Clause
5
Transitional
provision for existing traffic commissioners
etc
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I want to probe the Minister with a few questions
on the clause. Clause 5(1)
states:
“Any
existing traffic commissioner for a traffic area in England and
Wales—
(a) on
the relevant commencement, becomes... a traffic commissioner for
England and
Wales”.
In
the explanatory notes it says that traffic commissioners already in
post will remain in post on their existing terms and conditions of
employment except that they will be subject to revised conditions of
dismissal. That is not quite right, is it? Traffic commissioners who
were previously attached to traffic areas, on commencement of becoming
traffic commissioners for England and Wales, have revised
responsibilities.
I would like
to know what the Government have anticipated they might do in
circumstances where traffic commissioners who were carrying out the
functions once attached to those old areas but then potentially look to
become a traffic commissioner for the whole of England and Wales, with
new, upgraded responsibilities, are not competent to carry out those
responsibilities. How will the Government deal with that? I can not see
a transitional arrangement anywhere which states what will happens if a
traffic commissioner currently in post is not competent to take on the
new role. There is quite a big jump, for example, in some of the
competencies that we are demanding of traffic commissioners in their
new roles, as set out by the Bill.
I would like
to be given some reassurance as to what happens to existing traffic
commissioners who potentially do not have the skill set and the
competency, which is desired from the new definition of a traffic
commissioner.
Mr.
Knight:
I have another point, which I think I know the
answer to, although the danger is that if one thinks knows the answer
to something sometimes one does not. I will therefore ask the question
in order to clarify the matter because after all, that is what the
Minister is paid for.
As I understand it, apart from
the changes to the reasons for dismissal, the terms of employment are
being carried over for those currently employed. The Minister spoke at
the beginning of our deliberations today about possibly varying the
number of areas for traffic commissioners. If, in the due course of
time, she decided that one particular traffic commissioner ought to be
made redundant, would it mean for the purpose of calculating redundancy
pay, that his or her whole length of service would count? Or would it
be that because of this particular clause they would be deemed only to
have just started their work as a traffic
commissioner?
Ms
Winterton:
What we are talking in clause 5 are the
transitional provisions to go to the new system. The one that
particularly comes to mind would be the fact that the senior traffic
commissioner would remain in
post for 12 months, until a decision is made about who a new traffic
commissioner would be and how long that term of contract would
be.
With regard to
any redundancies that may arise, I would be almost certain that there
would be a continuous period of employment. I do not think we would be
saying that this is an entirely new position. The employment conditions
will remain the same but it is about the exercise of their powers which
they will be able to exercise throughout England and Wales, as opposed
to just in their particular area as it is at the moment.
As I have indicated before, we
expect that most will continue to work in their existing areas but the
senior traffic commissioner will have the power to deploy elsewhere. In
those circumstances we do not believe that it will look radically
different and I would venture to suggest that we do not envisage that
the existing traffic commissioners are suddenly going to become
hopelessly incompetent. It is more likely that in the future there may
be a desire, because of the pooled approach, to recruit other people
with particular specialisms—but that is for the future. What we
are doing in the Bill is allowing greater flexibility for the traffic
commissioners’ work, without in any way trying to undermine the
job that they do at the
moment.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 5
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
6
consequential
amendments
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 34, in
clause 6, page 9, line 17, leave
out paragraph
(a).
Today,
the Minister has already given us on several occasions some insight
into how she sees the relationship between the Secretary of State and
the senior traffic commissioner and other traffic commissioners
evolving as a consequence of a number of changes in the Bill. I am
probing and exploring that theme further, because the clause, labelled
“Consequential amendments”, entitles the Secretary of
State to use secondary legislation to make further provisions in
existing legislation on the functions and duties of traffic
commissioners.
I
accept that secondary legislation may well be necessary at some stage
and that the Government may wish to retain that flexibility, but I am
interested in and am looking for some reassurance from the Minister
about the wording of subsection 2(a). The power of the Secretary of
State to make consequential
amendments
“includes...the
power to make different provision for different cases or for different
areas”.
