 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Local Transport Bill [Lords] |
Local Transport Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Annette Toft,
Committee Clerks
† attended
the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 22 April 2008(Morning)[David Taylor in the Chair]Local Transport Bill [Lords]10.30
am
Mr.
Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): On a point of order,
Mr. Taylor. On my way to the Committee, I noticed that one
of the lifts that serves this floor was out of order. It beggars belief
that, on the second day back after a two-week recess, a lift is not
working. Can you draw the matter to the attention of the appropriate
authorities because it could impede the work of this and other
Committees? I had to wait six minutes for the other lift. I appreciate
that I could have used the stairs, but I did not expect to have to wait
that long. It is something that should be looked
at.
The
Chairman:
That is a fair point. It is not specifically to
do with our proceedings; nevertheless it is an important point and will
be drawn to the attention of the House authorities for early
correction.
I
welcome the Committee to the first sitting of our
proceedings on the Local Transport Bill. Before we begin, I have a few
announcements to make. Members of the Committee may, if they wish,
remove their jackets during our proceedings. Will all hon. Members
ensure that mobile phones and pagers are turned off or switched to
silent mode during our sittings? There is a money resolution and a Ways
and Means resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are
available in the room. I remind members of the Committee that adequate
notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my
fellow Chairman, Ann Winterton, do not intend to call starred
amendments, including any that might be reached during an afternoon
sitting of the Committee. I ask the Committee first to consider the
programme motion on the amendment paper for which debate is limited to
half an hour. We shall then proceed to a motion to report written
evidence, which I hope will be taken
formally.
I beg
to
move,
That—
(1)
the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at
10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 22nd April)
meet—
(a) at
4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 22nd
April;
(b) at 9.00
a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 24th
April;
(c) at 10.30
a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 29th
April;
(d) at 10.30
a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 6th
May;
(e) at 9.00 a.m.
and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th
May;
(2) the proceedings shall
be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 7; Schedule1;
Clauses 8 to 41; Schedule 2; Clause 42; Schedule 3; Clauses 43 to 72;
Schedule 4; Clauses 73 to 102; Schedule 5; Clauses 103 to 114; Schedule
6; Clauses 115 to 121; Schedule 7; Clauses 122 to 125; new Clauses; new
Schedules; remaining proceedings on the
Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall
(so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00
p.m. on Thursday 8th May.
I am sure that I speak on
behalf of all members of the Committee when I say how pleased we are to
be sitting under your expert chairmanship, Mr. Taylor, and
that of Lady Winterton. The programme motion sets out the times and
dates for the Committee to discuss the Local Transport Bill. We propose
to meet twice on Tuesdays and Thursdays over three weeks, but not on
Thursday 1 May—it being local election day. That gives the
Committee a total of 10 sittings spread over five days. I am sure that
the usual channels have been in touch about the timings in relation to
the Bill and that the programme motion will allow more than sufficient
time for full and thorough consideration in Committee. I very much hope
that we shall be able to achieve that because the Bill is extremely
important.
The Bill
is a direct response to points made by local
authorities, transport users and operators about the
different challenges and circumstances that they face. It follows on
from the consultation document that was published in the summer of
2006, after which there was a review that resulted in “Putting
Passengers First”, published in December 2006. Following that
document, we published a draft Local Transport
Bill.
Subsequently,
there was public consultation and a thorough process of pre-legislative
scrutiny by the Transport Select Committee. I pay particular tribute to
the Chairman of the Committee, Gwyneth Dunwoody, who, as usual, did a
very good job, supported by some members of this Committee,
particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley. The
Bill was scrutinised in detail and we were therefore able to make some
significant improvements before it was introduced to
Parliament.
I also
pay tribute to the local authorities, transport operators, transport
user groups and many other organisations that made vital contributions
to the development of the Bill. Many of those groups gave evidence to
the Select
Committee.
Following
discussion in the other place, I believe the Bill now
stands in extremely good shape. We made some amendments, particularly
on competition law and on the issue of TUPE—the Transfer of
Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and
2006—following representations from trade unions. We believe
that the changes proposed in the Bill will make a real difference to
how public transport is delivered, particularly in regard to
buses.
Buses lie at
the heart of our public transport system but, frankly, for too long and
in too many of our communities, bus patronage has been on a downward
trend. Deregulation in the mid-1980s certainly failed to stem that
decline. The Bill will give local authorities stronger powers to work
with bus operators to deliver the high quality services that the
travelling public need and deserve. It will give transport users a
stronger voice, by enabling the creation of a statutory bus passenger
champion. It will strengthen community transport and make possible more
coherent, integrated delivery of transport in many areas of our
country.
