Clause
20
Notice
and consultation
requirements
The
Chairman:
I call Mr. Stringer to move amendment
No.
106.
Graham
Stringer:
I do not propose to move this amendment,
Mr.
Taylor.
The
Chairman:
Amendment not moved.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
clause 20, page 18, line 28, leave
out from ‘publish’to
‘a’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 54, in
clause 20, page 18, line 31, leave
out ‘and’ and at end
insert—
‘( ) supply a copy
of that document to—
(i)
the chief fire officer for each fire area covering the whole or part of
that area,
(ii) the head of the
local ambulance service for each area covering the whole or part of
that area,
(iii) all persons
living within 150 metres of any part of the route as specified in the
proposed scheme,
(iv)
representatives of local groups representing disabled
people,’.
No.
146, in
clause 20, page 19, line 21, at
end insert—
‘(4A) In
subsection (3) after paragraph (f)
insert—
“(g)
either operators of rail services which are provided within the
authority’s area or organisations appearing to the authority to
be representative of such
operators,
(h) any relevant
rail infrastructure manager,
and”.’.
No.
209, in
clause 30, page 27, line 9, leave
out from ‘publish’ to
‘a’.
No.
210, in
clause 30, page 27, line 12, leave
out ‘and’ and
insert—
‘(ba) supply a copy
of that document to—
(i)
the chief fire officer for each fire area covering the whole or part of
that area,
(ii) the head of the
local ambulance service for each area covering the whole or part of the
area,
(iii) all persons living
within 150 metres of any part of the route as specified in the proposed
continuation of the
scheme,
(iv) representatives of
local groups representing disabled people,
and’.
Stephen
Hammond:
I want to discuss amendments Nos. 53 and 54. The
clause deals with the consultation document to be issued by the local
authority that wants to implement a quality contracts scheme.
Previously, as governed by the Transport Act 2000, such local
authorities were required to issue a notice of the proposed scheme in
at least one newspaper in the relevant area. The notice would describe
the proposed scheme, state where a copy of it may be inspected and the
reasons for wishing to make it. The authorities were then required to
consult various people.
The Local
Transport Bill slightly amends such requirements inasmuch as it states
that the authority must now supply a consultation document to the same
list of people as mentioned in the relevant section of the 2000 Act.
That will have the effect of making the process in some ways more
formal and defined, and certain things must therefore be included in
the consultation document. My amendments would address those small, yet
important, points in relation to the consultation
process.
The local
authority is required to publish the consultation
document
“in such a
matter as they think fit”.
Amendment No. 53 would remove those words,
which I believe are unnecessary. The word “publish” is
hardly open to misinterpretation, and surely it must mean to produce
such information in either printed or electronic form. Given that the
following subsections under the clause prescribe quite tightly what
must be included in the consultation document, it is unlikely that an
authority would be in a position to get it wrong or, indeed, to do
anything other than in the manner that is prescribed, not
“in such a manner as they think
fit”.
The amendment is
really a tidying up proposal, and is saying that, given the high level
of prescription and that we know the meaning of
“publish”, the phrase to which I have referred is
unnecessary.
Amendment
No. 54 is important and says that the 2000 Act already sets out a list
of those who need to be consulted as a result of the documentation
being produced, which includes operators, other local authorities that
might be affected, the traffic commissioner, the chief of police and,
of course, includes the ubiquitous phrase “think fit”,
which relates to other persons. The amendment is simple. Given that
those people are prescribed, it would be important to prescribe in the
Bill several others who must have the document. The chief fire officer,
the head of the local ambulance service and people who live within 150
m of the relevant route as well as representatives of local groups for
the disabled are all people who, for the sake of completeness, should
be included in the consultation procedure. We have gone through the
argument several times about such persons as an authority sees fit, but
it is always more helpful to describe such people in the Bill. I hope
that the Minister will accept amendments Nos. 53 and 54, which are
minor
proposals.
Norman
Baker:
I am sympathetic to the amendments. If we are to
have a list that specifies several individuals, including the chief of
police, it seems odd that others are not included. I appreciate the
Minister’s argument that it is up to local authorities or others
to judge who they think fit, but once we have started devising a list,
it is difficult to argue that some people should be on it, while others
should not. I see no reason why the chief of police should be on the
list, but not
others.
Amendment
No. 146 draws attention to the failure to mention those responsible for
rail services in the area. We are creating integrated transport
authorities and it seems bizarre to have an integrated transport
authority without a requirement to consider the railways as part of the
quality contracts process. The amendment would tidy up such matters.
Consulting rail operators would ensure that rail capacity development,
delivery of timetables and so on, would be taken into account when
designing a quality contracts scheme. That is important because if, for
example, Network Rail or a train operating company has plans to
significantly enhance a service, that is a relevant factor when
deciding whether a quality contracts scheme should be pursued in the
way that it was originally designed. Similarly, if there are plans to
withdraw services, that may drive up the need for a quality contracts
scheme. What the rail industry does is important and significant when
deciding what should be in the quality contracts
scheme.