We
are almost back in the realms to which my right hon. Friend the Member
for East Yorkshire was taking us. What exactly does she mean? What is
the provision for the traffic commissioner to make different provisions
for different cases? Is it that some areas are going to need more
resources, so that is the flexibility talked about? Or is it that, in
some cases, the Secretary of State might direct a traffic commissioner
in something? I fear
that if we are not entirely clear about the exact meaning, it may mean
that the Secretary of State has the power to intervene in certain
cases. I
am assuming that what the Government intends by “different
areas” is what the Minister was talking about this
morning—the flexibility to move traffic commissioners around
England and Wales, or to develop particular specialisations. Again,
could the Minister clarify exactly what are the circumstances envisaged
in which the Secretary of State would need those powers? What exactly
do “different cases” and “different areas”
mean?
Ms
Winterton:
Clause 6 empowers the Secretary of State to
make any necessary consequential changes to other legislation through
secondary legislation, to give full effect to the provisions in clauses
2 to 5 of the Bill. We have done that because there are a number of
references in other legislation. To choose the Transport Act 2000, for
example, there may be references to work that a traffic commissioner
can do. The legislation might, for example, say that in order to get a
particular licence or to operate in a certain way individuals should
apply to the traffic commissioner in their area. What we are trying to
do in the clause is to fit in with the idea that there might be
functions that could be done more effectively at national level, say in
an office of the traffic commissioner. If there were applications that
could be made to such an office, it would be necessary to remove the
function from the traffic commissioner in each region. For us to try to
go through every piece of existing legislation and make the changes in
the Bill would be time-consuming, and we might miss something out.
Through secondary legislation, we have the ability to make any changes
that would allow such activities to
happen.
5
pm
We
think that there are more than 80 references to traffic areas in
primary and secondary legislation, and more than 600 references to
traffic commissioners. In order properly to implement the provisions in
clauses 2 to 5, in some cases it will be necessary to make
consequential amendments to many of those references.
The amendment proposed by the
hon. Member for Wimbledon, which I take to be a probing amendment,
would prevent those consequential amendments from making such changes.
The problem is that it would reduce flexibility when implementing the
proposals contained in the Bill.
It may help the Committee if I
make it clear that all orders under that power would be subject to the
affirmative resolution procedure, and that any order under clause 6
will apply in Scotland only in relation to reserved, not devolved,
matters. I hope that is helpful in explaining why clause 6 is in the
Bill and why we are asking the Committee not to accept the amendment,
as it would reverse what we are trying to
do.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened carefully to
the Minister, and I understand the need for secondary legislation to be
available so that the Government can amend previous pieces of
legislation. I understand the concept of consequential legislation and
accept that we need a catch-all early in the clause. I still struggle
to see why what the Minister wants is not dealt with by clause
6(1), and why there are different cases and areas. I probably need to
read the provision more carefully as I
am not entirely convinced that it is absolutely necessary; such
provisions are already elsewhere in clause 6. None the less, with your
permission, Lady Winterton, I will reserve the right to write to the
Minister about that and to seek an absolute definition of the wording.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
7
Local
transport
policies
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 35, in
clause 7, page 9, line 36, at
end insert—
‘(1A) In
subsection 108(1) leave out “and
economic”.’.
Looking
back at the relevant parts of the Transport Act 2000, I was struck by
the number of words, and the next set of amendments will explore some
of my thinking in the same way. I was struck by the word
“economic”. To remind the Committee, section 108 of the
Act
states:
“Each
local transport authority must...develop policies for the
promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic
transport facilities and services to, from and within their
area.”
However, nowhere
in the Act can I find a definition of “economic”. Part 2
of the Local Transport Bill makes interesting changes in how local
authorities formulate and implement their transport policies. Given
those changes, it is important to ensure that we are clear, and that we
tighten up the definitions of exactly what a transport policy should
be.
I do not think
that anyone in the Committee will disagree with the assertion that a
local authority should develop plans and policies that deliver the best
value for money—that is especially pertinent at a time when many
councils find themselves strapped for cash—but
“economic”, in classic terms, means getting the maximum
possible average utility for the amount spent and the maximum marginal
utility for any extra money spent or, in shorter dictionary terms, the
thrifty and efficient use of material resource.
For the provision to have any
relevance to the Bill, it ought to include some definition of the
words. I note that the next set of amendments proposes even more
definitions. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the
Government have a clear, precise definition of
“economic”. If not, perhaps she will go back to her
officials—
Graham
Stringer:
The hon. Gentleman proposes an interesting
probing amendment and I am interested in his comments. Would it not
have been a better probing amendment if, rather than deleting
“economic”, he had inserted “add ‘effective
and efficient’”? Those are the three “Es”
that the Audit Commission uses to test the public
sector.