For that
reason, I was surprised that the Opposition voted against the Bill on
Second Reading; I am surprised that Conservative councillors throughout
the country have not made representations, because the ones I meet
believe strongly in the changes that we want to make through the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): We may as well start early. The
Minister talked about Conservative councillors; I have indeed received
a number of representations from Conservative councillors up and down
the country, who are very concerned that quality contracts will cause a
decline in the number of bus services in their
area.
Ms
Winterton:
I am absolutely fascinated to hear that,
because it is certainly not my experience when meeting councillors from
all
parties—
The
Chairman:
Order. It is acceptable and in order to make
brief introductory remarks during the programme motion. There will be
plenty of opportunities in the days and weeks that lie ahead for
comments such as those the Minister and the spokesman for the official
Opposition are making.
Ms
Winterton:
I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact
that I am sure we shall have a lively debate given the Second Reading
comments that were made from both sides of the House. Obviously a fine
body of men and women are serving on the Committee. I look forward to
all the contributions and hope that the programme motion will allow
adequate time for debate; I am sure it
will.
Stephen
Hammond:
As I said on Second Reading, I am sure the whole
Committee will share some unanimity over large parts of the Bill. It
will undoubtedly be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and
that of Lady Winterton, because I see that the Committee includes a
number of hon. Members who served last year on the Crossrail Bill
Committee, whose proceedings were completed in an efficient,
good-mannered, good-natured and constructive manner. I am sure we will
be able to do the same in this case, despite a number of relatively
contentious issues.
As the
Minister said, the Bill is very different from some of the other Bills
that have been introduced in the transport arena over the last few
years. The last two or three that we have considered in Committee have
been technical Bills, but this one is not. It includes a broad array of
topics, ranging from bus services and road pricing to community
transport and local transport governance. I was, therefore, grateful
that the Minister and her officials gave us the opportunity of a
pre-briefing session, and answered a number of questions. We were
grateful because that will help the scrutiny of the
Committee.
I
am also grateful that we were able to negotiate the possibility of the
Bill being timetabled for 10 sittings. The Bill is, as the Minister
said, an important one. There are large elements of agreement. Even
where there is agreement, however, there are issues on which we need to
understand the detail of the Government’s thinking. There are
also issues of clear contention, and the Minister seemed almost
theatrically surprised about some of them. She expressed her surprise
several times on Second Reading, which made me wonder what she was
auditioning for. None the less we are grateful for the time to explore
the issues in Committee.
The only
surprise for the Opposition about the timetabling is that we are
starting the Bill before 1 May. However, like most of the Committee, I
am grateful for the opportunity not to be here on 1 May so that we can
go out, to attack or to defend, and help our colleagues in local
government in one way or another.
I reinforce
the point we made on Second Reading: we support large elements of the
Bill, but there are elements that we cannot support. The Minister
talked about the decline of bus patronage, which I am sure we will
explore in more detail. However, it cannot have escaped her notice that
the vast bulk of bus patronage decline happened before deregulation.
Deregulation is emphatically not the cause for the decline in bus
usage, so re-regulation is not the way to arrest that
decline.
The role of
the Committee will be to try to improve the Bill. We will try to do so
constructively. Effective partnership is clearly the way to successful
bus networks, which, as the Minister, her officials and the Committee
will have noticed, is the thrust of our amendments in that section. I
suspect that it will take up a large amount of our
timetable.
I
am in clear agreement with the Minister about one more thing. I want to
place on record the condolences of the official Opposition to the
family of Gwyneth Dunwoody. Her presence or her comments have been writ
large over any debate concerning transport in the House over the last
few years. Her presence will be felt on the Bill, even though she is
not here. We express our sincere condolences to her
family.
Norman
Baker (Lewes) (LD): I, too, welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Taylor, and congratulate you on your
appointment.
I
begin where the hon. Member for Wimbledon left off. I add my support to
the condolences expressed about Gwyneth Dunwoody. Genuinely, many of us
feel that she was a hugely important figure in the House. She was
associated, more than almost any other MP, with the transport issue.
She was independent, while still being loyal to her party. It is a
tremendous loss to the House that she is no longer with us. I am very
sorry that is the
case.
As
the Minister knows, we broadly welcome the Bill, which we supported on
Second Reading. Although we have differences about particular issues,
we shall approach the Committee proceedings constructively. We want to
make sure that our concerns, which are not necessarily the same as
those of the Conservatives, are properly allocated time. I am sure that
they will be. I am content with the allocation of 10
sittings.
I gently ask
the Minister that when she berates the Opposition—which she may
have good cause to do, for all I know—she is careful to talk
about the Conservative Opposition, because I would hate to be
associated with some of the policies coming from the Conservative Front
Bench, affable though the hon. Member for Wimbledon undoubtedly is. The
issues that we want particularly to flag up swing in the opposite
direction from the Conservatives, as will become apparent. We want more
localised power and will encourage the Government to go further, rather
than retracting from their position. Those are all my comments for now.
