Local Transport Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2008.

Clause 73

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 273, in clause 73, page 64, line 6, at end insert—

‘(2A) An order may be made only if all of the constituent councils of the proposed ITA have approved the scheme by means of—

(a) a resolution, and

(b) a public referendum.’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in clause 73, page 64, line 40, at end insert—

‘(10A) Where all of the constituent councils of a proposed integrated transport area agree a resolution opposing the designation of the area as an integrated transport area the Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section.’.

No. 11, in clause 73, page 64, line 40, at end insert—

‘(10A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section if one or more of the constituent councils of a proposed integrated transport area opposed the designation of the area as an integrated transport area.’.

No. 12, in clause 73, page 64, line 40, at end insert—

‘(10A) Where a majority of the constituent councils of a proposed integrated transport area agree a resolution opposing the designation of the area as an integrated transport area, the Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section.’.

No. 13, in clause 73, page 64, line 45, at end insert—

‘(11A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a referendum of all electors within the boundaries of a proposed integrated transport area has been held and a majority of electors are in favour of the establishment of an integrated transport area.’.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

In this part of the Bill, we shall be considering integrated transport authorities, their new powers, how they might come into being, several ways in which their powers may be exercised and restraints on those powers. We shall be looking to probe the Minister in a number of areas for clarification of exactly how the system will work. Amendment No. 273 is grouped with four amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley that are not dissimilar to mine. They would result in a position whereby a new integrated transport authority can be established only with the consent of the local authorities that make up the new integrated transport authority, and that consent could be judged in two ways.

First, the elected members of each local authority could agree a resolution. That would make perfect sense to the elected officials who will serve on the new ITA. It would be wrong if the Secretary of State decided that several local authorities would benefit from being amalgamated into an integrated transport authority, but the elected people—those sitting on the bodies—disagreed. Each and every local authority should agree an affirmative resolution before they are made part of an integrated transport authority.

If I understand the hon. Gentleman’s amendments correctly, amendment No. 10 states that an ITA would not be created if all the constituent councils pass a resolution opposing it. It is slightly different from my amendment, but it is motivated by the same concerns. Under amendment No. 12, an ITA cannot be created even if a majority of councils oppose it, which again is similarly motivated. The second way in which each local area must approve the creation of an integrated transport authority is through a referendum, which is echoed by amendment No. 13. The proposal is motivated by the simple factor that local people are hugely concerned with local transport in their areas and they should, or could, be given a direct say in how their local transport is managed. I look forward to the Minister’s agreeing to establish democratic consent for an integrated transport authority.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I will not repeat what the hon. Gentleman has said. I tabled four amendments to elucidate the Government’s thinking about the changes in the local democratic process brought about by the Bill. I support the motivation behind the Bill, which is to improve integrated transport in an area. However, I tabled the amendments because I am worried that, with that drive, the integrated transport authority does not run roughshod over the electors or the local authorities in its area. There is the potential for transfer of real highway authority powers to a body that will not be directly elected and if a local authority is to lose those powers, it should have some say in that matter. Three of the amendments provide that a local authority should have a veto, that it should not lose those powers if it does not want to, or that there should be the agreement of a majority of or all the authorities. The amendments aim to probe the Government’s thinking.

The final amendment addresses the change that removes power from the electorate. At the moment, if the electorate want to dispute a bus lane or if shopkeepers want to ask for better parking, they can do so, or they can vote out the people responsible for such things. If those powers are transferred to an integrated transport authority, the electorate will no longer have a direct power to vote out the people making the decisions. The final amendment provides that if those powers are to be changed, it should be done after a referendum. Really, I am speaking to the amendments to probe the Government’s thinking on the relationship between improving public transport, which I think we all want to do, and the democratic process.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

It might help if I explain a little bit of the background to setting up a new integrated transport authority. As clause 73 makes clear, the Secretary of State can make an order establishing a new integrated transport authority and an integrated transport area where the local authorities in that area have carried out a review of existing governance arrangements in their area and have published a scheme proposing that an ITA be set up.

Where a new ITA is to be established, it can usually cover only those geographical areas included in the proposals for a new ITA made by two or more local authorities—county councils, metropolitan district councils and unitary councils. The authorities themselves, having decided that they want a new ITA, would carry out a review of the governance for transport in their area and put it to the Secretary of State. It is very much a bottom-up approach.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Could the Minister help us by explaining what the situation would be in a city council area that is to go ahead with an ITA where there are, say, five other councils surrounding the city council in a kind of doughnut arrangement? If three or four of those councils wanted to go ahead and one did not, would that one effectively have the opportunity to scupper the scheme, which would become unviable if it did not participate?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Councils would not have the right to veto schemes. We would look for evidence that there had been thorough consultation and that the proposed changes would improve transport in the area. What we found during the consultation was that many authorities said that they found it difficult, for example, to introduce bus lanes, because one particular area might say, “We do not want to play.”

If it is obvious that public transport requirements cannot be met, we would want a thorough review of the governance procedures. The only exception to the bottom-up approach would be where the Secretary of State had actually directed authorities not only to undertake a review of all or part of their area, but also to prepare and publish a scheme for the establishment of a new ITA in that area or part of an area. However, we think that would be quite rare. It would have to be very obvious that the provision of transport in the area had failed.

By and large, we expect that local authorities would say that they wanted to improve public or integrated transport in their area and would, therefore, want to carry out their own review and come forward with proposals to the Secretary of State. Furthermore, there is the procedural safeguard in the Bill of consulting representatives of appropriate authorities and the fact that any governance order would be subject to affirmative resolution in the House.

With the safeguards in the Bill and that explanation of how we believe that this would happen, I do not feel that we should be requiring a local referendum when establishing a new ITA. The approach we have taken is the correct one. It is very much a bottom-up approach to improving integrated transport in the area, so I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley and the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press their amendments.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Like the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley and others in the Committee, I am in favour of the construction of ITAs and believe that they will deliver benefits to public transport users in the communities they serve. However, there is a need to balance the creation of a more streamlined arrangement with the democratic views of people in the area concerned.

The parallel in my mind, to which we might return later, is the issue of congestion charging and road charging in Manchester, in which a number of local authorities wish to participate and a number do not. There has been an interesting debate as to whether or not the majority can outweigh the minority on the imposition of such a scheme should they wish to do so. The question that applies in that case, and in the provisions we are discussing, is whether, for the greater good, the views of a particular area can be overridden to deliver a comprehensive and sensible scheme, or whether authorities can have a veto.

The Minister says authorities do not have a veto. I understand that they do not have a veto in the formal sense of being able to stop the scheme. However, if there is a key geographical component that must be included to make an ITA work, because of the transport arrangements—the transport corridors—and if the implementation of the scheme would be scuppered by the area not participating, the issue is whether it is right in those circumstances to compel that area to be part of an ITA, whether or not its local elected councillors wanted to participate. The other side of the argument is whether if individuals asserted their right for the local communities not to participate, they would be thwarting the weight of other democratically elected councillors in other areas who want a comprehensive scheme. There is a balance.

I have looked at the four alternatives proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley. There is not quite one that I would ideally like to vote for. I would not vote for the proposal that there has to be a simple majority—that is a dangerous arrangement—nor is it right that one authority should be able to thwart the implementation of the scheme. There needs to be a higher threshold than one, but less than a majority, whereby perhaps a third of local authorities would need to be opposed to a scheme to exercise an effective veto on it.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if the proposal were structured in such a way that it required say, two-thirds consent, that is what he is looking for in terms of the consent for procedures?

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

There is no perfect answer to this, but that is roughly where I am.

The Minister talks about reserve powers whereby a scheme may be imposed, if necessary. It is probably necessary to have those powers for the reasons I have given, so it is important that we fully understand exactly when those powers will be exercised and what opportunities local councils and individuals will have to make their views known. I am uncomfortable with the idea that the views of local areas may be overridden for the greater good, particularly if there is no public referendum or other expression of support.

A referendum may seem over the top, but on the other hand town and parish councils, or town areas, are given the opportunity to have a referendum on all sorts of stuff. We had a referendum in Lewes about three or four years ago on a not terribly important matter because the local authority powers allowed that to occur. Local referendums are already established as a concept and are exercised by communities up and down the country.

If we are to have a referendum, the question is whether it will work on the basis of a simple majority across the proposed ITA area, or whether there will be a referendum in each particular constituent authority, which will also provide a veto. If we have a referendum only on the whole area, that will be no different from having the constituent local authorities. On the other hand, if we have a referendum only in one area, we will have the same problem with the veto that I referred to a moment ago. There is no simple solution to the problem, but it is an important matter to get right from day one. Otherwise, there will be a danger of having complaints further down the line about lack of democracy.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I have listened carefully to the debate and I think that we probably need more reassurance, but having listened to the Minister I do not intend to press the amendment. I shall go away and look closely at her answer and at our discussion. Perhaps we might discuss the matter on Report to ensure that we have the right balance between the ITA and local authorities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 73, page 64, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert

‘that all members of an ITA shall be elected by a ballot of all the electors within the boundary of the proposed integrated transport area.’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 274, in clause 73, page 64, line 29, leave out ‘for a majority of’.

No. 275, in clause 73, page 64, line 32, at end insert ‘, and

(c) for those members to be appointed from among the members of the different political parties represented in the constituent councils, in such numbers as to be proportionate to the representation of political parties on those councils’.

No. 139, in clause 78, page 68, line 29, after ‘member)’, insert

‘, and for the ITA to determine what matters members of the ITA who are not elected members of the ITA’s constituent councils may not vote on (which may include any matters relating to the funding or expenditure of the ITA, whether of a capital or revenue nature).’.

No. 238, in clause 78, page 68, line 29, after ‘member’, insert

‘, but which arrangements must provide that members of the ITA who are not elected members of the ITA’s constituent councils may not have a vote’.

No. 286, in clause 78, page 68, line 34, leave out ‘for a majority of’.

No. 140, in clause 78, page 68, line 35, after ‘councils’, insert ‘from among their elected members’.

No. 287, in clause 78, page 68, line 35, leave out ‘and’.

No. 141, in clause 78, page 68, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

‘(b) for all other members of the ITA to be appointed by it (whether or not on the nomination of any other person or body).’.

No. 288, in clause 78, page 68, line 37, at end insert ‘, and

(c) for those members to be appointed from among the members of the different political parties represented in the constituent councils, in such numbers as to be proportionate to the representation of political parties on those councils’.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The amendment tries to deal with the problem we have just discussed, but from the other end. The reason we do not have integrated transport authorities goes back to the abolition of the metropolitan counties in the mid-1980s. What the Bill is trying to do, in many ways imperfectly, is put right some of the problems created by the deregulation of buses and the democratic deficit left by the abolition of the met counties.

I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s reply on the previous amendment, dealing with how to create ITAs. I believe that, although it is not her intention, it will be possible on controversial issues to repress the strongly held wishes of both the electorate and councils in those policy areas. This is about more than bus lanes—there are good and bad bus lanes and not all proposed bus lanes are right, but at the heart of the debate in Greater Manchester, as the hon. Member for Lewes said in the previous debate, is a new tax for going into the centre of Manchester.

It is proposed that, before that happens, Bolton council will hold its own referendums. That council is under no overall control, but its elected representatives feel so strongly that this is a difficult issue that they will put it to their own people. Bury—now a Conservative controlled authority—motivated by concern about this new tax, has sufficient signatures to trigger a ballot to decide whether to have an elected mayor. There is no doubt that behind that is dissatisfaction with the position previously taken on the congestion charge.

I was not totally satisfied—I think we shall return to this issue on Report—with all the parliamentary mechanisms that involve the local electorate, but there is another way of dealing with it, which used to be there and is now here in London, whereby direct elections are allowed. I have not yet heard the argument—if one is going to create these powerful ITAs—in favour of secondarily elected members rather than directly elected ones.

We opposed very strongly the abolition of the metropolitan county councils, but there is an opportunity now to ensure that—in the best possible way, which is by having direct elections—if the electorate do not like the transport schemes, the bus lanes or the new taxes, they can throw the rascals out.

The Government need to give a serious response to this probing amendment and explain why it is not currently their view that we should have direct elections. There are three issues: how to get to an ITA while consulting the people—I worry about the consultation process and the repression of electorates and councils; having direct elections; and, finally, the parliamentary process, which we will come to later. For what is a local government reorganisation, having one affirmative resolution as the procedure is not good enough.

I do not mind at which end of the process the matter is tackled from, but there is insufficient balance between the generally good idea of having ITAs and the democratic process, either in this place or with the electorate or district councils.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I rise to speak to amendment No. 238, which relates to another clause but is tangential to the points just made. It is very important that the ITAs are as democratic and accountable as possible. It concerns me that we might have individuals on ITAs who are not elected, but appointed, and exercising perhaps disproportionate power. It is possible for an ITA—theoretically, at least—to have members appointed who are sympathetic to its views, in order perhaps to thwart the result of a forthcoming election, which may change the political balance in any particular area.

For that reason, my amendment No. 238 suggests that, while there should be no restriction on those who are added to an ITA who may have relevant experience, the only people who should exercise votes are those who are elected members of the ITA’s constituent councils. The vote should not be extended to those who are simply appointed.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley and I share a number of his concerns about consultation the and establishment of ITAs and about the need to ensure democratic accountability and proper democratic representation on these bodies.

I will not repeat what the hon. Gentleman said about the possibility of having separate elections. Although we have them in London, as he said, those people fulfil more than a function of the authority of the ITA. My amendments Nos. 275 and 288 go to the same point, but through a different way. They would ensure that an ITA reflected the political make-up of the underlying councils. Again, that would protect the public’s wish to see proper accountability and representation.

The amendments would also offer protection in that a political party, of whatever hue, with a slim majority on a local authority could appoint only its members to an ITA. Ensuring that there is political proportionality in the representation on the body would protect the views of the electorate in an area and, indeed, views overall.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he accept that it could still be thwarted unless my amendment No. 238 is adopted?

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Potentially, but I am not absolutely certain. What we have is local people voting for their councillors; it is an open and democratic process. This time last week, all of us were heavily involved in that process in various parts of the country. In areas where there is no ITA, local people elect their councillors, who go on to implement local policy such as that on transport authorities. Therefore, in ITA areas that process, or something similar to it, is preserved. My amendments would achieve that by ensuring that the members of the ITA who make and implement the transport policy were drawn from a pool of locally elected councillors. I question the need for direct elections, although I understand that that process would have even greater direct linkage.

We have a process whereby elected officials can sit in a democratically accountable way on an ITA, but unless the ITA reflects the political proportionality, democratic representation and democratic consent are removed. The issue boils down to democratic accountability.

Having seen the range of amendments on the issue, the Minister will be aware of the concerns among members of the Committee. I look to her for reassurance, but I give notice that if I do not feel that she has reassured us, I shall push amendment No. 275 to a vote.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

It is important that ITAs are properly accountable to local people. Clause 73(8) requires a majority of the members of each new ITA to be elected representatives from the councils that make up the ITA area.

If authorities were carrying out a governance review in their area, they could propose that all members of the ITA should be local authority representatives, if that is what they desire. I know from discussions that I have had around the country that some people in some areas with existing passenger transport executives—which, by the way already work under a system of, in a sense, indirect representation—might want to have a passenger representative sitting on the transport authority. Through the Bill, we are trying to give that flexibility, but also to say that the majority must be elected members.

In terms of political balance, existing PTAs are already subject to section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which requires that the political balance of the local authority representatives who sit on a PTA reflect the political balance of the constituent councils, which make up the passenger transport area. Any governance order establishing a new ITA could apply section 15 to the ITAs.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Where in the Bill are the provisions of section 15 of the 1989 Act, putting that protection clearly in place?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The power to make the necessary provision is in clause 86.