Stephen
Hammond:
The hon. Gentleman is
absolutely right. My amendment would have been more to the purpose if I
had made that point. He will see that I shall be testing some of those
words in a later group of amendments. I seek from the Minister some
indication
of exactly what she means by the word “economic”, how she
intends to ensure that it is put into the guidance attached to the Bill
and how she intends to make it known to local authorities for the
purposes of their policy
formulation.
Ms
Winterton:
The amendment would amend the duty of local
transport authorities under section 108 of the Transport Act
2000—to answer some of the points made by my hon. Friend the
Member for Manchester,
Blackley—to
“develop
policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated,
efficient and economic transport...to, from and within their
area”.
The hon. Member
for Wimbledon wants to remove the word “economic”. His
opening comments were quite helpful, as we were at something of a loss
to understand what was meant by the amendment.
I believe,
and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members accept, that it is
important for local authorities’ transport policies to be
economic. Authorities need to take into account the costs of
implementing their transport policies. I should add that transport is
not an end in itself. Effective transport is often a key factor
underpinning successful local economies. Transport can play an
incredibly important part in getting people to and from work and
getting goods to market, for example. The economic aspect of transport
is critical, and we want local authorities to address it in their
transport planning. Local authorities have said time and time again in
my discussions with them that they see transport as a critical way of
supporting the local economy, but at the same time they want to ensure
how transport policies will be paid
for.
Stephen
Hammond:
The Minister has fallen into
the trap that I was worried about. She talks about having regard to
local economies, which is clear and vital, but that is not necessarily
the same as having an economic transport policy. To someone else that
might mean value for money, how much is being spent, and what people
get out of the policy. I have proposed a probing amendment to ensure
that local authorities are given the correct guidance about exactly
what the Government mean by economic. Does it mean that the policy has
to stand up to some value-for-money spending test or is it about
whether the policy supports the overall local economy? If the
definition is left imprecise, local authorities will have to grapple
with those important
matters.
Ms
Winterton:
It is a mixture of both, and that flexibility
is important in local transport policies. When a local authority comes
up with a local transport plan, we want it to be clear about how its
plans will be paid for. Of course, those plans must be
economic—it would be ridiculous for transport authorities to
come up with plans that they simply cannot pay for and are just a wish
list.
Stephen
Hammond:
They do that every day of the
week.
Ms
Winterton:
Conservative authorities do
perhaps. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman believes that every day of
the week local authorities come up with unrealistic plans. I think that
they plan quite well in terms of the
policies that they introduce. However, it is also important that local
authorities consider the effect that transport will have on their local
economy. As I said earlier today on the Floor of the House, we issue
guidance to local authorities on drawing up their transport plans. We
review that information and consult with stakeholders about the
guidance we are issuing. Most reasonable people would understand what
we mean by first of all making sure that policies are economic in the
sense that they can be paid for, and they would also understand that
transport plans should aim to help to improve the local
economy.
I understand
that the hon. Gentleman has proposed a probing amendment and I hope
that having been probed, it was
helpful.
Stephen
Hammond:
Slightly, but not very. The
Minister said that she issues guidance, so presumably somewhere in it
is a definition of “economic”. Is there or is there not
that definition in the guidance? As I pointed out, one person’s
view of the definition of “economic” can be very
different from another
person’s.
Ms
Winterton:
I shall give the hon.
Gentleman the legal advice, which I hope will help—I think it is
common sense actually. In legislation any word either has the meaning
specified in the relevant legislation or the ordinary, natural meaning
of the word. In this case, without a definition in legislation, the
ordinary, natural meaning of the word will be used, which is not
necessarily the same as a technical academic meaning. If we were all
being reasonable, we could understand what we mean by economic and most
people would accept that as a definition, as I have said. It means
ensuring that transport policies can be paid for and help the local
economy. The Committee should send the message that we want such a
pragmatic approach to be adopted by local authorities when they are
considering transport planning.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am grateful to the Minister for providing the
legal
definition.
Ms
Winterton:
A lawyer’s
definition.
