. The points that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise, in the detail in which he is raising them, have an appropriate place in the timetable that we shall work to over the next few weeks.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Apologies, Mr. Taylor. I was merely pointing out that removal of service resulted in an increase in price when the competition had gone. I welcome the introduction of the Bill and hope that in Committee we make changes that improve bus services for the general public.

Clause 1

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I was not going to question the clause because much of what is proposed in relation to traffic commissioners is largely uncontroversial. To a great extent, the issues that we have are ones of consultation and detail. However, on re-reading my notes and some of the Bill this morning, it seemed to me that section 32 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 allows the Secretary of State to vary the extent or number of traffic areas. Clause 1 provides for new subsections to be inserted. Those subsections allow that any order made under the clause may include modifications and amendments to enactment, or indeed to allow the effect of full change to traffic areas.

As I understand it, the Government’s intent with clause 1 is to give the Secretary of State powers—or to reinforce the powers—to vary, limit or abolish traffic areas. I want to establish that that will be the effect of the clause. The Bill, we believe wrongly, de-aligns traffic commissioners from traffic areas. I will explore later, in much more detail, why we think that there is some benefit for local people in having traffic commissioners attached to local areas. I accept that, previously, there was the contention that there were not enough resources in local areas, but that does not necessarily undermine the argument that traffic commissioners should be aligned to traffic areas.

Will the Minister clarify whether the clause exists so that, later in the Bill, she can de-align traffic commissioners from traffic areas, or for another reason?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The clause will allow consequential amendments to be made to other legislation affecting England and Wales if future changes are made to the size or number of traffic areas. The UK is divided into eight geographical traffic areas, with a traffic commissioner in charge of each.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the 1981 Act enables the Secretary of State, by order, to alter either the number or the boundaries of those traffic areas. Such an order might need to make consequential amendments to other legislation, but there is no power for it to do so. The clause will give the Secretary of State that power. I should say, however, that power will be needed only if the Government decide to make changes to the current traffic areas.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

That is an important point. Will the Minister say under what circumstances she envisages that power being exercised?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I can envisage that power possibly being exercised. However, we need to look at some of the other proposed changes, such as allowing traffic commissioners to work not necessarily solely in their area, but sometimes in other areas. It has occurred to me recently, for example, that there are eight traffic areas but nine regions. There might be a point at some future time, if there was any kind of review, when that situation would change.

I understand that the traffic commissioner for the west midlands is also traffic commissioner for Wales. Again, it might be that—in the future, depending on some other changes in the Bill—one might want to look at whether having eight areas is appropriate. The clause will simply enable any other changes that might follow on from that to be made; it needs to be looked at in respect of some of the other changes that are being made.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Can the Minister tell the Committee whether any changes are being actively considered at this point by her Department?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

At present, there are no changes proposed for looking at the eight traffic areas. However, that is something that we should retain some flexibility about. As I have said, one issue that occurs to me is the fact that the regional development agencies cover the nine regions and whether that might be more appropriate. I understand that considerations are taken into account when drawing up traffic areas, which I assume are to do with roads, motorways and railways, but there may be some point in the future when it might be appropriate to change that.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I have listened carefully, but there is one thing the Minister has not clarified and I would be grateful if she would do so. I follow her argument about the possible need to modify in the future, but could she clarify whether that would give the current or any future Secretary of State the power to abolish traffic areas?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As the hon. Gentleman said, section 3 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 enables the Secretary of State to alter either the number or boundaries of those areas. That could result in the creation of more traffic areas or fewer, thereby abolishing traffic areas. The point is that there is already flexibility within the system to make those alterations. If that were to happen, there would be consultation about it, but we also need to see the clause in the context of the other changes proposed in the Bill. I hope that clarifies the situation.

Clause 2

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, after ‘For’, insert

‘each traffic area constituted for’.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

‘(za) at least one commissioner;’.

No. 149, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, after ‘appropriate;’, insert

‘but to be no fewer than seven’.

No. 28, in clause 4, page 6, line 33, at end insert—

‘(1A) For each traffic area constituted for the purposes of this Act there shall be at least one deputy traffic commissioner.’.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The first set of amendments, certainly amendments 17 and 18, fall into the probing category. We regard large parts of part 1 of the Bill as uncontroversial. It makes some changes to the current structure of the traffic commissioner network. Traffic commissioners do a good job and, within some constrictions, are generally perceived to be doing decent jobs—in some areas, very well, in others, not so—and any plans that will enhance the work they do has our support. At present there is one traffic commissioner for each of the eight traffic areas—western, north-eastern, north-western, west midlands, Wales, eastern, south-eastern and metropolitan, and Scotland—and the Bill seeks to change that arrangement.

The traffic areas, with the exception of Scotland, while existing in the sense that they are there, will cease to exist to the extent that the Secretary of State can, or will, appoint as many traffic commissioners as she sees fit and then it is up to the senior traffic commissioner, to whom we will come later in the debate, to tell them what to do and where to do it. The proposal does not link, as previously, traffic commissioners with traffic areas and I want to understand the thinking behind it. Most guidance and discussion about traffic commissioners has focused on the new powers they are to be granted under the Bill rather than on the new network of traffic commissioners. I want to hear from the Minister the rationale behind the changes and how, in practice, even if the Secretary of State wanted to appoint more traffic commissioners than there are areas—which in many ways would be a good thing—it would help by not aligning at least one traffic commissioner with an area.

In the opening remarks about consultation and representation, the issue of regional representation was mentioned. At the moment, each traffic area has one traffic commissioner and although that system may be far from ideal—in the north-west, I understand, from Liverpool all the way to Leeds, there is only one traffic commissioner and two staff—it at least ensures that there is some certainty of a dedicated traffic commissioner for a dedicated area. Under the new system, that seems no longer to be the case.

The relationship between a local authority, local passenger groups, the local bus operator and the regional traffic commissioner will be lost. Different traffic commissioners could be appointed by the senior traffic commissioner to deal with different cases in the area at different times, so yet again the benefit of local knowledge and experience would be lost.

The purpose of my amendment is to provide that each of the existing traffic areas will have at least one traffic commissioner. The Secretary of State would retain the flexibility to appoint as many traffic commissioners as she sees fit. Presumably, if I understand the later parts of the Bill, on the guidance of the senior traffic commissioner she can appoint as many traffic commissioners as she wants, but at least one of them should be dedicated to one of the current regions. That process has all sorts of merits that it would be disappointing to lose.

Amendment No. 28 is consequential on amendments Nos. 17 and 18 and needs to be seen in that context. If I understand amendment No. 149, it is about what is appropriate. We need a regional traffic commissioner for regional areas. My only concern about the amendment is that it could leave the Secretary of State too much discretion. The principle of “no fewer than” is correct, but I do not know whether seven is the right number. At least “no fewer than” gives the possibility that a senior traffic commissioner could direct to those areas in England and Wales a dedicated traffic commissioner.

It seems that there is an overriding and overwhelming benefit in the current system. The Bill will provide benefit by allowing the Secretary of State to appoint more traffic commissioners than there are areas, so I hope that the Minister will consider amendment No. 17 in the spirit that it would genuinely enhance local consultation, local representation and the effectiveness of the traffic network.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The thread of our amendments to clause 2 relates to the need for the increased accountability of the traffic commissioner. Amendment No. 149, which I shall explain in a moment, refers particularly to that. It is important to recognise that the Bill generally gives extra powers to traffic commissioners in significant ways. I am already concerned that few people know who the traffic commissioners are out there in the big wide world, and certainly my engagement with traffic commissioners in my constituency—limited though it has been—has not been such as to give me confidence that they have sufficient resources and local accountability to deliver what is asked of them already, let alone what will be asked of them in increasing areas of public importance as the Bill unwinds. As the Minister knows, the Bill will give them powers over bus services that are not currently in force. The issue of accountability is important.

One of the ways in which accountability can be achieved is by the assumption that there will be a specified traffic commissioner for a particular area—a point made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The Minister’s colleague in the House of Lords, Lord Bassam of Brighton, gave an assurance that, for practical purposes, individual commissioners will still be allocated on an administrative basis to individual traffic areas. We would welcome the right hon. Lady repeating that assurance today.

I understand the need for flexibility, so I would not wish the Minister to be hidebound in too constricted a way as to where the areas might be. As a general principle, a traffic commissioner for each specified area must be right. The clause 1 stand part debate is relevant to the point that there may be a case for a rejigging of the areas. Given the reasons stated by the right hon. Lady, there might be a better fit in terms of allocation per region and so on. It makes sense and, indeed, I would encourage her to look down those lines, because if there is an area of responsibility that is coterminous with some other public sector area, that too will increase accountability.

Our amendment No. 149 seeks to ensure that there is no reduction in the number of traffic commissioners, which is also a matter of accountability, because our regional government framework is imperfect in many ways. Much of it is unelected, as indeed are the traffic commissioners, but at least there is some coherence to a regional structure, which people are beginning to understand. That coherence will be lost if there were to be any reduction in the number of traffic commissioners, who would represent even wider areas than at present. The opportunity, therefore, for people to understand the local relationship with a traffic commissioner would be weakened. There is thus a strong case for ensuring that the number of traffic commissioners at least stays where it is, or increases—as in my judgment it should—along the lines stated by the Minister, to take account of the regional variations.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I assume from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks that he accepts the principle behind amendment No. 17, which would deliver the same result as his amendment No. 149.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

It would not deliver quite the same result. I accept that the broad principle, the idea of linking a traffic commissioner to a specific area, is correct. However, I want to give the Minister a little flexibility, not least to increase the number of traffic commissioners. Between us we could have an arrangement that might work—with the two amendments combined.

I have made my point, but the Minister needs to recognise—as I hope she does—the general principle.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I think I understand the hon. Gentleman’s case, but where there are large concentrations of population, such as in the west midlands or Greater Manchester, would it not be sensible to have traffic commissioners based on those larger conurbations, rather than on an artificial region?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

There is an issue running through the Bill about balance in its effects on urban and rural areas. It is easy when designing transport systems and administrative arrangements for transport to construct something that works well for urban areas, where it fits much more easily. Passenger transport executives, for example, fit more easily in urban areas. It is more difficult to factor in rural areas, which, if we are not careful, can be forgotten about. We need to be careful not to construct a system whereby rural areas are further disadvantaged in transport terms than at present. That is my concern about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion.

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is an issue about the accountability of traffic commissioners. If we are to give them even more powers than they already have, we need to make sure that they become known in the public radar and that there is some way of holding them to account. Having a minimum number and some sort of geographical location is a way of achieving that.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I shall start by explaining the thinking behind the clause. It would allow the Secretary of State to appoint as many traffic commissioners in England and Wales as are considered appropriate. By doing so, a pool of commissioners would be created, who could act in all traffic areas. However, as now, a single traffic commissioner would continue to be appointed for the Scottish traffic area. The clause also clarifies the powers that the traffic commissioners in England and Wales would be able to exercise in Scotland, and vice versa.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The Minister mentioned Scotland. Can she give us an unequivocal assurance that there is no intention to devolve more power to the Welsh Assembly under the provision?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Certainly, traffic commissioner functions in Wales are not devolved to the same extent as in Scotland. The Bill does not change that.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister, but I was already aware of what she said in her answer. I am asking whether she will confirm that there are no discussions taking place in her Department with a view to giving the Welsh Assembly more power in that area?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

It is certainly not something that Welsh Ministers have approached us about with regard to making any changes, so consequently we have no plans to do so. That would depend on Welsh Ministers coming forward and asking for a different situation.

During the debate on the previous clause, I said there are eight traffic areas in the UK. Under current legislation, one traffic commissioner must be appointed in each and a traffic commissioner has jurisdiction only in the area to which he or she is appointed. The problem is that that arrangement is very rigid and does not permit commissioners to be deployed flexibly to address fluctuations in work load between traffic areas. Traffic commissioners play an important role in regulating the goods vehicle and bus sectors. That is vital; we want them to exercise all their functions as efficiently as possible.

We are trying to address two issues. The first is work load pressures. It is true that under the Bill traffic commissioners will take on more responsibilities and functions: in certain areas at certain times there may be a greater work load, and we want that flexibility. Secondly, it is important to recognise that there may be areas in which traffic commissioners might specialise. I am thinking of issues such as bus punctuality or the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and the hon. Member for Lewes on the particular needs of urban or rural areas. The changes will allow the flexibility for people to become specialists or experts in particular areas and that will add value when implementing some of the other changes that we want to make.

Norman Baker rose—

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I was going to address his other point, but will do so afterwards.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The Minister mentioned the work load of traffic commissioners. My limited experience on my own patch suggests that they are already under considerable pressure, which is why we need to balance their work load. This measure will put extra pressures on traffic commissioners. Will the Minister tell us what further resources she plans to make available for traffic commissioners across the country—extra staffing and budgets—to deal with the extra responsibilities that she envisages giving them?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

We have made it clear that traffic commissioners will require an administrative support system capable of delivering an improved and much more robust method of, for example, capture and analysis in relation to bus performance data. Broadly, there are two options for paying for an increase in activity within the traffic commissioner system—through either the Department for Transport’s budget or existing or new fees relating to local service registrations.

Both those options bring advantages and disadvantages, but we will be working with stakeholders—the Bus Partnership Forum, for example—to look at detailed proposals for implementing some of those changes. Clause 47, which was inserted into the Bill in another place, would extend the range of fees that could be prescribed in relation to bus service registration. We are not unaware that we may need extra resources, and we will look at that.

I want to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Lewes about ensuring that there is still a relationship with a local area. While we want the new flexibility that I have mentioned, we will ensure that traffic commissioners can continue to use their local knowledge when considering cases. As I have said, the intention is that the existing traffic commissioners will continue to be administratively appointed to their home area. The point is that they will also be able to work in other areas if that is required and if it provides added value.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon would, as he said, require a traffic commissioner and at least one deputy traffic commissioner to be appointed to each of the eight traffic areas. That would revert to what is in existing legislation, under which the commissioner has jurisdiction only in the area to which he or she is appointed. Deputy traffic commissioners can also act only in their own traffic area. That is too rigid and does not permit commissioners or their deputies to be deployed flexibly to address changes in work load. Due to the changes that we want to make—the extra responsibilities—there will be that important new flexibility.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Lewes and for Manchester, Withington would require at least seven commissioners to be appointed in England and Wales, but it is important to point out that, currently, only six people are appointed as commissioners in England and Wales, as a single commissioner acts in both Wales and the west midlands.

The Secretary of State has the responsibility for ensuring that enough traffic commissioners are appointed to fulfil all their statutory obligations. The proposal to pool the commissioners will not change that requirement. The Secretary of State will also continue to be responsible for ensuring that the pool contains enough traffic commissioners to do all the work. The problem with the proposal made by the hon. Member for Lewes is that, regardless of whether there was enough work for everyone to do, which I do not envisage, there would be inflexibility due to always having to have a certain number of traffic commissioners.

I understand the points that Opposition Members have made in trying to probe the thinking behind the clause, but I hope that the reassurances that I have given enable the Committee to reject the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, to try to understand her thinking. Her comments take us some way in understanding, but they do not put across what my amendments or those proposed by the Liberal Democrats would do. They would enhance what is in place.

The Minister talks about work pressure; clearly, there is already work load pressure, and I cited the example of the north-west region. There is going to be greater work load pressure, and as the Minister has just conceded that she does not expect the work load to go down, it is highly likely that the Secretary of State might choose to use the powers to appoint more traffic commissioners.