There has perhaps been some expression of feeling that each transport authority should be represented on the ITA. I am prepared to look at whether we might require that in the Bill. I am happy to consider the issue and perhaps return to it on Report. Overall, however, I feel that the current provision allows for that democratic representation and for the majority of members to be democratically elected people from constituent councils. Therefore, I feel that the amendments are unnecessary.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I do not object to the idea that a passenger representative should be on the ITA; the issue for me is whether they should have a vote. Is it not possible to have an arrangement whereby that expertise is available, but cannot skew any vote? The passenger representative would be there in a non-voting capacity.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

We tried to retain the flexibility for people coming forward with the governance order to decide what kind of rights they want individuals to have. In some areas, they may want such people to have voting rights. However, we are clear that the majority must be democratically elected councillors from the constituent councils. If local authorities suggest in the governance order that they want to have some people with voting rights and others without them, they should propose that in their governance review. We are trying to allow maximum flexibility, while including some safeguards.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I am listening to the Minister’s comments. In local government there is a lot of experience of having co-opted or non-elected members on police authorities and education committees and, in the past, on social services committees. How can political balance be maintained if the ITA has non-elected members who may well have political allegiances, but those have not been put to the test with the electorate? That has been the experience of police authorities: magistrates have had political allegiances and have changed the political balance on those bodies.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The people drawing up the governance order may wish to maintain political balance under section 15 of the 1989 Act, but again that is up to individual authorities to decide. They may decide that they want to co-opt other people on to the authority, and they may say in their governance order that they want a political balance in those co-opted members. There are ways to achieve that through the public appointments process, as I know well from the national health service. However, we want that flexibility so that local authorities considering governance in their area can decide for themselves the best approach.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I am sorry to press the point, but it is important. Let us suppose that one party has a slim majority over another on the ITA but believes, because of the national situation or whatever, that it will lose support at the next local elections, thus changing the political balance on the ITA. What in the Minister’s arrangements would prevent the ITA from appointing a large number of co-opted members who are, in effect, party stooges, to thwart the wishes of the electorate at the forthcoming local elections?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Obviously, there are PTAs where political balance may change—I think we have that in our own area, in South Yorkshire. It comes back to the drawing up of the governance order in the first place. I am sure that there would be discussions during the drawing up of a governance order, because the process is that the local authorities concerned decide how they feel governance could best be improved. The proposal goes to the Secretary of State and then to Parliament for a decision under the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure that if, during that process, it was felt that there was an attempt to try to skew things for the future, that would be reflected in the debates in the House. It is not necessarily always possible to prevent some of the problems that we are discussing. It may be that, as a result of that, those coming forward with governance orders might not want co-opted members to have voting rights, for example, although they might wish them to sit on the authority. Our aim is to achieve what people feel is the best approach for their own area.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

To pick up the point that the hon. Member for Lewes made, the police authority is in some ways a model for how things should work, or how they could work badly, for an integrated transport authority. The elected members from the various constituent councils are put on the police authority in proportion to the political balance of those councils. That balance changes after an election, and the council will then review membership. However, the so-called independent members of police authorities are elected for a period of time and could, therefore, alter the political balance of that authority, irrespective of what happens at local elections for constituent councils. Therefore, if an ITA co-opted members, stuffing it full of members of one political party, that could negate the effects of elections in the constituent councils in coming years.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

What we have done with safeguards in the Bill is to say that the majority should be elected members. It is difficult to anticipate further down the line. We have to accept, as democratically elected people, that sometimes the political balances, even on existing PTAs, may change. We have to accept that. We cannot get away from that, nor should we necessarily want to. However, section 15 of the 1989 Act requires appointments to be reviewed as soon as practicable after any occasion on which changes in political balance occur. There are some safeguards, which emphasise the importance of the democratically elected side, saying, in a sense, that if the political balance changes within councils, then that should be reflected at integrated transport authority level.

There are, of course, no easy answers. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley believes that there should be direct elections to all the authorities, but we do not think that that is appropriate. We are trying to devolve decision making to local level and to enable local authorities to decide what is best in their area. There is no requirement for authorities to co-opt if they do not want to, nor is there a requirement to give co-opted members voting rights. The only requirement is that the majority should be elected members. I hope that with that reassurance my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

At the appropriate juncture, I would like the Committee to vote on amendment No. 238.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I am not particularly wedded to any of the remedies proposed here or in later amendments, be they referendums, which I am normally sceptical about, or direct elections, which create two tiers—there are real problems with that. I am not against having co-opted or appointed members on those bodies. What I am concerned about is that, throughout the Bill, the balance between the electorate, constituent councils and the need to make really quite difficult decisions is not correct. I hope my right hon. Friend will reflect on that, particularly when we come to consider the parliamentary process later.

I was also concerned by the answers to these problems of political balance. If four or five parties are represented on a council, it would be difficult to reflect that if there were only one or two elected representatives on an authority. It may actually be quite difficult to ensure that representation is proportionate.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, exactly right that there may not be absolute proportionality, but there are, as we both know, accepted proportionality rules already in place for appointments of councillors to outside bodies, and those rules could apply equally well to ITAs.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I accept that point and I think that those rules should apply to ITAs. I was really making another point—that even in that system, for instance, 10 per cent. of every council in an area such as Greater Manchester could agree that it would never get representation on the overall body because that is how it works. So it may end up with some unfairness within the system that is difficult to see how to correct. I think that should be looked at.

I am concerned that, once a structure has been set up that allows appointed members, they could change that political balance. I hope my right hon. Friend will look seriously at this. There is the possibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe said, of an outgoing administration trying to load the authority, which would be reprehensible. I suspect we would quickly pass primary legislation to stop it, if that happened, whichever political party was responsible. Politicians are in the business we are in to win power, and these things happen—I have seen it happen.

However, rather than the stooges of the Labour party, the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats being appointed to ITAs, it is much more likely that “experts” will be appointed, on the model of Transport for London. Those experts, as we discussed on the first day in Committee, may well have very strong views about the levels of bus fares and taxation, on the congestion charge, and on the level of investment, and it seems to me that that could change the balance. It seems wrong to me—I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could reply to this, or cogitate on it—for those appointed members to be able to vote on the levels of taxation, congestion charge and bus fares, which they would have the power to do in quality partnerships and quality contracts, and the level of investment. All those issues have direct consequences for council tax payer—and income tax payers for that matter, given where most of the money comes from. Overall, the balance of packages to make the good measures in the Bill work, is wrong, and I hope my right hon. Friend will think hard on that before Report.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I want to test the Minister one more time. I was initially listening to her very carefully and I thought I was going to be persuaded by her arguments that my amendment No. 274 was actually wrong-headed and that the need for flexibility and local decision making should be preserved. I think that that argument is right, but having listened to some of the points made by the hon. Members for Lewes, for Sheffield, Attercliffe and for Manchester, Blackley, it seems to me that I should have preserved amendment No. 274 and had a new paragraph (c) that would allow co-opted appointees to be non-voting members. I therefore hope that, having heard all the arguments and not only her arguments for flexibility, the Minister will reflect on that and consider the powerful points made by the Committee.

I asked, where is section 15 of the 1989 Act mentioned in the Bill? The Minister’s answer was that it is in clause 86. Clause 86 is a wide-ranging catch-all clause that I want to explore in some depth when we come to it. I am therefore not reassured by the right hon. Lady’s answer and wish to push amendment No. 275 to a vote.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 276, in clause 73, page 64, line 38, leave out ‘and’ and insert—

‘(aa) the Public Transport Users’ Committee for England,

(ab) the Rail Passengers’ Council, and’.

Consultation is a recurring theme in my amendments. It seems to me that there is real inconsistency throughout the Bill when it comes to consultation. In some areas, the Government have produced a relatively long and complete list of people who should be consulted. In other areas, the list is extremely short and we have the catch-all phrase, “as the Secretary of State sees fit”. This clause falls into the second category.

The creation of an integrated transport authority is an extremely important move. We have all agreed that it could present some laudable benefits for the local area. It will have a wide-ranging effect on the provision of local public transport and thus on the everyday lives of thousands. As for whom the Secretary of State is obliged to consult, it strikes me that

“such representative of the appropriate authorities”

as she sees fit is again extraordinarily loose wording. I think that representatives of some organisations should be statutory consultees, which is why my amendment would insert into the clause the Public Transport Users Committee for England and the Rail Passengers Council. It is only fair that the users of public transport should also be consulted.

Those two organisations were set up specifically to represent the views of users, and they are ideally placed to provide useful, sensible and constructive input into the decision-making process. I accept that the amendment would put a further obligation on the Secretary of State to consult not only local government, but the new Public Transport Users Committee for England—which will become Passenger Focus—and the Rail Passengers Council, but the burden would not be particularly onerous. It would not be a problem for her. The amendment is uncontroversial. It is utterly sensible and I am sure that the Minister will agree with me.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I accept that the hon. Gentleman is continuing his campaign for consultation. Obviously, passenger representative bodies have a valid interest in the setting up of the new ITAs, but as I explained, the problem with specifying individual bodies in legislation is that naturally many other important organisations will consider that they, too, should have been included.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

My amendment would not preclude any other important bodies from being consulted, but merely states that those two very important organisations that represent users should be consulted.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Of course I accept that, but my argument stands. If the House passes the Bill, we shall publish guidance on governance reviews later in the year, which will emphasise the importance of authorities consulting widely on their proposals for governance change. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall draw attention to bodies of the type that should be consulted. With that assurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I have listened carefully to the Minister. I am sure that we shall often have similar discussions. I accept her argument in part, but unfortunately I do not seem to be making any great progress in persuading her of my point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 74

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 277, in clause 74, page 65, line 25, leave out ‘and’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 278, in clause 74, page 65, line 26, at end insert ‘and

(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area,’.

No. 279, in clause 75, page 66, line 10, at end insert ‘and

(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area.’.

No. 280, in clause 75, page 66, line 28, at end insert ‘and

(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area.’.

No. 281, in clause 76, page 67, line 7, leave out ‘or’.

No. 282, in clause 76, page 67, line 8, at end insert ‘and

(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area,’.

No. 283, in clause 77, page 67, line 33, leave out ‘or’.

No. 284, in clause 77, page 67, line 34, at end insert ‘and

(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area,’.

No. 285, in clause 77, page 68, line 7, at end insert ‘and

(c) the cost effectiveness of providing transport within the area.’.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

This large group of amendments deals with the reason why an integrated transport authority might be created, why the boundaries of an existing one may be changed, changed, and why review of existing arrangements might be carried out. Currently, such a move must satisfy two criteria: first, it would improve the exercise of statutory functions relating to transport in the area; and, secondly, it would improve its effectiveness and efficiency. There is no dispute about that; they are important criteria and I support them. However, one criterion is missing.

Local authorities have a responsibility to provide transport and other services to local people cost-effectively. Local people will be paying for those local services and the idea behind the amendments is a variation on a theme, perhaps not surprisingly. The amendments provide that when deciding whether to change the structure of local transport governance, due consideration must be given to the ability to provide local transport in a cost-effective manner. My plea is simple. Can the Minister reassure us that the cost implications of provision will be part of the decision-making process of the establishment of the ITA? When creating an integrated transport authority, the burden of cost should be a factor of consideration.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am quite clear that reviews will need to consider cost-effectiveness but it will come under the headings of effectiveness and efficiency. Under clause 89, the Secretary of State is able to issue statutory guidance which will set out the matters which could and should be the subjects of a review and which authorities will need to take into account. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that cost-effectiveness will also be one of the series of considerations that the Secretary of State will take into account in deciding whether to direct authorities to carry out a review. I hope that with that reassurance the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The reassurance was short, but definitive. On that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 75

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

I shall be brief. The clause appears innocuous, but the power it confers could be far reaching. Will the Minister say something about how often and in what circumstances she anticipates the power will be used?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

As I said earlier, the situation in which the Secretary of State directs two or more local authorities in an area that does not have an ITA to carry out a review of transport in their areas and issues a direction to publish a scheme containing proposals for establishing an integrated authority would be quite rare. It would happen if there were, for example, indications that the delivery of transport in an area was failing and that governance issues meant that what the local authority might be trying to achieve through its local transport plans was not happening. I am thinking of when there might be strong concern that authorities in an area were not delivering good transport systems.

Norman Baker (Liberal Democrat, Lewes)

Does the power require constituent local authorities to carry out a review, or does it imply that in due course an ITA can be imposed by the Secretary of State as a consequence of such a review?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Again, if the Secretary of State directed authorities to come up with a scheme, any governance order would still have to come back to Parliament for decision under the affirmative procedure.

Clause 76

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 131, in clause 76, page 66, line 31, leave out ‘one’ and insert ‘two’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 132, in clause 76, page 66, line 31, after ‘may’, insert

‘in conjunction with the relevant ITA,’.

No. 133, in clause 76, page 66, leave out line 34.

No. 134, in clause 76, page 67, line 3, leave out ‘one’ and insert ‘two’.

No. 135, in clause 77, page 67, line 14, after ‘direct’, insert ‘an ITA, or’.

No. 136, in clause 77, page 67, line 14, leave out ‘one’ and insert ‘two’.

No. 137, in clause 77, page 67, line 15, after ‘description)’, insert

‘, in conjunction with the relevant ITA,’.

No. 138, in clause 77, page 67, leave out line 18.

No. 88, in clause 77, page 67, line 36, at end insert

‘and must be addressed to every authority falling within subsection (2) whose area or part of whose area lies within each integrated transport area or proposed integrated transport area to which the direction relates.’.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government’s thinking on reviews and how vexatious reviews are stopped. In an ideal world, one council calling for a review might be completely sensible, but as we have discussed previously, occasionally—more than occasionally sometimes—relationships between councils and bodies can become very bad. There could be a vexatious review with a lot of associated costs.

The amendment provides that two councils need to co-operate and agree before a review can take place, and that the review must include the ITA. If relationships were very poor there could be a situation where a local authority employed a group of consultants at large cost, held a review and did not consult and involve the integrated transport authority. I want the Minister to reassure the Committee that such a situation could not happen, but the amendments are to probe the Minister’s thinking on how vexatious reviews would be stopped.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

As I have said before, the approach we have taken in the Bill is that there should be flexibility in undertaking a review. For a new ITA area the Bill says that any review would need to be undertaken by two or more authorities; obviously it would be a bit silly for an authority to carry out a review of itself.

In existing ITA areas, however, the Bill says that any review would need to be undertaken by one or more authorities. That is because authorities in an existing ITA area might wish the ITA itself to carry out the review, so it would be possible for that to be the one body that was undertaking the review. Where a review is vexatious and does not have the support of other authorities in the area, it is unlikely that a Secretary of State would bring forward a governance order.

There is a provision for one authority to carry out a review because authorities within an existing ITA area might wish the ITA itself to carry out the review.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 78

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 82, in clause 78, page 68, line 38, leave out ‘subsection (3)’ and insert ‘subsections (3) and (8)’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 83, in clause 78, page 69, line 22, at end add—

‘(8) An order under this section may be made only if each of the constituent councils has consented to the constitutional arrangements provision, for which is to be made in the order.’.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

These amendments are less fundamental than the debate we had previously about the constitution and construction of ITAs and how they related to the democratic process. These provisions are about the mechanism of appointments and their purpose is to elicit the Government’s thinking about whether the power to appoint should be only with the ITA. If there are external nominations, the control of both the appointment and the voting rights should remain only with the ITA. The amendments are of lower importance than those in the previous debate but I would be interested in the Government’s thinking on the issues.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

We return to the theme we were discussing earlier about the Bill allowing flexibility as to what arrangements can be put in place in particular areas. Of course it is desirable that authorities should be able to reach complete agreement among themselves about what the new constitutional arrangements should be, and that the proposals they put forward reflect that. We have to accept, however, that sometimes it may not be possible.

I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that there are safeguards to protect the interests of individual authorities. The Secretary of State will want to take into account the views of affected authorities in deciding whether to make the necessary secondary legislation to implement the proposals for change that areas bring forward. Indeed, the Bill requires her to consult them on any draft order that she introduces. She would also have to be satisfied that the order is likely to improve the exercise of statutory transport functions or the effectiveness and efficiency of transport within the area concerned. Moreover, in making an order, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. We are trying to strike a balance between flexibility and ensuring there are safeguards for individual local authorities.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 289, in clause 78, page 69, line 2, after ‘of’, insert ‘the executive of’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 290, in clause 78, page 69, line 2, leave out from ‘ITA’ to end of line 3.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Clause 78 provides that the Secretary of State may by order make provisions about the constitutional arrangements of ITAs, and we have been exploring some of those aspects. It also allows her to make provisions regarding executive arrangements and their functions. With the amendments, I seek some clarity about the role of the executive and the orders the Secretary of State might anticipate making in relation to the executive. Passenger transport areas already have passenger transport executives, which have their own set of statutory powers in part II of the Transport Act 1968. However, it would be possible, as I understand it, to set up a different executive body reporting to the ITA through secondary legislation if the area proposed to do so.

