Clause 23
Local Transport Bill [ Lords ]
5:45 pm
Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)
The origin of amendment No. 65 is my concern that the Secretary of State is being given powers to interfere in the affairs of the approvals board that are neither appropriate nor required. The Minister has said several times that she believes that the approvals board should be impartial, and has discussed the fact that it should consist of one traffic commissioner and two appropriately qualified and independent persons selected from a panel. That independence should not be compromised by unnecessary interference by the Secretary of State.
Clause 23 introduces further sections to the 2000 Act, one of which will empower the Secretary of State to make rules governing practice and procedure to be followed by the approvals board. It also empowers her to make rules
“generally for the carrying into effect of the powers and duties of any such board.”
Such rules might include the procedure for making applications to the board and for the acknowledgement of such applications, the procedure for notifying the relevant parties that an application has been lodged, and the time scales within which such parties might make representations to the board.
The Secretary of State may also prescribe the deadline for the board to reach its decision. However, if the board consists of people who are seen to be qualified and experienced, it should not require such instructions from the Secretary of State. The senior traffic commissioner appoints the traffic commissioner to chair the board and the role of the chair is to guide the board through matters of procedure. He or she would not and should not need the Secretary of State to assume that role and interfere with the board.
Furthermore, the phraseology used implies not only that this is general guidance, but that there is the possibility that it might be specific. If the Secretary of State was seen to tell the board what to do and when to do it, that would reflect badly on the perceived independence of the board, particularly in individual cases. The board should define its own procedures, and the independence of board should mean that the Secretary of State is not required to do so. Subsections (2) and (3) are necessary for the efficient running of the approvals board, but I contest whether it is the role of the Secretary of State to make such measures.
Amendment No. 70 also deals with the independence of the approvals board and with ensuring that it is not impacted by interference from the Secretary of State. Subsections (7) and (8) go even further and state not only that the Secretary of State can get involved in the procedural matters of the approvals, but that they can issue guidance
“concerning the carrying out by a board of its functions under this Part in relation to quality contracts schemes.”
Of course, the board must have regard to such guidance, but there is the possibility that a wholly inappropriate intervention or interference could come from the Secretary of State. That seems to defeat any object of having an independent board.
I will be listening carefully to what the Minister says about the independence of the approvals board and the reassurances she can give on whether there will be interference from the Secretary of State in general and particular cases.