The Minister also talked about specialisation of function. It is not unknown for people to have not only specialisation of function, but geographic responsibility. A report on any major corporate company would show that that is quite often the case. To take the Minister’s argument, it would be perfectly possible for a traffic commissioner based in the south-west to carry out their function and to specialise on, for instance, bus timings. That is a normal arrangement in the corporate world.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

But that is exactly why we want to change the Bill—traffic commissioners cannot function outside their own areas. A traffic commissioner in the south-west specialising in punctuality can talk about punctuality only in the south-west, not elsewhere, and we want to remove that inflexibility.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Basically, there is no reason why a person in the south-west would have to go to another area, if that is the Minister’s objection. Such a person could give advice or be consulted.

On the intervention from the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, my amendment would overcome his concerns. It would not only give a traffic commissioner to a traffic area, but still allow the Secretary of State the flexibility that the Minister requires. Putting both in the Bill would certainly allow the Secretary of State and the Minister that flexibility, so I must confess that the Minister is failing to convince me in her argument.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Perhaps I can clarify the point. The difficulty is that a commissioner could not determine cases outside their area. The ability to act outside their area is not within their power, which is exactly what we are trying to change. I hope that is helpful.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

It is helpful in a noises-off way. If that is what the Minister really wants, that is how she should have changed the Bill. That is not what she has done. I am not persuaded by the Minister, so I will ask the Committee to consider my amendment and ask my colleagues support it.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, after ‘State’, insert

‘, following consultation with the Senior Traffic Commissioner and such organisations representative of local government as the Secretary of State thinks fit,’.

We have already said that the duty of appointing traffic commissioners lies with the Secretary of State and I do not think anybody is going to dispute the fact that the Secretary of State has the seniority to carry out that task, but it would be no bad thing if, in the interests of local accountability, she were placed under an obligation to consult with the person in charge of the traffic commissioner network, who would ultimately be managing that appointee.

I also think it would be no bad thing if the Secretary of State were to consult local government representatives for the area in which the commissioner might—or, as we now see, might not—be primarily active.

We know from the previous debate that traffic commissioners will not necessarily be attached to local areas, but none the less I do not think that that negates the purpose of the amendment. Consultation with representatives of local government would be valid.

The Secretary of State will need local guidance in ensuring that appropriate resources are allocated to the specific areas that are required when she appoints traffic commissioners. It therefore seems that local authorities are best placed to give at least some guidance as to the transport needs within their boundaries and to provide some assistance to the Secretary of State in ensuring that the correct resources are allocated. The benefit of consultation in the process of appointing traffic commissioners therefore seems to be clear.

A consequential benefit would be linkage between the traffic commissioner and an area to which—if we are to accept the reassurances from the Minister in another place, which we do—such a person will primarily be appointed. The relationship between the traffic commissioner for an area and the local authority would no doubt be stronger if the authority were to have at least some input to the appointment process.

The senior traffic commissioner should also be included in the process. Under the Bill, the senior traffic commissioner is being put on a statutory footing, so his or her involvement in appointing traffic commissioners seems to be essential. He or she will be tasked with managing the appointee, deploying them and assessing which geographical or functional responsibilities they should have. He or she will be the person who looks at the budgetary restrictions in place and knows the number of traffic commissioners that need to be appointed. Therefore, a post-appointment relationship between the traffic commissioner and the senior traffic commissioner is likely to be improved if the senior traffic commissioner has at least some role in that consultation process.

Nothing in the amendment would take away from the power of the Secretary of State to consult any other body. It merely states that two of the bodies should be statutory consultees. Nothing in the amendment would take away from the Secretary of State the fact that the sole power of appointment lies with him or her. It would merely place in the Bill a minor obligation to consult two bodies, which would undoubtedly improve the post-performance arrangements.

As I understand it, a near-identical amendment was discussed in the Grand Committee in the other place. The Minister there said that he agreed with the principle behind it. His argument, as we have heard quite often, was that we do not need the amendment in the Bill because the Secretary of State will naturally consult those people anyway. That may or may not be so, and I am sure that this Secretary of State would consult those people, but there may well be Secretaries of State who choose not to do so. Therefore, there is always a benefit of putting in the Bill things that one intends, or believes, will happen.

While the amendment would not restrict or place a burden on the Secretary of State, it would clarify what the Secretary of State is obliged to do. It would also take away the possibility of mistake and misinterpretation. I hope to hear from the Minister that that Government have considered what the Minister said in the other place and agree with him that the principle behind the amendment is sound and that the Secretary of State—even if this Secretary of State would consult those people—should place a minor obligation on future Secretaries of State in that that this proposal should be in the Bill. It is not controversial, nor does it represent a sizeable or onerous burden on the Secretary of State. However, it seems to me that it would have an extraordinary beneficial impact on the relationship of traffic commissioners with the future senior traffic commissioner and with local traffic areas.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I support the amendment. The traffic commissioners that I mentioned in the previous string of amendments are not particularly accountable to the local areas. Therefore, the idea that there can be some involvement with elected representatives at an earlier stage before an appointment is made is desirable in increasing accountability. I am not suggesting that local authorities should have a say in whether it is person A or person B, but it is important that, before an appointment is made, there is an opportunity for the Secretary of State, or his or her representatives, to discuss with the local authorities in the area the issues arising and therefore the skills set that would be important for any appointee.

To pick up the Minister’s earlier point, there might be an issue with punctuality, so it would be useful to appoint a commissioner with expertise—one who shows promise—in that area. That information can come from a local area more easily than from Whitehall, so the amendment is entirely sensible and I hope the Minister will support it.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the senior traffic commissioner and such representatives of local government as the Secretary of State thinks fit when appointing traffic commissioners. I have listened carefully to Opposition Members, but I do not think the requirement that their amendment would impose would sit well with the independence of traffic commissioners.

It is one of the great strengths of traffic commissioners that they have independence from other stakeholders—Government, local authorities and the bus and lorry industries. The decisions that they reach when exercising their statutory functions are based purely on the circumstances of the individual case, as the law requires, and the Government believe it important, in the light of all the stakeholders who may be involved in the decisions that they take, that their independence be preserved so that they can carry out their functions without being seen to be beholden to any stakeholder.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Does the Minister accept that consultation does not necessarily mean asking local authorities whether they thought someone was suitable for a job? It would be asking local authorities what issues were important in deciding who the appointee should be.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

That is not exactly what the amendment says and it would not be the effect of that amendment. Traffic commissioners are recruited by open competition and assessed purely on their ability to undertake a commissioner’s statutory functions.

To address the point about consulting the senior traffic commissioner, the position is that the administrative senior traffic commissioner is an integral part of the process. For example, earlier this year, during the last recruitment campaign to fill a vacancy for a traffic commissioner in the eastern region and six deputy commissioner vacancies across the country, the senior commissioner was a member of all the sift and final interview panels. He also set and graded a case-study examination that tested each candidate’s ability to produce written decisions on a range of hypothetical cases that mirrored those faced by real commissioners.

The Government believe that that input is vital if the Secretary of State is to select the best candidate for the job, which is why we believe that a hands-on role should continue—not simply consultation, but involvement in the process itself. We believe that it is important that that role continues. A requirement for the Secretary of State to consult only the senior traffic commissioner when making appointments would erode the role that the senior traffic commissioner has. It is not appropriate to provide in legislation a role that is necessary on practical grounds anyway.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

A requirement to consult does not preclude the involvement of the senior traffic commissioner in the appointment process. However, with respect to the Minister, two issues are involved. She is addressing one, but not the other. I agree that it would be inappropriate for local authorities to be involved in the specific appointment process, for the reasons of independence that she gave. However, I and other members of the Committee were talking about a process that should take place much earlier to identify the skills set required by the applicants to enable the appointment panel to choose the most appropriate person.

The Minister does not like the amendment, but will she accept the case for local authority involvement at an earlier stage and for finding a way to incorporate it?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

When the Secretary of State issues guidance on the role of the senior traffic commissioner, it might be right, if appropriate, to consult a range of stakeholders on the general principles of the job that a traffic commissioner should be doing. That is different from what is proposed in the amendment.

The traffic commissioners are quasi-judicial office holders and it is important for them to have that independence in their appointment. That should be done in terms of their ability, and certainly not by saying what would be the preference of particular local authorities. In general terms, a balance will be struck when holding discussions and issuing guidance on the roles of traffic commissioners by consulting a variety of stakeholders. I wish to stress that, because it is important. However, we must not compromise the quasi-judicial function of traffic commissioners and their independence must be quite transparent in that process.

I hope that I have clarified the position and reassured the Committee on the general principles of consultation. However, the amendment is not appropriate and I urge the Committee not to support it.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am scratching my head a bit. The Minister’s logic started off on one track and then jumped to another. The second track seemed to negate the first completely. Nothing in the amendment would undermine the independence of the traffic commissioners. Nothing in the amendment would preclude the senior traffic commissioner from taking part in the process. Nothing in the amendment would do anything other than place a minor obligation on the Secretary of State to consult representatives of local authorities and the senior traffic commissioner.

There has clearly been a move in the Government’s thinking, but the Minister has not explained it. An almost identical amendment was discussed in the other place. If Lord Bassam was minded to accept it and thought the principle behind it sound and good, I am not sure why the Government are moving in such a way as to say that such a proposal is wholly unnecessary.

Despite the fact that this Minister says that the Secretary of State might consult such people, she is not convincing me that there is any reason why the amendment should not be accepted. I am therefore again minded to test the will of the Committee.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 152, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, after ‘State’, insert

‘for a term of three years, subject to reappointment,’.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 151, in clause 3, page 3, line 12, leave out from ‘for’ to ‘but’ in line 13 and insert

‘a term of three years;’.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

We return to the theme of accountability. I encourage the Minister to mention accountability when she answers me. As I understand it, the situation in the Bill and under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 is that traffic commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State for an indefinite period until they retire, resign or, indeed, are dismissed. Being dismissed is a control factor, but rather a nuclear option in dealing with a traffic commissioner who is not performing his or her duties to an acceptable standard. It is, effectively, a lifetime appointment.

The Minister will be aware that the public sector generally—the private sector as well—is moving away from lifetime appointments and more towards fixed-term contracts. There are many advantages to fixed-term contracts, not least that it sharpens the mind of those occupying particular posts if, to be reappointed, they effectively have to reapply for their jobs after a fixed term. The other side of the coin with individuals with lifetime appointments is that sometimes, those consequences are not entirely desirable—I am thinking of Sir John Bourn, if I am allowed to refer to him, who presented the Government and all of us with a difficult problem.

The idea of fixed-term contracts used to be an entirely desirable one. Nothing prevents a traffic commissioner from being reappointed after three years; indeed, it may be entirely appropriate for such a person to be reappointed. I imagine that that would be the normal process. However, if a person is on a fixed-term contract, then at each three-year stage there will be an opportunity to assess that person’s performance. If a person was not up to scratch, that would be an easier way of dealing with the matter than the heavy-handed use of schedule 2 to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the amendments in clause 4 of the Bill on the dismissal of traffic commissioners generally. Amendment No. 151 applies the same argument to senior traffic commissioners.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

What the hon. Gentleman is saying makes a good deal of sense. However, if he were drafting the amendment again, might it not be better for the senior traffic commissioner to have a longer term of office?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

It might well be. I am not fixing a particular time. If we want to debate the merits of three years or five, I am open to argument. What is important is that there be some constraint and control in the interests of public accountability on those individuals, who are delivering increasing amounts of important duties for the public sector, the Government and, indirectly, local authorities. We need to find some way, collectively, to ensure that the traffic commissioners are more accountable than they presently are. The arrangement whereby they are hidden people—unknown to the local area, in shadowy offices no one has heard of, answerable only to the Secretary of State, without proper local authority involvement—is not acceptable. If we are going to give them more powers, we have to find some way of placing on them constraints that increase and enhance accountability. Fixed-term contracts is one way to do that, and I hope that the Minister will look at it sympathetically.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

There are many public offices in our country, and the balance between fixed-term and non-fixed-term appointments is uneven. For instance, there are non-executive directors of NHS trusts on fixed terms, but judges tend to enjoy their office during good behaviour. Even if it is a quasi-judicial function, there could be a case for saying that traffic commissioners could be appointed and remain during good behaviour, or, indeed, for the retention of essential competencies. That is essentially what the Bill leaves us with.

I listened to the hon. Gentleman make the case for a fixed term, and his point about public accountability is strong. We will come later to the grounds for dismissal, but the argument for a fixed-term appointment—nothing in that would preclude reappointment—is interesting. However and as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire pointed out, there is the contentious question of whether three years is the right term. That could involve one year getting into the job, one year doing it, and one year lobbying for reappointment. My concern is the consequential amendment, but having listened to the hon. Member for Lewes, there is a powerful case for a fixed term. I hope that the Minister will accept that, and that the Government will table an amendment on Report that deals with the length of term and perhaps with reappointment, even if they are not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman’s amendment at this stage.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As the hon. Members for Lewes and for Wimbledon said, traffic commissioners are currently appointed by the Secretary of State until retirement. The only exception to that rule is the appointment of a traffic commissioner as the senior traffic commissioner, which is fixed by the Secretary of State for a renewable period, currently 12 months. That should cover the transition to a statutorily appointed senior commissioner under the provisions in clause 3. That post will be for a fixed term as determined by the Secretary of State. The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Lewes would require all traffic commissioners to move from their current position to fixed-term renewable appointments of three years’ duration.

The Government and, I believe, the industries and stakeholders whom they serve hold commissioners in high regard. However, it is true that time has moved on since traffic commissioners were first appointed 77 years ago—obviously not the existing ones—and in preparing the Bill I looked closely at the issue of moving to fixed-term appointments, but I felt that it was not appropriate in these circumstances. The hon. Member for Wimbledon highlighted some of the issues associated with fixed-term three-year appointments that might be applicable in this case.

I also felt that there was a strong case, which I discussed with traffic commissioners to gauge their views, for saying that a build-up of experience, particularly on the quasi-judicial side, is important in maintaining a good system for the service that traffic commissioners deliver. That is why in other parts of the Bill there are clauses, particularly clause 4, to clarify the terms under which commissioners who are systematically underperforming can be dismissed. I accept that parliamentarians and the public want to know that if there are problems with particular commissioners, there are relevant powers to ensure that such people can be dismissed.

In addition, under provisions in clause 3 the senior traffic commissioner will have the power to issue directions and guidance to other commissioners about the exercising of their functions. At the moment, that has to be done by consensus. The senior traffic commissioner will have greater powers to do this, which will improve accountability and consistency of decision making. I have tried to get the balance right between ensuring that we have independence and experience, and ensuring that there is accountability and the ability to dismiss those who are not performing well.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Will the Minister tell the Committee how many traffic commissioners have been dismissed in the last 77 years?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman added “the last 77 years” because that makes it easy for me to say that I do not know how many have been dismissed in the last 77 years. I suggest that we might narrow down the matter, unless he really wants to know about the last 77 years.