Stephen
Hammond:
Or a lawyer’s definition of the word
“economy”. The only trouble is that if we went heavily
into party politics, we would find that we have many different views of
the word “economic”. With your permission Lady Winterton,
I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I give the Minister notice
that I might come back to the matter on
Report.
Ms
Winterton:
In the interests of being
helpful, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if local authorities tell us
that they are so puzzled by what we mean by “economic”
that they are unable to put together transport plans, we shall attempt
in guidance to help them along about what we mean. However, I believe
that they will probably understand what we mean by the use of the word
“economic”.
5.15
pm
Stephen
Hammond:
One local authority might well
know what the Government mean, but others may not. That is the point of
my argument. Furthermore, the definition may change depending on who is
in power. As I said, I thank the Minister for being helpful. I thank
her for giving me the legal definition. I give notice that we might
come back to the matter of definitions on Report. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Norman
Baker:
I beg to move amendment No. 145, in
clause 7, page 9, line 36, at
end insert—
‘(1A) In section
108 (local transport plans), subsection (1)(a), after
“efficient”, insert “environmentally
sustainable”.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 153, in clause 8, page 10, line 31, at end
insert—
‘(c) to reduce
aggregate emissions of greenhouse gases from local transport
activities, taking Government targets as defined in legislation and
guidance as a
minimum.’.
Norman
Baker:
I am interested in a different “E”.
It stands for environment or the phrase “environmentally
sustainable” that I want to insert into the clause. I must say
straightaway to the Minister that I do not intend to define that phrase
in the Bill, but I am relying on its natural meaning to come across and
hope that she understands what I want to convey. I want to reflect on
the fact that the Transport Act 2000 to which reference was made when
we discussed the previous amendment, required local transport
authorities to develop transport policies that are safe, integrated,
efficient and economic. I argue that, if we intend to elevate such
principles to the front of the local transport plan, it would be an
omission not to include—these days
particularly—environmental
sustainability.
Graham
Stringer:
I do not intend to let the
hon. Gentleman get away with running away from definitions so easily. I
have asked at least 10 Transport Ministers to define
“sustainable”. They have not come up with the same
answer. Some of them have not come up with any answer. I should be
interested in his definition of “sustainable” under the
amendment.
Norman
Baker:
I shall happily do my best. The most significant
challenge that we face is climate change, so we must move towards a
transport system that minimises as far as possible the emission of
carbon. That is not the entire definition of sustainability. There are
other issues, such as whether to take up the countryside with new roads
and so on, but my primary objective in tabling the amendment and
amendment No. 153 is to deal with climate
change.
Before
the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I was saying that our
objective is to elevate the concept of the environment to the same
position of importance as the other criteria of safe, integrated,
efficient and economic. It is not appropriate merely to have the issue
placed somewhere else in the Bill. The Minister might come back to the
reference under clause 8(4)(2ZB)(b) to having regard to the
“improvement of the environment”. That is true, but it is
not placed in the same elevation as
the four adjectives of safe, integrated, efficient and economic, which
it should be in these days of concern about climate
change. A
moment ago, the Minister referred to the importance of transport
underpinning the economy. That is perfectly true. We must have a good
transport system to enable the economy to function. She will also
recognise that, when people move from A to B, there is an environmental
consequence. A footprint is generated by that movement—more if
it is aviation, but less if trains are involved. When drawing up plans,
it is important that local transport authorities have such a matter at
the forefront of their thoughts to ensure that they taking it into
account when formulating their policies. It would not be a good
transport plan if it met the four conditions presently required of
safe, integrated, efficient and economic, but had total disregard for
the environment and a largely negative impact on carbon emissions, in
particular.
The
Minister will tell me that the Government are the first Government in
the world to introduce a Climate Change Bill, and many of us are very
pleased about that. The Climate Change Bill will require each section
of society that is responsible for carbon emissions to significantly
minimise those emissions by 2050. The Minister will also be aware that
the transport sector is responsible for about a third of the carbon
emissions in the country—perhaps marginally less. Therefore,
what local councils do with their transport policies, with guidance
from central Government, is crucial if we are to meet the carbon
reduction targets that the Government have rightly identified to take
on the climate change challenge that we all face. The Department for
Transport will have to meet its own targets, which must be counted in
with the Government’s efforts to try to cut carbon emissions. It
would be peculiar if, at the same time as recognising this huge
challenge facing society and the huge cut in carbon emissions that is
needed, we do not even mention, as one of the primary objectives in the
local transport plans, the question of environmental
sustainability.