4.30
pm
There are other
benefits. Discussions may take place as to how buses and trains should
integrate, and that should be part of a quality contracts scheme. Once
discussions in the rail industry have taken place, a quality contracts
scheme may have a different content from what would otherwise have been
the case. It is not efficient to say that a good ITA will automatically
talk to the rail industry, because it may not.
There are only 15 council areas
in England and Wales without a railway station, so it is virtually
certain that we will need to ensure integration between rail and bus.
It is sensible to send a clear message to those responsible for
consultation requirements to ensure that the rail industry is properly
consulted. The Minister may say that it would be odd if they were not
consulted, but it is not in the Bill. It would be odd if the chief of
police were not consulted—although not quite so odd as the rail
industry—but the chief of police is in the Bill, so why should
not the rail industry be there?
Mr.
Knight:
If I may say so, I think that my hon. Friend the
Member for Wimbledon did his argument a disservice by saying that this
is a minor matter. I do not think that it is necessarily so. My remarks
relate to amendment No. 53 because I am concerned with the wording that
the Minister invites the Committee to embrace that
says,
“(a) publish, in
such a manner as they see fit, a consultation
document.”
That could
lead to publishing occurring only on the internet, thereby
disfranchising all those who do not, or cannot, use IT equipment. I am
concerned about that.
The other week I had a case in
one of my advice surgeries where a person who has been transporting
animals for over 20 years has been told that he must take a test to
continue doing so. He was told that he must take that test on a
computer. He does not own a computer, he is not computer-literate and
he does not want to buy a computer for the purpose of taking the test.
There is a movement, not only in private companies, but also in some
arms of the Government, to try to force people to use the internet
when, on some occasions, they do not wish to do so.
The duty to publish in the
traditional way ought to remain, as this measure could disfranchise
those members of a community at the poorer end of the scale who cannot
afford to purchase a computer, or those who are elderly and feel that
they cannot get to grips with the new technology. I realise that the
clause goes on to say that notice must be given in at least one local
newspaper, but that does not necessarily guarantee that details of the
scheme will get across to those who might need to know. Last week in my
constituency, I went into my local newsagent to buy a local newspaper
and it had sold out. I represent a tourist area, where the population
doubles when the weather is fine. No newsagent can budget for the
demand produced by an influx of tourists.
There is a case for requiring
publishing to take place in the traditional way of being printed on to
paper and made available, so that people can see the full scope of what
is proposed. I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously. I
am concerned that, if this wording
remains, some persons may deem it appropriate to put it only on the
website and leave it up to the public to go to the site to look at it.
That is not good enough.
Ms
Winterton:
As has been said, the
amendments would expand the range of statutory stakeholders to be
consulted on proposed new quality contracts schemes or proposals to
continue existing ones. The Government recognise the importance of
consulting a wide range of stakeholders. Provisions in the Transport
Act 2000 already set out who must be consulted on proposals to make or
continue a quality contracts scheme and those provisions are not
changed by the Bill.
The existing provisions require
local authorities to consult a wide range of interested parties,
including all operators of local bus services in the affected area,
other public service vehicle licence holders or holders of community
transport permits who might be affected by the scheme; representatives
of passengers, the local traffic commissioner and the chief police
officer. The hon. Member for Lewes asked why the chief police officer
is consulted, and not the chief fire or ambulance officer. The police
have a direct responsibility for traffic management and enforcement,
and that is why they have been named as a statutory consultee. However,
we would expect the police service to take into account the
requirements of other emergency services in their role as statutory
consultee.
I take the
point made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. It is right
that people who do not have access to the internet, for one reason or
another, are not disempowered by any of the consultation processes. To
come back to consulting rail bodies, it may well be that in areas where
there is a quality contracts scheme that does not have any rail
connections, such consultation might not be appropriate. I undertake to
look into the issue that where rail is an integral part of the area
there should be consultation with relevant rail operators and that when
consulting, it is important for local authorities to remember and take
account of the fact that not everybody has access to the
internet.
I stress that
there is an obligation on the local authority to consult such other
persons as the authority or authorities think fit. As I said, in terms
of particular schemes and depending on local circumstances, that may
well include some or all of those listed in the amendment, but dealing
with that issue through guidance is a better approach than the
ever-expanding shopping list that we might otherwise get on the face of
the Bill. Local authorities are best placed to determine who has a
legitimate interest in their areas.
Mr.
Knight:
The Minister has largely reassured me and I am
pleased that she has responded so positively to the debate. Will the
guidance be published, and therefore available for everyone to see in
due course?