Important issues are at stake here. I take into account the points that have been made about ensuring that the system functions well, and about dismissal if a commissioner is underperforming, but I have tried to strike the balance between a fixed-term appointment and the ability to build up independence and expertise.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will the Minister clarify the position so far as the senior traffic commissioner is concerned? Is she saying that the senior traffic commissioner is on a fixed-term contract of one year and that if that contract is not renewed, they are then unemployed, or do they default back to being a general traffic commissioner?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

First, the transition is allowed for in the Bill, and it is a fixed 12-month period. The actual period of the fixed term from then on has yet to be determined by the Secretary of State and will be decided after consultation. If a fixed-term period comes to an end, the senior traffic commissioner will revert to being an ordinary traffic commissioner, as is the case at the moment.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

I understand what the Minister is saying, but given what she has already said about the Government’s intention regarding traffic commissioners who have specialisms and knowledge of particular subjects within the field of transport policy, and given that transport policy moves on and the specialism requirements may change, would it not be sensible for the Secretary of State to retain the opportunity at the end of a fixed-term contract to replace a traffic commissioner with a different commissioner who has another specialism?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

That goes slightly against the points that were being made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon about traffic commissioners having to be tied to a particular region. The point that I made in response was that it is important to look at whether there are issues associated with specialism. The Bill would not prevent more traffic commissioners from being appointed in specialist areas if that were appropriate; that is exactly the point about the flexibility of the Bill. As I said, I did think very carefully about this and decided that, on balance, it was better to have a robust system of monitoring and reviewing the performance of individual commissioners than a system in which people are on very short term contracts. I did not consider that the right approach in these circumstances.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I ask the Minister to think again. She has been honest enough to say she regarded this as an “on balance” judgment. All we want is a little more from her—to say that between now and consideration on Report she will reflect on the issue again. I do not know what attitude my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon would take about that, but I hope that we would not then push the proposal to a vote. It is an important issue and the Minister will know that, under employment law, there is a world of difference between mounting a campaign to get rid of someone who is useless in the job and simply not renewing their contract.

The threshold one has to achieve to get rid of someone who is mediocre and second rate is quite high. The process often leads to claims for unfair dismissal if the person is being disposed of in a shorter period than stated in their contract. If their contract is indefinite one has to go through that process to get rid of them if they are under retirement age, whereas if the Minister were willing to move to fixed-term contracts, it would be far easier for a Secretary of State to say “This man has not been outrageously bad, but he is second rate, mediocre and not a good traffic commissioner: I do not think I will reappoint him”. There would then be no question of public money having to be used to fight a case of unfair dismissal. It seems to me that the case for a fixed term contract is overwhelming, and I hope that the Minister will think again.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I simply want to add that I think we should we should base our discussions on how to create a good system, with people building up expertise over a long period of time, rather than on the best way to get rid of people, which is the thinking in the Opposition amendment. That is the wrong way to approach the matter, so I ask the Committee not to support the amendments.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, because we are making a sensible point. All she had to do was accept that there was a case, agree to reflect on it and see whether better wording could be offered on Report. If she wants to argue that a period of five or 10 years is better than one of three years, that is fine. Unfortunately, however, she is not arguing that case; she said that the amendment is about trying to get rid of people who are not very good. It is partly about that, but it is also about ensuring that the expertise of traffic commissioners is of the highest possible standard. That is how I put it, and as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire rightly says, the reality is that if someone is mediocre, they may be in a position where they cannot be dismissed under the “nuclear option” in the Bill, but they are nevertheless occupying an important and unique role in their area, and what they do affects hundreds of thousands of people.

In those circumstances, we need a different rule for such people, particularly as they are not elected. Let us face it, we in this place are held to account; we are on fixed terms and can be dismissed by our electorates when the election comes around. The commissioners cannot be dismissed. The Minister talks about them as being quasi-judicial. She is right, but that makes it even more important that they are appointed on fixed terms.

The Minister said that traffic commissioners should be exempt from improper influence from local authorities and so on, and I accept that on a day-to-day basis. However, when people are in independent positions, as in the case of Sir John Bourn—I am sorry to pick on him again—particularly if they have been protected from involvement with democratic politicians either locally or nationally because it is important that they should not be subject to influence, where is the accountability for them? There is a tenuous thread back to the Secretary of State with a nuclear option.

We can make a comparison with the European Commission. If Members of the European Parliament are unhappy with the European Commission, the whole lot have to be sacked. That is the nuclear option in those circumstances. Some might think that it is a good idea—indeed, it might be in respect of some Commissioners. However, it would be much more sensible if there was something other than the nuclear option to deal with problems that arise in the European Parliament, rather than such an unwieldy and rather ridiculous all-or-nothing process. We are being given all or nothing in the Bill.

The Minister says that she does not want to compromise the building-up of expertise. I understand that. It is right to encourage the build-up of expertise. As she will have noticed from the previous amendment, I am not against some of the specialisms that she wants to encourage. In reality, there is nothing to stop people being appointed after three or five years, or whatever the period may be. I imagine that the presumption would be that in most cases they would be reappointed, but the provision allows an escape clause, which would not otherwise exist, for an important job. It also concentrates the mind of the post holder on whether they are doing the job to the best of their ability.

I am not advancing such an argument as a general principle, but some post holders might say, “This is a nice job that I’ve got for life. I don’t have to be reappointed by anyone. I am not elected by anybody. Nobody knows who I am and this is how I am going to do my job. It doesn’t matter particularly if the job changes. If the skills set required is altered, I shall just carry on because they can’t get rid of me because those were the terms on which I was appointed.” That is not serving the population of the country or the population of the area to which the traffic commissioner is, by and large, appointed.

It is true that we can get rid of people, but do we want to go through that process with all the angst involved—the negotiations and the unsatisfactory behaviour of the person who is in post—knowing that the intention is to move that person out when he or she would be there for some time? It is much better to have a fixed-term arrangement, which is cleaner, more satisfactory and becoming more the norm. To come back to Sir John Bourn, we recognise the mistake and that post will now be fixed term. The amendment would ensure that we do not make the same mistake in respect of the traffic commissioners.

The Minister has so far rejected the idea of town local areas. She has rejected a number of our suggestions about minimum numbers. She has rejected local government consultation and she now appears to be rejecting fixed-term contracts. We need to know what she will do to improve the accountability of traffic commissioners. We have heard no suggestions so far because they are mainly unaccountable.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

That is exactly what I did explain. I said that we were making changes, particularly in clause 4 and clause 3, to improve the accountability process and to give the senior traffic commissioner the ability to issue directions to other traffic commissioners. At the moment, they have to reach agreement by consensus. The Bill changes that. It also changes the process of monitoring and reviewing performance to address the very points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

With respect to the Minister, she is confusing managerial competence and managerial process with public accountability. Nothing that she has said increases public accountability one iota. It may improve the management of individual traffic commissioners, but it does not improve public accountability. I do not know whether we will have votes on every string of amendments. We seem to be doing so today. I did not start my remarks with the intention of voting on the amendment, but the Minister has driven me to demand a Division.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, leave out from ‘Wales’ to end of line 25.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 28, leave out from ‘Area’ to end of line 31.

No. 22, in clause 3, page 3, line 43, leave out from ‘Wales’ to end of line 44.

No. 23, in clause 3, page 4, line 4, leave out from ‘Wales’ to end of line 6.

No. 24, in clause 3, page 4, line 13, leave out from ‘out’ to ‘as’ in line 15 and insert

‘such of the functions of traffic commissioner for the Scottish Traffic Area’.

No. 25, in clause 3, page 4, line 19, leave out ‘England and Wales’ and insert ‘Scotland’.

No. 29, in clause 4, page 6, line 36, leave out from ‘Wales’ to end of line 39.

No. 30, in clause 4, page 7, line 4, leave out from ‘Wales’ to end of line 5.

No. 31, in clause 4, page 7, line 10, leave out from ‘Wales’ to end of line 11.

No. 32, in clause 4, page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (6).

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Members of the Committee are well aware that one of the effects of devolution has been to complicate a number of arrangements and existing legislation—some provisions are applicable to England only, some to England and Wales, and some to the whole of the United Kingdom. At times I have difficulty in following what exactly will refer to what. Some of the changes in respect of traffic commissioners seem to be especially complicated and confusing, and the amendments would bring some clarity.

The Secretary of State will now be able to appoint a pool of commissioners to serve England and Wales—in essence, disbanding the previous regional relationship—but there will still be a single commissioner for the Scottish traffic area. Clearly, given my previous logic, I am happy about that. However, as we read further into the Bill—here I am looking for the Minister’s help—the Scottish traffic commissioner will have powers in England and Wales, and the English and Welsh traffic commissioners will have powers in Scotland. Given that there will still be a traffic commissioner specific to Scotland, when does the Minister anticipate those powers being deployed?

I am in favour of granting the Secretary of State the flexibility to ensure the best allocation of resources—that is what my previous amendment did—but why make provision for a single commissioner in Scotland if there is to be such a porous border? Why have a dedicated Scottish commissioner on any given day, but then find them registering a local bus service in Manchester, Lewes or Wimbledon on another day? Why have an English commissioner? The Minister explained why she wants the English traffic commissioner, but there is a whole issue about where England and Wales are and indeed where the whole United Kingdom is. Traffic commissioners should be given adequate resources to carry out their important duties. Why does the Minister want no allocation in one area, yet for allocation to remain in another area? Why has the Minister left Scotland as a discrete area? It argues against all her previous logic. The Minister needs to explain why she wants to go down that road in this part of the Bill, even though she was arguing vociferously against it a few minutes ago.

My amendments Nos. 21 to 25 and 29 to 32 are merely consequential upon amendment No. 20.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The hon. Gentleman’s amendments would prevent the Scottish traffic commissioner and any of that person’s deputies from working on cases involving English and Welsh operators. They would also prevent traffic commissioners in England and Wales, and any deputies, from considering Scottish cases. Again, that would reduce the flexibility of the senior traffic commissioner to deploy traffic commissioners to reflect work pressures in different parts of the country.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am sorry to intervene on the Minister so early, and I am grateful to her for giving way. Why does there need to be a Scottish traffic commissioner at all, if she is taking them away from everywhere else and not dedicating them to a particular area? That seems to go against the whole of her previous argument.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

There needs to be a particular Scottish traffic commissioner because a number of functions are devolved in Scotland. English and Welsh traffic commissioners will have only reserved powers in Scotland. A number of discrete functions can only be carried out by a Scottish commissioner because of the devolution of powers. However, in some cases it may be possible, if necessary because of work load issues, for an English or Welsh traffic commissioner to help out. That could work the other way around where there were work load problems.

The majority of the traffic commissioner’s functions in Scotland—dealing with licence applications, variations and disciplinary matters, for example—are not devolved or even region-specific. In relation to those functions, it would be possible for a Scottish commissioner to work elsewhere and vice versa, if required, giving the flexibility that I explained earlier.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

To be clear, is the Minister saying that the English traffic commissioners who might be operating in Scotland will be legally barred from undertaking particular functions? Or is she saying that it is a matter of good practice because they are not trained to discharge those functions and therefore will not be able to do so? Which one is it?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Certain issues are devolved and therefore only a Scottish commissioner could work on those. Others are not devolved, so it would therefore be possible for any commissioner from England and Wales to carry out that work—it also applies the other way around.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

It is a legal matter.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

It is certainly to do with the devolution of powers so there are certain areas that could be dealt with only by the Scottish commissioner, but in other matters it would be possible for other traffic commissioners to do so. We are trying to achieve a balance by saying, “Yes, there are certain issues that can only be dealt with by a Scottish commissioner, but there are others where it would be possible to have flexibility if required”. This is a probing amendment. I hope that those remarks help to explain our position.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I think that the Minister is saying that, as a result of devolution, there are certain things that only a Scottish traffic commissioner can do and therefore a Scottish traffic commissioner has to be in place. That is probably the thrust of her argument.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Indicated assent.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I see the Minister nodding assent and that therefore explains where I was probing with the amendment. It would be helpful if at some stage the Minister could provide us with a list of those things that it is legally necessary to have done by a Scottish traffic commissioner only. I am grateful for her assurance on that. Much as I have enjoyed the Divisions this morning, the Minister has reassured me on this point and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 150, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

‘(3C) The Traffic Commissioners shall jointly publish—

(a) an annual report detailing their activities in the previous financial year, and

(b) information relating to expenses incurred by the Traffic Commissioners in the previous financial year on an annual basis,

no later than three months after the end of the financial year to which the information relates.’.

I return to the theme of accountability. The Minister mentioned accountability in her last answer so we are making progress. Her colleague in another place recognised that there is a need to balance the autonomy of the traffic commissioners on the one hand with public accountability on the other. The amendment is yet another attempt to find a way of doing so.

The amendment would require an annual report to be published jointly by the traffic commissioners detailing their activities in the previous financial year and indicating how much they have spent on expenses. Such a report should be published no later than three months after the end of the financial year to which the information relates.

The concept of an annual report is well established. It has been adopted by the Government in a number of different regards. It seems to be well understood by the public and provides a means of accountability for various Departments and public bodies. Bodies that are not elected and not in the public eye have even more reason to publish an annual report than bodies that are subject to endorsement or otherwise at the ballot box and are regularly in the public spotlight. Traffic commissioners cannot, of course, be elected in that sense—I am not suggesting that they should be as it would be rather difficult if they were—but it is important to understand the work they have done.

As ever-increasing functions are devolved to the traffic commissioners, which increasingly impinge on the activities and lifestyles of individuals—such as how buses operate, for example—it is important to understand how they have undertaken their work for the year. An annual report would be another useful way of measuring what they have done and of contrasting and comparing the work of individual traffic commissioners, thereby setting standards to which others could rise and encouraging better performance by traffic commissioners in a non-threatening way.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that each traffic commissioner should produce an annual report, or that the body of traffic commissioners should produce a report?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The amendment says—I hope that it does—that there should be a joint report produced by the traffic commissioners. I am open-minded about whether there should be one per traffic commissioner, or a joint one. In the interests of not creating bureaucracy, a joint one is a sensible way forward. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the concept.

On the issue of expenses, we have heard a lot about MPs’ expenses, but at least that has been in the public domain. We have had to respond to that as MPs and we now have a process that I hope will lead to improvements in public confidence. The problems with expenses are far worse with other bodies that we have not heard of. For example, the chairman of the South East England Development Agency spent over £50,000 on taxis last year and I am afraid that the instances of excessive expenditure by individuals who are not elected but have access to public moneys is quite worrying. We should find some way of dealing with that.

I undertook a random survey of 23 public bodies to see which published a breakdown of board members’ expenses—only one of the 23 did so. I have no reason to think that traffic commissioners are running up gigantic bills—perhaps they are not— but the great safeguards for the public purse are always openness, transparency and accountability. Amendment No. 150 seeks to enshrine that by requiring an annual report including information relating to expenses.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As the hon. Gentleman has said, this amendment seeks to require the traffic commissioners to publish an annual report on their activities during that year within three months of the end of the financial year and requires them to publish information on their expenses. Under section 55 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, each of the traffic commissioners is already required to submit an annual report of their activities during the past year to the Secretary of State. Although the Government are under no legal obligation to publish them, they have always done so in the interests of transparency. They have been published alongside an overview by the administrative senior traffic commissioner and detailed statistical information on, for example, the number of applications processed. These reports are available for download from the Department for Transport website.

Historically, those annual reports are published approximately a year after initial drafting and, while I accept that there is an inevitable delay in the reports moving to final draft and publication, I agree that the process is unnecessarily lengthy. Therefore, we have included a new power under clause 3 for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the statutory senior traffic commissioner and I hope that I can reassure the Committee by putting on record that it is our intention to use this power, among other things, to tighten the framework for drafting and publishing annual reports.