I look forward to the
discussion.
10.45
am
Mr.
Knight:
I associate myself with the remarks made about
your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor, and that of Lady Winterton. I
very much associate myself with the remarks made about Gwyneth
Dunwoody. As the Minister may remember, I referred to Gwyneth in my
speech on
Second Reading, saying that I heard she had been ill, and that I wished
her a speedy recovery. During the last sitting before the recess, I met
her in the Speaker’s Corridor and she announced that she was
back in rude health. It was a shock to see that she had had a serious
relapse during the recess, and this place is much the poorer for her
passing. She was fiercely independent, but we always listened to what
she said because she always had a valid point to make. She will be
missed in all parts of the House.
I am rather
surprised that we are here today. On 17 April, the Leader of
the House made it clear—mainly in response to criticisms from
the Conservative party, but also following comments made by the Liberal
Democrats—that the Government intended to honour the
long-established practice of purdah. She gave a commitment that, before
1 May, no announcements would be made that could influence the local
elections, either by being of a local nature or by being something that
local newspapers could treat as such. However, we are being asked to
start our consideration of the Local Transport Bill—never mind
not sitting on 1 May, it would have been better if we had not sat until
after that
date.
I
am not happy with the programme motion. That is not due to any lack of
time given to debate the measure, although it is arguable that more
time should have been given. I just do not think that the motion is
necessary at all. In 18 months’ time, when my hon. Friend the
Member for Wimbledon will be sitting on the other side of this room as
Transport Minister, I hope that he does not put a programme motion
before a similar Committee before it has started its
deliberations.
Some
years ago, I had the honour of serving as a Whip in the Governments of
Margaret Thatcher and Sir John Major. At that stage, it was common
practice for a guillotine motion to be used in Committee only when
there was a clear attempt to filibuster by the Opposition, and when
that filibustering had gone on for several days. We did not need to use
a guillotine motion in any of the Committees that I whipped for the
Government. Indeed, the last Committee that I whipped was a most
enjoyable affair where all aspects of the Bill were agreed by me and
the Labour party’s Home Office spokesman. That spokesman was
Tony Blair, and he was as good as his word throughout the
Committee’s proceedings. Such agreement helps the Committee to
focus on those aspects of a Bill that are of concern to the
Opposition.
It
is important that the Opposition voice on any measure that seeks to
change the law is properly heard, and when we have a Conservative
Government I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon will not
put such motions before Committees. This motion is not necessary and I
would like him to oppose it, even though he may have agreed to its
content.
The
Minister continues to express concern about why the Bill was opposed on
Second Reading. Quite simply, many of us do not agree with the concept
of road charging. The Liberal Democrats did not want to be associated
with some of our
policies—
Mr.
Knight:
I am grateful to you, Mr. Taylor. Let
me say briefly that we would not want to be associated with the Liberal
Democrat policy on transport either. As I understand it, the Liberal
Democrats complain that the price of petrol is not high
enough.
I do not
think that the motion is necessary and it would have been much better
if we had waited until after 1 May before starting such deliberations.
I hope that, under a future Government, such ritual motions will not
regularly be put before
Committees.
The
Chairman:
In relation to an earlier remark, I remind the
right hon. Gentleman that the out date is set by the House, not by the
Committee.
I
welcome the programme motion and the fact that 10 sittings have been
allocated to what is and has been one of the most important issues to
my constituents throughout my time in the House, since 1997. I am a
veteran of consideration of the Transport Bill in 2000, when the
Government attempted to push the boundaries of voluntarism—quite
rightly so. We should encourage a voluntary approach within the
transport industry. However, at that time, some of us expressed the
view that voluntarism has limitations and the Government have shown
good sense in developing this Bill, which will address those
limitations.
The
concepts in the Bill will be welcomed by my constituents and by people
across the country. The Bill also looks clearly at consulting people,
such as those who use buses. I am in favour of furthering the
consultation process, along with other members of the
Committee.
Mr.
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I add my welcome
to you, Mr. Taylor, and to Lady Winterton when she replaces
you in the Chair. I also add my condolences over the death of Gwyneth
Dunwoody, the former Member for Crewe and Nantwich. As a member of the
Transport Committee, I was often on the receiving end of anti-Liberal
Democrat comments from Gwyneth, but I think that everyone who has an
interest in transport would say that on transport issues she was always
an honourable friend and never an opponent.