Amendment No.
153 goes even further. It recognises that we should be asking local
transport authorities to set targets for reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions from the activities in their area over which they have
influence. We are all going to have targets. We have national targets,
Government targets, and internal targets for each Department. Why
should the local transport plans not be proactive and help the
Government deliver their overall national strategic policy of carbon
cuts by having their own reduction targets? Without that specific
requirement up front, local transport plans will carry on very much as
they have done, delivering a mish-mash service with a bit of economic
development here, and helping people to get from A to B. The
traditional objective of the local transport plans will carry on.
Unless we highlight the environment in a way that has not been done
previously, I have no confidence that the local transport authorities
will respond to the climate change challenge that we all recognise
needs to be met. The Government will be in danger of having a national
target that is not being delivered locally because local transport
plans are not pursuing
it.
Mr.
Knight:
I am interested in the
argument that the hon. Gentleman is making in respect of amendment No.
153, but how would a local authority enforce it? If
their targets have been met, would they then say that a major city or
town, for example, will have no more diesel-powered buses for the rest
of the year? Surely, such a measure is unenforceable at a local
level.
Norman
Baker:
I do not think that the
measure is unenforceable because when the local transport authorities
draw up their plans, they will have consultations with a number of
bodies, as indeed they should. That will include bus operators. If my
amendments are accepted—I think that the hon. Member for
Wimbledon has similar amendments—they will include discussions
with the rail operators in a particular area. As part of the
discussions for fulfilling the contract, they can start specifying the
sort of buses that they wish to see. They could have influence over the
timetable and the frequency of buses. Through such measures, we can
realistically identify ways of reducing the carbon footprint in the
transport sector. I do not think that it is impossible. I agree that it
is not possible to tie it down to the last possible degree and say that
we will achieve it by 8.3 per cent. However, it is possible to
highlight environment sustainability in a way that is not presently
done and to try to hold some discussions that are not taking place now.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to my arguments and I look
forward to her
response.
Kerry
McCarthy (Bristol, East) (Lab): I agree
to some extent with the sentiments that have been expressed by the hon.
Member for Lewes although I do not think that his amendments are
necessary to achieve the objectives that he espouses. I may be
pre-empting the Minister, but I think that the provisions in clause 8
outlining the new duties on local authorities with respect to the
protection or improvement of the environment will be sufficient. In my
constituency and in Bristol as a whole, there is incredibly strong
support for the sort of environmental objectives that he mentioned. I
probably get more letters on climate change than on any other topic.
Bristol aims to become the green capital of the United Kingdom—a
laudable ambition.
There is
particularly strong support for cycling in Bristol; apart from walking,
it is most environmentally sustainable system of transport. That is
already reflected in the local transport plans, but I hope that this
new provision will give greater impetus to it. Sustrans, which is based
in Bristol, has just won £50 million from the People’s
£50 Million contest for developing a national network of cycle
paths.
On a slightly
more controversial note, the strength of support for cycling was
demonstrated when it was suggested recently that there might be a rapid
transport bus link alongside the Bristol to Bath cycle path. More than
10,000 people signed a petition and more than 1,000 marched in order to
demonstrate their support for that project. I am glad to see that
Bristol city council is working with Sustrans on developing schemes to
improve bus travel in the city and to improve cycling
provision—although the former should not be at the expense of
the latter. When considering moving forward with the local transport
plans, that is the sort of partnership that we need.
While talking
about sustainable forms of transport, the Minister recently visited my
constituency and travelled on the showcase bus route, the second in the
city. I use this opportunity—perhaps somewhat
audaciously—to
make a plea for her to release the further money needed for the third
showcase bus route and a bus lane on the M32. Now that that is out of
the way, I turn to the amendments. As suggested by the right hon.