The hon. Gentleman’s talked about the expenses of traffic commissioners. It is important that the activities of the traffic commissioners are as open and accountable as possible—I hope it will reassure the Committee to know that we want the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance under clause 3—and that should be considered along with other budgetary data to be consulted upon at the time of publication. We would like to consider the issue when we consult on the kind of data that should be included in this guidance—whether it is personal expenses or other budgetary data—but we do not want to put it in primary legislation. We want to consult properly on all types of information that might be published during that time. When we are considering those issues, I hope that the Committee will accept that it is right to have a full public consultation on the matter. I can reassure the Committee that we will return to those issues when we publish the guidance.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am a little bit disappointed and puzzled by that response. Here we have a Government who are committed to openness and who introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Prime Minister has said that those in public life should be transparent with their expenses, and yet the Minister has given us the pledge that they will consider consulting on these matters. I find it difficult to understand why she cannot accept the principle and say, “Yes, we will publish those items. We will consult on the precise scope, but the actual publication is not something that we will consult on because we will do it.” If that is what she meant to say, I am happy to give way to her. As I understand it, she is going to consult on whether or not the information should be released. I have to say that I do not think that that is good enough. The details should be published. Of course, one must have discussions about how it is done and what the scope is, but I would have thought that she could have given a pledge on the principle to the Committee today. She has failed to do that, and because of that I am minded to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Lewes.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Hon. Members are often criticised for deciding the minute detail of what we intend to do before any consultation. I can assure the Committee that we will be consulting on these issues. It is important that we maintain the principle that when we set the parameters of guidance and give a commitment that we will be consulting on it, we stick to it. If we end up going through every single bit of the guidance and removing any right of public consultation, we are not fulfilling our principles.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Will the Minister give way?

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

Has the Minister concluded?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Yes.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I was trying to be helpful, but the Minister had already sat down. What a shame. There is nothing wrong with consultation. If it is carried out genuinely, it is a useful process. I tend to support the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire when he says that the consultation here should be about the how rather than the whether.

Another principle that the Minister has not elucidated on entirely is that of accountability of public finances. There is an absolute duty on those who have access to the public cheque book and on those who can write cheques, not just in their job but for themselves, to ensure that such moneys are publicly recorded and accounted for. I hope that the Minister will accept that principle—it is not one that can be negated by consultation. Does she accept the principle that when people have access to public money, particularly when they can spend it to their own benefit, it must be open and transparent? There is another principle, one of consultation, which I hope that the Minister accepts. If she says that she does—I am looking to see whether she nods, as opposed to nodding off—that would be very welcome. [Interruption.] She has neither nodded nor nodded off, so I am no further forward.

The Minister talks about tightening the framework and that is useful. She has hinted that a time scale of 12 months for the production of reports is too long, so I assume she agrees that it should be reduced. I hope she also agrees that we need a more user-friendly report than has been the case hitherto. It ought to be given greater prominence, and as the role of the traffic commissioners is increased, so too should be the prominence of their reports in the public domain. For example, one report per year could be provided as a written ministerial statement from the Secretary of State for Transport, so that people were aware that the report had been published. It is not a great burden on the Secretary of State, but it requires a ministerial statement to say, “Here it is.” At the moment, things are put on the website but that depends on whether someone can find the website and is looking in the right place; it is not a sufficient way of making the information public. I am in some doubt as to whether to push the point, but I think I will not because the Minister has sort of been helpful.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

If it helps the hon. Gentleman in his deliberations, let me say that of course I accept the principle that he mentioned about publishing details where public funds are concerned—we will consult on the detail of the publication, including other budgetary issues on which we will consult. That is important.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am grateful because that response allows me to withdraw the amendment. I do not wish to be churlish, but there are other amendments where the Minister has been much more unreasonable than on this one. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 3

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in clause 3, page 5, line 33, at end insert—

‘(g) the Public Transport Users’ Committee and such organisations representative of passengers as the senior traffic commissioner sees fit;’.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 147, in clause 3, page 5, line 33, at end insert—

‘(g) organisations appearing to the authority to be representative of users of local transport;’.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

There is a final point on clause 2 that I had hoped that we would reach, but perhaps I will be able to weave it in later on.

Amendment No. 26 returns to the subject of proper consultation. The clause deals with the remit of the new statutory traffic commissioner and particularly with his powers to give guidance or directions. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 4C to the 1981 Act provides that the senior traffic commissioner must consult the Secretary of State, Scottish and Welsh Ministers, other traffic commissioners, local government and other operators, when issuing guidance. All of that is right. The requirement to consult local government was introduced in a Government amendment tabled on Report in another place, and from what we have heard this morning, we clearly welcome that. However, there is one obvious group of people missing from the list of consultees—the passengers. The Bill could establish a statutory body to represent passengers and the solution is before our eyes. Assisting the statutory new senior traffic commissioner would surely be one of the tasks for the new passenger watchdog so it should be one of the consultees.

Quite often it is argued that the Government will be consulting far and wide before any guidance is issued, and that there is no need to decide precisely on the face of the Bill who must be consulted. I understand the logic of that argument although in almost all cases I disagree with it, but in this case the Government have seen fit to write into the Bill a relatively lengthy list of required consultees. If the Government have decided to prescribe exactly who must be consulted yet there is no mention of passengers, that is a glaring oversight, despite the fact that we will soon have a passenger representative body.

I hope that the Minister will see that in this argument I am trying to be even more helpful than usual. If, as she said earlier, it is the intention of the Bill to improve bus patronage and the lot of passengers and there is an extensive list of consultees, surely passengers should be on that list. I look forward to the Minister either providing reassurance or, I hope, accepting our sensible amendment.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

As the Committee heard in my opening remarks on the programme motion, I am strongly in favour of passengers being consulted about matters that are so important to them. It is good that across the country, as in my own constituency of Eccles, groups have formed with a particular interest in transport matters. In my constituency there are active transport users groups in the Swinton, Eccles and Irlam areas. They are my main source of information outside the House of Commons and they help me as a local politician better to understand the issues that affect my constituents. I am thus fully in favour of anything that furthers the consultative process to take into consideration the concerns, interests and views of such transport users groups. I welcome the amendment and any other amendments that will enhance the Bill in relation to proper consultation with passengers and users groups.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I welcome that contribution from the hon. Gentleman. The Minister was telling us how fond she is of consultation. Here is an opportunity for her to live up to that immediately on the amendment we are discussing. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Wimbledon and I have come up with two amendments, entirely without collusion, which point in exactly the same direction, identifying the same omission from the Bill. [Interruption.] We do not always get on very well, but the fact that we have both alighted on what is a glaring omission tends to suggest that perhaps there is a case that ought to be taken forward. The hon. Member for Eccles has also hinted at the need to consult passenger groups, for which I am grateful.

The Minister will say, perhaps, that we would make exhaustive lists of consultees. That is the normal defence that the Government bring forward when we try to include particular people whom we think ought to be consulted, but in reality she is hoist by her own petard because she has already made an exhaustive list in the clause. If she had stopped at paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)—Scottish and Welsh Ministers—one might understand it, but she has actually gone further by adding traffic commissioners and transport operators and, under pressure from the Lords, paragraph (e) relating to local government. That still omits passengers. Had the Minister not specified bus operators and local government one might have thought that there was a case for not including bus passengers, but as she has included those groups it seems difficult to justify the omission of passengers at this stage. It would be better to mention no one rather than to have a skewed list.

Can we rely on the statutory consultees always to represent the views of passengers? No, we cannot. The interests of bus operators are predominantly about making money and it does not necessarily follow that a good service to the public makes them the most money. Does it follow that local government or integrated transport authorities will want to help passengers? One would hope so, but perhaps with budget constraints that would not necessarily be the case. In fact, those bodies are not at the sharp end. They sit in committee rooms making decisions, as we are today, without travelling on buses and understanding the problems at the sharp end. Can we rely on traffic commissioners or Ministers? No, we cannot.

There is a need for bus passengers themselves to be represented in some shape or form. I am afraid that they are not represented, and that is an omission. I hope that the Minister will be honest enough to accept that point and adopt one of the two amendments or table one of her own formulation on Report.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The amendments would require the senior traffic commissioner to consult representatives of passenger bodies before giving directions and guidance to other traffic commissioners, but the provisions in clause 3 on the powers of the senior commissioner to give guidance and directions already include a requirement whereby he or she can consult such other persons—for example, passenger bodies—as he or she sees fit before giving such directions and guidance.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Will the Minister give way?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

May I continue? “Such other persons” could include bodies that represent passengers, as appropriate. The proposed amendments seem to require the senior commissioner to consult with such groups in every case. We believe that would impose an unacceptable burden.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Will the Minister give way?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I would like to continue for a bit.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

My intervention is on that particular point.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I give way.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I have not made such a restriction. My amendment refers to

“the Public Transport Users’ Committee and such organisations representative of passengers as the senior traffic commissioner sees fit”.

The senior traffic commissioner could actually see fit not to consult such people. The amendment would not do what the Minister says it would do.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

We certainly believe that the amendment would impose an unacceptable burden. Furthermore, we do not believe that such consultation would be appropriate in every case, particularly on direction and guidance that affect only the goods vehicle industry.

I have listened to the points that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles referred to the fact that there are active groups in our constituencies—we all know that—and in parts of the Bill we are trying to reinforce them with the bus passenger champion. My hon. Friend made an important point about what we know happens in our own constituencies.

I accept that there may be value in including representatives of passenger groups in the list of named bodies. In particular, it could provide further useful clarification of the general purpose of consultation under the clause, and require the senior traffic commissioner to consider things on a case-by-case basis. The important thing is which organisations it might be appropriate to consult. I want to look at that flexibility.

At present, I am not sure whether the wording of either amendment is quite right. However, I am prepared to consider whether we might be able to table an amendment along similar lines, perhaps on Report, which takes on board the points that have been made today. I hope that, for a change, that commitment will be enough to persuade hon. Members not to press the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

It is not “for a change”, because we did not receive such a commitment on other amendments. If the Minister is offering that commitment, I certainly shall not press the amendment.

I am delighted to hear that the Minister thinks there may be some merit in the principle, if not the exact wording, of the proposal and I accept that she may want to draft it more tightly in terms of who the senior traffic commissioner sees fit on a case-by-case basis. Her commitment to bring the principle back on Report is very welcome and with that reassurance, Mr Taylor, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 3, page 5, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert—

‘4D Guidance to senior traffic commissioner by Secretary of State

(1) The Secretary of State may give the senior traffic commissioner guidance as to the exercise of any of the senior traffic commissioner’s functions.

(2) The senior traffic commissioner must have regard to any guidance given under subsection (1) above.”.’.

David Taylor (Labour, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 27, in clause 3, page 5, line 39, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

This is the first Government amendment. At the moment, the main function of the senior traffic commissioner is to promote consistency among fellow commissioners on the exercise of their statutory functions. However, as I said earlier, the post carries no statutory powers and consistency can be achieved only when there is agreement and consensus with the other commissioners. The clause therefore contains provisions that will put the post of senior traffic commissioner on a statutory footing.

Having statutory powers will mean that the senior traffic commissioner can ensure at all times that there is proper consistency among the traffic commissioners when they exercise their many statutory functions over the eight traffic areas. For example, it will enable the senior traffic commissioner to decide where traffic commissioners should work and what they should do, and also to issue directions and guidance to them on the exercise of their functions.

The power to issue directions extends only to administrative matters such as how applications for licences should be handled and the publishing of information, but it will not include, for example, a power to direct one of the commissioners to make a particular decision about an individual licence application or disciplinary case. That will obviously remain a quasi-judicial matter solely for that commissioner.

As I will emphasise when I respond to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, the independence of the commissioners is fully extended under the clause by enabling the Secretary of State to issue guidance only to the statutory senior commissioner, replacing the existing power to issue general directions to individual commissioners. That might include guidance on what statistical data should be collected on the volume of work undertaken in every traffic area by traffic commissioners each year to enable performance to be properly assessed and any necessary improvements made.

Under that provision, however, only guidance issued on the senior traffic commissioner’s power to issue guidance and directions to the other traffic commissioners will be statutory guidance, carrying with it an obligation for the senior traffic commissioner to have regard to such guidance. That will not preclude the Secretary of State issuing guidance on other matters, but such non-statutory guidance will not have the same status.

The Government did not intend to differentiate in that way and the amendment will rectify the situation to allow the Secretary of State to issue to the senior traffic commissioner statutory guidance on the exercise of any of his functions. I hope that that clarifies the purpose of the amendment and that the Committee will support it.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

One is quite surprised to see this new amendment and I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification, because this might equally well have been effected by deleting the words “under this section” from proposed new section 4C(6). Therefore, the reason why there is a need to introduce a new provision is slightly lost on me. All that the Minister described could equally have been achieved by deleting those three words. None the less, there is a question mark over the proposed new section.

The Minister says she will respond to my amendment, which suggests leaving out subsections (5) and (6). Under the Bill’s original wording, the guidance could relate to the senior traffic commissioner’s functions under proposed new section 4C as amended. The Government amendment will extend that guidance; they think that it now covers all the traffic commissioner’s functions. However there is an argument as to whether that was already in there anyway.

Either way, I am not sure that those subsections are really necessary. As we have been discussing, and as the Minister explained a moment ago, subsection (4) gives the senior traffic commissioner an obligation to consult certain people before issuing guidance to traffic commissioners. Within that list—indeed, at the very top of it—is the Secretary of State.

As the Bill stands, under subsection (6), the Secretary of State is given power to issue guidance to the senior traffic commissioner, but before the traffic commissioner can issue any guidance he has to consult the Secretary of State. There is an element of circular duplication here. What is the point of saying that the Secretary of State may offer guidance if the senior traffic commissioner must consult before any guidance is given? That was already in the Bill, so I am not sure that proposed new subsection (1) is really necessary. Further, I am not sure that those subsections are necessary because the provision is already there.

We are not yet delving into the wider relationship between the senior traffic commissioner and the Secretary of State and how much influence—if we accept the Minister’s arguments on independence—the latter should have over the former. If the post of senior traffic commissioner is to be truly independent and effective, what guidance might the Secretary of State be giving the senior traffic commissioner that might impact on his independence? That is probably a question for the debate on clause stand part, if we get that far. It seems that proposed new subsection (1) is not really necessary, because it is already dealt with.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The Minister’s comments were very reassuring and I am grateful to her for what she said. However, if she does not mind me putting it this way, what she said exceeded her actions, which gives me cause for concern. May I explain what I mean by that?

The clause refers, on page 4 of the Bill, to “guidance” or “general directions” being given, but if we look ahead to clause 4 we see that there is a power to remove a traffic commissioner for misbehaving or being

“unable... or unwilling to perform the functions of traffic commissioner to a standard which the Secretary of State considers satisfactory”.

I can well see a scenario where a Secretary of State would regard a traffic commissioner as having misbehaved if he ignored the guidance.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Under those circumstances, perhaps the Secretary of State would wish that that person was on a fixed-term contract.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am sure that you would not want me to go there, Mr. Taylor, as we have waved that one off, at least for today.

It seems, therefore, that the pledge given to the Committee by the Minister, which is that the guidance will not include the power to direct a traffic commissioner to make a particular decision in a particular case is something that, much like amendment 1, we should have in the Bill. If we are having in the Bill a declaration that the Secretary of State may give guidance and a declaration that the senior traffic commissioner “must have regard” to the guidance given, we should have a statement that such guidance shall not include any direction to a traffic commissioner of how to respond in a particular case or circumstance.

I hope the Minister is willing to reflect on that and perhaps will agree to add the necessary provision on Report. The Bill seems to have the first two conditions—that guidance shall be issued and guidance must be followed—but it does not include a statement that the guidance will not include a direction on a particular case. That leaves us in an unsatisfactory situation.

When a Bill leaves this place and passes into law, if there is a dispute about precisely what we intended, the courts have a habit of looking not at Hansard, but at the words in the statute. They then adjudicate accordingly.