The executive arrangements mentioned in the clause do not have a specified form. Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2000 sets out certain specific forms for such arrangements, but section 11(5) also allows the Secretary of State to specify other forms. It will, therefore, be for each integrated transport authority to make its own proposals about what form executive arrangements should take in its area.

Subsection (5) defines what is meant by executive arrangements in the context of the orders that can be made, but the definition includes

“the functions of the ITA...which may be discharged by a committee of the ITA or by a body other than the ITA”.

I am testing that definition. I am unsure how executive arrangements can include functions that fall outside the remit of the executive body. What functions does the Minister think will be delegated, and in what manner? The amendments are intended to probe and gain clarity about the executive arrangements.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

In essence, when the Bill refers to an executive body, it refers to the passenger transport executive for the area in question. At present, each PTA area has a passenger transport executive and a passenger transport authority. The PTE is the body that delivers the transport policies of the PTA. However, when the Bill refers to an executive of an ITA rather than an executive body, it refers to something different.

The hon. Gentleman was quite right to refer to the 2000 Act, as amended by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, under which local councils were generally required to establish executives with responsibility for certain of their functions. In other words, a council with 30 councillors, for example, could have an executive of perhaps half a dozen councillors responsible for day-to-day decision making. At the moment, it is not possible for a PTA to adopt similar arrangements, although it is possible that an area might see benefits in establishing an executive along similar lines. That is why the Bill refers to an executive and executive arrangements. Clause 78(5) goes no further than the equivalent provision made in relation to local councils in the 2000 Act. I hope that is helpful in clarifying what the Bill means by “executive”.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

That is helpful. I thank the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 80

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 84, in clause 80, page 70, line 3, at end add—

‘(5) An order under this section may be made only if the local authority whose function is to be delegated by the order has consented to the delegation of that function.’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 85, in clause 81, page 71, line 19, at end add—

‘(13) An order under this section may be made only if each council which would be subject to a direction made pursuant to the order has consented to the Secretary of State making the order.’.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I shall be brief. The provisions in clause 80 will remove powers from local authorities, and the set of decisions under clause 84 will hand powers to local authorities after the failure of an integrated transport authority. Amendments Nos. 84 and 85, as well as amendment No. 86 to clause 84, would require the local authority’s consent before the Government could take a decision to move powers one way or the other. We have debated this matter during debate on earlier clauses, so given the time I do not want to pursue it at length, but I am interested in the Minister’s thinking on it.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

As my hon. Friend says, we have had this discussion before. We hope that when an ITA is established or changed, there will always be the full support of the authorities involved, but, as I have said, in certain situations a small minority of authorities might wish to oppose reforms that are seen to be in the wider interests of the conurbation or the city region as a whole. We are trying to account for the fact that, in such a situation, the Secretary of State could proceed with a governance order, if that was felt to be in the wider interests of the area, without every authority having to agree every aspect of that order. There are requirements to consult each authority and to have regard to the identities and interests of local communities, and a governance order would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. I hope that that explanation re-emphasises our points about allowing enough flexibility.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 81

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The clause confers on an ITA or a local transport authority a power to give a direction to a metropolitan district council, a county council or a unitary authority. Such a direction will take the form of an instruction as to how those bodies should exercise their functions as a highway authority or traffic authority. The principal uses of the power would seem to be in the areas of the ability to install traffic management measures and traffic calming measures, and the carrying out of maintenance measures. In theory, all that is fine, but the practice is often rather different.

Subsections (8) to (11) offer conditions so that the exercise of the power is, in some ways, constrained at times, because they say that the directed body would have to do certain things or obtain consent. Conditions would be imposed on the directed body’s power, and powers could not be used in certain circumstances. The directed body must use the power if the directing authority meets the cost of compliance.

The question, yet again, is that of local versus regional. I shall cite a couple of examples from my constituency in which what the directing authority does is not in tune with what the local authority, or, perhaps more importantly, local people, want. In my constituency, the directing body is Transport for London. It wanted to impose a regional cycle network. There was little dispute over the objective, but what was in dispute—and is always in dispute—was some of the routeing.

At one point, TfL decided that the route through Wimbledon should come up one residential road, cross a local main road and go on to another residential road, before proceeding on to another main road and on to Raynes Park. On paper, that looked like a simple exercise, and no one disagreed with the aim of a cycle route. The point at issue was that it involved coming up a local road, skewing across a main road and then going down another local road on a blind bend. That was a death trap for local cyclists, and that point was made in representations by the local residents association, the local cycle group and local councillors. However, the directing authority continued to insist on the route, despite the fact that it was proven to the authority that a similar scheme could be enacted 100 yd up the road without the death trap for cyclists.

The route was imposed, and consequently there was an accident, and now almost no one uses that part of the cycle route. That illustrates that the caveat that the Minister appears to have put into subsections (8) to (11)—that of obtaining consent—needs to be reconsidered. Local authorities and residents often know more than the regional integrated transport authority. Although its wishes and aims might be laudable, unless it takes account of the local context, it is very likely that, in a number of cases, it will do more harm than good.

Wimbledon hill provides a similar example. It is a three-lane—one up, two down—road connecting Wimbledon village to the town centre. Transport for London wanted to insert a bus lane and a new set of traffic controls. We were told that that would speed up the buses, after which TfL would re-engineer its lighting system so that the lights at the bottom of the hill would go through the town in a green wave. If that were to have happened, it would have been entirely laudable and no one would have opposed it. Indeed, no one opposed it initially. However, when TfL came back with its detailed model, a number of consequences of the proposal became apparent, the first of which was that it could not re-engineer the lights for more than two years. Even with the introduction of the bus lane, that would actually slow down bus journeys.

Once again, TfL was asked to reconsider, but four years on, it still has not been able to re-engineer the traffic lights, so we now have not only bus journeys taking longer than they did four years ago, but cars idling, increasing CO2 emissions all the way up the hill. Although I fully accept the need for regional traffic strategies and the benefits that integrated transport authorities can bring, a question mark remains: are we clear that subsections (8) to (11), and particularly the caveat about obtaining consent—the question mark is that the powers cannot be used in certain circumstances—could be used to protect very local, but highly important, circumstances?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

My hon. Friend is making a very good case. Is not the nub of it that very often those with these regional powers exercise them with arrogance and the attitude, “We know better than local opinion,” when in reality the converse is the truth?

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

That might well be my right hon. Friend’s experience. It might be arrogance, but it might just be that they wish to push ahead with their strategy because they believe that it is right. All too often, unless local circumstances are brought into a strategy, it will not bring the benefits that we all seek. I hope that the Minister will confirm how she expects the caveats in subsections (8) to (11) to work. I am concerned about the need to obtain local consent, or if not consent, at least a proper local consultation so that the appropriate examination takes place and local circumstances can be built in to the regional strategy. I am concerned that subsections (8) to (11) do not deal with that.

We had this debate earlier when we were talking about the constituent parts of the integrated transport authorities. If they take account of proper local representation, there is a chance that local circumstances could be built in to the regional strategy. However, if that local representation is not there, it cannot be built in. I want the Minister to reassure us that subsections (8) to (11) will ensure that the degree of power that must be given to the integrated transport authority can, in certain circumstances, be restrained by local consent. I am not convinced that those subsections necessarily do that. Without those constraints, an authority’s good intentions might be entirely negated.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I rise to place on record my dissatisfaction with this flawed procedure. It seems to me that it would be far more appropriate if the Committee were the master of its own destiny and if, instead of extending the time limit this afternoon, we could choose to sit for an extra day on Tuesday. I am sure that that would be far more convenient to many members of the Committee, who may have evening engagements back in their constituencies, particularly as the one thing that was certain from the outset was that we would finish at 4 o’clock today. Yet as I understand the position, the Committee has no power to decide to sit next week, because of a resolution of the House. It is unfortunate that the Government have placed us in this position.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

It might help if I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is signifying objection to the motion or merely commenting on it. Perhaps he might indicate that before we go further.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I was commenting on the flawed procedure. If I am forced to decide whether we have totally inadequate time by finishing at 4 o’clock or reasonably inadequate time by going on until 6 o’clock, I will choose the latter.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I listened carefully to the arguments made this morning by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, and it might help if I address clauses 80 and 81. Clause 80 allows for the delegation of a local authority’s highway or traffic functions to an integrated transport authority to help it to fulfil its strategic responsibility for developing transport policies and planning transport across the ITA area.

Clause 81 offers a lighter-touch approach. It enables an ITA to influence how an area’s local road network is managed without the need formally to delegate functions. Any order giving an ITA the power to give directions would need to specify the roads in the ITA’s area to which the power would apply. It could apply just to roads that carry major bus routes, or the order could list a limited network of the most strategically important local roads in the area. That decision would be made at the point at which an order was made, and the order would have to designate the roads in question. I hope that that helps to clarify the position of what we are trying to achieve.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I was aware of the position beforehand, but I was seeking reassurance from the Minister that subsections (8) to (11) would give the local authority the ability to send a proposed scheme back to the ITA if it did not take account of local circumstances. Is she saying that those subsections allow that local discretion?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

When making the order, the local authority would be able to say that it was prepared for the ITA to make directions over particular roads, but it would be at that point and not at a later stage. The idea is to decide which roads might fall under the scheme at the beginning of the process. We will be issuing guidance on the direction-making powers later in the year. That will obviously be open to consultation, and some of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes now could be made then.

Clause 84

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Clause 84 allows the Secretary of State to make an order to dissolve an integrated transport area and abolish the integrated transport authority. One or more local authorities will then be designated to take over as the local transport authority for the area.

At the moment, it requires a majority of the constituent councils to consent in order to dissolve an ITA. As drafted, the Bill does not require the Secretary of State to nominate the successor body to be a directly elected authority for each part of the former ITA area. It could happen that an authority that formed part of the minority—it might not have consented to the dissolution—found the functions of the ITA being transferred to an authority that had no accountability to the dissenting authority or to the electorate of the area.

I realise that this is a highly technical point, and that that eventually might already be covered, but I look to the Minister to reassure us that if necessary it will be dealt with in guidance or on Report.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

An order dissolving an ITA would have to designate one or more authorities in the area as local transport authorities in order to take over the responsibilities of the ITA, particularly the duty to produce a transport plan.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The Minister has not answered my point. I understand fully that a local transport authority would be designated, but can she assure me that the local transport area designated to each area of the dissolved ITA would be democratically accountable—that it would be the local transport authority for that area? Under the Bill, the position stated by the Minister is absolutely correct, but that leaves us in the position that local authorities might not have a local transport authority that is the same as it.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

On dissolution, the responsibilities of the ITA would have to be transferred to an authority. It would not be transferred to another body; a local authority would have to take over the transport functions of the ITA—as in subsection (2)(a).

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Yes, again the Minister has not answered my question, but restated the position.

I realise that it is a highly technical point, but I shall write to the Minister to seek reassurance. I do not want to delay the Committee, and I suspect that the subject could lead to a certain amount of discussion.

Clause 86

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

This morning, when I moved amendment No. 275, part of the Minister’s answer to me was that clause 86 was the part of the Bill that dealt with section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. As I pointed out, the trouble with that is that clause 86 is one of those very wide catch-all clauses.

Clause 86 deals with incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions and the ability of the Secretary of State to make those as he or she deems necessary. The explanatory notes cite two examples. First, to provide for

“the transfer of property and assets to an”

integrated transport authority

“in consequence of an order...which has delegated certain functions to an ITA.”

So that is clear; it is a consequential provision. The second example cited is,

“in consequence of making an order, for instance to reflect the fact that a new ITA has been established.”

Again, that is clear; there is a need for a transitional provision. However, one might argue that though the consequential and transitional examples that have been given in the explanatory notes are fair, the purpose for which the provisions under the headings “incidental” or “supplementary” would be used is not clear.

I am perfectly aware of what consequential and transitional purposes may be, but I am far from clear as to exactly how the Secretary of State would want to use those provisions in an incidental or a supplementary manner, given that we have throughout the Bill given the Secretary of State extremely wide powers to do as she sees fit, and to include persons and local authorities and to undertake consultations as she sees appropriate. The Secretary of State has wide-ranging discretion already and I cannot see what these powers will be needed for. I am looking for specific examples of why the incidental or supplementary powers are needed. It is an extremely wide-ranging catch-all clause. It implies a potentially huge transfer of power. I am concerned about exactly what the limits to that power are and why the Minister or Secretary of State should need that wide-ranging power.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

This goes back to the discussion that we had earlier about political balance. The idea of clause 86(1) and (4) is that they would enable a governance order made by the Secretary of State to apply relevant parts of existing legislation to ITAs, including, for example, a requirement for their membership to reflect the political balance of councils in their area. As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, that duty applies to passenger transport authorities under section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The clause is about giving the Secretary of State the power to put in an order the other parts of existing legislation.

I want to return to the point that the hon. Gentleman made about political balance, because I listened to what he said and I think that it may be possible for us make those issues clearer in the Bill. I would like to take that away and I may come back to that particular issue on Report.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. I am delighted that for the first time in a very long Committee she has accepted that there may be some merit in one of my amendments. As she heard this morning, it was a wide-ranging concern of the Committee. It will be extremely welcome to hear back from the Minister. I have listened to her explanation of incidental and supplemental. I think that that was where she was going this morning. I am glad that we will get what I was trying to do this morning in the Bill. I will reflect whether incidental and supplemental are really necessary. We may discuss that later.

Clause 87

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I beg to move amendment No. 237, in clause 87, page 74, leave out lines 4 to 6 and add—

‘(2) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Chapter unless the Secretary of State has laid a draft of the order before each House of Parliament and the remaining provisions of this section have been complied with.

(3) The Secretary of State must have regard to—

(a) any representations,

(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament; and

(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament on the draft order,

made on or with regard to the draft order during the 60-day period.

(4) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to make an order in the terms of the draft, he must lay before Parliament a statement—

(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (3)(a); and

(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.

(5) The Secretary of State may after the laying of such a statement make an order in the terms of the draft if it is first approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6) However, a committee of either House may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (4) and before the draft order is approved by that House under subsection (5), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.

(7) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (6) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in that House under subsection (5) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.

(8) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Secretary of State wishes to make an order consisting of a version of the draft order with material changes, he must lay before Parliament—

(a) a revised draft order; and

(b) a statement giving details of—

(i) any representations made under subsection (3)(a); and

(ii) the revisions proposed.

(9) The Secretary of State may after laying a revised draft order and statement under subsection (8) make an order in the terms of the revised draft if it is first approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(10) However, a committee of either House may, at any time after the revised draft order is laid under subsection (8) and before it is approved by that House under subsection (9), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft order.

(11) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (10) in relation to a revised draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft order in that House under subsection (9) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.

(12) Where a person making representations under subsection (3)(a) has requested the Secretary of State not to disclose them, the Secretary of State must not disclose them under subsections (4)(b) or (8)(b)(i) if or to the extent that to do so would (disregarding any connection with proceedings in Parliament) constitute a breach of confidence actionable by any person.

(13) If information in representations made by a person in response to consultation under subsection (3)(a) relates to another person, the Secretary of State need not disclose the information under subsection (4)(b) or (8)(b)(i) if or to the extent that—

(a) it appears to the Secretary of State that the disclosure of that information could adversely affect the interests of that other person; and

(b) the Secretary of State has been unable to obtain the consent of that other person to the disclosure.

(14) Subsections (12) and (13) do not affect any disclosure that is requested by, and made to, a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order.

(15) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (9) an order is made in the terms of a draft order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.

(16) In this section the “60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before Parliament under subsection (2).’.

The amendment is fairly self-explanatory and there has already been lengthy debate about ITAs. The reasons behind the amendment relate back to our discussions about the controversial nature of the ITAs. In line with previous amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and me, this one would afford greater parliamentary scrutiny of any orders made under this chapter relating to those ITAs.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I tabled a similar amendment, which would have the effect of replacing an affirmative order with a regulatory reform order or the super-affirmative process. That is a more appropriate way of dealing with a medium-sized local government reorganisation.

