With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 12, page 13, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2B) An Integrated Transport Authority shall consult the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the area on its proposals for the local transport plan.’.
No. 8, in clause 12, page 13, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2B) If a majority of the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the area agree a resolution opposing the local transport plan, the plan shall not have effect.’.
The clause takes away the rights of local authorities in an integrated transport authority to be involved in or consulted on the drawing up and development of transport policies by the ITA. The purpose of these three probing amendments is to ask why.
I am grateful to the Clerk for helping me to draw up amendment No. 6—it is immediately incomprehensible to anyone who reads it—which, in effect, would reassert the status quo in involving metropolitan district councils in drawing up transport plans. Amendment No. 7 would put a duty on the ITA to consult local authorities—a similar point was discussed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington—and amendment No. 8 would give a power of veto if a majority of the local authorities in an ITA area do not agree with the policies that have been developed after consultation by the ITA.
To explain further we have to go back to the core of the Bill, which puts right some of the failings of the deregulation of bus services introduced by the Conservative Government—I assume that we will come to that topic this afternoon—and brings back, after the abolition of metropolitan councils in the mid-1980s, an authority that will have both highways and transport powers so that integrated transport policies can be developed.
What is unusual about the Government’s proposals, which I will probe in these amendments and later ones, is that they allow the powers of highways authorities to be transferred to the integrated transport authority with the purpose of promoting better transport policies. That is fine, but there is a real difference between the authorities.
The highways authorities in the six metropolitan areas are directly elected, so someone who has a concern about traffic management arrangements in their area—there are many concerns in most metropolitan areas about shopping, waiting and car parking—can go to their local councillor. They can say that something is wrong and they want it changed, or that they do or do not want double yellow lines or a bus lane and so on, and their local councillor can then go to the council and pursue the matter. Transferring powers to an integrated transport authority composed of indirectly elected councillors and perhaps seconded people will remove immediate local democratic input.
The purpose of the amendment is to ask why that is proposed. If that right is to be taken away, should we not have some safeguards to ensure that directly elected people have a right of veto? In the case of Manchester, six local authorities would be required to say that a scheme was mad, so it would not be a trivial matter.
I shall not go back to the debates on the definition of “exceptional” and “economic”, although I note that later amendments deal with the word “economic”. No, in fact, the situation the amendment would cover might not be exceptional at all. If the integrated transport authority proposed a scheme to put bus lanes in four of the authorities in Merseyside, for instance, and those authorities objected to it, they would have a veto. That is not an exceptional situation; it goes much wider than that.
The amendment gives directly elected people the power to tell indirectly elected and appointed people, “You might well have got this wrong.” There have been so many changes to local government in the past 25 years that we have got a long way from what I believe is the right principle—that people who are elected have the right to tax, but others have the right to throw them out. In this case, we are talking about people in a new, powerful integrated transport authority who cannot be thrown out directly.
These are probing amendments, and I will not press them after I have listened to the profound arguments made by my hon. Friend the Minister. I am very interested in why we should take these rights away from local authorities and the electorate. These matters are not trivial, but pretty fundamental, and I might well return to them on Report.
The clause gave me considerable concern when I read it, and had the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley not been faster in getting to the Clerk, I would certainly have tabled probing amendments—and perhaps not just probing ones. The hon. Gentleman argued powerfully—some of us will have experienced this either as councillors before we had the honour of joining the House or as Members of Parliament—that sometimes regional transport authorities either completely override or do not listen to constituents’ concerns. As directly elected Members, we have almost no power to influence or persuade them. I have direct experience of that previously as a councillor and now as a Member of Parliament.
The explanatory notes on clause 12 indicate that the intent is to remove the duty to produce plans jointly and place that responsibility solely on the integrated transport authority. As the hon. Gentleman said, his amendments would maintain the status quo, which strikes me as not such a bad thing, unless the Minister can provide some reassurance. I am sure that she will tell us that the amendments are unnecessary because the integrated transport authority will inevitably act in consultation, but in my direct experience that is not always the case. A local authority might not be able to push its points, concerns and local transport wishes forcefully enough if it is not a statutory consultee. The regional authority would be bound to listen to the concerns of local people, communities and local elected members, if they were statutory consultees. Amendment No. 6 would provide for that obligation instead of leaving it to ministerial discretion, guidance or secondary legislation. Although in many cases it would be preferable to leave the list of consultees to guidance, in relation to clause 12, owing to the juxtaposition of the unelected regional body and the elected local bodies, I am in favour of putting it in the Bill.