Although the Minister’s pledge to the Committee is welcome because the relevant measure is not in the Bill, decisions might be taken by a court that run contrary to the assurance she has given us. Although I have confidence in her to adhere to the pledges that she gives the House—whether on the Floor of the House or in Committee—what about a successor Minister? What if a future Transport Minister tried to interfere in a particular case? I offer a scenario in which that might happen—if the Scottish Parliament were under the control of a party other than the controlling party in this place. Let us imagine that that Scottish Parliament decided to pursue a transport policy at complete variance to the transport policy of the Secretary of State. It might then be tempting for a Transport Minister to issue guidance to try to bring Scotland back into line, because the Minister’s pledge to us today is not in the Bill.

Under amendment No. 1, if we are to have proposed new subsections (1) and (2), we are reasonably entitled to ask the Minister to give us a subsection (3), which would put her pledge in the Bill.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

I am perplexed by the contrary argument that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. In Bill Committees such as this, I invariably find myself arguing that point from the opposite angle: we all know that it is quite legal to use Hansard in legal cases and doing so shows what was in the Government’s mind at the time. I do not accept the line that he is taking.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As I understand it, where the courts take a particular view about the wording of an Act, they do not look at Hansard. They can look at it if they feel that the wording is ambiguous, but a court may not decide that a certain point is ambiguous. It may say that an Act is silent on the pledge that a Minister gave, and because the Minister did not put the pledge in the Bill the Act is therefore silent and the guidance unfettered.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Again, I think that that is a contrary argument because it places the issue the wrong way round. It is clear from those Members who are from the legal profession and who have served on various Bill Committees on which I have also served that when there is doubt, it is appropriate for the judges to look at Hansard. No brief or silk worth their salt would let something like that go without raising the matter on behalf of their client. Therefore, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s rationale.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Perhaps I can provide some useful clarification. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire raised the issue of guidance and general directions in relation to the point that I was making. His point is about whether the senior traffic commissioner, rather than the Secretary of State, will be able to issue general directions to other traffic commissioners. At the moment, the Secretary of State can issue general directions—that means general directions, not directions about individual cases. However, under the Bill, the power for the Secretary of State to issue general directions will be taken away and replaced with a provision allowing them to issue guidance on general principles—for example, about improving bus punctuality.

The Bill gives the senior traffic commissioner the power to give general directions because at the moment there has to be consensus and agreement with the other traffic commissioners. The Bill gives greater independence to the traffic commissioners because the general directions of the Secretary of State are removed and replaced with guidance. The senior traffic commissioner can then give directions to other traffic commissioners about how, for example, the general guidance on bus punctuality might be achieved. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the position, because the Bill as it stands means that, in a sense, the Secretary of State could issue statutory—

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 27, in clause 3, page 5, line 39, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Thank you, Lady Winterton. It is a great pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship.

Earlier, I was in full flow explaining the difference between the general directions that the Secretary of State currently issues to the senior traffic commissioner and their replacement, the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue in future. Following that, the senior traffic commissioner will be able to issue guidance and general directions to other traffic commissioners. It is all perfectly clear. The idea is to increase the independence of the traffic commissioners as a whole, but also for the senior traffic commissioner to have greater powers to introduce consistency among other traffic commissioners, while at every step of the way not interfering with individual decisions, which will continue to be made on a quasi-judicial basis.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

In essence, my point boils down to whether the Minister can tell the Committee where in the Bill it states that guidance issued by the Secretary of State cannot amount to an instruction in a specific case. If it is in the Bill, my argument falls and I will have nothing more to say about the matter. However, if it is not in the Bill, my point arises because the Minister’s amendment No. 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance and directs that the senior traffic commissioner must have regard to that guidance. It seems entirely reasonable that at the same time we should have a statement that the guidance will be only on the issue she mentioned and not in respect of a specific case.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As I understand it, we have not said that specifically in the Bill. Clearly, general principles would be in the guidance. The Secretary of State could not direct a particular case and say that a commissioner ought to find in a particular way. The guidance is not legally binding—it is guidance.

The type of issue that might be covered could be that bus punctuality should improve. The guidance would look to the traffic commissioners to do that. General guidance to traffic commissioners might be to look at how they can work to improve bus punctuality, but a traffic commissioner would not be breaking the law if he or she did not succeed in improving bus punctuality, because that would obviously be unreasonable. I assure the Committee that the guidance will be about general principles. From the senior traffic commissioner onwards to the other traffic commissioner it would be about how to achieve; for example there could be details about how other traffic commissioners might achieve bus punctuality. The guidance is only about the exercise of the senior traffic commissioner functions, not individual traffic commissioners.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

While we are on the subject, may I explore the meaning of the well-used phrase in legislation, “with regard”? Does it mean that the senior traffic commissioner is simply obliged to read the guidance from the Government and cogitate on it, or that they are obliged to attempt to implement those guidelines?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The traffic commissioner should have regard to the guidance, which means that they should take it into account in the exercise of their duties. What it does not mean, as I have said, is that they would be breaking the law if they did not manage to improve bus punctuality. It comes back to the issue of how to do things such as monitoring performance. The guidance would need to be about the principles relating to how the senior traffic commissioner carries out his functions.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

But if the Minister says to the senior traffic commissioner: “We want you to improve bus punctuality”—to take her example—is the senior traffic commissioner obliged to try to improve bus punctuality or are they free to conclude that there are other issues of more importance that ought to take priority?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Like any guidance in such circumstances, if there were good reasons for divergence from the letter of the guidance in a particular case, the senior traffic commissioner may be able to do so. The idea of guidance is to guide, not to force in unreasonable circumstances. That is why we have tried to make a distinction from the previous situation where there were general directions that could have been more specific. What we want to achieve in the Bill, to assist with the issues of independence, is for the Secretary of State to be able to set parameters for how the senior traffic commissioner should operate, but not to direct them. The senior traffic commissioner would then have greater powers to achieve a consistent approach and to be able to direct the work of other traffic commissioners, which at present can be done only by consent and agreement.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I want to tease a little bit more from the Minister. We have talked about the Secretary of State issuing guidance about improving bus punctuality, which is general guidance. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire might ask whether the intention is that the Secretary of State can say to the senior traffic commissioner: “You must improve bus punctuality in Manchester, Southampton and other places”. Is there to be instruction about a specific point? That is the concern.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I thought the right hon. Gentleman’s concern was that if the traffic commissioner was sitting on a case involving a disciplinary matter, the Secretary of State would somehow direct the traffic commissioner on how to find in the case. That is the point that the right hon. Gentleman made and I confirmed that it was not the case because in those circumstances the traffic commissioner would be sitting in the quasi-judicial capacity that we have talked about. The idea behind issuing guidance to the senior traffic commissioner is that it would generally be what the Secretary of State would like to see the traffic commissioners do in carrying out their duties. I used the example of bus punctuality because I think it is appropriate to the Bill, given the discussions that we will be having on the operation of bus companies. It is not about how to find in individual cases when we are talking about a quasi-judicial function.

Amendment No. 27 would remove the power that the Bill would give the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the senior traffic commissioner about the exercise of his or her functions. Because the whole point of the Bill is to give the Secretary of State power to issue guidance, rather than the general directions that exist at present, I am afraid that we wish the Committee to reject the amendment. The point of the changes is to enable the issuing of guidance and as the proposal remove that provision it rather undermines the purpose of our changes.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Can the Minister give us an idea of the sort of salary that a senior traffic commissioner will receive? How does that compare with the current salary of a basic traffic commissioner? I shall quite understand if she needs to consult about that question.

On the power to give guidance and directions, on page 5, subsection (4) states:

“The senior traffic commissioner must consult each of the following persons before giving any guidance or directions under subsection (1).”

It then lists a number of people who were referred to in our previous debate. Can the Minister confirm that in practice it will be “consult as appropriate”? For example, why would the senior traffic commissioner want to consult Scottish Ministers about an issue or concern that relates only to England? Does the subsection mean that in practice the senior traffic commissioner must consult all those people when it applies to them, or must he consult them even if they have no locus standi in the particular problem?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As I understand it—I will correct this if it is wrong—an ordinary traffic commissioner receives a salary of approximately £90,000 per year, while a senior traffic commissioner receives £100,000. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about consultation, if we refer back to the Bill, it reads “subsection (1) above”. I believe that is because it is about the exercise of the traffic commissioners’ functions under any enactment. The key may be in “enactment”. However, I confess that I would be more than happy to come back with further information about the meaning of enactment. I suspect that it is not about every single decision taken, but that in particular instances relating to an enactment, the commissioner would have to consult with the appropriate people.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Perhaps I can help the Minister. Subsection (5) includes a specific reference to a situation whereby a Scottish traffic commissioner is consulted.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

Although I said that I wanted to take part in the debate on clause 4 stand part, with your permission, Lady Winterton, I think that my comments are more appropriate to clause 3.

As I listened to the debate about senior traffic commissioners and traffic commissioners, their terms and conditions and how long they are appointed for, a number of issues and questions arose, not least whether members of the Committee have ever met a traffic commissioner or senior traffic commissioner. There is a sense in which this debate has taken place—as in one sense it should—in a theoretical vacuum, without really understanding the terms and conditions, what traffic commissioners have done in the past and how they have been appointed. We must remember that if the Bill goes through unamended, it will give traffic commissioners considerably more powers than they have had in the past.

I am worried about some of these things. My experience of traffic commissioners is that some of them have been extremely hostile to local government and that some of them have known more about the regulations of Her Majesty’s services than they have about traffic regulations.

I shall put that into the context of what I am about to say, because at the heart of the Government’s decisions about independence and accountability and whether or not there should be long or short-term contracts for senior traffic commissioners is the real tension between independence and accountability. I think that they are contradictory, and that the hon. Member for Lewes was getting to that point. If a senior traffic commissioner is independent, however one tries to surround that commissioner with regulations and contracts, he is still independent. If, however, the strength of the regulations is such and the period of the contracts is so short that they are very constrained in what they are doing, they are not independent.

My core question for the Government is whether they really mean independent, or whether they mean what a Conservative Minister once said to me when we were asking for lottery money to be applied to the Commonwealth games—it could have applied to anything. She said that what was wanted was for the Government to “breathe” on the lottery funding bodies. I get the impression that these rules and regulations and short-term contracts are about “breathing” on the traffic commissioners. Will all these people be independent? If so, they need long-term contracts, fixed or otherwise, because when I have employed people and wanted to control them—apart from their expertise—I have had them on a very short leash and a very short contract. If one wants them to be genuinely independent and come to independent views, they should either be given long fixed-term contracts, or be made permanent. I would like an answer to that question.

Given my experience of traffic commissioners and their expertise in other areas— not necessarily the problems of transport in Manchester—I would like to know what sort of training and qualifications will be proposed as entrance requirements for what are important positions. I suggest—I am interested in my right hon. Friend’s reaction either now or in the future—that the senior transport commissioner should be subject to interview and interrogation by the Transport Committee. In the Prime Minister’s proposals for constitutional change he listed a number of posts for which people should be interviewed by Select Committees before appointment. The new post of senior transport commissioner is important, and if this Bill is passed as it is, that person will have immense influence over any quality contracts scheme and over the bus network in this country. It seems to me—my right hon. Friend the Minister may not have thought about this—that that is exactly the kind of person who should be subject to interrogation and interview by the appropriate Select Committee. I would be pleased to hear her response on that point.

I may have spoken too harshly about the influence that the Government tend to want over independent people. I know that the Government were badly burned by the actions of the rail regulator after the Hatfield crash, when the rail system effectively came to a halt. The rail regulator, who was independent, was responsible for billions of pounds, but the Government would not necessarily have endorsed the expenditure. The debt now carried by Network Rail is the result of that person’s actions. The Railways Act 2005 abolished that position.

I recast my question. I want to know whether the position of senior traffic commissioner is proposed simply to avoid independence and to keep some sort of control—as I said earlier, either through guidelines or short-term contracts—so that we do not suffer a repetition of that problem, although it would be at a lower level because that sort of money is not now available. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would clarify those points.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

My hon. Friend was in Committee this morning, and that is exactly the point that I made when explaining why we rejected the idea of short-term contracts. Amendment No. 152, tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes, would have introduced a short-term contract, and my hon. Friend may even have voted on it, but the Government’s response was that that is not the right approach. It is important for the traffic commissioner to be able to build up experience, particularly given the quasi-judicial role, and it is important that he should not always need to keep an eye on what might happen a year down the line. To ensure independence, it is important that the commissioner does not feel that his job will be up for renewal every three years; it should be a full-time appointment.

Hon. Members need to bear in mind that we believe that the Secretary of State should issue guidance rather than general directions, which is the position now, because it will improve the independence of the traffic commissioner. We have clarified why we want to change the position.

My hon. Friend asked about the issuing of guidance. It is important that traffic commissioners should be independent when making quasi-judicial decisions. It is important also that they should be accountable for the way in which they use public money and for their overall efficiency in carrying out their duties; and there should be accountability to Parliament, as the Secretary of State can issue guidance on some of the principles of operation. The traffic commissioner’s work will involve decisions about large sums of public money. In future he may also have to make decisions about bus services. It is important to ensure that the Secretary of State has the ability to issue guidance in that way. I would have thought that right hon. and hon. Members would think it rather odd if that were not the case given that the implementation of any Government’s transport policies depend on them being able to consider what guidance they want to put out.

With regard to training and experience, the main criteria is the ability to run a tribunal and have experience or knowledge of road transport law and practice. Those are the main qualifications for a traffic commissioner. I am not sure that I can see the Transport Committee as some kind of interviewing panel for the position of senior traffic commissioner. I do not know whether that would be appropriate if we want to ensure independence. It is a matter for the Select Committee to decide who it invites to give evidence. During the draft Local Transport Bill, I recall the traffic commissioners being summoned before the Transport Committee. I know that the Committee commented on the traffic commissioner proposals, particularly pointing out that it wanted to ensure that there was adequate funding. Therefore, it is up to the Transport Committee to be able to summon whoever it wants as witnesses. I hope that that is helpful.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

Of course the Select Committee can invite anybody it wishes to attend. The point that I was making is that the Prime Minister has suggested that Select Committees should look at important public appointments, and that before a person takes up a post, they should discuss with them their attitude to the job. I was asking my right hon. Friend whether she thought that this important position should be one of those posts in which the applicant is automatically interviewed by the Select Committee.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

If those are general criteria that are decided on a cross-Government basis—I have not seen the detail of those proposals to know exactly who they are thinking about in those circumstances—then they should be taken into consideration. I am sure that we would all like to see more detail of that proposal to assess whether this was an appropriate appointment to bring before the Committee.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I shall be brief because we have gone around the houses on this. The contribution of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley has been extremely helpful in crystallising some of the issues that we have been discussing. He is right to say that they are to some degree a trade-off between independence and accountability. He is also right to draw attention to Tom Winsor and the history of the rail industry. If in doubt, we should come down on the side of accountability because we are talking about public funds and the discharge of important public functions. There is considerable potential for an individual, with or without Government guidance, to behave in a way that is not sympathetic to Government policy, to the local authority in the area that they look after or to the needs of bus passengers and others.

I hope that the Minister will accept that we need to improve accountability procedures. She has already given one or two hints that she might be willing to look at matters such as annual reports and so on. Without over-egging the pudding, it is important that we have some answers. With the best will in the world, the Government want to see bus services improved. They may try to adapt the Transport Act 2000 to bring about those improvements and they will have support from many people in the country and in this House. However, there is a danger that they could be thwarted by the actions of individual traffic commissioners who will be beyond control from the systems put in place by the Government. When the Minister reflects on those matters, I hope that she will consider whether we need further controls. I do not mean day-to-day controls on the traffic commissioners—no one is suggesting that they be micro-managed or that their individual decisions be regulated on a day-to-day basis—but there should be regular checks to ensure that they are doing their job properly and are in line with public policy. I do not think that there are mechanisms for doing so. I have suggested a fixed-term contract as one way to do it. If the Minister does not like that, we must find a different way, but we cannot just allow people to be appointed—I agree with the point about the Select Committee, by the way; it is a useful suggestion—and then run off to do their own thing irrespective of what the public at large need or what local authorities or indeed Ministers want them to do.

