Mr Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in

schedule 4, page 57, line 7, at end insert—

'(g) at least one person each who has knowledge of and experience in relation to the interests of—

(i) employees in railway services, and

(ii) trade unions related railways services.'.

Mr. Hood we are all delighted to see you back in the Chair. I thoroughly enjoyed your put-down of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) a

moment ago; you reminded me of the character Dirty Harry, played by Clint Eastwood, who used the immortal words, ''People don't cross me twice.'' You made it clear that the hon. Gentleman should not cross you a second time.

Not only are we delighted to see you, Mr. Hood; we are also delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I am advised that they have been doing sterling work in Westminster Hall, where my hon. Friend was able to give a clear statement of the Liberal Democrat position on congestion charging. I understand that the Under-Secretary failed yet again to state the Government's position.

The Under-Secretary suggested earlier that it would be inappropriate to list the type of people who should be members of the Office of Rail Regulation. He argued that it would be inappropriate, although when challenged he was prepared to indicate the skills and experience that he thought it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to bear in mind when selecting people for appointment.

When it comes to the new board for the British Transport police, however, the Government are far less coy about listing the types of people who are to serve on the new police authority, and their backgrounds. Paragraph 2(1) lists the various people from whom it is believed right and proper to select members of the new body. You were not here earlier, Mr. Hood, to hear me say that I was delighted that the Government were belatedly introducing such a body, having promised to do so in a press release back in 1998. Now, in 2003, they have eventually agreed to do it.

I am genuinely delighted that schedule 4 should list the possible backgrounds of those who should be selected to serve on the new body. The amendment would not add a string of categories of people but one category—those who have knowledge of and experience in the interests of railway employees and of the trade unions related to railway services.

Given the long history of the Labour party, my amendment should receive a great deal of support from the Government Benches. After all, the lists of the organisations from which members of the new authority will be drawn rightly include representatives of passenger groups. However, passenger groups do not cover the Strategic Rail Authority. The Government thought it appropriate that there should be a representative from the Strategic Rail Authority, so they threw one in. The Government say, ''Things are different in Scotland; that is not necessarily covered by passenger interest groups.'' Therefore they add a Scottish representative. They also say, ''Wales will not necessarily be represented by the passenger interest groups, so let us have a representative from Wales as well.'' That is all good and proper, and I applaud the Government for it. However, it is odd that the Government include the employers of the bodies that operate the organisations that run our railways but omit any reference to employees as representatives on the body. That is a major omission for a Labour Government to make.

Normally, the Minister would be able to use the traditional argument that he does not like lists of who should be represented on bodies. However, that does not apply here because the Government have already provided us with a list of the bodies that they think should be included. It is strange that a Labour Government should omit employees from the list, although I believe that they are willing to consider additions to it—employees is the addition that the amendment proposes.

The Minister may say that the Government do not normally include employees or employee organisations such as trade unions on such lists. That is often true. However, it is not true about the railways because when Network Rail was established—a body that Liberal Democrats suggested long before the Government acceded to its introduction—the Government accepted the need to have trade unions represent railway employees on the board. The Government have already established a precedent, and the Minister will be aware that Transport for London refers specifically to the entitlement of trade unions to represent those who work on the London underground under Transport for London.

I have pointed out what I am sure is merely a lacuna in the Government's thinking, a small omission. A Labour Government will always want to ensure that the rights of employees and trade unionists are taken into account. There are several examples of when they did not make the same mistake—when they got it right—and I hope that they will get it right this time.

It is vital that there are representatives of rail users on the authority because they are, sadly, from time to time, the victims of the very crimes that will be investigated by the British Transport police. I hope that the Minister will accept that railway employees are also sadly far too often the victims of crime. The figures are frightening: in 2001–02 there were no fewer than 1,738 physical assaults on railway employees, and 352 of those were serious enough to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive. Given that employees make the same vital contribution as employers, representatives from Scotland, Wales, the Strategic Rail Authority and passenger groups, they should be included on the list. They are as likely as anyone to be victims of crime on the railways, so a powerful case can be made for their inclusion. I am sure that the Government have made a small mistake, which they will want to rectify in a brief response saying, ''We got it wrong: the hon. Member for Bath has got it right and we are prepared to accept his amendment.''

See this speech in context