 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, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 29 April 2008(Afternoon)[David Taylor in the Chair]Local Transport Bill [ Lords ]Clause 19Quality
contracts
schemes
Amendment
moved [this day]: No. 47, in clause 19, page 17, line 40, after
‘increase’, insert ‘of
10%’.—[Stephen
Hammond.]
The
Chairman:
I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following amendments: No. 48, in
clause 19, page 17, line 44, after
‘relates’,
insert
‘, which are
substantially greater than those that would pertain under a quality
partnership
scheme,’.
No.
49, in
clause 19, page 17, line 47, after
‘authorities’, insert
‘substantially more than would a
quality partnership
scheme’.
No.
50, in
clause 19, page 18, line 4, leave
out from beginning to end of line 8 and
insert—
‘(e) there are shown
to be no adverse effects of the proposed scheme on operators or on
persons living or working in the area to which the proposed scheme
relates.’.
No.
51, in
clause 19, page 18, line 8, at
end insert—
‘(2A) In
subsection
(1)—
“economic”
means that the cost of implementing the proposed scheme to the local
authority will be no greater than implementing the same services under
any other
means;
“efficient”
means that the proposed scheme will be no less efficient than if the
same services were implemented under any other
means;
“effective”
means that the proposed scheme will be no less effective than if the
same services were implemented under any other
means.’.
No.
52, in
clause 19, page 18, line 19, after
‘services’, insert ‘by
10%’.
4
pm
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): Good afternoon, Mr.
Taylor. At our previous sitting, Lady Winterton said that it was going
to be a happy morning, and I am sure that this will be a happy
afternoon.
Before
lunch, I was going through the last of my amendments—No.
50—in which we ask the Minister for an indication of what she
regards as proportionate. What proportion do the Government have in
mind? Who decides what it will be? Where is the definition? If a
service is withdrawn as a result of a quality contracts tendering
process, people will lose out, so I want the Government to tell us
exactly how they will measure what appears to be a potential financial
loss on one side and a lifestyle benefit on the
other.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab):
On the hon. Gentleman’s theme of how he will
kill off quality contracts before they begin, let me take up the point
that the hon. Member for Lewes was trying to make before lunch.
Amendment No. 50 removes proportionality and instead uses the
words
“there are shown
to be no adverse effects of the proposed scheme on operators or on
persons living or working in the
area”.
That must mean
that if any person or operator experiences an adverse effect, it will
rule out a quality contract and any of the benefits to any other person
or operator—one adverse effect experienced by one person or
operator would rule out the whole scheme.
Stephen
Hammond:
I do not know what proportionate means. If it
means what the hon. Gentleman suggests, then yes, but someone must tell
me what it means. We phrased the amendment as we did so that we could
ask the Minister exactly why her initial criteria are phrased in such a
way.
To return to my
starting point, the five criteria set out in my amendments explore and
define the quality contracts criteria. On that basis, I look forward to
the Minister’s response.
Norman
Baker (Lewes) (LD): Good afternoon,
Mr. Taylor. I shall try to be brief, given the time that we
took this morning. It is unfair of the Government Whip to accuse Labour
Back Benchers of filibustering—they raised some serious points
this morning, and it is only right to pay due tribute to them for doing
so.
Norman
Baker:
I do not blame the hon. Member
for Wimbledon for tabling his amendments, in the sense that it is
perfectly proper to test the wording of the clause. If they were
implemented, however, the amendments would wreck the quality contracts
system, intentionally or otherwise. The word
“substantially” in amendment No. 49 suggests that the
hurdle would be set at 10 per cent., which would be a very high hurdle
indeed. Similarly, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe said a
second ago, and as I said before lunch, amendment No. 50 would
give operators a veto, allowing any scheme to be ruled out if there
were any adverse effects whatever. That is the absolute definition of a
wrecking amendment, and I cannot believe that it is what the hon.
Member for Wimbledon wanted—but perhaps it was.
This morning, the hon.
Gentleman criticised the use of the words
“any adverse effects of the
proposed scheme”
in
clause 19(2)(e). He went on to ask how the Government would define
adverse effects, but he uses the same words in his amendment. If he
wanted to demonstrate that there would be no adverse effects, he would
presumably have to define the phrase as used in his
amendment.
To
conclude, the amendments do not stack up, other than as a means of
wrecking the quality contracts scheme in
total.
The
Minister of State, Department for Transport (Ms Rosie
Winterton):
Good afternoon, Mr. Taylor. It is
nice to see you back in
Committee.
As
hon. Members have spotted, the amendments raise hurdles that local
authorities would have to get over before they could introduce a
quality contracts scheme. They would increase the burden of proof to
such an extent that it would be practically impossible to meet. I shall
say a few words about how the Bill amends the requirements of proof
that local authorities have to meet before taking forward a quality
contracts
scheme.