Equally, amendment No. 7 becomes valuable only if, as a result of consultation, it can effect the desired outcome. In many cases, the outcome that is hoped for might be achieved through the consultation process, but what happens if it is not? Local communities’ needs and wishes and the expressed views of local, directly and democratically elected representatives can easily be overridden by the regional transport authority.
Amendment No. 8 attempts to correct that error, although perhaps it is worded less fully than I would have preferred. I would have preferred it to say, “or any part of that plan” rather than just “plan”, because that would have allowed people to support the plan overall, but to disagree with parts of it. Notwithstanding that deficit, amendment No. 8 has considerable merit. I recognise that, in the hon. Gentleman’s mind, these are probing amendments, but I think that the Minister really needs to reassure us on how the wishes and views of the local, directly and democratically-elected members expressed on behalf of constituents will not be completely overridden by regional transport authorities, as is the experience of some of us at the moment.
The clause goes to the heart of some of the changes in the Bill. We have received many representations: I, and I am sure all members of the Committee, have met representatives from some of the PTAs who say that they have encountered huge problems when trying to take an integrated approach to implementing or drawing up local transport plans. It may be that one authority decides simply not to co-operate with work to put together a good bus strategy across the whole area, and that causes enormous problems in efforts to improve and integrate public transport in an area. For example, in my local area in South Yorkshire, the current system means that transport plans are probably put together by people on the passenger transport executive; the plans are then sent back to the metropolitan councils—Doncaster in my case—who will then agree that the transport plans should go forward and who have a duty to implement them. So, once a transport plan is agreed, there is a duty to implement it.
One of the points made to us is that that process is sometimes frustrated and people end up with a watered-down plan across an area. Representations about that point have been made when I have met people in local areas. People from all political parties have raised that issue—it is not something said just by people of one political persuasion; it is something many people have said to me. If we are to have a truly integrated transport approach, it is important to set up within these areas new integrated transport authorities, which would have the power to implement the agreed policies over the range of the area for which they are responsible.
Clause 12 establishes the key role that integrated transport authorities—the successors to PTAs—must play in their areas. That means the duties to develop transport policies and to produce, review and update a local transport plan will in future lie with the integrated transport authority in an integrated transport area. The duty to carry out statutory functions so as to implement those policies will continue to apply to individual local authorities in an IT area as well as to the IT authorities themselves. Again, that replicates the existing situation in which, as I have said, individual metropolitan district councils, such as Doncaster in South Yorkshire, have a duty to carry out their transport functions—for example, in relation to parking or management of the road network. Outside the integrated transport areas, responsibility for the local transport plan will remain with individual local authorities, such as county councils.
The change we are proposing to make in our major cities will enable there to be decision making that is more decisive in identifying transport needs and implementing solutions. By giving the duty to produce local transport plans to the integrated transport authority, we will encourage stronger and more strategic transport planning.
I was coming to that point, to give some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley and other Committee members. First, it is important to remember that councils will be statutory consultees. Secondly, every council will be represented on the authority. The opportunities are available. When we issue guidance—we shall come to clauses on governance later—we will expect local authorities and the integrated transport authorities to consult widely with the constituent councils in their area.
If a vast number of councils in an area do not agree with the approach being taken, we do not expect it to be forced on them; however, we must recognise that there might be situations in which, for example, one council refuses to endorse the implementation of a bus lane strategy throughout the area. As I said, many people who serve on passenger transport authorities say that it can be incredibly frustrating to try to put together good, integrated transport policies and not be able to. That is a difficult situation. It is a problem that often stands in the way of delivering good public transport, and we believe that the approach that we are adopting will assist the process and enable better delivery of transport in our major cities.
The safeguards—for instance, ensuring that consultees are statutory and that every PTA has a representative from each council—will effectively prevent a small minority of councils from imposing their will on a majority. We want a level of agreement, but we must take into account that there are difficulties at the moment that we cannot ignore if we want to enable integrated transport authorities to deliver good public transport in their area and good integrated transport strategies.
Amendment No. 7 would create a duty for integrated transport authorities to consult metropolitan district councils about their proposals, but as I said, clause 9 already imposes a requirement for the ITA to consult individual authorities when preparing or reviewing its local transport plan. That is already provided for.
Amendment No. 8 would enable a majority of metropolitan district councils opposed to a local transport plan to prevent it from having effect, but as I said, the current membership of passenger transport authorities is drawn from metropolitan district councils. They are designed to be representative of their areas and ensure that the views of individual authorities are properly represented when a local transport plan is being drawn up, and that will continue after the creation of integrated transport authorities. A majority, at the very least, of the members of each ITA must be elected representatives of the authorities in that area.
