Clause
11
Duty
to have regard to transport needs of disabled
persons
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I rise not to question the motives behind the
clause, but to probe the Minister on a couple of points arising from
it. The provision is absolutely right and appropriate. Section 112 of
the 2000 Act rightly places a duty on local authorities to have regard
to the transport needs of persons who are elderly or who have mobility
problems. The clause develops that from a duty of development to one of
implementation, and it tidies up the obvious problem of the reference
to elderly people or those with mobility difficulties by expanding the
duty to include all disabled people as defined under the Disability
Discrimination Act
1995.
In
relation to the duty of implementation, one of the reasons why the 1995
Act has been so successful is that local authorities have been given
time to comply with it. Although a lot of people would have liked the
implementation period to be shorter, it has allowed local authorities
and other bodies to put meeting the requirements of the 1995 Act into
their normal replacement cycle and therefore absorb some of the extra
costs that have clearly been incurred. Will the Minister say whether
the same intention is reflected in the Bill, so that that there will be
a period of implementation rather than a set date, and that the period
will be similar to that specified under the Disability Discrimination
Act?
Mr.
Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Clause 11 imposes a
duty to have regard to the needs of disabled persons, but the 1995 Act
is already on the statute book and its provisions must be adhered to,
so what would be the actual effect of not having the clause in the
Bill? To use the favourite word of the hon. Member for Manchester,
Blackley, is it not
otiose?
Ms
Winterton:
Let me explain a little background to the
clause, which will also help to answer the right hon.
Gentleman’s question. The provision will amend an existing duty
under the 2000 Act to reinforce the message to local authorities that
they must consider the needs of all disabled persons not only when
planning, but when delivering local transport in their areas. The
clause was added to the Bill in the other place by a Government
amendment in response to calls from Lord Low of Dalston to see what
more we could do to disability-proof the Bill.
The 2000 Act already places a
duty on local transport authorities when they are developing their
local transport policies, whereby they must have regard to the needs of
persons who are elderly or who have mobility problems. However, the
wording of that duty should now be brought more into line with the
latest disability discrimination
legislation.
Clause
11 will clarify two points. First, it will make clear that local
transport authorities must consider the needs of all disabled people.
The needs of some people—for example, those with hearing
impairments—might not be covered by the 2000 Act duty. There
might be a case for expanding the provision of audible facilities on
pedestrian crossings or audible travel information. Indeed, some
disability groups have raised concerns that the current duty is too
focused on physical mobility problems at the expense of other forms of
disability, such as hearing or visual
impairments.
Secondly,
the clause will make it clear that the needs of disabled people must be
considered not only when drawing up local transport plans, but when
putting those plans into practice. For example, the needs of disabled
persons should be considered not only when writing local transport
plans, but when designing a new bus station or negotiating the terms of
a voluntary partnership agreement with bus operators. A local transport
plan might also be the right place to review parking provision for
disabled motorists.
9.45
am
To answer the
right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, the 1995 Act places a general
duty on public authorities in relation to disabled persons, but there
is some inconsistency in the provisions of that Act and the Transport
Act 2000. We believe that the clause will bring greater consistency and
provide greater clarity. I am sure that the Committee agrees that
everyone will benefit from legislation that is as clear as possible.
The clause also provides a useful opportunity to reinforce the message
that local authorities have no excuse for not taking account of the
needs of all disabled people when planning and delivering local
transport.
To answer the
hon. Member for Wimbledon, if local authorities see a particular
problem in meeting the provisions of clause 11, we will listen to
representations. However, we believe that there should not be a
problem. As the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, it is
something that they should be doing anyway, so there should not be a
long delay before implementation.
Stephen
Hammond:
I understand entirely what the Minister says, but
one of the benefits of the DDA is that is allows implementation periods
to vary. Do the Government have in mind a set implementation date, or
is it
variable?
Ms
Winterton:
In a sense, the implementation date will be one
that is considered reasonable in the circumstances. For example, when
considering setting up a new bus station, if the current one has
particular problems, implementation will obviously be subject to a
variety of time limits. However, the requirement should not be
over-burdensome. We believe that it is something that local authorities
should be doing, but we wanted to use this opportunity to reinforce the
message.
Ian
Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): My right hon. Friend is
articulating the justification for the clause. In the city of Salford
in my constituency, we have an active disabled drivers association. The
council has sensibly co-opted a delegate from the association,
Mr. Jim Wheelton, on to the planning committee, and he
attends all visits. There is good practice in Salford, but the clause
will bring consistency across the country. That must be to the benefit
of all our disabled constituents.
Ms
Winterton:
My hon. Friend is right. Once again, his
constituency is leading the way in best practice, and I congratulate it
on taking the needs of disabled people fully into
account.
As I said,
clause 11 is to be welcomed. We expect the commencement order to state
a specific date for its provisions to come into force, but when setting
that date, we will consider local authority views on implementation.
The Government included the clause as a result of representations made
in the other place, and it has been warmly welcomed by representatives
of older and disabled people, including Help the Aged, the Guide Dogs
for the Blind Association and the chair of the Royal National Institute
of Blind People. I hope that the Committee will accept
it.
Mr.
Knight:
I am sure that the Committee will agree with the
Minister. Indeed, every reasonable person would agree with
her.
May I ask a
question for clarification? Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the
duty to look after the needs of disabled people will be complied with
as an overall policy, and that the clause will not mean that every seat
on every vehicle must be disability compliant? I am thinking
particularly of local authorities based in tourist areas, which may
often have a tourist feature as part of their transport system. We have
all seen the trains that run up and down the seafront of many seaside
towns, and I believe that Scarborough uses a 1920s steam bus as part of
its transport provision. The bus has steep stairs to the upper platform
which no disabled person could possibly negotiate. Will she confirm
that the overall provision must be disability compliant, but that
historic vehicles or tourist vehicles will not be forced off the
road?
Ms
Winterton:
I believe that that consideration is covered in
other parts of the DDA, where operators in such circumstances are
expected to make reasonable adjustments. That is the bit of the DDA
that would cover that kind of operator. The duty in the clause is to
have regard to the needs of disabled people. The specific point raised
by the hon. Gentleman is covered in other parts of the DDA which refer
to “reasonable adjustments” that need to be made in such
circumstances.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
11
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
12
Development
of policies by ITA no longer joint duty with district
councils
Graham
Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): I beg to move
amendment No. 6, in clause 12, page 12, line 31, leave out
subsection (2).
The
Chairman:
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.’.
Graham
Stringer:
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.
Mr.
Knight:
Is the hon. Gentleman not, in effect, arguing in
amendment No. 8 for a provision to deal with exceptional local
circumstances?
Graham
Stringer:
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.
10
am
Stephen
Hammond:
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.
Ms
Winterton:
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.
Mr.
Leech:
Does the Minister not accept that the decision made
by the ITA might be completely at odds with the views of the people in
the local authority who will be affected?
Ms
Winterton:
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.
10.15
am
Graham
Stringer:
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.
Mr.
Knight:
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.
Graham
Stringer:
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.
Mr.
Knight:
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.
Graham
Stringer:
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.
Hon.
Members:
No.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division No.
9
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
It
being twenty-five
minutes past Ten o’clock,
The
Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
