I attended a meeting of the Council's Corporate,Community and External Affairs (CCEA) Panel this evening, of which I'm a member.
Following last month's successful Lib Dem motion to Council on First Great Western's poor performance, tonight we were discussing how a public meeting might be structured.
I disagreed with Labour councillors the majority of whom seemed to want to keep public participation and this event to a minimum (why?) and argued that Reading commuters should be allowed to have their say. For some reason these councillors seemed to think that the meeting should comprise of experts and pre-submitted questions from members of the public who would be given 'a slot'.
I argued that any meeting should not be allowed to become a PR presentation about the future of Reading Station by Network Rail, but that it should stay focussed on the key issue of the day: the shocking performance of FGW. Rail travellers in Reading are always being promised 'jam tomorrow' of one form of another, whether it be Crossrail or improvements to Reading Station. This doesn't necessarily make people feel any better when they are having to put up with poor performance now.
The meeting secured by the Reading LIb Dems is the first chance Reading commuters have had to put FGW on the spot and it is this accountability which has been fundamentally missing so far. I declare an interest here as an 'angry commuter' myself, but I feel strongly that it is in the public interest for this issue, which effects thousands of Reading's travelling public, to be debated in public.
I also pointed out in the meeting to those councillors (both Labour and Tory) who fear a heated meeting on this subject, that it is actually in the Council's interest to be seen to be leading public debate and discussing those issues which really matter to people in Reading (rather than appearing to be insular and self-serving which is alway a risk in politics).
There was consensus however that any public meeting should be followed by a kind of action plan by FGW detailing improvements (if any) they would be making to performance to benefit Reading commuters, with a view to a further report perhaps 3-6 months hence. Monitoring will be important to ensure that FGW honours any promises.
Interestingly, the Tory councillors continued with their 'what will a public meeting with FGW achieve?' line. Maybe they should talk to the thousands of Reading residents who use their services every day and who feel they have little say over these services. I think most would argue that it's about time FGW faced the music (after all most other public services have to), and as Ruth Kelly and Alistair Darling have said, FGW are on the last warning to improve or lose their franchise. Even if RBC is not in a position to make acutal demands of train companies or other private bodies, it can make it's presence felt as the representative body of the Reading population as a whole and add it's voice to the chorus of disapproval across the Country about FGW's services.Privatised or not, our rail services are still pretty much public services and accountability must come with that.
Our transport spokesman, Cllr RIcky Duveen, ended the discussion by pressing for the FGW public meeting to be held in a suitable venue (i.e. one large enough!) and at a suitable time (so that Reading's beleaguered commuters are able to attend!)
I will post the date of the meeting and other details here when I have them.