Clause
17
Effect
of scheme: different dates for different facilities or standards
etc
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I rise to speak in similar vein to Tuesday, when
I tabled an amendment. I want the Minister to be clear with us about
the issue of different dates and different facilities and how it
impacts on schemes across the country. Will she give us some detail on
the differing impact of different
dates?
Ms
Winterton:
The clause will amend the current legislation,
once again as a consequence of provisions in clause 13, which will
allow different standards and facilities in a quality partnership to be
introduced on different dates. Under current legislation, the effect of
the scheme is that facilities must be provided at the start and for the
full duration of the scheme. Operators must not use those facilities
unless they have given a written undertaking to the traffic
commissioner to provide services to the required standard. Enforcement
action can be taken against operators who breach such an
understanding.
The
clause, like the clauses preceding it, contains necessary consequential
amendments to those in clause 13 that allow different facilities to
come into force on different
dates.
The purpose of
the clause is to clarify how the obligations to provide facilities or
standards apply where implementation of the scheme is phased. I am
leafing through the guidance because I was reading the
further information on this matter earlier. It addresses some issues
about what could be included in a scheme where changes had already been
made—for example, by the insertion of a bus route—and
what could
not. In
a statutory quality partnership scheme, the idea is that operators and
local authorities will give commitments, very often to introduce
investment or to make changes. We want some flexibility to ensure that
any changes down the line can be introduced appropriately. That
reflects the reality that some changes may have been indicated, but not
necessarily implemented right at the beginning. It is an
acknowledgement that some changes will come in later than
others.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause
17
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
18
Regulations
about schemes which specify frequencies, timings or
fares
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 46, in
clause 18, page 17, line 16, leave
out paragraph
(b).
I
am still slightly perplexed by subsection (4)(b). A further element of
the clause is that regulations may be made to ensure that quality
partnership schemes include all sorts of provisions. We have gone
through those requirements. The clause indicates provisions for the
minimum and maximum time before the requirements can be reviewed. I can
understand and support the case for a review. I can understand why a
review should happen after a maximum period. However, I am slightly
perplexed about why there needs to be a minimum period. Why can a
quality partnership not be reviewed until a certain time has elapsed? I
do not see the point of
that.
I
understand the need for stability and a degree of certainty for bus
operators, bus passengers and local government planners—we went
through that argument this morning—but we are talking about only
a review, not a complete overhaul of the scheme. A review will not
necessarily lead to change. I am questioning this. The
Minister’s argument may be that the Government have included a
minimum because they want the quality partnerships to bed down.
However, circumstances change and an adjustment may be necessary in the
light of any number of circumstances. I therefore think the provision
slightly odd: if such circumstances could not be taken into account
because the review period had not reached the minimum, that might have
some impact on the services that passengers
experience.
I look to
the Minister to explain why she feels that a minimum period is
absolutely necessary. The amendment is sensible and could have a
helpful impact on the legislation. I hope she sees it in that spirit
and either gives good reasons why I am wrong or indicates that she
might be prepared to look at the matter
again.
3.15
pm
Ms
Winterton:
The intention of the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment is to remove the power to specify in regulations a minimum
interval between reviews of requirements in quality partnership schemes
about frequencies, timings
or maximum fares. A provision in the draft Bill stipulated that if a
quality partnership scheme included requirements as to maximum fares,
it must also include in the scheme, among other things, provision for a
minimum period between reviews of such fare levels. When making a
scheme, authorities would have been under an obligation to stipulate
that minimum demand. In response to the views of interested parties on
the draft Bill we made a number of amendments to those provisions. One
was to replace the requirement for operator agreement to the setting of
maximum fares with a process whereby operators can object to, but not
veto, requirements on frequencies and timings, as well as maximum
fares.
Another change was to take a
regulation-making power so that details about what must be included in
a scheme can be prescribed in secondary legislation, to ensure that
certain requirements are reviewed on a regular basis. We believe that
provides a much more flexible approach to dealing with what are
sensitive and difficult issues. The Bill now includes a power to make
regulations on when and how requirements about frequencies, timings and
fares should be reviewed. Among other things, it includes a power to
specify in those regulations a minimum interval between such
reviews.