Why is that way better? The Government are proposing—after local consultations which may or may not be controversial—to make an affirmative order and local government will be reorganised, so electors will lose their power to elect people who will directly implement certain highways and transport functions. That is a major change in local government.

Is an affirmative order, even after thorough and good local consultation, the right way to do that? Even if there is an hour and half’s debate, it will be whipped. It is just an opportunity, if the ruling party has a majority, for people who disagree to make their case and lose a whipped vote. That does not seem a proper way of dealing with local government reorganisation.

The alternative, which I do not think would be appropriate either, would be to have a Bill, go through the full legislative process and change the primary legislation. There could be two or three such measures a year, perhaps more in some years, which would take a huge amount of parliamentary time.

However, the regulatory reform order answers the question by pointing out the Government’s proposals and the obvious alternative of primary legislation, because regulatory reform orders are a different parliamentary pathway for altering primary legislation. I think that is what we are doing. The Government have taken powers. One way of looking at the Bill is that it is one whopping Henry VIII clause that gives the Secretary of State a lot of power to make orders. That does not seem a sensible way to deal with local government reorganisation.

Many hon. Members will not be familiar with the super-affirmative process or regulatory reform order. The process is similar to making an order, but a Committee sits and it is possible for individuals to petition and make representations to alter the order. The Committee is able to call the Secretary of State or the Minister responsible and to ask for changes, so it is a very thorough process in both Houses. When it has been used—I think the process was introduced in 1992—it has almost inevitably led to better legislation. It is a recognised parliamentary process for changing primary legislation, rather than just giving the power to the Secretary of State. That seems to me a more appropriate way of proceeding than just a straightforward affirmative resolution.

My hon. Friends, and especially the Minister, need a long perspective when they are taking Henry VIII powers. It is easy when one party is in control to think “This is good; this will get things done more easily”, but the Labour party will not be in control for ever. People may think that I am referring to last week’s elections, but if Opposition Members look at similar debates in Committees on regional assemblies and various other debates in which I have been involved, they will see that I have made that point repeatedly. It is better to have proper procedures that do not merely pay lip service but are part of the democratic process and use the full parliamentary process properly rather than trying to take short cuts. Everybody benefits, whether one is in opposition or government.

It is certainly worth the Minister considering the amendment. It proposes a thorough parliamentary process which addresses, as I have said previously, the fact that the Bill is unbalanced, not in its desire to improve transport but in the way that it treats the local democratic process. The amendment is one way of re-establishing some of the balance. We talked about other ways, such as referendums, vetoes for councils and direct elections earlier this morning. The proposed parliamentary process would re-balance that part of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look seriously at a well-established parliamentary procedure for dealing with changes in primary legislation, rather than taking the power to herself or to the Secretary of State.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I know how concerned my hon. Friend is about the issue, as we have had a number of discussions about it. I accept that the Bill provides for some quite significant reforms to be made via secondary legislation, but that is why we have provided for the affirmative procedure to apply in those cases, so that all such orders would need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. That is completely consistent with the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which looked carefully at the issue, but it noted the procedures and safeguards that were included in the Bill and concluded that

“we do not consider these delegations inappropriate”.

The powers in the Bill are not unprecedented. To give another example, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 provides a power to establish unitary authorities in place of existing local authority structures. That power, too, is exercised by secondary legislation subject to affirmative resolution.

I think we have been through the proper procedures in relation to the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, and we feel that the provisions are appropriate, given the advice we received from the Committee.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I am not persuaded by the Minister on this occasion, and we shall want to return to the matter on Report, so on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

None

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I had tabled an amendment to the clause, but because of the bank holiday and my misunderstanding of the rules, it went in too late, so I want to test in the stand-part debate the issues I would have tested with the Minister in that amendment. They are similar to those raised in our earlier stand-part debate, and to what the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley has just been saying. I am looking for some clarification about the provisions of the clause, because they enable the Secretary of State to issue guidance about anything that could be done by a local authority under this chapter; local authorities must then have regard to such guidance.

We have already discussed the issue several times; the power is extremely wide. The chapter covers the change of names and areas; the power to establish; the need for review, which the Secretary of State already has powers to direct; the review of arrangements; which again the Secretary of State has powers to direct; the delegation of powers, which the Secretary of State can direct; the conferral of powers, where the Secretary of State can intercede; and the changing of boundaries and dissolution of areas, where again the Secretary of State can intervene. It seems to me that clause 89 allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance about anything.

The chapter already includes huge powers for the Secretary of State and it is, once again, a wide-ranging catch-all. In extremis, if the Secretary of State fails to gain the affirmative order that we were talking about in relation to the amendment to clause 87, she simply needs to issue guidance that must be taken regard of. The Secretary of State could issue guidance to an ITA, completely ignoring the local authority and the residents’ feelings, views or wishes, but, more important, she could completely ignore the affirmative order. As the Secretary of State already has huge, wide-ranging powers, can the Minister tell me why, on top of those powers, this provision is needed and can she give some specific examples of the issues it is intended to address?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I rise to support my hon. Friend, and to say to him en passant that if the Committee had the power to sit beyond today, his amendment would no longer be starred and we could have had a debate on it, so that adds to my earlier concern about the matter. I would like to hear from the Minister why she feels it necessary to include the provision, because it just seems to be a means of providing central interference in what ought to be local matters. The only possible justification for the clause would be that a Minister wanted a national plan or policy to be pretty much followed in every part of the country. However, when one looks at subsection (3), that supposition is blown out of the water, because it gives the Minister the power to issue completely different guidance to different parts of the country. It states:

“Any such guidance may make different provision for different cases and different provision for different areas.”

In that case why is she giving Ministers the power to make completely different recommendations to different areas? Is the clause nothing more than a provision to enable continued Whitehall meddling in what ought to be local issues?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The right hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Member for Wimbledon need to reflect back on some of their earlier comments about their desire that local authorities consult with passenger user bodies. I have made it very clear that we want to be able to issue guidance to local authorities about the powers that will be exercised under these clauses. We cannot put everything on the face of the Bill: it is a well-established principle that guidance can be issued to assist local authorities—

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Will the Minister give way?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The hon. Gentleman asked for examples; I will give way to him in a moment.

Guidance can assist local authorities in deciding how they might carry out governance reviews, in judging whether existing arrangements are effective or whether there is a need for a greater strategic overview of transport in their area, and in issues relating to consultation. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that, in a sense, there needs to be a greater degree of control over such things. The hon. Member for Wimbledon wants to put that on the face of the Bill, but what we need is the flexibility we can gain through the guidance we are drawing up, which takes into account the views of local authorities, because they say they find that a helpful way of operating. I will return to the right hon. Gentleman’s point when I have taken his hon. Friend’s intervention.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The Minister must concede that we have been consistent, in the passage of the Bill through Committee, in wanting to ensure that there is local consultation and that it is dealt with in the Bill so that all the necessary parties are statutory consultees. It is only the Minister who says she needs guidance. That is not what we have been saying.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Let me give an example. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that if there was consultation, it would be appropriate to ensure that people who did not necessarily have access to the internet could look at proposals to set up an ITA or to make a quality contracts scheme. That is not the sort of thing that can be put in the Bill, but it can be put in guidance. The right hon. Gentleman welcomed my assurance that we would take that sort of thing into account.

We issued draft guidance in December 2007. Local authorities have said they find it very helpful in deciding how they might prepare for the enactment of the Bill, and we will be redrafting, revising and expanding that guidance in light of comments received from local authorities and to take account of changes to the Bill as it passes through Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman asked why there might be different guidance for different parts of the country. Different parts of the country may face different issues. The guidance might be different if we were talking about establishing a new ITA in a rural area as opposed to an urban area. It might be different if we were talking about expanding a different ITA. We have to be able to reflect the fact that local circumstances might dictate a different approach in different areas.

I hope that is a helpful explanation of clause 89, and that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that it is the right approach.

Clause 92

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

It is not very often that the Committee shouts, “Three cheers for the Local Government Act 2000,” but I know that at this very moment all the people who know that fabulous Act will be doing so, because it will shorten dramatically my remarks on this clause. The Minister and I have many times discussed definitional issues, and I am sure that, had we not had the benefit of that wonderful Act, we would be spending hours over the meaning of “well-being”. As there is now established legal practice as to what “well-being” might be, I do not intend to probe that—although we could, of course, have another half hour’s fun on the meaning of “economic”. None the less, I shall resist that temptation this afternoon.

Clause 92 talks about undertaking a wide range of activities to improve the quality of life for local residents, local businesses and also those who commute or visit—all of which is understandable. The subsection in the clause that allows integrated transport authorities to work with other bodies is also understandable. Where I have a problem, and am looking for the Minister to help, is in subsection (3), which seems to bear some greater examination—particularly subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f).

Subsection (3)(b) allows for “financial assistance” to be made. What exactly is financial assistance? Is it pay, expenses, individual grants to individual bodies, or is it just a more wide-ranging power of subsidy? Can the Minister say exactly what financial assistance is, how it is determined, by whom and for whom, to ensure there is a restraint on potential abuse?

Equally, what is the purpose of subsection (3)(f)? Is it just transference between statutory bodies? Is it a power to subcontract? Is it a catch-all power so that consultants and contractors can be moved around or fed and watered? Can the Minister please give us some guidance as to the exact purpose of subsections (3)(b) and (f)?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I shall follow on from my hon. Friend’s point regarding subsection (3)(f). Reference is made to the fact that the power given here includes the power to

“provide staff, goods, services or accommodation to any person.”

Can the Minister tell us of any situation that might arise where she envisages living accommodation being provided to any person, or is the reference here to office accommodation only? If it is to office accommodation only why does the subsection not say “office accommodation”?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As the hon. Member for Wimbledon says, this clause extends the well-being powers that local authorities already have under the Local Government Act 2000 so that they also apply to integrated transport authorities. Integrated transport authorities have to operate within a framework laid down by statute. That means that they have no powers to take action except where legislation authorises them to do so.

There is a range of statutory duties that they will have to fulfil and a wider range of permissive powers enabling them to undertake particular activities if they choose to do so. This clause takes this a stage further and provides ITAs with the power to take any steps that they consider likely to promote or improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of their local community without the need for there being a specific provision in other legislation.

As the hon. Gentleman said, these powers have already been granted to local authority by means of the Local Government Act 2000. For example, North Tyneside and Newcastle City councils have already used them to enter a joint private finance initiative to replace and repair street lighting in their areas.

In terms of financial assistance, this would enable an ITA to give grants to any person. It would be the ITA’s decision, subject to their financial abilities, to give the money. This extends to the point that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire raised about accommodation. It is not linked in the Bill to any particular type of accommodation—it could be staffing accommodation, for example. It is important to remember that the judgment about whether the power is properly exercised—I think that that is the point that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman raised—would be subject to the usual rules for local authorities on proper accounting for expenditure and acting according to best value criteria. I hope that that explanation is helpful.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I thank the Minister for her reply, but I am not entirely happy with it. Is she saying, then, that if, to help the environment, a chairman of an authority did not want to drive 10 miles to work and back, he could set up a grace and favour flat for his own use under this power?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As I have said, we are trying to give powers in the Bill so that ITAs in the circumstances that we are discussing can, if they wish, make proper provision in respect of, for example, staff accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman gives the specific example of a grace and favour flat. The question would be whether that was a proper use of public money. Was it properly accounted for? Was it signed off by the financial director? Was it within the best value criteria? The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Committee has a choice: do we not give any powers that would cover quite reasonable expenses and expenditure by a local authority and try to dictate exactly what every single penny should be spent on? Frankly, I do not think that we can do that. This is about striking the right balance.

Clause 93

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

We have considered the wide-ranging powers to promote well-being, and that is fair and understood. Clause 93 provides that these wide-ranging powers cannot override the constraints already put in place by the legislation. The powers do not include the power to raise moneys, and the Secretary of State can make orders to prevent the powers to promote well-being from being used by an ITA. Two issues arise from that. First, it has been established in Committee that we all believe the consultation principle to be a good one, but it seems slightly odd that when the Secretary of State wishes to make an order that prevents an ITA from using the power to promote well-being, she has to consult that ITA. Presumably, she already knows what it is going to do; it has already stated that. It therefore seems slightly odd that that is what happens.

Secondly, subsections (7) and (8) say that before exercising a power to promote well-being, the ITA must consult some people specified, but not everybody, and not everybody specified in previous provisions of the Bill. I again bring to the Minister’s attention the inconsistency throughout the Bill in respect of people who are consulted. There seems to be no consistency at all—a point that this clause highlights yet again.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Clause 93 gives more detail on how the new well-being powers for ITAs will work. As the hon. Gentleman says, it allows the Secretary of State to make an order listing certain actions that one or more ITAs would not be able to do under the well-being powers, subject to representatives of ITAs, local authorities and other relevant people being consulted. I emphasise that we certainly do not expect that such an order will have to be made often, if at all. However, in the case of the Transport Act 2000, Parliament decided that it would be sensible to take such a reserve power in case such circumstances arose, and we think that it is wise to make similar provision in this Bill. Any order would be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses.

Clause 96

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Lady Winterton. The Prime Minister recently announced a new Government initiative of listening and learning where there is public concern. The Bill was published before that policy announcement was made and before a recent poll, carried out by the Automobile Association, which showed that 90 per cent. of all motorists did not trust the Government in respect of road charging. In view of that, I wondered whether as part of the listening and learning process the Minister had decided not to move any of the clauses relating to road charging.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

That is clearly a point of debate and not a point of order.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The reason I wanted to speak on clause 96 is that it brings us into a new part of the Bill that concerns local and London charging schemes, which we need to examine in some detail. The Government were once wedded to a national road pricing scheme. The then Secretary of State for Transport made positive noises and the then Prime Minister appeared to support it; the new Secretary of State appointed by the new Prime Minister then started to withdraw from that view and it seems to have disappeared, so the Government have dithered. We then had 1 million people voting on the Downing street website against national road pricing in the poll to which my right hon. Friend refers.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I am well aware that the Government’s policy on road pricing and congestion charging is somewhat confused, but will the hon. Gentleman explain Conservative party policy on congestion charging and road user pricing?

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I know that you look forward eagerly to my speeches and, of course, you will be getting that full explanation towards the end of my speech. For exactly the reason you have stated, it is important—

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Order. I am not eagerly looking forward to anything at all, other than perhaps the end of this Committee.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I apologise profusely, Lady Winterton. I have managed to get through nine sittings without making that error. The point that the hon. Gentleman was making was that the Government’s position is confused, which was the point that I was starting to outlay. It is only fair that at the start of this major new part we explore the Government’s position and ask the Minister for clarification. I do not know what the Government’s policy is, and the hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not know either.

More Machiavellian figures than I might wonder whether part 6 is nothing more than an attempt by the Government to reintroduce national road pricing by the back door, by allowing integrated transport authorities to make charging schemes singly. Evidence for that view is that the recent round of applications to the transport innovation fund was available only to local authorities that had plans to implement a road charging scheme contained within their bid. Whether or not a local authority wanted a road charging scheme or thought that it was appropriate, it had to include one in its bid if it were to receive any funds. I fail to see that investment in a local transport infrastructure should necessarily be linked or dependent on a road pricing scheme.

The second piece of evidence of an attempt at national road pricing by the back door is that there are several clauses in the Bill where the provisions could be used to impose road user charging on local authorities, even if they decided that they did not want it. Here at the outset, it would be helpful for the Government to lay out their position in some detail. I often find when discussing the whole aspect of road user charging that there is a confusion between road user charging and congestion charging or low emission zones. The former, road user charging, is a continuous toll on a road, the latter allows for variable rates at variable times of travel. We want to be clear that, if the Government are going to introduce blank road user charging, they must ensure that it is cost-effective.

In London, where the initial scheme was set up, 47 per cent. of the revenues go to the cost of running the scheme. The Evening Standard produced evidence last year that adding together the operating expenditure and the capital expenditure repayments, together with the depreciation, accounted for 97 per cent. of the revenues. One needs to be pretty cautious. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley will want to talk later about the scheme in Greater Manchester, but that scheme was clearly dependent upon the first point that I made—it came about as a result of the need for TIF. That position seems to be put forward regularly by various local authorities in that area.