Ms
Winterton:
The guidance will be published and consulted
upon. We have already put out some draft guidance; we shall reissue
that and undertake a proper consultation on it. There is also a
consultation for making regulations.
The
amendments also include local groups representing disabled persons
among the list of those to be consulted. Again, I completely understand
the spirit of the proposal,
but I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that an
amendment made to the Bill in another place that we have already
discussed will broaden the obligations on local authorities to have
regard to the needs of disabled persons when developing and
implementing local transport policies. I would expect representative
groups to be consulted about proposed schemes. Again, we can cover the
matter more fully in
guidance.
Ian
Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): It is good to see you in the
Chair, Mr. Taylor. My hon. Friend heard me pass comment on
the circumstances of consultation of disabled people and people with
disabled interests in Salford. I am happy that it can be dealt with in
guidance, as there is good practice out there that goes some way
further than what is intended in the Bill. In Salford, Mr.
Jim Wheelton of Salford Disabled Motorists and other community members
with an interest in organisations for the disabled do not just
scrutinise what the planning committee is doing; they take part in site
visits with councillors. They can be seen regularly around Eccles
constituency in the city of Salford. The Bill can build on good
practice such as that.
Ms
Winterton:
Once again, my hon. Friend is quite right. He
is right to draw attention to best practice in his constituency, and I
am sure that such examples will be helpful in drawing up guidance. On
the basis of my reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will feel able
to withdraw their
amendments.
Stephen
Hammond:
When we discussed the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
(Supplementary Provisions) Bill, I had a pleasant experience. The
Minister heard my comments, came forward with reassurances, took my
amendments away and went one stage further to bring them back as
amendments on Report. I had intended to press amendments Nos. 53 and 54
to a vote, but I am happy to hear her reassurances. I hope that she
will think again, particularly about amendment No. 53. Although I shall
seek the Committee’s leave to withdraw it, I shall look
carefully at the guidance and, if necessary, bring it back on Report. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 55, in
clause 20, page 18, line 39, leave
out ‘reasons’ and insert ‘evidence
indicating’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 57, in
clause 20, page 19, line 16, at
end insert—
‘(c)
an outline of the evidence of why the proposed scheme
will provide a substantial improvement to the relevant service or
services in comparison to the current service or services or the
service or services that could be provided under a quality partnership
scheme.’.
No.
211, in
clause 30, page 27, line 28, at
end insert—
‘(ca)
a statement of the evidence demonstrating how
continuing the scheme by means of a quality contracts scheme will
provide a substantial improvement to the relevant service or services
in comparison to the service or services that could be provided under a
quality partnership
scheme;’.
Stephen
Hammond:
Amendment No. 55 would ensure that the
consultation document is a real document that can be responded to. The
Bill says that authorities must state their reasons. I contend that the
wording of that measure is open to manipulation and misinterpretation.
The current criteria and the word “reasons” are
subjective and difficult to
quantify.
It is fair
that people asked to respond to the consultation document should have
the chance to assess all the relevant information put in front of them.
Rather than having local authorities state subjective positions,
consultation procedures should be open, fair and evidence-based. I
therefore propose that the word “reasons” be replaced by
the word “evidence”. The effect would be that the
consultation document issued by the local authority would give a clear
basis for how the decision was reached rather than simply stating what
that decision was. Consultation can be effective only if it is based on
facts and if people read those facts to make their decision. My
amendment would therefore require local
authorities—
Graham
Stringer:
Not for the first time in this or any other
Committee, an hon. Member is reinventing the wheel. Why is it not good
enough to get a commitment from the Minister, or even in the Bill, that
the Cabinet Office guidelines on consultation must be followed? They
are thorough and well
understood.
4.45
pm
Stephen
Hammond:
I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say
in response, but as I was saying, this would put a requirement on local
authorities to justify decisions by publishing the facts and evidence
on which those decisions had been made. That is a reasonable and fair
amendment.
Norman
Baker:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept
that under the system proposed in the Bill, with the approvals board
and the Transport Tribunal and so on, it will be in the interest of any
transport authority to produce as much evidence as possible anyway,
otherwise it will risk having its quality contracts overturned?
Therefore, there is a self-fulfilling element to what local authorities
will do
here.
Stephen
Hammond:
The logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument
is therefore that he should support my amendment, because he would be
happy with the word “evidence”. I assume that that is
what he is prepared to do. This is a reasonable and fair amendment, and
I hope the Minister agrees to
it.
Ms
Winterton:
Once again, these amendments illustrate the
basic hostility of Conservative Front Benchers to the quality contracts
schemes. The aim of these amendments is substantially to raise the
burden of proof placed on local authorities to justify the reasons for
proposing a quality contracts scheme in their consultation document.