We need to
ensure that we strike the appropriate balance between enabling
authorities to take an innovative approach to improving local bus
services, while protecting the legitimate interests of bus operators.
The intention is to ensure that appropriate powers are available to
prevent operators from demanding frequent reviews for frivolous or
vexatious reasons, which could seriously disrupt the effectiveness of
the scheme and could erode the passenger benefits arising from it. In a
sense, that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester,
Withington.
Stephen
Hammond:
The Minister mentioned preventing operators from
making frivolous and vexatious objections, but I understood from our
earlier discussions that they were proscribed anyway, so operators
could not make such objections.
Ms
Winterton:
The hon. Gentleman is talking about reviews and
the point we are making is that although there will be reviews of the
schemes, we do not want a system in which there would be constant
reviews. The point about frivolous and vexatious objections to which I
responded earlier related to the admissible objections procedure. We
want to prevent operators from demanding frequent reviews for frivolous
or vexatious reasons because that could seriously disrupt the
effectiveness of the scheme.
It might be useful if I
summarised what is in the draft
regulations.
Ian
Stewart:
I am glad that my right hon.
Friend will explain that. She knows of my anxieties about some of this
part of the Bill. If we are to have the proposed system, and the
Government are taking action to ensure that no frivolous or vexatious
objections get through for review, will there be any kind of mechanism,
such as those in industrial tribunals, for pre-hearing assessments, so
that any potential frivolous or vexatious attempts are stopped before
they get into the process proper?
Ms
Winterton:
In the regulations, we are trying to make a
system that prevents frivolous or vexatious reviews, so in a sense we
are starting from the other end. In respect of maximum fares, for
example, regulation 16 provides that the scheme must specify a maximum
period of no more than 12 months between reviews of the requirements.
The only exception is where the maximum fare is updated at least
annually in accordance with a formula specified in the scheme. If the
scheme said that fares would rise in line with whatever was defined as
inflation, that would be fine and there would not necessarily need to
be a review, but otherwise there would
be.
For requirements
on maximum fares and on frequencies and timings, a local authority may
choose to start a review at any time and must also undertake a review
where requested by three or more participating operators or, if fewer,
at least 50 per cent. of participating
operators.
Mr.
Leech:
Is it not the case that having a minimum interval
period could protect operators in certain circumstances, for example,
where local authorities wanted to change the frequency of a service
that the operator
opposed?
Ms
Winterton:
We are trying to get the right balance between
saying that it is a good idea to have reviews and, at the same time,
that we do not want constant reviews, because that would disrupt the
scheme.
Relevant
operators can register objections to the outcome of a review. If the
local authority concluded that the objection from the operator was not
admissible, the operator could refer it to the traffic commissioner.
However, the draft regulations do not at this stage specify minimum
intervals between reviews. We will consult formally on the draft
regulations later in the year and are willing to consider, at that
stage, whether such a requirement is necessary. Although it is not
included in the current draft regulations, I am firmly of the view that
the power is needed in case we decide, in the light of consultation,
that it would be appropriate to specify a minimum
interval.
Stephen
Hammond:
Will the Minister say what time scale would apply
to a minimum
period?
Ms
Winterton:
That is exactly the sort of issue on which we
wish to consult. Again, I would not like to dictate in Committee what
the period would be, because it is particularly important to get the
views of local authorities on
that.
The draft
regulations preserve flexibility for the future so that once we have
seen a number of schemes in operation we can amend the requirements in
the light of
experience.