Clause 4

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 4, page 7, line 15, at end insert—

‘(7) Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the PPVA 1981 (grounds for dismissal), as amended by this section, shall apply to deputy traffic commissioners.’.

I apologise, Lady Winterton. When I intervened earlier, I failed to welcome you to the Chair. I remember that you chaired the Standing Committee on the Crossrail Bill last year. I enjoyed it immensely, and I am sure that we will enjoy this Committee immensely under your chairmanship as well.

This is a sensible amendment that I am sure the Minister will want to accept. It concerns deputy traffic commissioners, and in particular their dismissal. I genuinely hope that it will not prove controversial, because it appears to me that there is a loose end in the Bill. As things stand, the Secretary of State has the power to appoint traffic commissioners and to dismiss a traffic commissioner who

“(a) has misbehaved; or

(b) is unable, unfit or unwilling to perform the functions of traffic commissioner to a standard which the Secretary of State considers satisfactory”.

I do not think that anyone has a problem with that provision.

The Secretary of State has the power to appoint deputy traffic commissioners, who have a number of set functions. They carry out many if not all the functions of regular traffic commissioners. However, as I read them, the measures and their parent Act contain no provisions for dealing with a deputy traffic commissioner who misbehaves or is unwilling or unable to carry out his duties. If both traffic commissioners and deputy traffic commissioners are appointed by the Secretary of State and have the same functions, and if there are provisions for the dismissal of the former, should there not also be provisions for the dismissal of the latter?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I can see why my hon. Friend might want that point in the Bill, but would not his concerns be covered by proposed new paragraph (3)? It states:

“Appointment as a deputy traffic commissioner for England and Wales shall be upon such terms and conditions, including conditions as to the time to be devoted to the duties of the office, as the Secretary of State may determine.”

It seems that the Secretary of State could quite easily put into the contract identical disciplinary and dismissal provisions to those for full-time commissioners.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I dispute that. It might well be possible, but the proposed new measures contain set conditions for the dismissal of traffic commissioners. As the Bill states the set conditions for appointments, it seems normal to put in an amendment such as mine. As far as I can see, my right hon. Friend’s comment refers to conditions that may apply but would not necessarily do so, whereas my amendment would cover the eventuality and give the Secretary of State the power necessary to dismiss deputy traffic commissioners. I hope that the Minister can either give me some reassurance that I missed the point altogether or accept my amendment.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I would not like to imply that the hon. Gentleman had missed the point altogether, but I hope to give a little clarification that might assist him. The amendment, as he said, would extend to the 17 current deputy traffic commissioners the clearer powers under clause 4 to dismiss poorly performing traffic commissioners. As we discussed earlier, the competence with which traffic commissioners exercise their statutory duties can have a dramatic effect on individual operators. Delays in processing licensing applications or granting variations to existing licences can mean that new businesses cannot start, existing ones cannot expand or that business is lost perhaps with disastrous consequences for the livelihood of operators and their employees.

Currently, as we have discussed, and which will continue under the Bill, a traffic commissioner is appointed until retirement and can be removed from office only by the Secretary of State on the grounds of inability or misbehaviour. As I said earlier, the Government believe that such power is not explicit enough. For example, it does not make clear what inability means. It does not state whether it refers to those who do not have the professional expertise to perform their functions in a competent and proper fashion, whether it means someone who does not work efficiently or someone who is just unwilling to perform their functions to an acceptable standard. The Government believe that the power should encompass all such situations and that all commissioners must have the professional competence to carry out their functions and be properly accountable for ensuring that they do so in as efficient and effective way as possible. That is why we want clearer powers.

However, deputy traffic commissioners work on a part-time and pro rata basis. They are paid only for the work that they do, and they work only at the request of the full-time traffic commissioners usually when they have an enormous amount of work and need helping out with particular cases. Unlike the traffic commissioners, the deputies are appointed on fixed three-year contracts. In the case of poor performance, it is true that the Secretary of State can decide not to renew their contract or that another new deputy could be recruited to the area. It would be possible simply not to use the deputy traffic commissioner if it were felt by the traffic commissioner that they were not competent. That would not be at a cost to the public purse because deputy traffic commissioners are paid only when they work.

Under the other powers in the Bill, the senior traffic commissioner would have the power, for example, to use deputies from other areas to cover short-term needs until, if necessary, a replacement was found. We do not consider it necessary to have within the role of the deputy traffic commissioner the same powers and the same need to go through the dismissal process that applies to a full-time traffic commissioner. That would complicate matters. The position, as it rests at the moment, provides the necessary mechanisms to take appropriate action in respect of poorly performing deputy traffic commissioners. I hope that I have been helpful, have clarified the position and given the hon. Member for Wimbledon the reassurance that I expect he seeks.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The Minister was certainly extremely helpful. It was interesting to learn that deputy traffic commissioners are on a fixed term of office. I certainly understand her point that, given that it is a short three-year term of office, it might just be easier to leave someone on the list who would otherwise fall into the category of unwilling to perform functions to the standard required without going through all the dismissal procedures. I assume that that is what the Government would prefer, rather than taking the power to dismiss them. I assume that the Government are saying that because people are only appointed for such a short period, we do not have to use them. We can have them on the list of deputy traffic commissioners, not renew their contract after three years and not go through the disciplinary procedures that would be associated with getting rid of them. I think that is what the Minister is effectively saying to us. My amendment was offering the Government powers to get rid of people who are incompetent. I understand that exercising such powers may be too difficult.

I have listened to the Minister and am reassured that there are means of, if not getting rid of, at least sidelining deputy traffic commissioners who are not performing their functions. The key is being able to perform to the standards we are all concerned about so, with that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I still have concerns from our earlier debate about the question of guidance issued by the Secretary of State. When one looks at clause 4, a ground for dismissing a commissioner is that that commissioner has misbehaved. Will the Minister give an assurance to this Committee that misbehaviour will never be deemed to have to taken place where a traffic commissioner ignores guidance that, in effect, emanates from the Secretary of State? Unless she is able to give that assurance, it seems to me that the Secretary of State could, by issuing specific guidance, interfere with the quasi-judicial functions of a traffic commissioner.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I understand the point the right hon. Gentleman is making, but I would be more concerned, pursuant to his argument, about subsection 2 (b) which allows a dismissal on the basis that the traffic commissioner has not performed to a standard which the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. That is more of an open goal than misbehaviour.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my journey, which I do not criticise him for. In addition to my concerns over this phrase “has misbehaved”, as the hon. Member for Lewes has rightly said, it may well be that a traffic commissioner feels his duty to a particular area is to make, or not to make, a certain decision and that it could be argued under this clause that he was unwilling—not unable, not unfit, but unwilling—to perform the functions of a traffic commissioner. It goes to the heart of how independent these commissioners will be in practice in the light of the wording of this clause.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

What we need to consider is the fact that traffic commissioners are appointed and employed to carry out a public service on behalf of Government, through Parliament. Whatever Government were in power, if the Secretary of State wished to issue guidance as to how, for example, a senior traffic commissioner should operate their service, Parliament would expect that there should be some appropriate action if somebody wilfully ignored any direction or guidance that was issued through the Secretary of State, because these powers are given in an Act. It is important that we preserve that principle, because many people carry out public service duties and Parliament and the Secretary of State have a role in ensuring they are carried out in line with the will of the Government and of Parliament through particular Acts that are passed. That is an important principle to bear in mind.

I emphasise the fact that the Government hold traffic commissioners in high regard. We would only be talking about going through an entire dismissal process in extreme circumstances, for example, if a traffic commissioner consistently refused to comply with directions issued by the statutory senior traffic commissioner appointed under clause 3, or if there was clear evidence that a commissioner had acted improperly, such as acting for personal gain. I emphasise, however, that if one is talking about an appointment lasting until retirement, as opposed to a fixed-term contract, all of the processes would be open to an individual if they alleged that they were being dismissed for having made a particular decision.

It is quite clear that the Government do not want to use this power to erode the commissioner’s independence. We have come forward with the power because it was felt that there was a decision to be made about going down a line of short, fixed-term contracts. As I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, we did not want to do that because we did not want to erode that independence and perhaps be faced with somebody coming to the end of their three-year contract. How would a person feel in those circumstances? Would their decisions be influenced? One would hope not. My judgment was that it is better to have a normal process of recruitment and dismissal to overcome the feeling that people might be coming to decisions because they are reaching the end of their contract.

The powers that we are taking will extend only to the administrative competence of the commissioner. Their judicial competence, the decisions they make about individual operators, will remain a matter for the existing appeal mechanisms, the transport tribunal and the court of appeal. I emphasise that this goes hand in hand with the belief that not having short, fixed-term contracts is a more appropriate way to ensure traffic commissioners’ independence. However, we want to reflect some of the concerns that have been raised about the fact that it is not possible to take action if an individual consistently refuses to comply with directions issued from the senior traffic commissioner. We have tried to get the balance right and we believe that we have done so, but I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not talking about interference with quasi-judicial decisions.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I would like to reflect on the points she has made; I am not entirely convinced that more does not need to be done, but that can be left for another day and I shall not seek to divide the Committee.

Clause 5

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I want to probe the Minister with a few questions on the clause. Clause 5(1) states:

“Any existing traffic commissioner for a traffic area in England and Wales—

(a) on the relevant commencement, becomes... a traffic commissioner for England and Wales”.

In the explanatory notes it says that traffic commissioners already in post will remain in post on their existing terms and conditions of employment except that they will be subject to revised conditions of dismissal. That is not quite right, is it? Traffic commissioners who were previously attached to traffic areas, on commencement of becoming traffic commissioners for England and Wales, have revised responsibilities.

I would like to know what the Government have anticipated they might do in circumstances where traffic commissioners who were carrying out the functions once attached to those old areas but then potentially look to become a traffic commissioner for the whole of England and Wales, with new, upgraded responsibilities, are not competent to carry out those responsibilities. How will the Government deal with that? I can not see a transitional arrangement anywhere which states what will happens if a traffic commissioner currently in post is not competent to take on the new role. There is quite a big jump, for example, in some of the competencies that we are demanding of traffic commissioners in their new roles, as set out by the Bill.

I would like to be given some reassurance as to what happens to existing traffic commissioners who potentially do not have the skill set and the competency, which is desired from the new definition of a traffic commissioner.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I have another point, which I think I know the answer to, although the danger is that if one thinks knows the answer to something sometimes one does not. I will therefore ask the question in order to clarify the matter because after all, that is what the Minister is paid for.

As I understand it, apart from the changes to the reasons for dismissal, the terms of employment are being carried over for those currently employed. The Minister spoke at the beginning of our deliberations today about possibly varying the number of areas for traffic commissioners. If, in the due course of time, she decided that one particular traffic commissioner ought to be made redundant, would it mean for the purpose of calculating redundancy pay, that his or her whole length of service would count? Or would it be that because of this particular clause they would be deemed only to have just started their work as a traffic commissioner?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

What we are talking in clause 5 are the transitional provisions to go to the new system. The one that particularly comes to mind would be the fact that the senior traffic commissioner would remain in post for 12 months, until a decision is made about who a new traffic commissioner would be and how long that term of contract would be.

With regard to any redundancies that may arise, I would be almost certain that there would be a continuous period of employment. I do not think we would be saying that this is an entirely new position. The employment conditions will remain the same but it is about the exercise of their powers which they will be able to exercise throughout England and Wales, as opposed to just in their particular area as it is at the moment.

As I have indicated before, we expect that most will continue to work in their existing areas but the senior traffic commissioner will have the power to deploy elsewhere. In those circumstances we do not believe that it will look radically different and I would venture to suggest that we do not envisage that the existing traffic commissioners are suddenly going to become hopelessly incompetent. It is more likely that in the future there may be a desire, because of the pooled approach, to recruit other people with particular specialisms—but that is for the future. What we are doing in the Bill is allowing greater flexibility for the traffic commissioners’ work, without in any way trying to undermine the job that they do at the moment.

Clause 6

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in clause 6, page 9, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).

Today, the Minister has already given us on several occasions some insight into how she sees the relationship between the Secretary of State and the senior traffic commissioner and other traffic commissioners evolving as a consequence of a number of changes in the Bill. I am probing and exploring that theme further, because the clause, labelled “Consequential amendments”, entitles the Secretary of State to use secondary legislation to make further provisions in existing legislation on the functions and duties of traffic commissioners.

I accept that secondary legislation may well be necessary at some stage and that the Government may wish to retain that flexibility, but I am interested in and am looking for some reassurance from the Minister about the wording of subsection 2(a). The power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments

“includes...the power to make different provision for different cases or for different areas”.

We are almost back in the realms to which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire was taking us. What exactly does she mean? What is the provision for the traffic commissioner to make different provisions for different cases? Is it that some areas are going to need more resources, so that is the flexibility talked about? Or is it that, in some cases, the Secretary of State might direct a traffic commissioner in something? I fear that if we are not entirely clear about the exact meaning, it may mean that the Secretary of State has the power to intervene in certain cases.

I am assuming that what the Government intends by “different areas” is what the Minister was talking about this morning—the flexibility to move traffic commissioners around England and Wales, or to develop particular specialisations. Again, could the Minister clarify exactly what are the circumstances envisaged in which the Secretary of State would need those powers? What exactly do “different cases” and “different areas” mean?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Clause 6 empowers the Secretary of State to make any necessary consequential changes to other legislation through secondary legislation, to give full effect to the provisions in clauses 2 to 5 of the Bill. We have done that because there are a number of references in other legislation. To choose the Transport Act 2000, for example, there may be references to work that a traffic commissioner can do. The legislation might, for example, say that in order to get a particular licence or to operate in a certain way individuals should apply to the traffic commissioner in their area. What we are trying to do in the clause is to fit in with the idea that there might be functions that could be done more effectively at national level, say in an office of the traffic commissioner. If there were applications that could be made to such an office, it would be necessary to remove the function from the traffic commissioner in each region. For us to try to go through every piece of existing legislation and make the changes in the Bill would be time-consuming, and we might miss something out. Through secondary legislation, we have the ability to make any changes that would allow such activities to happen.

We think that there are more than 80 references to traffic areas in primary and secondary legislation, and more than 600 references to traffic commissioners. In order properly to implement the provisions in clauses 2 to 5, in some cases it will be necessary to make consequential amendments to many of those references.

The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, which I take to be a probing amendment, would prevent those consequential amendments from making such changes. The problem is that it would reduce flexibility when implementing the proposals contained in the Bill.

It may help the Committee if I make it clear that all orders under that power would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and that any order under clause 6 will apply in Scotland only in relation to reserved, not devolved, matters. I hope that is helpful in explaining why clause 6 is in the Bill and why we are asking the Committee not to accept the amendment, as it would reverse what we are trying to do.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I understand the need for secondary legislation to be available so that the Government can amend previous pieces of legislation. I understand the concept of consequential legislation and accept that we need a catch-all early in the clause. I still struggle to see why what the Minister wants is not dealt with by clause 6(1), and why there are different cases and areas. I probably need to read the provision more carefully as I am not entirely convinced that it is absolutely necessary; such provisions are already elsewhere in clause 6. None the less, with your permission, Lady Winterton, I will reserve the right to write to the Minister about that and to seek an absolute definition of the wording. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 7

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in clause 7, page 9, line 36, at end insert—

‘(1A) In subsection 108(1) leave out “and economic”.’.