I support
the Bill. There are significant changes that we would like to be made
to improve the Bill, but it is welcome, certainly for one reason, which
I shall illustrate with an example. In my Manchester constituency,
deregulation has resulted in some services being successful and others
not being very successful. Where an operator has challenged the
existing operator on a route, specifically the 85 and 86 routes from my
constituency into
Manchester—
The
Chairman:
Order. I have indicated that flexibility is
given to the Chairman of a Public Bill Committee to allow Front-Bench
spokesmen to make introductory remarks. That is not normally extended
to Back Benchers and others. The points that the hon. Gentleman wants
to raise, in the detail in which he is raising them, have an
appropriate place in the timetable that we shall work to over the next
few weeks.
Mr.
Leech:
Apologies, Mr. Taylor. I was merely
pointing out that removal of service resulted in an increase in price
when the competition had gone. I welcome the introduction of the Bill
and hope that in Committee we make changes that improve bus services
for the general
public.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Ordered,
That,
subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence
received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for
publication.—[Ms
Rosie
Winterton.]
Clause 1Traffic
areas
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I was not going to question the clause because
much of what is proposed in relation to traffic commissioners is
largely uncontroversial. To a great extent, the issues that we have are
ones of consultation and detail. However, on re-reading my notes and
some of the Bill this morning, it seemed to me that section 32 of the
Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 allows the Secretary of State to
vary the extent or number of traffic areas. Clause 1 provides for new
subsections to be inserted. Those subsections allow that any order made
under the clause may include modifications and amendments to enactment,
or indeed to allow the effect of full change to traffic
areas.
As
I understand it, the Government’s intent with clause 1 is to
give the Secretary of State powers—or to reinforce the
powers—to vary, limit or abolish traffic areas. I want to
establish that that will be the effect of the clause. The Bill, we
believe wrongly, de-aligns traffic commissioners from traffic areas. I
will explore later, in much more detail, why we think that there is
some benefit for local people in having traffic commissioners attached
to local areas. I accept that, previously, there was the contention
that there were not enough resources in local areas, but that does not
necessarily undermine the argument that traffic commissioners should be
aligned to traffic
areas.
Will
the Minister clarify whether the clause exists so that, later in the
Bill, she can de-align traffic commissioners from traffic areas, or for
another
reason?
Ms
Winterton:
The clause will allow consequential amendments
to be made to other legislation affecting England and Wales if future
changes are made to the size or number of traffic areas. The UK is
divided into eight geographical traffic areas, with a traffic
commissioner in charge of each.
As the hon.
Gentleman said, the 1981 Act enables the Secretary of State, by order,
to alter either the number or the boundaries of those traffic areas.
Such an order might need to make consequential amendments to other
legislation, but there is no power for it to do so. The clause will
give the Secretary of State that power. I should say, however, that
power will be needed only if the Government decide to make changes to
the current traffic areas.
Norman
Baker:
That is an important point. Will the Minister say
under what circumstances she envisages that power being
exercised?
Ms
Winterton:
I can envisage that power possibly being
exercised. However, we need to look at some of the other proposed
changes, such as allowing traffic commissioners to work not necessarily
solely in their area, but sometimes in other areas. It has occurred to
me recently, for example, that there are eight traffic areas but nine
regions. There might be a point at some future time, if there was any
kind of review, when that situation would
change.
I
understand that the traffic commissioner for the west midlands is also
traffic commissioner for Wales. Again, it might be that—in the
future, depending on some other changes in the Bill—one might
want to look at whether having eight areas is appropriate. The clause
will simply enable any other changes that might follow on from that to
be made; it needs to be looked at in respect of some of the other
changes that are being
made.
11
am
Mr.
Knight:
Can the Minister tell the Committee whether
any changes are being actively considered at this point by her
Department?
Ms
Winterton:
At present, there are no changes
proposed for looking at the eight traffic areas. However, that is
something that we should retain some flexibility about. As I have said,
one issue that occurs to me is the fact that the regional development
agencies cover the nine regions and whether that might be more
appropriate. I understand that considerations are taken into account
when drawing up traffic areas, which I assume are to do with roads,
motorways and railways, but there may be some point in the future when
it might be appropriate to change
that.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened carefully, but there is one thing
the Minister has not clarified and I would be grateful if she would do
so. I follow her argument about the possible need to modify in the
future, but could she clarify whether that would give the current or
any future Secretary of State the power to abolish traffic
areas?
Ms
Winterton:
As the hon. Gentleman said, section 3 of the
Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 enables the Secretary of State to
alter either the number or boundaries of those areas. That could result
in the creation of more traffic areas or fewer, thereby abolishing
traffic areas. The point is that there is already flexibility within
the system to make those alterations. If that were to happen, there
would be consultation about it, but we also need to see the clause in
the context of the other changes proposed in the Bill. I hope that
clarifies the
situation.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause
1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 23 April 2008 |