I hope
that I have provided sufficient reassurance for the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw his
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I thank the Minister for her detailed
explanation, particularly the points about consultation and the
commitment to consult on the minimum period. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
made: No. 81, in
clause 18, page 17, line 32, at
end insert—
‘( ) The
provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3)(g) includes
provision for and in connection
with—
(a) the
appointment of a person (“an adjudicator”) to make such a
determination as is mentioned in that
paragraph;
(b) the appointment
of a person (“an assessor”) to assist an adjudicator in
considering any question which appears to arise in relation to such a
determination;
(c) the
payment—
(i) by the
Secretary of State to an adjudicator,
or
(ii) by the Secretary of
State or an adjudicator to an
assessor,
of such remuneration
as may be determined by or in accordance with the
regulations.’.—[Ms
Rosie
Winterton.]
Mr.
Leech:
I beg to move amendment No. 154, in
clause 18, page 17, line 32, at
end add—
‘(6) A statutory
instrument containing regulations made under this section may not be
made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by
a resolution of, each House of
Parliament.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 190, in
clause 36, page 33, line 32, at
end add—
‘(4) A statutory
instrument containing regulations made under this section may not be
made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by
a resolution of, each House of
Parliament.’.
New
clause 4—Regulations under the Transport Act
2000
—
‘(1)
Section 160 of the TA 2000 (Part II: regulations and orders) is amended
as follows.
(2) In subsection
(2) at end insert ‘, save as provided in sections 122 and
133.’.
Mr.
Leech:
Amendment No. 154 would mean that any regulations
made by the Secretary of State relating to admissible objections,
relevant operators and indeed the circumstances in which operators
could object to statutory quality partnerships would be subject to the
affirmative resolution procedure. Those aspects of the Bill are hugely
important to the success of statutory quality partnerships. Making such
regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure would
ensure that even if the issues are not covered in the primary
legislation they still receive adequate parliamentary scrutiny. To
protect the interests of passengers, local authorities and bus
operators, it is very important, for the many reasons already given,
that we get the definitions of “admissible objection” and
“relevant operator” right. If they are not correctly
balanced and suitably clear, the Government risk the passage of yet
another transport Bill that would fail to live up to what it set out to
do, namely reversing declining bus patronage.
There is also an issue about
regulations under other important parts of the Bill. For example,
powers relating to the new, integrated transport authorities, those of
the Secretary of State to direct under those sections, and the ability
to confer additional powers on the rail passenger council, Passenger
Focus, are all subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The
regulations covering statutory quality partnerships and quality
contracts are equally important, and should receive the same
transparency and opportunity for debate. Amendment No. 190 would do the
same for quality contracts, and would ensure that any order containing
regulations governing quality contracts, would also be subject to the
affirmative, rather than the negative, resolution procedure. That would
ensure a debate and more parliamentary scrutiny on the
issue—something I am sure that all members of the Committee
would like. New clause 4
consequentially amends part of the Transport Act 2000 to allow the
above two amendments to have force. Specifically, it amends section 160
of the Transport Act 2000, so that an order under sections 122 and 133,
which cover statutory quality partnerships and quality contracts, would
no longer be subject to annulment as are other sections of part 2 of
the Act, but would allow them instead to be exceptions, subject to the
affirmative resolution procedure.
Ms
Winterton:
As the hon. Gentleman has explained, the group
of amendments relates to powers for the Secretary of State, and indeed
Welsh Ministers, to make regulations about quality partnership schemes
and quality contract schemes. The 2000 Act already provides for
regulations to be made about a variety of matters. To give a few
examples, regulations may be made about the procedures to be followed
by making a quality partnership scheme or quality contract schemes, or
about services that may or must be excluded from such schemes.
Regulations may also make further provision about the approval of
quality contract schemes.
The existing regulation-making
powers are already quite wide ranging. The 2000 Act provides for them
to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. As the hon.
Gentleman has outlined, the Bill specifies further matters that may be
dealt with by regulation. He proposes that all such regulations should
be subject to the affirmative procedure to give additional
parliamentary scrutiny.