Looking back at the relevant parts of the Transport Act 2000, I was struck by the number of words, and the next set of amendments will explore some of my thinking in the same way. I was struck by the word “economic”. To remind the Committee, section 108 of the Act states:

“Each local transport authority must...develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within their area.”

However, nowhere in the Act can I find a definition of “economic”. Part 2 of the Local Transport Bill makes interesting changes in how local authorities formulate and implement their transport policies. Given those changes, it is important to ensure that we are clear, and that we tighten up the definitions of exactly what a transport policy should be.

I do not think that anyone in the Committee will disagree with the assertion that a local authority should develop plans and policies that deliver the best value for money—that is especially pertinent at a time when many councils find themselves strapped for cash—but “economic”, in classic terms, means getting the maximum possible average utility for the amount spent and the maximum marginal utility for any extra money spent or, in shorter dictionary terms, the thrifty and efficient use of material resource.

For the provision to have any relevance to the Bill, it ought to include some definition of the words. I note that the next set of amendments proposes even more definitions. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government have a clear, precise definition of “economic”. If not, perhaps she will go back to her officials—

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The hon. Gentleman proposes an interesting probing amendment and I am interested in his comments. Would it not have been a better probing amendment if, rather than deleting “economic”, he had inserted “add ‘effective and efficient’”? Those are the three “Es” that the Audit Commission uses to test the public sector.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. My amendment would have been more to the purpose if I had made that point. He will see that I shall be testing some of those words in a later group of amendments. I seek from the Minister some indication of exactly what she means by the word “economic”, how she intends to ensure that it is put into the guidance attached to the Bill and how she intends to make it known to local authorities for the purposes of their policy formulation.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The amendment would amend the duty of local transport authorities under section 108 of the Transport Act 2000—to answer some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley—to

“develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport...to, from and within their area”.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon wants to remove the word “economic”. His opening comments were quite helpful, as we were at something of a loss to understand what was meant by the amendment.

I believe, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members accept, that it is important for local authorities’ transport policies to be economic. Authorities need to take into account the costs of implementing their transport policies. I should add that transport is not an end in itself. Effective transport is often a key factor underpinning successful local economies. Transport can play an incredibly important part in getting people to and from work and getting goods to market, for example. The economic aspect of transport is critical, and we want local authorities to address it in their transport planning. Local authorities have said time and time again in my discussions with them that they see transport as a critical way of supporting the local economy, but at the same time they want to ensure how transport policies will be paid for.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The Minister has fallen into the trap that I was worried about. She talks about having regard to local economies, which is clear and vital, but that is not necessarily the same as having an economic transport policy. To someone else that might mean value for money, how much is being spent, and what people get out of the policy. I have proposed a probing amendment to ensure that local authorities are given the correct guidance about exactly what the Government mean by economic. Does it mean that the policy has to stand up to some value-for-money spending test or is it about whether the policy supports the overall local economy? If the definition is left imprecise, local authorities will have to grapple with those important matters.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

It is a mixture of both, and that flexibility is important in local transport policies. When a local authority comes up with a local transport plan, we want it to be clear about how its plans will be paid for. Of course, those plans must be economic—it would be ridiculous for transport authorities to come up with plans that they simply cannot pay for and are just a wish list.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

They do that every day of the week.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Conservative authorities do perhaps. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman believes that every day of the week local authorities come up with unrealistic plans. I think that they plan quite well in terms of the policies that they introduce. However, it is also important that local authorities consider the effect that transport will have on their local economy. As I said earlier today on the Floor of the House, we issue guidance to local authorities on drawing up their transport plans. We review that information and consult with stakeholders about the guidance we are issuing. Most reasonable people would understand what we mean by first of all making sure that policies are economic in the sense that they can be paid for, and they would also understand that transport plans should aim to help to improve the local economy.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has proposed a probing amendment and I hope that having been probed, it was helpful.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Slightly, but not very. The Minister said that she issues guidance, so presumably somewhere in it is a definition of “economic”. Is there or is there not that definition in the guidance? As I pointed out, one person’s view of the definition of “economic” can be very different from another person’s.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I shall give the hon. Gentleman the legal advice, which I hope will help—I think it is common sense actually. In legislation any word either has the meaning specified in the relevant legislation or the ordinary, natural meaning of the word. In this case, without a definition in legislation, the ordinary, natural meaning of the word will be used, which is not necessarily the same as a technical academic meaning. If we were all being reasonable, we could understand what we mean by economic and most people would accept that as a definition, as I have said. It means ensuring that transport policies can be paid for and help the local economy. The Committee should send the message that we want such a pragmatic approach to be adopted by local authorities when they are considering transport planning.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am grateful to the Minister for providing the legal definition.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

A lawyer’s definition.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Or a lawyer’s definition of the word “economy”. The only trouble is that if we went heavily into party politics, we would find that we have many different views of the word “economic”. With your permission Lady Winterton, I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I give the Minister notice that I might come back to the matter on Report.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

In the interests of being helpful, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if local authorities tell us that they are so puzzled by what we mean by “economic” that they are unable to put together transport plans, we shall attempt in guidance to help them along about what we mean. However, I believe that they will probably understand what we mean by the use of the word “economic”.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

One local authority might well know what the Government mean, but others may not. That is the point of my argument. Furthermore, the definition may change depending on who is in power. As I said, I thank the Minister for being helpful. I thank her for giving me the legal definition. I give notice that we might come back to the matter of definitions on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I beg to move amendment No. 145, in clause 7, page 9, line 36, at end insert—

‘(1A) In section 108 (local transport plans), subsection (1)(a), after “efficient”, insert “environmentally sustainable”.’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 153, in clause 8, page 10, line 31, at end insert—

‘(c) to reduce aggregate emissions of greenhouse gases from local transport activities, taking Government targets as defined in legislation and guidance as a minimum.’.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am interested in a different “E”. It stands for environment or the phrase “environmentally sustainable” that I want to insert into the clause. I must say straightaway to the Minister that I do not intend to define that phrase in the Bill, but I am relying on its natural meaning to come across and hope that she understands what I want to convey. I want to reflect on the fact that the Transport Act 2000 to which reference was made when we discussed the previous amendment, required local transport authorities to develop transport policies that are safe, integrated, efficient and economic. I argue that, if we intend to elevate such principles to the front of the local transport plan, it would be an omission not to include—these days particularly—environmental sustainability.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I do not intend to let the hon. Gentleman get away with running away from definitions so easily. I have asked at least 10 Transport Ministers to define “sustainable”. They have not come up with the same answer. Some of them have not come up with any answer. I should be interested in his definition of “sustainable” under the amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I shall happily do my best. The most significant challenge that we face is climate change, so we must move towards a transport system that minimises as far as possible the emission of carbon. That is not the entire definition of sustainability. There are other issues, such as whether to take up the countryside with new roads and so on, but my primary objective in tabling the amendment and amendment No. 153 is to deal with climate change.

Before the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I was saying that our objective is to elevate the concept of the environment to the same position of importance as the other criteria of safe, integrated, efficient and economic. It is not appropriate merely to have the issue placed somewhere else in the Bill. The Minister might come back to the reference under clause 8(4)(2ZB)(b) to having regard to the “improvement of the environment”. That is true, but it is not placed in the same elevation as the four adjectives of safe, integrated, efficient and economic, which it should be in these days of concern about climate change.

A moment ago, the Minister referred to the importance of transport underpinning the economy. That is perfectly true. We must have a good transport system to enable the economy to function. She will also recognise that, when people move from A to B, there is an environmental consequence. A footprint is generated by that movement—more if it is aviation, but less if trains are involved. When drawing up plans, it is important that local transport authorities have such a matter at the forefront of their thoughts to ensure that they taking it into account when formulating their policies. It would not be a good transport plan if it met the four conditions presently required of safe, integrated, efficient and economic, but had total disregard for the environment and a largely negative impact on carbon emissions, in particular.

The Minister will tell me that the Government are the first Government in the world to introduce a Climate Change Bill, and many of us are very pleased about that. The Climate Change Bill will require each section of society that is responsible for carbon emissions to significantly minimise those emissions by 2050. The Minister will also be aware that the transport sector is responsible for about a third of the carbon emissions in the country—perhaps marginally less. Therefore, what local councils do with their transport policies, with guidance from central Government, is crucial if we are to meet the carbon reduction targets that the Government have rightly identified to take on the climate change challenge that we all face. The Department for Transport will have to meet its own targets, which must be counted in with the Government’s efforts to try to cut carbon emissions. It would be peculiar if, at the same time as recognising this huge challenge facing society and the huge cut in carbon emissions that is needed, we do not even mention, as one of the primary objectives in the local transport plans, the question of environmental sustainability.

Amendment No. 153 goes even further. It recognises that we should be asking local transport authorities to set targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the activities in their area over which they have influence. We are all going to have targets. We have national targets, Government targets, and internal targets for each Department. Why should the local transport plans not be proactive and help the Government deliver their overall national strategic policy of carbon cuts by having their own reduction targets? Without that specific requirement up front, local transport plans will carry on very much as they have done, delivering a mish-mash service with a bit of economic development here, and helping people to get from A to B. The traditional objective of the local transport plans will carry on. Unless we highlight the environment in a way that has not been done previously, I have no confidence that the local transport authorities will respond to the climate change challenge that we all recognise needs to be met. The Government will be in danger of having a national target that is not being delivered locally because local transport plans are not pursuing it.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am interested in the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making in respect of amendment No. 153, but how would a local authority enforce it? If their targets have been met, would they then say that a major city or town, for example, will have no more diesel-powered buses for the rest of the year? Surely, such a measure is unenforceable at a local level.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I do not think that the measure is unenforceable because when the local transport authorities draw up their plans, they will have consultations with a number of bodies, as indeed they should. That will include bus operators. If my amendments are accepted—I think that the hon. Member for Wimbledon has similar amendments—they will include discussions with the rail operators in a particular area. As part of the discussions for fulfilling the contract, they can start specifying the sort of buses that they wish to see. They could have influence over the timetable and the frequency of buses. Through such measures, we can realistically identify ways of reducing the carbon footprint in the transport sector. I do not think that it is impossible. I agree that it is not possible to tie it down to the last possible degree and say that we will achieve it by 8.3 per cent. However, it is possible to highlight environment sustainability in a way that is not presently done and to try to hold some discussions that are not taking place now. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my arguments and I look forward to her response.

Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)

I agree to some extent with the sentiments that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Lewes although I do not think that his amendments are necessary to achieve the objectives that he espouses. I may be pre-empting the Minister, but I think that the provisions in clause 8 outlining the new duties on local authorities with respect to the protection or improvement of the environment will be sufficient. In my constituency and in Bristol as a whole, there is incredibly strong support for the sort of environmental objectives that he mentioned. I probably get more letters on climate change than on any other topic. Bristol aims to become the green capital of the United Kingdom—a laudable ambition.

There is particularly strong support for cycling in Bristol; apart from walking, it is most environmentally sustainable system of transport. That is already reflected in the local transport plans, but I hope that this new provision will give greater impetus to it. Sustrans, which is based in Bristol, has just won £50 million from the People’s £50 Million contest for developing a national network of cycle paths.

On a slightly more controversial note, the strength of support for cycling was demonstrated when it was suggested recently that there might be a rapid transport bus link alongside the Bristol to Bath cycle path. More than 10,000 people signed a petition and more than 1,000 marched in order to demonstrate their support for that project. I am glad to see that Bristol city council is working with Sustrans on developing schemes to improve bus travel in the city and to improve cycling provision—although the former should not be at the expense of the latter. When considering moving forward with the local transport plans, that is the sort of partnership that we need.

While talking about sustainable forms of transport, the Minister recently visited my constituency and travelled on the showcase bus route, the second in the city. I use this opportunity—perhaps somewhat audaciously—to make a plea for her to release the further money needed for the third showcase bus route and a bus lane on the M32. Now that that is out of the way, I turn to the amendments.

As suggested by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, it would be incredibly burdensome for local authorities to have to meet specific targets. We are always being urged to reduce the number of targets and to give local authorities the freedom to decide how to operate and the flexibility to decide what is best for the locality. With something like transport—by definition, it means moving in and out of local authority boundaries—I do not see how local authorities or integrated transport authorities, which are responsible for everything that happens within their boundaries, could be held to legally binding targets. The Liberal Democrats support that in terms of the national climate change targets, and I accept their good motives, but it needs to be expressed as general guidance to local authorities rather than something that ties them down.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

As the hon. Member for Lewes said, the provision places certain obligations on local authorities under their local plans. He wants to place two more obligations on them. The obligation of environmental sustainability seems sensible, although I assumed that it was already there. One person’s definition of “integrated” and what it implies is another person’s mis-definition, which is why I thought it was probably included. It is certainly there in clause 8.

The hon. Gentleman would have overcome the definitional questions about which he was being probed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley if he had used the words “with respect to protection or improvement of the environment” as the criteria. None the less, I have spoken several times today about the principle of including in the Bill a clear interpretation so that mistakes cannot be made.

I would have sympathy with the hon. Member for Lewes if he wished to press amendment No. 145 to a Division. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, East about amendment No. 153. First, a plethora of Government targets is already imposed on local authorities. What she said about transport moving and therefore being more difficult to capture in a discrete area is also relevant. Although I have some sympathy with the aim of amendment No. 153, if the hon. Member for Lewes were to press it, I would not ask my colleagues to support it. We may not vote against it, but we certainly would not support it.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

This has been a short but instructive debate with lots of interesting observations. I am worried about my speech because most of my points have been anticipated by other members of the Committee, but it is important that we have discussed issues relating to sustainability and the reduction of transport emissions.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East on cleverly raising the issue of the third showcase bus route. I visited her constituency and I was impressed at the enthusiasm for looking at other forms of travel, particularly cycling. I managed to congratulate Sustrans on the work that it has already done to promote cycling in the constituency. It is something that my hon. Friend is very keen on and I know that she was concerned about the other bus route and that cycling in her city should not be undermined as a result. I am pleased to see that it looks as though some accommodation has been reached on that.

Hon. Members have raised a number of points about amendment No. 145. That would add an explicit reference to environmental sustainability to the duty under section 108 of the Transport Act 2000 for transport authorities to develop and implement policies on transport. The sustainability of present and future transport arrangements in a local authority area is clearly one of the most fundamental issues to be considered when drawing up policies and plans. As was anticipated in the opening remarks, clause 8 already places a new duty on local authorities to take account of the Government’s policies

“with respect to the protection or improvement of the environment,”.

It also requires those authorities to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to that.

In such guidance, we would expect to cover issues such as air quality, noise and climate change—matters that local authorities would need to address when devising and implementing their transport policies and local transport plans. That is further supplemented by the Government guidance issued in September last year as part of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006. In exercising any of its functions, every local authority must have regard to that report, which includes guidance on transport among a full range of other advice. In that light, I would expect the environment and sustainability to be at the forefront of a local authority’s mind, both in developing and implementing its transport policies, and in producing local transport plans. We expect any guidance that we issue to address questions of sustainability and the environment in relation to transport in local areas. I understand the points raised by the hon. Member for Lewes—he obviously takes the issue extremely seriously, as do we all—but I do not think that there are any obvious gaps to fill in the existing duties for local authorities as amended by the Bill.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

There is indeed guidance—I referred to it in my opening remarks—but the Minister has not yet given me an explanation why, in respect of the four key words “safe, integrated, efficient and economic”, which are elevated above all others in the Transport Act 2000, there is no reference to the environment. That is what concerns me. The environment is effectively second-tier compared with those four criteria.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I have tried to explain the various other duties, particularly those relating to the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006, in clause 8. We feel that there is adequate guidance and instruction to local authorities to consider the effect of any plans on the environment. Amendment No. 153 would create a new duty on local authorities developing and carrying out transport policies to reduce the total level of greenhouse gas emissions from local transport in their area, taking Government targets as the minimum standard to be achieved.

