Clause 17 - Membership of Transport for London

Railways Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:30 pm on 11 January 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mark Field Mark Field Shadow Minister, Shadow Minister (London) 3:30, 11 January 2005

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

Photo of Sir David Amess Sir David Amess Conservative, Southend West

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

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

'regional planning body for each' and insert

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

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

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

'leaders of the county council or borough council'.

Photo of Mark Field Mark Field Shadow Minister, Shadow Minister (London)

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

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

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

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

Photo of John Pugh John Pugh Shadow Spokesperson (Education)

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

Photo of Mark Field Mark Field Shadow Minister, Shadow Minister (London) 3:45, 11 January 2005

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of David Wilshire David Wilshire Assistant Chief Whip, Whips

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of Greg Knight Greg Knight Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of John Pugh John Pugh Shadow Spokesperson (Education) 4:00, 11 January 2005

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

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Minister of State, Department for Transport

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

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

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

Photo of David Wilshire David Wilshire Assistant Chief Whip, Whips

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

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Minister of State, Department for Transport

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

Photo of Mark Field Mark Field Shadow Minister, Shadow Minister (London)

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

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Minister of State, Department for Transport

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

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

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

(b) finance and commerce,

(c) national and local government,

(d) the management of organisations, and

(e) the organisations of trades unions''.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of John Pugh John Pugh Shadow Spokesperson (Education)

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

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Minister of State, Department for Transport

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo of David Wilshire David Wilshire Assistant Chief Whip, Whips

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

Photo of Mark Field Mark Field Shadow Minister, Shadow Minister (London) 4:15, 11 January 2005

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.