We must get the balance right between acknowledging the problems faced in some areas by PTEs and assisting them in implementing proper ITAs, and at the same time giving the reassurance that I hope I have given by explaining the process that will be gone through and the fact that councils will be statutory consultees. There will be representatives from every council on the ITA. In later guidance, to which right hon. and hon. Members might like to contribute, we will set out some of the ways in which we believe it is possible to reach maximum agreement in order for ITAs to proceed effectively.
I hope that my comments reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley and I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.
I support much of what my right hon. Friend said about the rebalancing that is going on in the Bill to make it easier to have good transport policies in metropolitan areas. All of us who have been involved in transport in metropolitan areas for a long time can recognise the case that she makes. Occasionally there is cussedness, plain awkwardness or political differences between authorities that prevent perfectly good transport schemes from going ahead. I understand that argument, but the purpose of the amendments was to say, “If you are rebalancing, where do the electorate come in, because you are rebalancing to a sort of semi-quango in which the electorate cannot be directly involved?” In doing that, we need to put in safeguards, whether those safeguards involve the councils saying, “No, the ITA has got it wrong,” or—we shall come to the relevant amendments later—the electorate being able to throw the rascals out, as they do to us from time to time.
Those safeguards are not present, so I thought that these were moderate amendments that pointed at that. Although what the Minister says is reasonable, those of us who have worked in two-tier areas for a time know that councillors can be bloody-minded and they can do things because they do not like the other lot—sometimes of the same political party. I shall give an example. When Greater Manchester county council was being abolished, I was involved in the creation of what is now the museum of science and industry in Manchester. I went to do the deal with the then leader of the county council to put the aerospace museum into the slightly bigger, county-run museum of science and industry. Bernard Clarke, who was the leader then, said, “You know the reason the doors of these two museums, which we can integrate if you and I get together, are facing in opposite directions is that the two council leaders when they were set up hated each other and would not co-operate.”
That can happen just as easily in relation to transport, so while we are rebalancing in favour of making it easier to have an integrated transport policy, we must recognise that an ITA could have bloody-minded people on it who are not directly accountable and who could do the equivalent thing in the area of transport to what happened with those two museums. Because we are all human beings, the ITA will not always be able to get its policies right. I live on the boundary of Manchester, Salford and Bury, and at the moment an appalling road-widening scheme is going on for bus lanes. Bury, which is the highways authority, has got it completely wrong, in my opinion and, I would guess, in the opinion of many people who look at it. The amendments are meant to deal with matters that the ITA gets wrong, and to put in some checks and balances.
The answer to that, my right hon. Friend the Minister says, is not the electorate. It is that all the councils that are part of the metropolitan area will send people along, so they cannot really get it that wrong. I have to say that that has not been my experience. If we do the arithmetic, we will find that it depends on the basis of the membership of the ITA. An ITA could be unreasonably repressive to one authority and put forward schemes that may well be part of a bigger integrated transport scheme but are unreasonable to the people who live in the area. It is unlikely, but, in the case of Manchester, 10 hung councils could all send representatives of a particular political party. That would be completely unrepresentative of the districts.
I shall withdraw the amendment, but I think that we will come back later in the Bill not just to this point but to some others that deal with the same core issue. We may come back to it on Report, because while I agree with the balance of the Bill, which furthers better transport, I do not think that we have this right.
The hon. Gentleman made a powerful and cogent case for the Committee accepting the amendments. I am a little puzzled about why he is now saying that he will withdraw them.
The simple answer is that I am withdrawing the amendments because I think that we would win, given how this place works. I would not be in this Committee if we were going to defeat the Government on every amendment. This is the basis of a discussion that we may return to on Report.
It is interesting that hon. Members have listened carefully to the debate. I hope that the Government have listened as well. It would not be sensible for a Labour Member of Parliament to defeat the Government here and now. I am putting the case, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the discussion on this amendment and others. I do not want to embarrass anyone.
I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman’s mindset. I do not regard myself as being here to defeat the Government, either. I am here to scrutinise a Bill that is the Government’s will and to seek to improve it. Surely, if he is here to do the same thing, there is nothing wrong with seeking to persuade the Government through the voting process to accept the amendments.
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion I think that he is being slightly disingenuous. It is part of his core business to defeat the Government, but it is not part of mine. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister has listened carefully to this fertile debate. I am sure that we can make some progress not only in rebalancing the policies in favour of transport but in ensuring that we do not repress the democratic process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.