Lady Winterton, I take very
seriously the roles of the House and the other place in scrutinising
the Government’s legislative proposals. In these matters I
attach great value to the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory
Reform Committee in the other place, which carefully scrutinises Bills
to ensure that they provide for an appropriate degree of parliamentary
control. Indeed, in response to a recommendation of that Committee last
November, I took the decision that the Bill should be amended in the
other place to provide a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny for
certain matters covered by what is now clause
59.
3.30pm
In
the case of the powers to make regulations about quality partnership
schemes and quality contract schemes, the Committee did not consider
the negative resolution procedure as proposed in the Bill to be
inadequate. I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the
provisions have been looked at by the appropriate Committee, which
feels that the approach we are taking is perfectly adequate in terms of
parliamentary scrutiny. I would, therefore, ask him to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Leech:
In the light of the comments from
the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That
the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
Obviously we are now finishing our proceedings on
the provisions in part 3 that deal with quality partnerships. There is
one aspect about which I want to be absolutely clear and this seems to
be the time to raise it with the Minister.
I have said
all along that I would prefer voluntary partnerships. The Government
feel that in too many places such partnerships are not working, so they
are bringing forward a series of regulations and Bills to ensure that
quality partnerships work. At the base of my concern about partnership
is the feeling that if a partnership is imposed, sometimes that is no
partnership at all. That could be detrimental to passengers, but we
will leave that
aside.
When we were
talking about the admissible objections, the review and other things,
we discussed the fact that there is to be an assessor for review and
for admissible objections. The implication of the Bill is that it is
always the bus company that is wrong, it is always the bus company that
is failing the partnership and it is always the bus company that has
failed to provide. I want to be clear that when the assessor considers
the admissible objections or items raised in a review there will be a
proportionality test as well. Is it clear in the Government’s
current guidelines, in terms of regulations, that there is a
proportionality test on local authorities, so that they provide an
amount equivalent to what they require the bus operators to put in? If
not, the likely increase in bus patronage or the likely efficacy of the
quality partnership will not be as high.
I understand that the Bill
makes provision for local authorities to specify certain aspects of the
quality partnership. Are we clear, therefore, that if an initial
objection is raised, and it is because there is a view that the local
authority is not acting proportionately, that will be taken into
account by the assessor and the
adjudicator?
Ms
Winterton:
The hon. Gentleman is right
to say that the idea is not for partnerships to be imposed. Indeed,
that is something that the Transport Select Committee talked about
quite extensively—that there
needed to be a mechanism for finding agreement, which is why we
introduced the idea of admissible objections.
The hon. Gentleman needs to be
clear that, in the first instance, it is for the local authority to
decide whether an objection is admissible and to consider it. It is at
that stage that there would be an appeal to a traffic commissioner. We
envisage that, most of all, it will be in the interests of passengers
that a partnership is made, but it will also be in the interests of the
local authority, which will be able to provide improved services, and
to the advantage of operators as well. Partnership gives certainty,
which is why we introduced registration restrictions. Because of the
provisions that we made about competition law, an operator who signs up
will be able to discuss fares, frequencies, timings and so on under the
system. It will still be a partnership approach, but with added
certainty on both sides that the partnership scheme can
continue.
Stephen
Hammond:
I understand where the Minister is going, but I
would like to bring her back to my question. Are we clear that if the
matter has gone beyond that—if it has gone to the appeal
process—there will be
proportionality?
Ms
Winterton:
All functions of the local transport authority
in making or varying a scheme are subject to the competition test in
schedule 10, which includes a proportionality test. It would not apply
to reviews, but an operator could refer the matter to the Office of
Fair Trading if it thought that the test had not been satisfied. There
is no formal test in regulations, but our guidance emphasises and
explains why proportionality is important.
As I said, we feel strongly
that in many instances there will be a partnership approach. It will be
possible to reach agreement but also to have added certainty about
operators and local authorities delivering and working in an atmosphere
of partnership. There will be some certainty that, if it is necessary,
it will be possible to prevent others from disrupting a scheme that is
working to the benefit of
passengers.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause
18, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Watts.]
Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Four o’clock till Tuesday
29 April at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