As
I said, there are circumstances when the public interest may be best
served by a quality contracts scheme; for example, partnership may be
failing to deliver the improvements needed, or local authorities may
want to be able to guarantee a particular set of improvements to the
bus network. The Government’s objective in the Bill is to make
quality contracts schemes a more realistic option for local
authorities, where they believe it the right thing to do in their area.
We have listened to concerns that the existing legislation is too
restrictive. The Bill will put that
right.
The effect of
the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, however,
would be to raise the burden of proof that the local authority has to
meet to such an extent as to make it almost impossible to meet. The
amendment proposing that there must be no adverse effects at all on any
bus operators or any person living or working within the area of the
scheme is particularly
unrealistic.
I
want to address the issue of proportionality, which we introduced
following representations made by local authorities and others over the
draft Bill. They preferred the criterion introduced to be a
proportionality test, rather than a competition test. Local authorities
are experienced at that, particularly in the context of other transport
schemes—getting the balance right between what the financial
benefits and costs of a scheme would be, and the lifestyle gain. Local
authorities are used to assessing through proportionality the eventual
benefits of a
scheme.
I
accept that in many cases quality contracts schemes may not be the
answer to everyone’s problems, but as a Government we believe
that they should be a realistic option for communities that want them.
The amendments would take that option further away from local
authorities and, for that reason, we cannot accept
them.
I am
interested in the right hon. Lady’s argument on proportionality.
Will she be helpful and send us some correspondence that defines
exactly what it is? She says that local authorities are well versed in
proportionality, but some examples of where it has been used before, or
what the Government guidelines to local authorities are, would be
helpful. Can the Minister help us on that
point?
Ms
Winterton:
We have said that we want to
respond positively to the points made to us by local authorities. One
of the suggestions of the Passenger Transport Executive Group, for
example, was for the competition test to be made a more general
proportionality test, as part of the proposed public interest test.
Under that test, the quality contracts scheme promoter would be
required to demonstrate that the effect on bus operators
was justified by the public interest legitimate purpose in introducing a
quality partnership scheme—a fair, balanced test. That would
assist in demonstrating compliance with human rights legislation and is
what we responded to. Of course, any guidance we issue will address and
build on the work that local authorities already undertake when they
draw up particular transport schemes. We will look at proportionality
testing then. I hope it reassures the hon. Gentleman when I say that,
through guidance, we will assist local authorities with bringing about
that
test.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments.
I shall look closely at the guidance on proportionality. Obviously, she
has told us what PTEG would prefer. I have been trying to obtain a
definition of what proportional is and although we do not have it yet,
I am happy to accept that the Minister says there will be guidance on
it. I do not, therefore, intend to press amendment No. 50 to a vote, as
I indicated that I might wish to do.
Returning to my point, we are
in favour of voluntary or statutory quality partnerships, but it must
be shown that a quality contract provides a substantially greater
benefit than could have been achieved under a quality partnership, so I
would like to test the will of the Committee on amendments Nos. 47 and
48.
Question put,
That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
11.
Division
No.
10
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No.
48, in clause 19, page 17, line 44, after ‘relates’,
insert:
“, which are
substantially greater than those that would pertain under a quality
partnership scheme,”.—[S
tephen
Hammond.]
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
11.
Division
No.
11
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly
negatived.
Norman
Baker:
I beg to move amendment No. 155, in
clause 19, page 18, line 2, after
‘efficient’, insert ‘, environmentally
sustainable’.
I
shall truncate my comments to be helpful to the Committee—not
because I feel that this is not an important amendment, but because we
have already had a similar argument on an earlier amendment. Clause
19(2)(d) sets criteria that have to be met, and refers to the three
E’s: economic, efficient and effective. It does not mention the
fourth E, which relates to the environment. My amendment would add the
words “environmentally sustainable” to the requirement
placed upon local transport authorities that are drawing up quality
contracts schemes. With the Climate Change Bill going through
Parliament and when tackling climate change is one of the greatest
priorities, it is bizarre—to say the least—that the
environment is not even mentioned in the key criteria that are to be
addressed.
I hope and
anticipate that when the Bill is enacted, local authorities and others
will seek to use powers under it relatively soon, and that they will
take decisions, for example, to source particular vehicles. If they are
not guided toward making sound environmental choices at an early stage,
there is a real danger that the wrong choice will be made at an early
stage, and we could end up with less sustainable vehicles and other
environmental downsides. The amendment would prevent
that.
4.15
pm
Mr.
Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): I can see the hon.
Gentleman’s point, but does he accept to some extent the
criticism that the amendment would be otiose, and that no vehicle
manufacturer in the world is making new vehicles that are more
polluting than a previous generation of vehicles? Every vehicle
manufacturer is reducing pollution. It could be argued that if the
amendment were accepted, any vehicle could be seen as environmentally
unsustainable. He could be lifting the hurdle that he accused my hon.