Member for East Yorkshire, it would be incredibly burdensome for local
authorities to have to meet specific targets. We are always being urged
to reduce the number of targets and to give local authorities the
freedom to decide how to operate and the flexibility to decide what is
best for the locality. With something like transport—by
definition, it means moving in and out of local authority
boundaries—I do not see how local authorities or integrated
transport authorities, which are responsible for everything that
happens within their boundaries, could be held to legally binding
targets. The Liberal Democrats support that in terms of the national
climate change targets, and I accept their good motives, but it needs
to be expressed as general guidance to local authorities rather
than something that ties them
down.
Stephen
Hammond:
As the hon. Member for Lewes
said, the provision places certain obligations on local authorities
under their local plans. He wants to place two more obligations on
them. The obligation of environmental sustainability seems sensible,
although I assumed that it was already there. One person’s
definition of “integrated” and what it implies is another
person’s mis-definition, which is why I thought it was probably
included. It is certainly there in clause
8.
The hon. Gentleman
would have overcome the definitional questions about which he was being
probed by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley if he had used the
words “with respect to protection or improvement of the
environment” as the criteria. None the less, I have spoken
several times today about the principle of including in the Bill a
clear interpretation so that mistakes cannot be made.
I would have sympathy with the
hon. Member for Lewes if he wished to press amendment No. 145 to a
Division. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, East about
amendment No. 153. First, a plethora of Government targets is already
imposed on local authorities. What she said about transport moving and
therefore being more difficult to capture in a discrete area is also
relevant. Although I have some sympathy with the aim of amendment No.
153, if the hon. Member for Lewes were to press it, I would not ask my
colleagues to support it. We may not vote against it, but we certainly
would not support it.
5.30
pm
Ms
Winterton:
This has been a short but
instructive debate with lots of interesting observations. I am worried
about my speech because most of my points have been anticipated by
other members of the Committee, but it is important that we have
discussed issues relating to sustainability and the reduction
of transport emissions.
I congratulate my hon. Friend
the Member for Bristol, East on cleverly raising the issue of the third
showcase bus route. I visited her constituency and I
was impressed at the enthusiasm for looking at other forms of travel,
particularly cycling. I managed to congratulate Sustrans on the work
that it has already done to promote cycling in the constituency. It is
something that my hon. Friend is very keen on and I know that she was
concerned about the other bus route and that cycling in her city should
not be undermined as a result. I am pleased to see that it looks as
though some accommodation has been reached on that. Hon. Members have raised a
number of points about amendment No. 145. That would add an explicit
reference to environmental sustainability to the duty under section 108
of the Transport Act 2000 for transport authorities to develop and
implement policies on transport. The sustainability of present and
future transport arrangements in a local authority area is clearly one
of the most fundamental issues to be considered when drawing up
policies and plans. As was anticipated in the opening remarks, clause 8
already places a new duty on local authorities to take account of the
Government’s
policies
“with respect to
the protection or improvement of the
environment,”.
It also
requires those authorities to have regard to any guidance issued by the
Secretary of State in relation to that.
In such guidance, we would
expect to cover issues such as air quality, noise and climate
change—matters that local authorities would need to address when
devising and implementing their transport policies and local transport
plans. That is further supplemented by the Government guidance issued
in September last year as part of the Climate Change and Sustainable
Energy Act 2006. In exercising any of its functions, every local
authority must have regard to that report, which includes guidance on
transport among a full range of other advice. In that light, I would
expect the environment and sustainability to be at the forefront of a
local authority’s mind, both in developing and implementing its
transport policies, and in producing local transport plans. We expect
any guidance that we issue to address questions of sustainability and
the environment in relation to transport in local areas. I understand
the points raised by the hon. Member for Lewes—he obviously
takes the issue extremely seriously, as do we all—but I do not
think that there are any obvious gaps to fill in the existing duties
for local authorities as amended by the
Bill.
Norman
Baker:
There is indeed guidance—I referred to it in
my opening remarks—but the Minister has not yet given me an
explanation why, in respect of the four key words “safe,
integrated, efficient and economic”, which are elevated above
all others in the Transport Act 2000, there is no reference to the
environment. That is what concerns me. The environment is effectively
second-tier compared with those four
criteria.
Ms
Winterton:
I have tried to explain the various other
duties, particularly those relating to the Climate Change and
Sustainable Energy Act 2006, in clause 8. We feel that there is
adequate guidance and instruction to local authorities to consider the
effect of any plans on the environment. Amendment No. 153 would create
a new duty on local authorities developing and
carrying out transport policies to reduce the total level of greenhouse
gas emissions from local transport in their area, taking Government
targets as the minimum standard to be achieved.