I am also clear that we need to be absolutely certain about the definitional aspects of road user pricing, congestion charging and low emission zones. I am absolutely clear—for the benefit of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington—that there should not be a national road pricing scheme. I am absolutely clear that local schemes, be they road user pricing, congestion charging or low emission zones, need local validation—consent—before they are introduced. I am also clear that if there is the possibility at local level of using road user pricing to supplement or increase funding, or in conjunction with the building of local transport infrastructure, then that road user pricing should also have local validation.

I hope that is a clear exposition of my party’s position. As I started out by saying, the Government’s position seems entirely muddled. It is only fair to the Committee, at the start of this important part of the Bill, that the Minister give us some indications.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that if public validation in some form had been required for the congestion charge scheme in London, the public would probably have voted against the scheme? Now the scheme is in place, most people would probably be in favour of it.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When we discuss amendment No. 14, with which I have a lot of sympathy, he will see that I have followed his line of argument—there is a problem with referendums as local validation. However, in other countries, they allow validation to be at the time of, or at some stage within a certain period after, the introduction of a charging scheme. In some cases, after the introduction of a scheme, when the validation process has been sought by referendums, the scheme has remained in place, while in other places it has been taken away. I want to explore that point more when we discuss amendment No. 14. However, it is probably only fair that I now give the Minister a chance to reply and to explain in detail and with clarity the Government’s position on national road user pricing.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I support my hon. Friend in what he has to say about those charging schemes. One can perhaps acknowledge that the Government are at least being honest—they have dropped all reference to “congestion”, and have simply included a number of clauses giving councils power to introduce charging schemes. I, too, am interested to know where the Government now stand in respect of that policy.

On 6 May The Times carried a report with the headline “Manchester polls deal blow to congestion charge expansion”. The report stated:

“Plans to extend congestion charging to cities across Britain are in disarray after the policy’s strongest supporter lost his council seat to an anti-charging candidate. Roger Jones, the Labour chairman of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, was pushed into third place in Salford. His seat was won by the Community Action Party (CAP), which ran a campaign based on opposition to the £5 daily peak period congestion charge that was proposed by Mr. Jones. With the Conservatives coming second in what was a safe Labour seat, the result will make other councillors cautious about supporting congestion charging.”

The report quotes Mr. Jones, who said:

“I have got to get myself a job because I’m unemployed for the first time since I left school.”

It is clear that there is overwhelming public opposition to further charging schemes.

I heard what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe had to say—that such opposition should never be the sole test when assessing new policy initiatives. To be fair, he has a point; there are other issues that one should take into account, but at the end of the day, we have to remember that we are democratically elected politicians, and if we go so far in one direction against the wishes of those who elect us, we cannot complain if we are turfed out on our ear for so doing.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should spend some time in the centre of Sheffield speaking to people there, some of whom may not be his constituents but visitors to Sheffield wanting to spend their money and create wealth and jobs in the city. He could then find out what they think of the proposal to introduce widespread road user charging. It is a betrayal of the pledge that the House gave when it introduced vehicle excise duty.

The argument used when vehicle excise duty was introduced—I think it was in 1908—was that motorists were fed up with having to pay tolls and charges as they moved around the country. The duty allows motorists to pay up front a flat fee in tax to the Government for the privilege of using their vehicles on our roads. The new policy runs counter to that pledge.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Would the right hon. Gentleman not accept that a charging scheme could be introduced if people around the country thought that there would be some significant benefits? For instance, a cost-neutral charging scheme could be introduced under which there would be a significant number of winners as well as some losers. If we introduced the polluter pays concept, people who used their car on an irregular basis on uncongested roads in towns, villages and rural areas could benefit financially from the introduction of a national road user pricing scheme.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I do not want to stray too far from the provisions in the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was very sensible.

If a national user charging scheme were to replace other taxes—for instance, if fuel duty was cut and vehicle excise duty was abolished—there are arguments in its favour. It would encourage people to use the roads at different times of day and thereby reduce congestion; for example, by making it cheaper to drive in the evening than in the early morning. A national road pricing scheme would have some attractions if it replaced other motoring taxes.

I understand that such a policy would be supported by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington. However, we are dealing with the power to introduce charging schemes with no rebate on other motoring taxes. In other words—I will use the phrase—it is a stealth tax. That is what the Committee is being asked to support. If the charging schemes were coupled with local fuel duty reductions, one could make a good fist of a case for introducing them, but the Government propose no such thing. Some people may say, “Ah, but we must think of the environment. If we exempt electric cars, it will further help in our campaign against emissions.” To those who might put forward that argument I say, read the recent report published by Professor David Newbery of Cambridge university. He looked at the question of the environmental cost of motoring and concluded that if motorists were asked to pay for their share of the emissions they caused they should be paying tax at the rate of 20p a litre of fuel. Tax is currently 60p a litre.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I invite the right hon. Gentleman to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe does weekly—if not daily when he is in his city—and come to the centre of Sheffield. He will see that the problems with traffic congestion are not just about emissions levels but that congestion damages Sheffield’s economy. That is why the Sheffield chamber of commerce is demanding action to deal with the problem on economic grounds, if nothing else.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am happy to accept the invitation. I am probably the only Conservative Member of Parliament who has appeared at Sheffield Attercliffe working men’s club— a few years ago when I played the drums in a band. I know Sheffield quite well. I regularly visited the Fiesta club when it existed. I am happy to go back and have a guided tour.

There are various ways to attack congestion. My objection to the Government is that they seem to think that the only way to deal with congestion is to attack the motorist and impose higher taxes on him or her.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Could the right hon. Gentleman outline some of the alternatives to road charging to reduce congestion on our roads and in our big cities?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Birmingham city council had a very good idea for reducing congestion. Two of its most congested roads were where one lane had been taken out of action because it was marked as a bus lane. The council removed the bus lane, to local delight and joy, until the then Secretary of State for Transport, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, threatened Birmingham city with a loss of grant unless it reinstated the bus lanes. There are many innovative ways to deal with congestion. The Americans—

Ms Smith rose—

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am answering the hon. Lady’s first question.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way—if he intends to—we should return to the matter in hand and not go as wide as the Committee is going at present.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough listing a few other initiatives that have been tried in America and which do not involve imposing extra tax on the motorist.

Over the past 10 or 12 years, I have not normally quoted from TheTimes,because it has been a Labour party-supporting newspaper. However, early last year on 20 February it carried a report with the headline, “Make a start on road pricing or ‘lose out on £1.4 billion’”. It stated:

“The Government is attempting to ‘blackmail’ local authorities into introducing congestion charging by refusing to fund public transport schemes unless they are linked to a new tax on motorists. The Department for Transport has established a £1.4 billion fund for investment in local transport but has told councils that any bid for a share of the money must include congestion charging”.

Taking that report together with The Timesreport I quoted earlier about what happened to Mr. Jones in Manchester, Labour Members ought to reflect, before they cast their vote on this part of the Bill, on what might happen to them if this unpopular scheme goes ahead. On the sort of swings we have seen recently, the hon. Members for Stafford, for Sheffield, Hillsborough, for Derby, North and for Bristol, East, as well as the Minister, could be in danger. All those seats could go if the public react in the same way to road charging in their constituencies as happened in Manchester, so I hope that to save her throat and her seat the Minister will get up and say that she is dropping this part of the Bill.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I am glad that the right hon. Member has just confirmed that the Conservative candidate for Sheffield, Attercliffe has no chance in the next election.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I recall saying no such thing. I said that I was happy to come to the constituency to meet local people there. If I do, I would certainly expect to meet the Conservative candidate, who I anticipate will be the next MP there.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

To move on to the matter in hand, I accept some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points. It is a difficult issue to convince the public about. I am in no doubt about it. I have been vocal in Sheffield about my support for examining the possibility of introducing a congestion charging scheme. I have gone public with it and written articles in the local paper. Generally, the letters in response are not terribly supportive and sometimes not very complimentary. That is because the public are not convinced and think that, somehow, they are being done down and will simply be charged. It is hardly a stealth tax as it is such a public issue.

In this instance, we are talking about a power for ITAs to be able to introduce a scheme if they think it appropriate for their areas. It is right that that power should exist, because if the right hon. Member feels that there are other measures for dealing with congestion, this clearly is one potential method that will have to be considered properly.

I am in no doubt that it will not come about quickly in cities such as Sheffield because the reality is that not merely my Labour colleagues but the party that now has a majority in Sheffield, the Lib Dems, are committed to opposing any congestion charge scheme, probably because they both believe that it will be politically unpopular. They are probably right, but sometimes there is a responsibility on politicians, as democratically elected representatives, to try to give a lead.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough raised the point about the local economy. The fact in Sheffield is that congestion does real damage. We want people to come to Sheffield to work, to shop and to enjoy the leisure facilities and the magnificent new city centre, but they cannot get in and out easily at peak periods. I take the point that a scheme for charging people for the use of roads can be a way of switching the tax on motorists from licence or fuel duty to charging for roads, but it can also be a means of raising money that should be hypothecated for improving public transport—there is a package there. However, we will probably have to improve public transport before we bring the scheme in.

We have done some road building recently to try to improve the inner ring road but if one talks to the highway engineers, there is spare capacity at peak periods—it varies slightly—of around 10 to 15 per cent. We know that traffic is growing at about 2 per cent. per year. It does not take a genius to work out that at some point the roads are going to be full. That has happened over the past two years—there were one or two vehicle breakdowns in the city centre at key points, the whole city was gridlocked and it took people an hour to move a couple of hundred yards.

There is no solution in building more and more roads to get us out of that. The only solution is to try to ensure that people switch to public transport or travel at different times when they can. The power to bring in congestion charge schemes, which I accept ought to be variable—people will not be charged the same amount for travelling at off-peak periods as at peak periods—linked to some improvement in public transport is the right way forward.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The weakness in the Government’s case is that there is to be no remission in other taxes paid by motorists. We would accept a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said if this was not an additional tax.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield, Attercliffe)

That is a reasonable point, but my first priority would be to make a scheme work that reduces congestion and gets the traffic moving. That means trying to get people on to public transport. Where the public transport is inadequate, as it is in many of our cities, which is why we were talking about quality contracts earlier——the two go together—then we need to invest more in public transport, in schemes such as guided buses and trams, of which I am very supportive. One can anticipate the proceeds of a congestion charge by tax income and funding, which the new local government network has been arguing for, and put a package together, but it must be a total package. Improving public transport alone might have attracted people out of their cars 20 or 30 years ago, but I do not think that it would anymore. There have to be two sides to it: improve public transport to attract people, but at the same time impose a penalty for travelling at peak periods in congested areas. I just do not see any other solution.

We at least have to have the debate, and it is our responsibility as elected Members, even if things are not immediately popular or obvious with the public, to raise the issues and bring the arguments forward. On this occasion, we should vote to give powers to ITAs to use where they think they are appropriate to address the needs of their areas.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Opposition Members are getting over-excited, because these are not major changes. Local authorities already have the power to make local road-pricing schemes under the Transport Act 2000. The difference here is that, at present, they have to get permission from the Secretary of State to make one. We are changing that so that if local authorities believe it is best for their area, they will be able to do it. The change also allows ITAs to make schemes jointly with, for example, metropolitan councils, if it is felt to be necessary for establishing an integrated transport system.

Finally, the provisions allow revenue from any scheme not just to be put back into public transport for the first 10 years of a scheme, but during the whole life of a scheme. This is not about forcing local authorities to introduce road pricing but about enabling them if they feel it is best. Opposition Front Benchers do not want local authorities to be able introduce statutory partnership schemes, they do not want them to be able to introduce quality contracts schemes, and now they do not want them to be able to introduce road pricing schemes. Basically, the policy of the Conservatives is the status quo: there is no problem, let us just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that congestion is not any part of the problems in our urban areas. Frankly, I think the public will see straight through that. The Conservatives are bereft of ideas and out of touch.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

After last Thursday, the Minister is in a very dangerous position accusing anybody of being out of touch. She should not continually do what she has done several times, which is to completely misrepresent our position, which is clear. We have said that we support statutory partnerships, completely contrary to what she said. Our position on quality contracts is clear, because I prefer partnerships, and we have gone down that road. I suspect Lady Winterton is just about to tell me not to go down that road again. Finally, as I set out at the beginning, we support the ability of local authorities to make congestion charging schemes, or road-user schemes—they are different—providing that they have local validation. What the Minister is saying is nonsense and a complete misrepresentation of the official Opposition’s position. I hope she will acknowledge that point.

Furthermore, the Minister just said, as if it were a good thing, that the Secretary of State will no longer have to confirm such schemes. It be a good thing if that scheme were one subject to extensive local consultation, local validation or tested and validated by an independent inspector. She may have opened up the problem that we are going to discuss in a few minutes’ time in clause 104, that without the Secretary of State confirming it, local authorities may impose these schemes on local electorates without any consultation whatsoever. That is the possible consequence of her Bill as it stands.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

That simply is not true. The hon. Gentleman knows that local authorities will be expected to consult on schemes; that is absolutely without doubt. I do not think there is much point pursuing further the alternatives that the Opposition parties are proposing, because I do not think they are offering any alternatives. As I have said, this is not an enormous change to the current position. There is no question of forcing local authorities to take forward pricing in their areas. Through the transport innovation fund, we have made additional funding available to local authorities to explore whether road pricing, complemented by improvements to local transport, would be the right approach to tackle congestion in their areas. I do not think there is any problem with doing that. It is about innovation. It is about looking at new ideas, but the transport innovation fund is not the only source of funding for local transport. This Government have invested very heavily in local transport. That is something we can be very proud of and I hope the Committee will support clause 96.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

What the Minister signally failed to do, of course, is explain the Government’s position on road pricing. She signally failed to say whether she accepts the Opposition’s view—a view shared, I suspect, by some Labour Members—that these local schemes require local validation. She signally failed to make any response to my right hon. Friend, who said that there is the potential for this to be just an additional tax on motorists. And, despite saying that consultation is “expected”, she has signally failed to answer the point that, as the Bill is currently structured, local authorities may only be “expected” to consult.

People are expected or hoped to do all sorts of things. The fact of the matter is that, as the Bill currently stands, by removing the power of the Secretary of State to confirm a scheme, local authorities are not obligated to consult. Therein lies a flaw. Local authorities are not obligated to validate. I accept the Minister’s point that the power is already there. We support that power, and we would support this power if there were local validation. I had intended not to make a great issue of this. I had certainly not intended to press the point, but the Minister’s arguments have been so inadequate that I think it is time to make this point. We fully accept that local authorities should have the right to make congestion schemes, rather than the road user schemes that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe was talking about. Congestion schemes are undoubtedly one weapon that can be used to reduce congestion. We fully support that, and we fully support that local authorities should have the chance to do that, provided that there is local validation. We are going to come on to that in a moment. But the Minister also failed to give any assurance that the funds that might be raised by such a scheme as the hon. Gentleman talked about could be reinvested in local matters.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I was absolutely clear about that. I said that the change that would be made by the Bill is that it would not just be for the first 10 years, but for the whole life of the scheme.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

What you were not clear about—

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Lady Winterton was not clear?

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am sorry. Lady Winterton is always clear. I am occasionally not clear, but I am absolutely clear on this: the Minister has not answered my point. Making the point that we absolutely support both the powers of the Transport Act 2000 and local authorities’ ability to create charging schemes with local validation, I am minded to ask my hon. Friends to vote against this clause.

Clause 97

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 97, page 79, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3A) A local charging scheme shall not be made unless a referendum of all electors within the boundary of the relevant integrated transport area has been held and a majority of electors are in favour of the establishment of a local charging scheme.’.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that congestion charging schemes will not go ahead without a referendum of all the people in the area of the integrated transport authority. However, the real purpose is to have a debate related to the last debate on what the local validation process and method of consent should be. I accept that there are all sorts of flaws with referendums and that people vote on other issues. They vote on the popularity or unpopularity of local authorities and the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe pointed out, voters may not be able to easily envisage the benefits of a scheme.