Friend the Member for Wimbledon of lifting when we debated a previous
group of amendments.
Norman
Baker:
That is a novel argument. Of course modern vehicles
are less polluting—that is a good direction of travel—but
some vehicles are less polluting than others. For example, electric
vehicles operate in some places. I went to see some extremely efficient
and good public service vehicles being produced by a company called
Modec. There is a difference between vehicles that are less polluting
and vehicles that are still less polluting. I wish to encourage the
latter. It is not only about vehicles. It might also be about
information points at bus stops, for example, which could be powered by
solar cells. Other aspects of environmental performance could be
affected by how local authorities address their duties under the
clause.
We discussed
the approvals board this morning and what power it might have to
overturn decisions by local transport executives—ITAs, councils
or whatever they are called in the circumstances. If a duty is not
written in to the Bill to deal seriously with the environment, what is
to stop an approvals board saying, “You are wrong to put all
these conditions about the environment into a plan; they are not in the
criteria in the Act, and we therefore think that they are not in the
public
interest”? If the approvals board interprets local
councils’ plans, we ought to ensure that local councils have
protection in the Bill. It would be sensible and far-sighted to include
some reference to the environment in the key criteria in the
clause.
Ms
Winterton:
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s
concern and his desire to ensure that the Bill is environmentally
sustainable. I wholeheartedly agree that that should be a key objective
of local authorities’ policy and plans. He has probably
anticipated my remarks, but for two reasons I do not think that adding
his words to the criteria that must be satisfied before making the
quality contracts scheme would be the best way of achieving that
objective.
First, as
we have discussed, the Bill includes general provisions to ensure that
environmental issues are high on the agenda of local transport
authorities. As I said when we discussed amendments to clause 8, we
place certain duties on local transport authorities when developing and
implementing transport policies, which include taking into account
Government policies and guidance on the protection or improvement of
the environment. An authority seeking to make a quality contracts
scheme must, among other things, show that the scheme will contribute
to the implementation of its transport policies in a way that is
economic, efficient and effective. An authority working up proposals
for a scheme would need to do so in such a way as to ensure that the
scheme was consistent with those policies. It will be under a duty with
regard to environmental issues in developing the policies, so such
issues will be an important consideration in the development of the
scheme.
Secondly,
specific consideration of the environmental impact of quality contracts
schemes should be included in supporting guidance, rather than in the
Bill. I give an assurance that that will be the case. Environmental
sustainability is a complex subject and the guidance provides a better
vehicle, if I may use that phrase, for a more detailed discussion of
the issues that authorities might need to
consider.
A
draft version of the quality contracts guidance, which is before the
Committee, was issued in December. That draft already says that the
scheme should take account of wider impacts on the environment.
Environmental benefits such as reductions in carbon emissions and noise
can be quantified as part of the economic appraisal required for a
quality contracts
scheme.
As
I have said, we will publish revised guidance for consultation later
this year, alongside draft regulations setting out the new procedures
for quality contracts schemes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will
consider in that context what more we can say regarding consideration
of the environment when developing quality contracts schemes. I hope
that that reassures him and that he will therefore withdraw the
amendment.
Norman
Baker:
One day a Minister will accept one of my
amendments. It has been 11 years and I am still waiting for the first
one to be accepted—this is a very good one, as a matter of fact.
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments as far as they go. I
appreciate that she recognises the importance of the environment. The
difference between us is that I regard it as a first-tier responsibility
that should rank alongside “economic, efficient and
effective”, rather than a second-tier responsibility that is
subject to guidance, which is how I perceive it to be classed. However,
I made my point under a previous amendment on clause 8 and I divided
the Committee then. I do not feel the need to do so again, although my
reasons have not changed, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
I call Mr. Stringer to move amendment
No. 104, with which it will be convenient to consider amendment No.
194.
Graham
Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): I am satisfied that
the area that the amendment covers was debated this morning, so I am
happy not to move
it.
Norman
Baker:
On a point of order, Mr. Taylor. What is
the position of amendment No. 194, which is in this
group?
Norman
Baker:
I should like to make one or two brief comments on
it. I will move it for the purpose of then withdrawing it. All I wanted
to be clear on was that the issues, because of the
grouping—
The
Chairman:
Order. For the avoidance of doubt, I am very
happy for the hon. Gentleman to speak to amendment No.
194.
Norman
Baker:
Thank you, Mr. Taylor. The only point
that I wanted to make was this. As a result of the complicated grouping
of the amendments, there are issues relating to amendment No. 194 that
I should like to refer to, but I think that it is more appropriate that
I refer to them under clause 23 and amendment No. 157. I wanted to give
you notice that I intend to do so. If there is no objection to that, I
shall discuss amendment No. 194 at that point. I have no wish to press
it to a
vote.
The
Chairman:
For the convenience of the Committee, could the
hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to speak to amendment No. 194 or
not?
Clause 19
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 30 April 2008 |