Of course the Government seek
to reduce emissions across the economy and not just within transport.
The Stern report highlighted the need for flexibility to take action
where it costs least in order to ensure that the cost of mitigation is
manageable. The Climate Change Bill, which recently came to the House
from the other place, will provide binding legislation for this country
to meet its climate change obligations. It will also set a long-term
framework for cutting total UK domestic CO2 emissions by 26
to 32 per cent. by 2020 and by at least 60 per cent. by 2050.
The transport sector will have
to make a deliverable, measurable and cost-effective contribution to
those targets. In October 2007, the Government published a new
framework document, “Towards a Sustainable Transport
System”, with the aim of delivering a transport system that both
supports the economy and reduces carbon emissions. We are discussing
our climate change challenges with stakeholders and will publish our
thoughts in a Green Paper later this year for more formal consultation.
We will also identify potential emissions reduction pathways for
transport, considering the full range of options for putting transport
on a less carbon-intensive path and including different types of
journeys and transport
modes.
Although I
understand entirely what the amendment is meant to achieve, introducing
such a duty on local authorities on a local level relating to transport
alone could prove counter-productive by reducing their flexibility to
contribute to the achievement of national targets—a point that
was made earlier—and preventing them from achieving the best
value reductions for their resources. I believe that the
Government’s proposed approach offers a better way forward, and
I hope that, given that reassurance and the other commitments, the hon.
Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his
amendment.
Norman
Baker:
The suggestion that flexibility should be applied
is, on the face of it, entirely reasonable, but flexibility in this
matter all too often makes some people think that they have a licence
to carry on as normal and that others should make cuts to achieve the
Government’s targets. Some will interpret flexibility as an
excuse to do nothing. Although industry has made significant cuts in
carbon emissions and they are even now being made in the home sector,
transport emissions continue to rise. I am sorry to say that the
Government’s policies, particularly on aviation, suggest that
those emissions will rise significantly more, rather than being cut. I
am not convinced by the Minister’s argument that flexibility
will necessarily deliver the overall cuts that she implied.
It is perfectly reasonable to
ask local authorities to consider not simply the totality of their
carbon emissions reduction targets, but what they are doing sector by
sector. Local government acts in silos, just as central Government do.
It is the natural function of government to behave in that way. If we
can get integrated government, great, but that is how people
behave.
My question to the Minister is,
if she does not like amendment No. 153—I freely accept that
there are difficulties with it—what confidence can we have that
what she is putting in place will deliver carbon reduction targets from
transport locally, and that the impetus will be there for local
councils and others to take the movement forward to meet the
Government’s national targets? I am not convinced that that
impetus is there, and the Government are in danger of having a national
target that they cannot enforce because, locally, the action has not
been taken to render it effective.
My other concern is on
amendment No. 145. The Minister can find arguments against amendment
No. 153 that are to some extent legitimate, although I do not think she
has come up with an alternative, but on amendment No. 145 she is on
more difficult ground. On that amendment, I have argued that
sustainability, however we wish to define it, is a key
issue—there is no getting away from it. I have heard no argument
to justify the fact that it should not be on the same level as
“safe”, “integrated”,
“efficient” and “economic”. If she is
arguing that it is highlighted in other legislation as being central,
it is difficult to understand why the Government wish to be
inconsistent and exclude it from the list of criteria that apply under
the Bill. The reality is that the transport sector generally has not
been good at dealing with carbon emissions; it has seen itself as being
above and exempt from that, whether at local or national level. The
amendment is a way to highlight
that.
I fear that even
with the intentions referred to in clause 8, which I readily
acknowledge as a step forward, the Government are saying, “Well,
let’s make sure that your transport is safe; we must do that.
Let’s make sure that it’s economic, however we define
economic. Let’s make sure it’s efficient and
integrated”—most people think that buses and trains
together is the normal understanding of that word—“and
once you’ve done all that, you can pay some regard to the
environment.” It is a second-tier requirement and the Minister
has given no explanation of why the environment should not be a
first-tier requirement. I feel quite strongly about this issue, so I
shall ask the Committee to divide on amendment No.
145.
Question put,
That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
4
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 7 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
| 