Having said that, with something as toxic as imposing a new tax without any relief in taxation elsewhere, we have to be clear what the method of consent is, and I have not been very satisfied with the process of the transport innovation fund bid as it applies to congestion charging in Manchester. We have heard the Opposition state that the Government have said that TIF bids will go ahead only where there are congestion charges. I believe that to be the case, but of course, the last but one Secretary of State for Transport said on a number of occasions on the Floor of the House that this absolutely was not to be a condition that would be looked at. When his successor visited Manchester, he told the passenger transport executive groupnot to bother applying for extra funds to extend the tram system if it did not have a road charge. His exact words were that congestion charging was the “only show in town”.

That is the background. The Government say that this is enabling legislation and how could any reasonable person who supports and believes in local democracy, be against enabling legislation? I am certainly not, but that is not the reality that we have experienced in Manchester. The reality is that this is enabling legislation with the Government behind it, twisting arms. The Government want to look at Manchester as an experiment in road pricing congestion charging, having withdrawn support for a national road pricing scheme. The arguments for doing that have been various and many. Some have been odd.

Most of the economic damage done in this country by congestion—distinguishing it from other countries in Europe, with the possible exception of the Netherlands—is inter-urban congestion. That is what really puts the price on. That relies on reports such as the Eddington report, which in my opinion was heavily influenced by Treasury thinking and not so much by Eddington himself, having known his views beforehand, read the report afterwards and been unable to match them. He pointed out something that is regularly quoted by the Government: there is more congestion in cities than on the inter-urban network. Well, there is a surprise. Cities are concentrated, focused places. There is always going to be congestion in cities, particularly successful cities. That is not necessarily a complete argument for putting on a congestion charge and taxing people extra.

I disagree, on an evidential basis, with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe said about the evidence of people moving to public transport where public transport is provided. Certainly, over the past seven years on trains and trams in Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and London, as the services have become more frequent, the growth in passengers has far exceeded the growth in car traffic.

The case that has been made for introducing a particular, special tax in Manchester and nowhere else, as an experiment, has been very dodgy, particularly considering what the Government are using for their congestion projections; one thing that we can say is that projections are always wrong. It was projected the price of petrol would rise to and remain steady at $50 a barrel. I do not blame the Government for that, because few economists expected oil to be at $120-plus now. However, that is where the price is, and that is likely to affect congestion and growth in traffic; certainly, in the early ’90s it affected the growth in traffic. It would also help if the 2 million vehicles that drive around our cities and roads unlicensed and uninsured were taken off the roads—that would be a major contribution to getting rid of congestion.

How are we going to validate the introduction of a congestion charge? Of course there will be consultation, said the Minister. However, will it conform to Cabinet Office standards? There were guidelines for the Manchester TIF consultation, but when the Manchester TIF bid was put in the consultation was a sham. It did not conform to Cabinet Office guidelines, although we were told that it would.

Will the whole process of consultation be transparent? The TIF bids so far have not been transparent. When I put freedom of information requests to the Department for Transport—to find out what the correspondence between the Greater Manchester authorities and the Department for Transport had been—I am told that it is commercially sensitive. How is it commercially sensitive? People have a right to know.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the vast majority of people in Greater Manchester do not know the details of the proposed scheme?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The hon. Gentleman makes a blindingly obvious point. The documents are confidential. The TIF bid that has gone in is not available. I was given a copy of the bid, on my honour not to spread it about. I accepted it on that basis, because I wanted to see what was in it. Perhaps I should not have accepted it. However, most of the campaigners against a congestion charge have been unable to get that information, and I have not given it to them. I can see no reason why that information should have been kept secret. I do not know why the Department for Transport does not believe it. It is a bad omen and a bad precedent if we are to believe that there will be consent of local people before the project in Manchester goes ahead. I will listen with interest to what the Minister says, and I want to be assured that if there is not a referendum—and I do not expect the amendment to be agreed to, now or on Report—there will be a completely transparent and independently assessed consultation.

Secretaries of State have said that we must bring in a congestion charge. Can the Minister tell me that she expects that, if opinion polls are carried out, they will not be carried out by the promoters of the scheme, but independently, so that they can be checked? The client of the polling organisation should be independent and all the conversations between and documentation from those bodies should be available to the public.

I say this out of a party-political vested interest, apart from anything else: the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire was right. Dr. Roger Jones, the former Irlam councillor, is a friend of mine even though we disagreed on the congestion charge, which was the only real issue in the election in Irlam. It was the worst result in Irlam, a traditional Labour seat, for the last 35 or 36 years. I do not want my hon. Friends who are Members of this House, or my friends who are Labour councillors, to lose their seats.

Most of the opinion polls show that 80 per cent. of the public in Greater Manchester are against this scheme, though I accept that no one really knows the details of it. If the public do not have a referendum or the chance to be satisfied that there is a thorough consultation that represents their views, they will take out their anger or disagreement with the scheme on Labour councillors and MPs. I want to avoid that by ensuring that integrated transport authorities are not set up or highway powers transferred without the consent of people and with the active opposition of some councils.

We heard this morning that these powers could be transferred against the wishes of some councils and against the wishes of the population, and then a congestion charge scheme could be imposed, again without complete consent. Politically, for my Government and for my party in control of four local authorities in Greater Manchester, to introduce a tax on top of other taxes at the present time is, quite frankly, bonkers.

When the prices of food, fuel and other necessities of life are going up, it is not sensible to look at a new tax on top. That does not invalidate the case for congestion charges as a principle. That may well exist. However, to have a charge in one place without any compensation elsewhere would be a huge mistake. I look forward to my right hon. Friend’s answers about the transparency of the process and the validation of any process, whether it be a referendum or a deep consultation.

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

I support the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, for a number of reasons. Consider the extension to the congestion charge in London. The Minister said earlier that she expected councils to consult, but the then—fortunately no longer—Mayor of London did consult but ignored the consultation when it was clearly against the extension. I fully agree that it is unlikely that a referendum will be put in the Bill, but there needs to be a mechanism that residents can trust that is not run by people who want such schemes in place. That goes for whichever political persuasion the people in control of an area may be.

The other important factor is the difference between road charging and congestion charging. People must be able to see that the congestion charge will ease congestion. Out of interest, yesterday I met a delegation from the Dutch Parliament, where they are looking at a national congestion charge or road charging scheme, but intend to scrap their equivalent of road tax and taxation so that people will not necessarily pay more unless they are driving substantially longer distances, so they will not be penalised. That truly is congestion charging, rather than road charging or extra taxation.

Some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman were perfectly correct. Let us take an area just outside or on the fringes of London, like my constituency, so we are outside the congestion charge zone. We were told that the congestion charge would ease congestion. In fact, congestion has not gone down over the period of time. It is exactly the same as when the congestion charge was first brought in. That is with more buses, even after the debacle of Metronet and the money that was wasted on that. However, improvements to public transport have not eased congestion whatsoever, and that is according to official Government statistics, or should I say Greater London authority statistics?

I fully support what the hon. Member is trying to introduce. There has to be a mechanism that people will trust. Then they will not feel that the people who they have elected to represent them, from whatever political party, are letting them down. When the Minister says that she expects that councils will do this, it is great to expect it, but it does not necessarily mean that they are going to do it or that they will listen to the results. That needs to be enshrined in the Bill.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

I, too, lend my support to the amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley will choose to push it to a vote.

I cannot resist the temptation to point out that the amendment is in line with Manchester Liberal Democrat policy and contrary to Manchester Labour party policy as far as local congestion charging schemes are concerned. During the elections only last week, members of the Labour party in Manchester were suggesting that the Liberal Democrats in Manchester were all over the place on congestion charging. It is completely the opposite way around. The Manchester Liberal Democrats fully support a referendum before any local congestion charging scheme is introduced. It is the Labour party that seems to be completely divided on the issue.

I am not suggesting for one second that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley is all over the place on the issue. He has been completely consistent in his opposition to the congestion charge in Manchester. However, his colleagues are not in line with his views on the congestion charge or with his obvious support for a referendum prior to any charge being introduced.

It is only fair to say that Roger Jones fell foul of the congestion charge proposals in Greater Manchester. It is a great shame that the campaign was waged against him purely on one issue. It was disappointing to see the resources put in by the anti-congestion charge lobby to try to defeat him over the issue. Local government is not just about single issues, but a whole range of issues. Regardless of one’s political views or political opinions, Roger Jones served the people of Salford in Irlam and the PTA very well. I do not always necessarily agree with the views they espouse but it was very disappointing that the anti-congestion charge lobby attacked him in the way that it did.

That said, councillors in Manchester, other parts of Greater Manchester and anywhere else where a local scheme might be proposed should beware of what happened to former Councillor Jones in Irlam. In future there should be full support given locally before a scheme is introduced.

I hope that the amendment is pressed to a vote and that, hopefully with some support from Labour Members, we can defeat the Government on this issue.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The hon. Gentleman may not like it when a single issue carries a lot of votes but the message is that politicians should beware if they are seeking to advance policies that the general public detest. My party has been there. We pushed ahead with the poll tax and look what happened to my party at the subsequent election. There is a warning here for Labour Members.

I return to the very brave speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley. He was responsible for a devastating attack on the Minister. He left the Minister’s assertions in tatters and left her naked in terms of her argument.

The idea that this is an enabling provision and that local councillors are free to apply their judgment with the knowledge of local circumstances to this issue is just not happening, as he rightly said. On Second Reading, I referred to a similar case in my constituency where the local council wished to carry out road improvements in Bridlington and was told bluntly by the Department for Transport that unless it incorporated a park-and-ride scheme, it could not have the money.

We know from the report in The Times and other comments that have been made, including from the hon. Gentleman, that the Government are doing the same thing on road charging. They cannot say it is a matter for local councillors because they are—I was going to say “blackmailing” but perhaps that is a little unparliamentary—arm-twisting local councillors into making decisions that they would not otherwise make. That is why I am pleased to support the amendment.

It is important to look at what is happening to the cost of motoring. As the hon. Gentleman said, if this was an attempt to shift the tax that motorists face from one or two other sources into road charging, we would be having a totally different debate. It is not. It is to be an additional imposition on the motorist against a background where tax on drivers is up £600 a year. According to yesterday’s Daily Telegraph:

“Figures compiled by the AA show that the average motorist pays more than £1,800 annually in fuel duty, car tax, VAT on petrol and other levies—an increase of more than 50 per cent in little more than a decade.”

It goes on to say:

“When Labour came to power in 1997, the Government raised a total of £31.3 billion from motoring taxes... By 2006, that had increased to £45 billion and increases in fuel duty and excise duty are expected to lead to a tax take of at least £48 billion this year—a 53 per cent rise.”

No wonder electors are saying, “Enough is enough. We do not want to have to pay road-user charging as well.” That is why poor Mr. Jones lost his seat.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in real terms, the cost of motoring has fallen, whereas the cost of travelling by train or bus has risen?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I do not think the information provided by T he Daily Telegraph would bear out that assertion. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read yesterday’s paper, which I am sure is available in the Library.

My only criticism of the amendment relates to drafting. It might be impossible ever to get a yes vote, because the amendment says:

“A local charging scheme shall not be made unless a referendum of all electors within the boundary of the relevant integrated transport area has been held and a majority of electors are in favour”.

If the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley had referred to “a majority of electors voting are in favour” there would not have been a problem. However, the amendment could be taken to mean that a majority of electors on the electoral role had to be in favour, and I do not think that threshold would ever be reached if that test were applied.

That is a minor criticism, however, and I think that the principle of having a referendum is a good one, particularly in the light of the arm twisting of local decision-makers that is going on. Someone has to be able to express a free and unfettered voice on the issue before such a proposal is introduced. Although many Conservatives feel that referendums are alien to our system of democracy, for the reasons that I and the three previous speakers mentioned I think that this is one way to proceed, which is why I support the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I, too, rise to support the amendment. It is extremely important and goes some way toward the position that I outlined earlier—that there is a need for local validation of these schemes. I accept the argument already made by several Members that local electors exercise the function of local referendums at local elections, and Mr. Jones, a week later, is probably feeling that that is what happened to him. None the less, there are imperfections to that argument, because in a number of areas elections are held only once every four years, so the referendum element of a local election cannot really happen.

The problem with the amendment was outlined by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe when he challenged me earlier, which is that it is highly likely that there would be no chance of a scheme being accepted as people are initially reluctant to vote for a congestion charging scheme if they are going to have to pay more money.

While I fully support and see the need for referendums, no matter how alien the concept may be, the amendment would have benefited from wording such that it allowed a referendum to occur either at the time of the congestion charge being introduced or—as I mentioned happens in several international cases, where a time limit is set after the introduction of a congestion charge for the scheme to be validated—six or 12 months afterwards. There have been cases of schemes then being accepted.

That would have had the benefit of answering the criticism that I am sure the Minister is about to make, which is that, to all intents and purposes, the amendment would wreck the ability of local authorities ever to introduce congestion charges. However, the principle of local validation is correct, and despite its imperfections the amendment would take us a huge step forward toward ensuring that local consent was given to local schemes. I shall certainly support it.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I want to re-emphasise that what is happening is not a massive change from the situation at the moment. However, we have had that argument and I will simply address the idea of having a compulsory referendum.

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, which amended the Local Government Act 1999, imposes a duty on local authorities to involve local persons in the exercise of any of their functions, where appropriate. The functions to which that duty applies include establishing a local road charging scheme.

Local schemes are tailor made to tackle local problems, and, as such, we believe that consultation should be appropriate to the scheme proposed and to the local situation. We have tried to take a flexible approach to the forward consultation, which local authorities should follow, and do not feel it appropriate for central Government to impose a specific form, such as a compulsory referendum. The aim of the Bill is to devolve responsibility for decision-making to the local level, and it would run contrary to that to start imposing restraints and inflexible duties from the centre. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley will withdraw it.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I am disappointed with that response because, while I am not totally wedded to the idea of referendums, I think that reasonable people can see advantages and disadvantages in them. On something as controversial as this, I would expect a rather better response as to how validation—the involvement of local people—should take place, to quote my right hon. Friend the Minister. There was no answer on the secrecy involved in communications between the Greater Manchester authorities and the Department for Transport. There was no answer on why a TIF bid—which has been with the Government for so long and involves about £3 billion of public expenditure—should have remained secret. There was no attempt to justify whether there was some commercial basis to this.

As the debate has continued, having raised those issues about referendums, I became slightly more wedded to the idea of referendums to decide the principle of a road charging scheme. It would be difficult for two reasons to do what the hon. Member for Wimbledon wants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe implied—that is, have a referendum once the scheme is up and running. First, a lot of money has to be invested in kit, and that goes away, but secondly, the nature of the TIF bid on this occasion is that more than £1 billion of taxpayers’ money is being tied into funding trams and train improvements. So, it would not be realistic to vote no at that stage—once the scheme is in, it is there for 30 years.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The hon. Gentleman makes absolutely correct points, but the Bill could deal with circumstances whereby the money raised from local user charging would not necessarily be connected to a TIF bid. My circumstances take place without the consequence of a TIF bid because TIF, although it has been extended, is due to run out in about 2013, or 2018, after the extension? But there is potentially no reason why these schemes should necessarily be connected to TIF. My understanding—I am sure that, thanks to his knowledge of the Select Committee, the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—is that the proposal I have outlined is exactly what Stockholm has done.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I accept that the particular circumstances applying in Manchester will not necessarily apply everywhere else, but I do not think that we should take the Stockholm model. The referendum held by the boroughs just outside Stockholm produced a vote against having a congestion charge. The conservative parties won an election opposing a congestion charge, but when they got elected they imposed a congestion charge because they needed a deal with the Greens. Stockholm is a particularly bad model for how to respond to the views of local people. However, I accept that there can be exceptions.

My right hon. Friend the Minister did not really make the case for why referendums are suitable for deciding whether there should be a mayor in Hartlepool or elsewhere. That, in some ways, represents a less fundamental change in local democracy than the changes being discussed here. Why was a referendum appropriate in Scotland to set up the Scottish Parliament, which has relatively trivial tax-making powers compared to this proposal? That was a huge change, but if we look at the taxation side we see that the Scottish Parliament may raise a relatively small amount—it has never used that power.

