| Railways and Transport Safety Bill
|
|
Miss McIntosh: It is intriguing that the Liberal Democrats believe that it is more appropriate to have people from employees in railway services and associated trade unions than a member of the British Transport Police Federation. The hon. Gentleman may like to reflect further on that. Mr. Foster: Were the hon. Lady to table an amendment to that effect—she has not yet done so—we might be minded to support it. I hope that she will Column Number: 166 not misinterpret my interest in employees and trade unionists as a lack of interest in the body to which she refers.Miss McIntosh: The hon. Member for Bath will not be surprised to hear that an amendment along those lines might well be tabled. We now have witnesses to the promise of support from a certain quarter. We are hopeful that that support will be forthcoming at the appropriate time. Railway employees and their dedicated unions recognise a requirement for public consultation. The list of consultees mentioned by the hon. Gentleman expressly referred to passengers and passenger representative groups as the equivalent of employees and their representatives. The unions are likely to argue that an employer cannot articulate the full diversity and candour of opinion and that the union side is best placed to express the employee perspective. It will be interesting to find out from the Minister for Transport whether the reference was merely an oversight or left out by design. Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady asked some pertinent questions of the Minister, but she has not clarified whether she supports the amendment. I gave my support to her proposals, so it would be helpful to know her position. Miss McIntosh rose—
Mr. Spellar: The alliance between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is clearly continuing. The Chairman: Order. Miss McIntosh: I am mindful of the hon. Gentleman's request and I hope to hear whether the Government will introduce a similar amendment further down the line. If so, it would save members of the Committee the trouble of tabling and voting on another amendment. Linda Perham (Ilford, North): I support the amendment because I favour including employee and trade union representatives. As the hon. Member for Bath suggested, our party has a proud history of defending, promoting and improving workers' rights. The exchanges going on between the two Members leading for the Opposition parties pose the issue of whether the trade unions can be viewed as representing employees. Paragraph 1(1)(b) states:
If one adds up—and I am married to a maths teacher—the four persons in paragraphs 2(1)(a) and (b) and then the four individuals mentioned in paragraphs 2(1)(c), (d), (e) and (f), the total comes to 12. If one person were to represent both employees and trade unions, that would mean a total of 13. That would not be a problem, unless one was a triskaidekaphobic, which for those who have not had the benefit of a classical education—like what I have—is fear of the number 13. I think that there are 13 members in things such as covens. One person to represent the two groups mentioned in the amendment would take the number up to 13, but there is nothing to prevent us having up to 17 people. Column Number: 167 However, I merely draw the Committee's attention to the matter: at the moment there would be 12 members, and if we added in the two proposed representatives, that would be 14, so the matter would need to be resolved if the intention was to have an odd number. Mr. Spellar: Let me bring some clarity to the matter. The arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) on clarifying the schedule were persuasive. Paragraph 2(1)(b) does not preclude employees or representatives of employees from serving on the authority, because it rightly says
That could certainly include, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath would not wish to imply that it did not include, those who are employees in the railway system. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said, there are good arguments for clarifying the situation and for ensuring that that category includes someone who has such experience, we shall be happy to examine the matter. We recognise that railway staff are often threatened and face physical abuse when going about their daily duties, and given the knowledge and experience of railway employees, they could make a useful contribution to the role of the authority. Although I can give no guarantees, we will consider the points raised in the debate, with a view to returning to the issue later in the Bill's passage. There seemed to be some confusion with regard to the role of trade unions. I understand that the Conservative party has difficulty in understanding trade union roles, and particularly of the necessary separation of the roles of management and trade union representation. We are discussing the role of those who work for the railway, not those who work for the British Transport police. The Bill replicates procedures for the county forces so as to set up an analogous procedure, as far as possible. In county forces, local authorities are represented because they collect the police precept. Those who collect funding for the British Transport police are primarily train operators, who therefore have a relevant interest, as well as having an interest in ensuring the effective policing of their networks. I must say to the hon. Member for Vale of York that, as far as I am aware, there is no provision for representation of the Police Federation on the police committees in the county forces. The police committees are composed of representatives of local authorities and magistrates courts, and the federation does not have members on authorities for local forces. A police officer cannot serve on a police authority for his area, because he would be in the invidious position of being both employee and employer. There is, therefore, some confusion in the hon. Lady's position, and the Liberal Democrats may have some difficulty in supporting her contention if she tables a subsequent amendment, unless they believe that we should reconsider and make changes to Column Number: 168 provision for all police forces to introduce a different mechanism for constructing police authorities.Miss McIntosh: That is all very interesting— Mr. Spellar: And true. Miss McIntosh: I was not suggesting for a minute that the Minister was trying to mislead the Committee. Nothing could be further from my mind. In this and the preceding debate, the Minister has failed to answer the point that section 71 of the Transport Act 1962 clearly sets out the rules governing labour relations in the British Transport Police Federation. He has not given me or any other member of the Committee a satisfactory reply about why the Bill is silent about that. Mr. Spellar: The hon. Lady is confusing two areas. As I said, we will table an amendment on labour relations in due course. At this stage, we are dealing with an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bath relating to the British Transport police authority and its composition, and we have undertaken to reconsider that amendment sympathetically. That is quite different from the question whether there should be direct representation of the trade union or the association of workers that represents the work force governed by the authority. A different principle underlies that point from the point made by the hon. Member for Bath and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North that those who are, in effect, the customers of the service—the employees on the railway and the companies that operate the rail system—should be represented in the governing authority for the police force. Labour relations and governance are two quite separate issues with much wider application. They rarely find favour with any of the parties or with the trade unions concerned. I ask the hon. Member for Bath to withdraw his amendment. Mr. Foster: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. He has made a powerful case for representation of the Police Federation on the authority. While I am minded to accept his advice, I assure him that that would create only a small fissure in the alliance that is gradually building among Opposition Members on various aspects of the Bill. I was grateful for his clear explanation of the difficulties that might arise if another sort of amendment were accepted. However, since there is no such amendment, it would be inappropriate to discuss it further. I thank the hon. Member for Ilford, North for supporting the principle of my amendment if not its precise words—although the hon. Lady did not say explicitly that she did not support the wording. I am aware that her remarks goaded the Minister, who praised her for helping to clarify my amendment. I hoped that I had made its meaning clear to the Minister, but if it gives him pleasure to give credit to one of his hon. Friends and if the end result is that we achieve what we were trying to achieve, so be it. I am sure that the hon. Lady can now write her own ''Focus'' and claim the credit for it. The Minister touched on whether paragraph 2(1)(b) would be sufficient to cover the issue. He is right that it Column Number: 169 could be interpreted as including categories of people such as employees and trade union representatives. However, he has probably got the message by now that it would be preferable to avoid any doubt by referring directly to them in the Bill. I welcome the fact that he initially said that he would be more than happy to look at that. Although he could not make any guarantees, in subsequent comments he said that he would look at it sympathetically. There is a clear commitment to consider the issue, about which many members of the Committee feel strongly. I hope that there will be an opportunity later to test the Minister's mettle in sticking up for underlying principles that I always thought were part of the Labour party's philosophy. With those remarks, I beg to ask to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 pmAmendment made: No. 44, in
'(3A) A person shall not be eligible for appointment as a member of the Authority if his estate has been sequestrated in Scotland or if, under Scots law, he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors.'.—[Mr. Spellar.]
Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 11 February 2003 |