Of course the Government seek to reduce emissions across the economy and not just within transport. The Stern report highlighted the need for flexibility to take action where it costs least in order to ensure that the cost of mitigation is manageable. The Climate Change Bill, which recently came to the House from the other place, will provide binding legislation for this country to meet its climate change obligations. It will also set a long-term framework for cutting total UK domestic CO2 emissions by 26 to 32 per cent. by 2020 and by at least 60 per cent. by 2050.

The transport sector will have to make a deliverable, measurable and cost-effective contribution to those targets. In October 2007, the Government published a new framework document, “Towards a Sustainable Transport System”, with the aim of delivering a transport system that both supports the economy and reduces carbon emissions. We are discussing our climate change challenges with stakeholders and will publish our thoughts in a Green Paper later this year for more formal consultation. We will also identify potential emissions reduction pathways for transport, considering the full range of options for putting transport on a less carbon-intensive path and including different types of journeys and transport modes.

Although I understand entirely what the amendment is meant to achieve, introducing such a duty on local authorities on a local level relating to transport alone could prove counter-productive by reducing their flexibility to contribute to the achievement of national targets—a point that was made earlier—and preventing them from achieving the best value reductions for their resources. I believe that the Government’s proposed approach offers a better way forward, and I hope that, given that reassurance and the other commitments, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

The suggestion that flexibility should be applied is, on the face of it, entirely reasonable, but flexibility in this matter all too often makes some people think that they have a licence to carry on as normal and that others should make cuts to achieve the Government’s targets. Some will interpret flexibility as an excuse to do nothing. Although industry has made significant cuts in carbon emissions and they are even now being made in the home sector, transport emissions continue to rise. I am sorry to say that the Government’s policies, particularly on aviation, suggest that those emissions will rise significantly more, rather than being cut. I am not convinced by the Minister’s argument that flexibility will necessarily deliver the overall cuts that she implied.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask local authorities to consider not simply the totality of their carbon emissions reduction targets, but what they are doing sector by sector. Local government acts in silos, just as central Government do. It is the natural function of government to behave in that way. If we can get integrated government, great, but that is how people behave.

My question to the Minister is, if she does not like amendment No. 153—I freely accept that there are difficulties with it—what confidence can we have that what she is putting in place will deliver carbon reduction targets from transport locally, and that the impetus will be there for local councils and others to take the movement forward to meet the Government’s national targets? I am not convinced that that impetus is there, and the Government are in danger of having a national target that they cannot enforce because, locally, the action has not been taken to render it effective.

My other concern is on amendment No. 145. The Minister can find arguments against amendment No. 153 that are to some extent legitimate, although I do not think she has come up with an alternative, but on amendment No. 145 she is on more difficult ground. On that amendment, I have argued that sustainability, however we wish to define it, is a key issue—there is no getting away from it. I have heard no argument to justify the fact that it should not be on the same level as “safe”, “integrated”, “efficient” and “economic”. If she is arguing that it is highlighted in other legislation as being central, it is difficult to understand why the Government wish to be inconsistent and exclude it from the list of criteria that apply under the Bill. The reality is that the transport sector generally has not been good at dealing with carbon emissions; it has seen itself as being above and exempt from that, whether at local or national level. The amendment is a way to highlight that.

I fear that even with the intentions referred to in clause 8, which I readily acknowledge as a step forward, the Government are saying, “Well, let’s make sure that your transport is safe; we must do that. Let’s make sure that it’s economic, however we define economic. Let’s make sure it’s efficient and integrated”—most people think that buses and trains together is the normal understanding of that word—“and once you’ve done all that, you can pay some regard to the environment.” It is a second-tier requirement and the Minister has given no explanation of why the environment should not be a first-tier requirement. I feel quite strongly about this issue, so I shall ask the Committee to divide on amendment No. 145.

Schedule 1

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

May I ask the Minister a specific question? What would be the effect of not including paragraph 8 of schedule 1? Would it mean that road user charging and workplace parking levies could not go ahead?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I hope not. Perhaps it would help if I started by explaining a bit of the background to the schedule.

Schedule 1 will make a series of amendments to the Transport Act 2000 and replace references to local transport plans in the provisions on buses and road charging in parts 2 and 3 of the 2000 Act, with reference to local transport policies. Under each of the existing references to the 2000 Act, a local transport authority’s duty is linked to its local transport plan. For example, at present, under section 139 of the 2000 Act, an authority must have regard to its local transport plan in determining what local bus information should be made available to the public. Similarly, a local authority can have a workplace levy parking scheme only if it appears desirable in terms of the policies in the authority’s local transport plan. Also, an authority is able to spend its revenue from a workplace parking levy or road user charge only on directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies in its local transport plan.

We have made these changes because we think local transport authorities should be able to start implementing new policies once they have been agreed, rather than having to wait until those new policies have appeared in a revised and republished local transport plan. Having said all that, it is important to recognise that for the revenue that would arise from either a workplace parking levy or a road user charging scheme to be put into policies in the local transport plan, it would have had to appear in the local transport plan in the first place.

With regard removing paragraph 8, that paragraph makes only a very small adjustment to the existing wording. However, that adjustment is necessary to bring the provision made by paragraph 8 of schedule 12 to the 2000 Act within the application of the new definition in section 108(5) made under clause 7(5) of the Bill. I am very impressed with that explanation, as I hope the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire is.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Impressed, yes; supportive, no. I want nothing to do with anything that facilitates road user charging or workplace levies.

Clause 8

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 8, page 10, line 31, at end insert—

‘(c) to have regard to any relevant plans and strategies published by any relevant rail infrastructure manager.’.

The Committee will have noticed that amendment No. 36 and amendments Nos. 38 and 39 in clause 9, which I think we will have a chance to discuss later on, are very similar.

Just prior to lunch, the Minister was asking exactly how we formulated the amendments and how much outside help we had received. I have to acknowledge that here we are grateful for the briefing from Network Rail. Only on these amendments and on one other group have we received significant help and not managed to formulate the proposals ourselves. The purpose of these measures is to ensure that when developing transport plans and policies, local authorities have regard to the policies and plans of those charged with operating the rail network.

The concept is fairly simple. A significant proportion of travelling is done by rail—people and goods, travelling in and out and through local areas, and within local areas, by train. The rail network transcends local authority borders and in a number of examples is not operated and managed by local transport authorities. However, at the beginning and end of train journeys, users obviously rely on transport services put on within and by the local authority. Those services are partially governed by plans, so that represents integration. The new integrated transport authorities, which I will come on to, will have an obligation to consider integration across all modes of transport. It makes sense, therefore, that local transport authorities should consider that as well.

The amendment would ensure that local transport authorities had “regard to” the plans and strategies provided by any rail infrastructure manager. My understanding and reading is that “rail infrastructure manager” also covers operators. The amendment would place an obligation to consult or have regard; no duty would be placed in respect of developing the whole plan or policy, or to put into the plan what the rail network told them to include. I do not see the duty to consult and to have regard as an onerous burden on local authorities; it is a question of consultation.

I believe that “relevant rail infrastructure manager” is the right definition. It is defined in statutory instrument No. 599—the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006—which covers Network Rail, train operating companies, both passengers and freight.

The amendment refers to “relevant plans and strategies”. I mean that and I think that most people’s common understanding of it means Network Rail’s route plans and utilisation strategy. Those set out current capacity, passenger and freight demand, passenger and freight demand trends, operational performance cost and projections as to how the future requirements of rail users and funders should be met. Therefore, those rail utilisation strategies should inform the thinking and the consultation process.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman and I would be grateful if he explained further what “have regard to” means. I am not playing games with the previous questions to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that, in all circumstances, Network Rail’s policies will have priority over local integrated transport authorities. If that is what he is saying and that is the definition he is using, I would be grateful if was explicit.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

No, that is not the definition, nor do I understand the normal legal definition of “have regard to” to imply that either. As I said a moment ago, there is an obligation in the Bill on integrated transport authorities to consider integration across all modes of transport, but the amendment provides for an obligation on local transport authorities as well.

I am happy to accept the Minister’s correction as to exactly what “have regard to” means—my understanding and, I guess, the common parlance and common-sense version is that, after consulting, those involved must at least listen to what was said. If they then choose to ignore what was said to them, that is satisfactory, because they have consulted and had regard to it. I understand that to be the normal meaning of what is put in Bills, but I am happy to be corrected.

Before taking that intervention, I said that rail utilisation strategies are the basis on which Network Rail operates its consultation with local authorities and stakeholders—a formal review process. The amendment would make that process work both ways: just as Network Rail consults local authorities on rail utilisation strategies, so the authorities, when they put their local transport policy plans together, should consult Network Rail.

I understand why I am in the wrong, but I also understand that the Government might intend to produce some guidance to local authorities on whom exactly they should consult in the formulation of their local transport plans. I am looking for the Minister to update us on that and to give us more guidance.

It seems to me that local authorities and local people know their areas better, although some local decisions have to be taken in a national and regional context. It is the rail network that needs such context. My amendment would put the appropriate requirement on local authorities—they should consult and “have regard to” the response that they receive from the “rail infrastructure manager”, which covers both Network Rail and the operators, as well as the demands of both freight and passengers.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I shall be brief. I rise to support the amendment. We have the renaming of passenger transport executives as integrated transport authorities. We have bus strategies being abolished. Quite clearly, the intention of the Government—sensibly—is to integrate rail and bus. How could it be anything other than sensible to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

When drawing up integrated transport plans, which is what we want authorities to do, I know how important it is to look across the different modes of transport in an area. One of the points made by many of us as to why we want to take greater powers for local authorities is that people get infuriated when they arrive by train only to find that the bus left five minutes previously. I am sure that, for many of us, that is a constant refrain from our constituencies. We certainly believe that it is important to take a truly integrated approach in local transport plans.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon would put in place specific statutory requirements for transport authorities to consider future relevant rail schemes in their transport policies and plans. Consultation is already an integral part of the development of the local transport plan process. Local transport authorities consult bodies, including Network Rail. That level of detailed consultation is seen as vital in developing future transport policies. Similarly, Network Rail consults local authorities extensively in the development of its route utilisation strategies—as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Clause 9 requires local transport authorities to consult about local transport plans, but the only consultees specified are certain other local authorities and the Secretary of State. The clause also states that local transport authorities must consult “such other persons” as they consider appropriate. With a few exceptions, under the Bill local transport authorities themselves will decide on which individual organisations to consult and in many cases that will include rail infrastructure managers, as we call them. Indeed, many other important and relevant local, regional and national strategies could be produced by other organisations.

I am thinking of examples such as integrated regional strategies and, in some cases, local crime and disorder reduction strategies, which could be very relevant to local transport plans. When considering the amendment, it is important that consultation between local transport authorities and Network Rail works in both directions. A specific duty on local transport authorities to have regard to Network Rail’s plans and strategies without a corresponding duty on Network Rail would work in only one direction.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

As I explained, there is a duty on Network Rail to have such regard in its rail utilisation strategies. It is doing what the Minister wants it to do, which is to work both ways.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Rail utilisation strategies can be quite different from the future rail management schemes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, the Government intend to develop guidance for local transport authorities in the preparation of the next round of local transport plans. The matters that local transport authorities would need to consider when drawing up their plans, including rail strategy and proposals, could be covered by the guidance. Because of my point that there could be other people and authorities that it might be necessary to consult, we do not want to pick out in the Bill particular bodies such as Network Rail, as opposed to other integrated regional strategies or crime and disorder partnerships that might be equally relevant when drawing up a plan. I assure the hon. Member for Wimbledon that we shall be making sure that it is clear in guidance that that is exactly the sort of body that local authorities should consult. In the light of my reassurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The Minister has defended her position, but she did not address some of the points raised by the amendment. One of the reasons why the amendment is important is that rail infrastructure is trans-local, regional and national in nature. As I explained in my opening remarks, a key point is that the amendment would place exactly the same burden on local authorities as National Rail has at present.

The Minister said that local transport plans will need to consider the future whereas route utilisation strategies do not, but that is exactly what they do. She also said that she expected that local authorities would include people in their consultation process. There was not a categorical “must”. To rehearse our arguments about consultation this morning during our debate on clause 3, if the right hon. Lady tells me that on Report she wants to add the other people to the statutory consultation, I should be relatively happy to leave things unambiguous, but I am not sure that the people whom she mentioned were in any way as relevant as the rail infrastructure manager or the rail operator. As she rightly said, local authorities will need to take some regard of such people when we want to integrate bus and rail services.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I have some difficulty with the hon. Gentleman’s point about other bodies not being as relevant as Network Rail. Many of the other bodies could be very relevant in drawing up transport plans. I am prepared to consider the other bodies that it might be necessary to bring in if a duty were introduced in terms of Network Rail. I shall not commit to bring anything back, but I am prepared to consider which other bodies might be brought in and whether it would be unrealistic to try to define them in legislation.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that, but she is including only what she thinks is necessary. In essence, she is saying that she thinks those bodies are important—they may or may not be—but that they are already covered by provisions in the Bill. In that reassurance, she is telling me only that if I press the amendment to a vote, she may be prepared to put the things that she thinks are important into the Bill. That gives me no guarantee about the particular person whom I think needs to be consulted in order for there to be a proper consultation process, or that local authorities will get their transport plans by speaking to the rail infrastructure manager.

Even with the Minister’s assurances, I am not reassured, and I intend to test the will of the Committee.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 8, page 10, line 33, at end add—

‘(2ZD) Where, due to exceptional local circumstances, a local transport authority wishes to implement policies which are in whole or in part at variance with the duties mentioned in subsection (2ZB) they shall be entitled to proceed without regard to the guidelines after issuing a public statement of “special local circumstances” setting out the factors which the local transport authority regard as being of sufficient importance to override the duties mentioned in subsection (2ZB).’.

I am well aware of the political maxim, “The later the hour, you don’t win arguments, you lose friends,” so my remarks will be somewhat shorter than they would have been had I been called a couple of hours ago. The amendment is reasonable, and I hope that it appeals to reasonable opinion across the Committee. It almost speaks for itself but I shall make a number of points about why I think it should be added to the Bill.

In effect, the amendment would alter clause 8 by giving a local authority in exceptional local circumstances the right to deviate and not to abide by the duties in (2ZB). Clause 8 states:

“Each local transport authority whose area is in England must...in developing policies in accordance with subsection 1(a), and...in carrying out their functions in accordance with subsection (1)(b), comply with the duties set out in subsection in (2ZB).”

Those duties are to

“take into account any policies announced by Her Majesty’s Government with respect to the protection or improvement of the environment, and...to have regard to any guidance issued for the purposes of this paragraph by the Secretary of State”.

It is not a wrecking amendment. It says that in exceptional local circumstances, where the transport authority feels that there is a good reason to deviate from the national guidelines set out by the Secretary of State, it would be able to do so, but only after making a declaration in those terms. As I understand it, that declaration would be open to legal challenge if it was made frivolously. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Derby, North wish me to give way, or was he just drinking water?

Bob Laxton (Labour, Derby North)

I am trying to drink water if I can get the top off the bottle.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.