The recent history of referendums is much more in line with achieving such constitutional change than the Minister gave credit for—more than for tax-raising changes.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the city of Edinburgh had a referendum on the issue?

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The city of Edinburgh did, and in that example people voted against a congestion charge.

I want to discuss two other points that were brought up in debate. I am not really party political point scoring, but the Liberal Democrats in Greater Manchester are all over the place—Liberal Democrats in Rochdale have a totally different view from Liberal Democrats in Manchester. That it is not party political point scoring because the same has happened with the Labour party. The Labour party in Bury has a different view from the Labour party in Manchester.

The fact is that a new tax is being forced on people in Manchester to carry out investment in the tram system that was promised in the Labour party manifesto—people want the public transport—but this has been a difficult decision for all political parties in Greater Manchester. However, I will not have it that the Liberal Democrats have come through united and integrated. That is simply not true.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would know that I referred to Manchester Liberal Democrats, not Greater Manchester Liberal Democrats. We have been clearly in favour of a referendum.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The fact is that this is a scheme for Greater Manchester and the Liberal Democrats are split on the issue. I will not repeat the previous points.

I realise that, in recognising Roger Jones as a friend of mine, I did not also pay tribute to his work as chair of the PTA, where he worked closely with all political parties to the benefit of public transport in Greater Manchester. He did a good job as a local councillor in Irlam and it is a pity that he became the focus for anger about the possibility of a new tax in Manchester. The loss is to the Labour party and to the people of Irlam.

We may return to the matter, or something similar, on Report, but having made those points I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in clause 97, page 79, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3A) Where all of the constituent councils of an integrated transport area agree a resolution opposing the making of a local charging scheme the scheme shall not be made.’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 16, in clause 97, page 79, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3A) Where a majority of the constituent councils of an integrated transport area agree a resolution opposing the making of a local charging scheme the scheme shall not be made.’.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The issues surrounding these amendments are similar to those surrounding amendment No. 14, so I will not repeat the arguments. The amendments talk about not going ahead with the scheme if a majority of councils are against it, or not going ahead if all the councils are against it, which would be possible although unlikely.

I wish now that I had tabled one or two more amendments along these lines to test the Government’s view: one to see what would happen if one council were against, and one taking up the idea put forward in a different debate by the hon. Member for Lewes, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, that perhaps the threshold should be a quarter of councils.

The point of principle is, how far should these schemes be allowed to go if one, two, three or four councils—or 10, 20, or 30 per cent. of councils—oppose to them? Should it be up to the integrated transport authority, or should the integrated transport authority have the power to take action as an unelected body to repress the views of elected councillors? There should be a number, although that is open to debate. Perhaps a majority, or all of them, is too high. If those councils objected, given the deficiencies we discussed when we came to secondary representation and possible co-option on to these bodies, there should be some ability for one council or a number of councils to have a veto over a proposed scheme. After all, councils are directly elected.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

May I say first that I think it unlikely that an ITA will propose a scheme that is opposed by all its constituent councils, given that at least a majority of the ITA membership is made up of members from the constituent councils? Where a scheme was to be made jointly between the ITA and a local authority or authorities, as allowed for in clauses 96 and 99, those local authorities would need to consent to the scheme being made.

Amendment No. 16 would stop a charging scheme being made in an ITA region if the majority of the constituent councils agreed that the charging scheme was wrong for the area. That could damage local accountability and it could mean that a local authority was prevented from making a charging scheme just within its own area because the majority of local authorities within the ITA area disagreed.

However, I know that concerns have been raised about the delegation of road charging powers to ITAs. I am quite prepared to look at whether, at the point of delegation, road charging should have to be agreed by a majority of constituent councils, which answers some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley. I would be prepared to look further at how the road charging powers could fit with the governance arrangement and, if necessary, return to it on Report.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply. All the authorities are highways authorities, so effectively each authority has a veto. There is no body—neither the PTA nor the PTE can do it—that can impose a scheme that charges or changes the traffic management scheme or the road usage in those areas. Therefore, in searching for the right figure, we are moving from every authority having a veto to none having one. There is probably a line somewhere in between—perhaps a majority is one.

If I may, I will give my right hon. Friend the arguments back. Although they are not arithmetically exact, there is a certain political soundness to them and there would be some relationship between the political make-up of the integrated transport authority and that of the constituent local authorities—they would be similar, if not exactly the same. It might be that a lower figure than 50 per cent. is needed to stop the Labour party or the Conservative party or whoever it might be repressing those authorities against their wishes, given that there is a democratic deficit in the process.

In Greater Manchester, the 10 authorities have a rule when they talk to each other. It is not a statutory rule, but they need a two-thirds majority of authorities to carry the scheme ahead, so if four—or perhaps three—authorities are against it will not go ahead. It seems to me that in an area with 10 authorities, having three opposed should be sufficient to stop a scheme. That represents an enormous number of people, and those representing them are directly elected. The figure might be two in the west midlands. The difficulty with these percentages is that the nice, round figures never quite correspond to the situations in the six metropolitan authorities. Some areas, off the top of my head, have five, seven, four and 10 authorities involved.

I am thankful for my right hon. Friend’s reply. I hope that we can discuss these matters again and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 293, in clause 97, page 79, line 23, at end insert—

‘(5) A local charging scheme which has effect wholly within an integrated transport area may only be made if the proceeds of such a scheme, if any, are to be reinvested in the achievement of local transport policies of—

(a) the charging authority, and

(b) the Integrated Transport Authority for the integrated transport area.’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 294, in clause 98, page 79, line 40, at end insert—

‘(5) A joint local charging scheme which has effect wholly within an integrated transport area may only be made if the proceeds of such a scheme, if any, are to be reinvested in the achievement of local transport policies of—

(a) the charging authorities, and

(b) the Integrated Transport Authority for the integrated transport area.’.

No. 295, in clause 100, page 80, line 34, at end insert—

‘(5) A joint local-London charging scheme which has effect partly within an integrated transport area may only be made if the proceeds of such a scheme, if any, are to be reinvested in the achievement of—

(a) local transport policies of the non-metropolitan local traffic authority, or the non-metropolitan local traffic authorities, by which the scheme is made,

(b) local transport policies of the Integrated Transport Authority for the integrated transport area, and

(c) policies and proposals set out in the transport strategy prepared and published by the Mayor of London under section 142 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.’.

No. 296, in clause 101, page 81, line 20, at end insert—

‘(4) A joint ITA-London charging scheme may only be made if the proceeds of such a scheme, if any, are to be reinvested in the achievement of—

(a) local transport policies of the eligible local traffic authority, or the eligible local traffic authorities, by which the scheme is made,

(b) local transport policies of the Integrated Transport Authority by which the scheme is made, and

(c) policies and proposals set out in the transport strategy prepared and published by the Mayor of London under section 142 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.’.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Earlier, I said quite clearly that a national scheme is both unpopular and unrealistic. However, I suspected that some degree of road user charging, or increased use of tolls on our roads, could be part of the package that tackles congestion and raises money for infrastructure projects. Such schemes may well be taken up by local communities on the basis of need and demand, but they require local validation, as we have just discussed.

Some provisions in the Bill on local road pricing are broadly to be welcomed. However, it is one thing to make it easier for local authorities to plan and implement local road pricing schemes, but quite another to take their arm behind their back and twist it hard to get the promise of implementing them. That is what the Government are doing.

The Government should not be using public funds to pressurise local authorities into introducing these schemes—it should be up to local authorities to decide how best to structure their bid for Government support to tackle congestion, according to what they think is going to work best in their area. If those schemes are local congestion schemes, they should be locally validated and the funds raised should be reinvested in local transport infrastructure. They are user charging funds and technically not taxes. Money raised as a result of road charging schemes where they are neutral, which is our policy, are user charges. Therefore, they can be reinvested.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition recently announced that the Conservative party proposes to free local authorities from the constraints that the Government have put on them through funds ring-fenced for local schemes within the transport innovation fund. Instead of forcing local authorities to treat this money as a national congestion charging budget, we will allow local people to use the money for new green travel initiatives that really suit their communities without imposing the prior specification on the schemes.

My right hon. Friend made the point that we will honour the transport innovation fund commitments to local authorities that we inherit when we take over as Government, but as we reach the end of the process more of those available funds should be freed up for local communities to use on initiatives that suit them best. I make that point because my amendments are designed to ensure that the proceeds of local user charging schemes are reinvested in local provision. The idea behind that is very simple.

I accept the argument that one way to get people out of their cars to reduce congestion is for them to see improvements in public transport provision. It seems right that the charges that are raised from the local congestion charging scheme should be reinvested in those local improvements. I am concerned that these clauses will not necessarily ensure that that happens. I accept that they go some way towards it, but the Bill would be greatly improved if my amendments were inserted in those clauses, stating that the local authority could proceed towards implementing the scheme only if the proceeds were to be reinvested in the achievement of the local authority’s transport plans or in local transport infrastructure.

Congestion charging without the provision of attractive alternatives to the car will at best merely raise the cost of living and at worst harm the local economy. I fully support the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire that the scheme should be neutral. It should be neutral at a local level as well. I support the idea that the moneys raised by congestion charging must be put towards securing local improved alternatives.

John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how a cost-neutral scheme could be introduced as a local scheme?

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

We, as a Government, would ensure that the national framework was in place such that the scheme was neutral. Therefore, it would be neutral at local level as well.

I am convinced that these amendments, which would ensure that the proceeds from the schemes were reinvested in local transport, are the right way forward.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right—this is an important issue. Work carried out on the public acceptability of road pricing has shown that the use of revenues from any local charging scheme for reinvestment in improvements in local transport is an important factor. That is why the Transport Act 2000 already requires that all net revenue from all charging schemes be spent on facilitating the achievement of local transport policies. It will be amended by the Bill, because under existing legislation the requirement in schedule 12 to the 2000 Act says that the net revenue to be spent to facilitate the achievement of local transport policies extends only to schemes made within 10 years of the 2000 Act, and only for the first 10 years of the scheme.

Through clause 114, the Bill will remove that restriction so that revenues from all local schemes are invested in achieving local transport policies, and not just for the first 10 years of the scheme. That certainly reflects the importance, which we probably jointly agree on, that the public attach to the revenue from local charging schemes being certain to be spent on improving local transport.

I think that we are in exactly the same place on this, and perhaps the amendment is merely probing in that it is on the record that the changes we are making are as set out.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and I take her reassurance that clause 114 will in effect do what my amendments seek to do. I therefore accept that they are unnecessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 104

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I shall probe the Minister on a matter that we discussed earlier. The clause removes the ability of the Secretary of State to engage in consultation on the subject of an English road pricing scheme, or to hold an inquiry in respect of it. The Government will claim that this is a localist measure and on one level that is true, but as have explained before, the problem with removing the Secretary of State’s power to consult on or approve such a scheme is that nothing has been put in its place.

The Government have taken the first step and put the power to make road pricing schemes in the hands of local authorities. They must now take the second logical step, to transfer the whole consultation and inquiry process and power from the Secretary of State to the local authorities and put those obligations on the local authorities. A moment ago, the Minister said, “There is the expectation”, and I am sure that she will say that it is inconceivable that a local authority would implement road pricing without consultation, but that is not good enough. I can see no good reason why local authorities currently have the discretion not to consult or hold an inquiry, but there is a safeguard in that the Secretary of State has to confirm the road pricing scheme. It is crucial that local authorities are obliged to consult and I would prefer the Bill to go further than that and require local validation, but there is a robust case to say that the imposition of a local road pricing scheme can be done only if the local authority is obliged to consult.

While I accept the proposition that the Secretary of State no longer has to approve the scheme, what concerns me about clause 104 is that unless something else is put in its place and despite what the Minister said earlier—unless she will now reassure me that that commitment appears elsewhere in the Bill—there is a possibility, however unlikely, that schemes could be implemented in a local authority without any consultation by local transport authorities or integrated transport authorities.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I reassure the hon. Gentleman in the same way that I have before: changing the power of the Secretary of State does not have any effect on the ability of local authorities to consult. We will still expect them to consult in the ways that I outlined previously—that is, through the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and the other ways that I mentioned. The removal of the power makes no difference to that whatever.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I hear the Minister’s reassurance. I am usually delighted to accept her reassurances, but in this case I am not. This issue is so fundamental that it should be dealt with in the Bill. I am extremely concerned that it is not, and that there is a major loophole. The Bill rightly goes one step towards giving local authorities the power to make local charging schemes, but it does not take the next logical step which would impose safeguards and obligations on them. I remain extremely concerned about that.

Clause 106

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I have a question for the Minister, but I am not entirely sure whether this is the place to raise it. If I can raise it and remain in order, I will do so now.

The Minister spoke earlier about leaving local decision making unfettered in some respects, but, if we have to have charging, there are certain aspects for which it would make sense to have uniformity. What are her plans to make it easier for motorists who are likely to enter two separate charging areas to make one payment in advance?

I am thinking of a business man who lives in Derby. If the hon. Member for Derby, North gets his way, there will be charging in Derby. The business man’s place of work may be in Birmingham, which, let us say, has its own scheme. In both cases, the motorist has to travel on roads subject to charging schemes at times when they are in force. Will there be provision for that motorist to be able to apply to a single point to prepay, let us say a year ahead, rather than have to make daily payments? That would be time-consuming and unnecessary in this age of technology.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The clause has an innocent title, but behind it lie a number of issues that need to be explored. It enables the Secretary of State or other appropriate national authority to make regulations about fairly specific elements of road charging schemes: who pays, how they pay, where they pay, how the money is collected and so on. Given that the intention is to put road pricing decisions in the hands of local politicians, I do not understand why that power is appropriate.

It appears that the Secretary of State, despite giving local authorities the chance to put a scheme in place, is ensuring that she has the power to micro-manage road schemes. That prompts the question whether this whole part of the Bill is just a chance to introduce a national road pricing scheme by the back door. It seems to me that schemes should be introduced, defined and implemented by local politicians, after validation by the local electorate, with the needs of local people in mind and tailored to local circumstances. If that is the Government’s intention, as they seem to have stated, I am not sure why the Secretary of State will make regulations about the specifics of how, by whom and from whom money is to be collected. Such things should be defined by the local road pricing scheme.

Why does the Minister want that regulation-making power in the Bill, and why does she want those matters to be set out in regulations rather than in guidance? Will it be a one-way process of the Secretary of State making regulations for local authorities, or will local authorities be able to make representations to the Secretary of State about the regulations that she intends to make?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Wimbledon mentioned the importance of consistency for road users in schemes. The right hon. Gentleman raised the possibility of having one account if that were considered helpful.

We would like to see co-operation on achieving that. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is currently guidance, but we are taking the powers in question in case they are needed in future for the benefit of the road user. If we were unable to achieve co-operation, we could make regulations to ensure the interoperability that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman referred to. That is the simple explanation.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Can the Minister confirm that it is her intention to at least encourage schemes to offer a one-stop shop for payment, so that a motorist in the circumstances that I mentioned earlier could pay up front? To give an example, when I was last in America, I was being driven by someone who had to go on four different toll roads, not all operated by the same authority. He had affixed to his windscreen a disc, which I think had a metallic strip in it. When he went up to a barrier, it recognised the strip and opened, and he had to take no further action. There was no time-consuming telephoning or giving of card details. He had prepaid for the whole year. If we are to have these schemes, we should have that sort of payment scheme.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

That is exactly the kind of approach that we want to see.

Clause 107

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 265, in clause 107, page 84, line 4, at end insert—

‘(d) any specified motor vehicle.’.

The thinking behind the amendment is as follows. I told the Committee of my interest as chairman of the all-party historic vehicles group. Across Britain, many historic rally events take place on a regular basis. In some towns and cities, they have a heritage festival to celebrate their long association with transport. Coventry does that and it would not surprise me if Birmingham did it as well. Fundraising charitable organisations often have charity parades involving historic or classic vehicles for fundraising purposes.

The Bill gives power to authorities to suspend charging schemes for special occasions. It allows for part of a charging scheme to be suspended—the authority could choose to suspend two or three streets down which a rally was taking place. It also gives permission to exempt any class of motor vehicle. What it does not do is to give power to suspend the scheme for any specified motor vehicle. It may well be that there are vehicles of different classes in a classic parade or rally.

In every such case that I have been made aware of there is a requirement by the organisers that the vehicles must be pre-booked into the rally. The organisers will have a list of registration numbers of those cars genuinely taking part in the charitable event. It would therefore make sense to give the operators of the scheme a power to exempt only those cars that are taking part in the rally or parade.

I accept that the permission to hold the rally could be achieved by suspending the scheme, but it may well be that those running the scheme would argue that that would lead to substantial loss of revenue and they do not particularly want to make the area free to all for a particular day. They could equally argue that if the scheme was suspended for a historic rally—an occasion when older vehicles are going to be on the road—there may be massive congestion because everyone else who wanted to go shopping would know that the scheme was being suspended and may decide to go into the town or city on the day of the suspension. It would be common sense to allow the operators of a scheme to be able to say, “We are not going to lose much revenue, we have the list of the 50 vehicles taking part in the event. It is a good cause, it is supported by the local population, we will exempt the following vehicles”, and then publish the list of vehicles so exempt.

That is what my amendment would do. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a wrecking amendment. It is a helpful amendment, because it would allow the charging of everyday vehicles to continue on the dates when the rally or festival was taking place. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

As the right hon. Gentleman has said, his amendment would mean that where a charging authority operating a scheme is partially suspending a scheme, it could do so in respect of specific vehicles. As currently drafted, the clause allows for the partial suspension of a scheme in the event of an emergency or to facilitate a temporary event—for example, a parade, or carnival—to take place. That means, as he said, certain roads within the charging scheme could temporarily have the charge suspended to allow traffic to be diverted down them so as to avoid a road closed for an event such as a marathon.

Where, for example, an historic vehicle rally was being held within the charging area it would already be open to the charging authority, using the power in clause 107, to suspend charging on the roads that the rally would use and for the duration of the rally. Under the Transport Act 2000, it is already open to any local charging scheme to provide for exemptions or to reduce rates of charging which could be applied to defined events. A scheme could be drafted to exclude from the charging scheme vehicles taking part in a rally or charitable event. It would be possible, if vehicles were officially in the rally, for specific vehicles to be exempted from the charging scheme. I hope that is helpful.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I think I have got what I want. I would like to reflect on what the Minister has said when I can see her words in the Official Report . I thank her and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 110

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I want briefly to probe the Minister on this clause. It is to do with the transfer of information between Government and local authorities and I see nothing wrong with those powers.

The Secretary of State is allowed to charge local authorities a fee for disclosing information to them but local authorities do not have the same luxury of being able to charge a fee, so it is a one-way power. Given that the disclosure of information is bilateral, will the Minister confirm that I have read the clause correctly and say whether she would consider giving local authorities the ability to charge a fee as well?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The clause will allow the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in respect of the scheme in Wales to request information about a charging scheme or a proposed scheme from the authority developing it.

As the Government are removing the Secretary of State’s approval role, we still want to ensure that central Government have appropriate access to information about local authorities’ use of their road-user charging powers. We are already working with authorities that are developing proposals for road pricing and we hope that that relationship will continue. However, it may be necessary for the appropriate national authority to request information beyond what is made available informally. This provision states clearly that the information should be that which the authority already has or can reasonably be expected to acquire. Therefore, we think that this should impose no extra cost on a properly run scheme. The Government’s intention is to be able to access information about how a scheme works, to ensure, for example, interoperability of systems and technology or to understand the effectiveness of different approaches.

With regard to the ability of the Secretary of State to charge a reasonable fee for supplying information, the main reason for including this in the Bill is so that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency can recover its costs in supplying information that charging authorities will need to enforce their schemes. That is an ongoing operational cost and we have made it very clear that any charge would cover only the costs of supplying the information.

Clause 115

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

We now move into another part of the Bill, concerning miscellaneous provisions. First is the trunk road charging scheme in Wales.

At the moment, Welsh Ministers exercise functions in relation to strategic Welsh management and they have the power to levy charges on trunk roads only to support local road pricing schemes. However, clause 115 goes well beyond that, with a huge extension of the powers. If I read this clause correctly, which I think I do, it gives Welsh Ministers tax-raising powers in Wales for the first time, as it allows them to implement a Wales-wide scheme on all trunk roads in the Principality. That equates to a huge tax increase on Welsh citizens. It is a constitutional matter and should not be introduced through the back door of a Bill on local transport. It is inconsistent with the rest of the Bill as it applies to other parts of the country. The potential effect on the Welsh economy is huge, if tax-raising powers are to be granted to Welsh Ministers that they did not have before.

Siân James (Labour, Swansea East)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned tax-raising powers. It is important to point out at this juncture that the clause does not give tax-raising powers, which will remain very firmly here at Westminster. What it will be is an opportunity to put money raised on road pricing back into the local infrastructure. We heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough about concerns the chambers of commerce had in Sheffield. Similarly, in Cardiff, there are some serious concerns about traffic congestion and surely there must be local solutions for local problems.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Absolutely, but the trouble is that I am going to disagree with the hon. Lady. She is wrong in her initial premise. I am certainly happy with her latter premises about local charging for local schemes, and that the money raised from a Wales-wide trunk road charging scheme could be used for Wales-wide schemes. My understanding of the Bill, and that of many Members of the Welsh Assembly, is that allowing charges to be made on a Wales-wide basis effectively gives the Welsh Assembly tax-raising powers. These are not tax-raising powers they have had before, and therefore this is a constitutional matter.

I suspect that the Government’s response will centre on the fact that the provision has been included at the request of Welsh Ministers, and that those Welsh Ministers have not yet decided where or how they are going to use the additional powers. It may well have originated from Welsh Ministers. I am not sure, therefore, why it has come to us as a framework power in primary legislation, as opposed to a legislative competence order. It is my understanding that when the Welsh Assembly desires a specific matter to be added to its legislative competency, the legislative competence order is the customary route. The Secretary of State would lay a draft order in Parliament that would require the approval of both Houses. That is, again, a different procedure from what we are being given here. If one looks at this clause, it is clear that there was a long discussion, much more erudite than any I can offer here—

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Surely not.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I thank the Minister for her confidence in my erudition. No one who has read the proceedings of the Bill’s passage through another place could be anything other than convinced that this is a constitutional matter. It gives the Welsh Assembly, for the first time, the power to raise tax. On that basis and that basis alone—not on the basis that Welsh Ministers should not have the ability to reinvest in local schemes but on the basis that this is a constitutional matter, that it is the first time that tax-raising powers are being given to the Welsh Assembly, and that they are being given through the back door of the Local Transport Bill—I cannot support this clause and I will ask my hon. Friends not to do so.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I support my hon. Friend. I am surprised that people have not taken to the streets in Wales in opposition to this particular provision. Maybe they are not yet aware of what is coming, but I think the fate that befell Councillor Jones in Manchester—I do not know whether he is Welsh, though he certainly has a Welsh name—will be affecting Councillors Jones en masse in Wales if the provision is introduced. In effect, Wales is being used by the Government as a guinea pig. That is what it amounts to. Wales is a guinea pig for a potential Britain-wide scheme. What message does it send to people who live in England but enjoy holidaying in Wales? The message is, “Don’t come to Wales: we’ll be taking more tax off you.” Barmouth’s loss will be Bridlington’s gain.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The clause will allow the National Assembly for Wales to pass its own legislation, in the form of an Assembly Measure, on road charging on the trunk road network in Wales. The revenues from any trunk road pricing scheme would have to be used for transport purposes, for example to fund new transport infrastructure or provide new services. Clause 115 has been included at the specific request of the Welsh Ministers. It is consistent with the devolutionary principles established in the Government of Wales Act 2006, and framework powers are being conferred on the National Assembly in a number of other areas of Government policy. The Welsh Ministers have yet to decide what role, if any, road charging may play in addressing current and future transport challenges. They do, however, wish to have the powers available that would allow them to adopt a coherent approach towards any road-pricing proposals that local authorities in Wales may bring forward, or any future UK scheme. The Welsh Ministers have also made it clear that if they were to introduce road pricing, it would be in the context of new road developments in those areas with the worst congestion problems.

Siân James (Labour, Swansea East)

Will the Minister confirm that any decision the Welsh Assembly takes on this matter would be taken only after full public scrutiny and full examination of the proposals? Given that 95 per cent. of the roads are under local authority jurisdiction in Wales, will she also confirm that it would only affect the 5 per cent. of the roads that are trunk roads?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I certainly confirm what she has said. As I said before, the clause simply enables the National Assembly for Wales to pass its own legislation which, of course, would go through all the normal scrutiny. The Government of Wales Act 2006 does not allow the transfer of tax-raising powers to the Welsh Assembly. The powers in the clause are to do with road user charges. As I said, that is in response to a request from Welsh Ministers, which is entirely in line with the devolutionary process.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

As I predicted a couple of minutes ago, the Minister told us that the provision was at the request of Welsh Ministers. Her response at no stage addressed my point that the provision is giving those Ministers new powers, which they did not have before. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East that the proposal would affect only 5 per cent. of the roads in Wales, but my point is that this is for the first time a tax-raising power that the Welsh Assembly did not have before. There is any amount of good legal argument that the measure is giving powers by the back door that were never intended by the 2006 Act. It is clearly a tax-raising power. It is clearly a constitutional matter. It should not be in the Local Transport Bill, so on this particular clause, the Minister and I will have to disagree.

Clause 119

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I want to ask the Minister about the operation of the provision—its enforcement. We all agree that where a vehicle is foreign registered, its driver should obey our laws, even if the laws in the country of origin are different. For example, many German drivers are used to driving at very high speeds on their autobahns. Even in France they have a top speed limit of about 80 mph. While they are over here, at least under the present Government, they ought to adhere to our limit, which is currently 70 mph.

However, even if that information is shuffled around, what improvement results from the enforcement process? That is my concern. Let us say that a driver comes over to the UK from Cyprus and brings his vehicle with him. He exceeds the speed limit and the vehicle is photographed by a number of speed cameras. He parks in parking bays and does not put money in parking meters. He receives ticket after ticket. When he leaves this country, taking his vehicle with him, how will those ticketable offences be pursued?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The clause was inserted because, during our consultation process leading up to the Bill, we received a number of representations from public authorities pressing the Government to allow them to receive information about the owners and keepers of foreign-registered vehicles. Many councils, especially those in London, have significant problems with foreign-registered vehicles committing parking, congestion charge and other traffic offences. The clause will allow local authorities, Transport for London, the police and others to seek and receive information from the Secretary of State to enable penalty notices to be issued to keepers of foreign-registered vehicles.

It is right to say that, although the provision will let local councils and others obtain information about foreign-registered vehicles and send a penalty charge notice, it does not guarantee that such data can be obtained in all instances, nor does it guarantee payment from evaders driving foreign-registered vehicles. However, the experience of Transport for London shows that, of cases where it is possible to obtain information about foreign-registered vehicles, 38 per cent. of outstanding charges are collected. It is not the answer to all the problems, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has probably spotted, but it is at least a step along the way. We have drafted such a measure in response to requests from several public bodies that would find it extremely useful.

Clause 124

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 124, page 94, line 29, after ‘regulations’, insert ‘, rules’.

The amendment is minor and technical. The Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State and, in some cases, the Welsh Ministers, to make three types of secondary legislation: regulations, orders and rules. As drafted, clause 124 provides for powers to make regulations and orders to come into force automatically on Royal Assent, but powers to make rules would need to be brought into force by commencement order. The discrepancy was not intentional, and the amendment would provide for a consistent approach. It means that the Bill and future commencement orders will be a little clearer and tidier.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 291, in clause 124, page 94, line 31, leave out ‘and 116’ and insert

‘, 116 and (Civil enforcement of traffic contraventions: meaning of “local authority”)’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 13—Civil enforcement of traffic contraventions: meaning of “local authority”.

Government amendment No. 292.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The Government’s policy is to encourage local authorities to take over from the police service the enforcement of parking restrictions. When a local authority does that, police resources are released for more serious matters. It means that a single body, the local authority, is responsible not only for developing parking policies, but for enforcing them. The parking components of part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 came into force on 31 March 2008.

It has come to light that the definition of “local authority” in the Traffic Management Act, read with other provisions of that Act, means that shire district councils may not be able to make full use of the new enforcement powers in their off-street car parks and in relation to any free, on-street parking that they authorise. That anomaly has no impact on enforcement by London boroughs, unitary authorities or metropolitan district councils, nor does it affect the enforcement of yellow bands or pay and display restrictions.

The Department considers that parking attendants appointed before 31 March, under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, are unaffected by the anomaly, so district councils that received parking enforcement powers before 31 March 2008 will have civil enforcement officers they can use for enforcement in off-street car parks and any free on-street parking.

It is important that local authorities have proper parking enforcement powers. New clause 13 seeks to make it clear in the legislation that a shire district council has the power to appoint the civil enforcement officer who would serve the penalty charge notice to a motorist who is parked in contravention of the parking regulations in a local authority owned off-street car park.

Amendment No. 291 seeks to bring those amendments to the 2004 Act into force automatically two months after Royal Assent, rather than by a commencement order, so that the anomaly can be rectified as quickly as possible. Amendment No. 292 amends the long title of the Bill to reflect the subject matter of new clause 13.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I rise merely to say that we are happy to support the Minister’s amendment and new clause 13 in particular. I want to put on record that we were grateful that she took the trouble last Friday to alert us to the clause, and to give a detailed explanation as to the rationale behind it. It enabled us to look at it carefully and to support her, and I am grateful for her help.

Clause 125

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 125, page 95, line 8, leave out subsection (2).

It is the privilege of this House to control charges on public funds. Where a Bill is introduced in the other place, a privilege amendment is, by convention, moved before the Bill is brought to this House, so as to avoid infringing that privilege. Amendment No. 4 deletes that privilege amendment from the Bill in the usual way.

New Clause 13

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I now call Mr. Stringer to move new clause 1.

Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester, Blackley)

The Minister gave such a good reply on that point previously that I do not move new clause 1.

New Clause 2

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is very familiar to those who have been following the passage of the Bill and the arguments surrounding it. As I have said consistently in Committee, it is my strong belief that we should do as much as we can to encourage partnership between the local authority and the operator. The Government recognise partnership as the fundamental driver to improvements of local bus services, because in “Putting Passengers First” they said that they regard it as a “key ingredient of success”. If that is true, it is difficult to understand why the Government have not done more in the initial phases to ensure that partnership is encouraged. We should do as much as we can to ensure that it is encouraged and that is exactly what my new clause does.

I acknowledge the work done by the Campaign for Better Transport in relation to the new clause. It has pointed out, quite rightly, that a new clause offering a way to combine partnership with long-term planning, in a manner that the Bill currently does not offer, would be beneficial.

The new clause would do nothing other than ensure that local authorities actively consider how best to utilise partnerships while developing long-term transport plans. It seems to me especially important that local authorities should do that, because previous and subsequent clauses do away with bus strategies.

The second part of the new clause is designed to encourage partnership still further. It would require that local authorities look at partnership and produce a “partnership strategy”, which would encourage local transport authorities and integrated transport authorities to think more clearly and see that partnership should be the first route they take. That would encourage them to consider how they might best arrange and implement partnership schemes.

The evidence shows quite clearly that effective partnership between local authorities and bus operators in any one area is the key to improving bus services in that area. We had a long debate previously in Committee about areas where partnership has worked and I will not return to that debate today. However, in my opinion the solution is to be found not down the regulation route but down the partnership route, so we must ensure that partnership is encouraged and improved, and I believe that the new clause will achieve that end.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is very keen that partnerships are able to work effectively. However, I must say that some of the proposals in the new clause are already provided for elsewhere in the Bill, in the revised provisions on quality partnership schemes and provisions, including a new competition test, relating to voluntary partnership agreements. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s new clause would add anything in particular to what local authorities will already be able to do under those provisions.

The approach that we propose elsewhere in the Bill, particularly in terms of quality partnerships schemes and voluntary partnerships agreements, would enable much of the spirit of the new clause to be achieved. Moreover, the new clause would provide far less flexibility about when partnerships can be delivered.

Having given those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded to withdraw the new clause.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.