Government policy is to ensure that quality contracts schemes are a
realistic option, and we agree that it is important to ensure that
local authorities can justify the proposals to those directly affected
by them and to their local communities. That is why the Bill requires
an authority that proposes to make a quality contracts scheme to
publish a consultation document.
The consultation document must
describe the proposed scheme and the local authority must justify the
proposals. In particular, the authority must explain why it is
satisfied that the public interest criteria will be satisfied by the
scheme. These amendments would raise that hurdle to an unacceptable
level.
The
intention of the Bill is to increase the range of options available to
authorities to improve bus services in their area, but these amendments
would increase the burden of proof in such a way as to make quality
contracts an unattractive option for an authority to pursue. That would
completely negate the improvements that we believe the Bill will make
to the quality contracts scheme
system.
The amendments
show that Conservative Front-Bench Members do not believe that quality
contracts should be introduced. They have said already that they would
abolish them if ever there was another Conservative Government, and
this is an illustration of that. We cannot accept the amendments,
because they would undermine the system we are trying to
introduce.
Stephen
Hammond:
The Minister tells us that she wants the
consultation procedure to be fair and accurate and open, but she does
not want to put any objectivity into that. That strikes me as a pretty
odd way to behave. I am not at all reassured by her comments, so I
shall press the amendment and test the will of the
Committee.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
11.
Division
No.
12
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly negatived.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I rise to speak on clause stand part because I
want to question the Minister on a number of issues that we were not
able to tackle in our extensive discussions on the
amendments.
Included
in the consultation document will be a declaration by the local
authority finance officer on the financing of the quality contracts.
The Government say that the chief finance officer must declare the
costs of the scheme and say that those costs can be covered under the
authority’s budget. That is a sensible and important provision,
particularly as the likelihood is that the costs will not be
insignificant. I think everyone accepts that, in a number of areas,
budgets will be tight.
Paragraph (e) of proposed new
subsection 1A says that the chief finance officer, in making a
declaration on funding, must take account of estimated fare income and
of grants to be received. I understand the point about future income,
but I want to tease out some of the Minister’s thoughts on
future expenditure, because such schemes have the potential to incur
expenditure.
In
addition to the costs of implementing the scheme, as we heard this
morning, many people believe that there is a threat of legal action by
operators that find themselves losing out in the process. This morning,
I cited an article on the subject by a leading lawyer. Local
authorities are already aware of the risk that operators may launch
legal challenges. Indeed, Metro, West Yorkshire’s passenger
transport authority, is already planning to test its powers under the
Bill. Under the draft guidance on the quality contracts, it believes
that if it were to try an incremental approach it would be less likely
to prompt the introduction of a challenge to quality contracts under
human rights
legislation.
The
Government’s thinking is unclear. Comments in various articles
say that under human rights legislation there is the potential for
court challenges to be made to quality contracts. The courts will need
to examine the substance of the schemes and any legal advice given on
them. The documentation says that the chief finance officer must take
account of finances. Does the Minister expect the chief financial
officer to take account of other specified matters, such as associated
potential liabilities?
I say that because this morning
a number of hon. Members said that they would want such cases to be
subject to judicial review. We have to accept that possibility. It will
be a lengthy process, and the costs and awards could be large. I do not
advocate any one side; I genuinely want to find out whether the
Minister will say in guidance that when finance officers talk about
future income and future costs they must have regard to potential
litigation. If so, do those future costs have to include the costs of
litigation and the sums that might be awarded to
operators?
This
morning, an hon. Member—I forget who—pointed out that
they believe some bus companies are greedy and will consider
challenging the legislation on the basis of the restriction of trade,
as well as considering the possibility of challenge under the Human
Rights Act 1998. That is a real possibility. Sir David Rowlands said to
the Public Accounts Committee:
“Under the Human Rights
Act any legal entity is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their own
property and you may only override that in the public
interest”.
We discussed
the public interest this morning. He went on to say
that
“therefore to move
to quality contracts requires a strong public interest reason; it
cannot be done simply because somebody would like to have quality
contracts.”
In
relation to clause stand part, I want the Minister to say what the
Government’s position is. They appear to be saying that there is
no liability in relation to compensation because, as a result of
quality contracts, the bus operators will retain their assets. Is that
genuinely the Government line? If it is, it seems to
ignore two things that may be relevant: the issue of economic rent,
which is the difference between the value of an asset being used for
the purpose for which it was started and the value for the second best
use of that asset, and the fact that there is good will associated with
the operation of that asset, which the Government must recognise is
also an asset that could be rendered
valueless. I am asking
the Minister to tell us these things. First, as she knows, the Bill
states that the chief financial officer will have to make a statement
of future income. Will he also have to make comments about future
expenditure, and will he have to qualify or at least attempt to qualify
what liability there is? Is it the Government’s position that
compensation is not an issue for operators and that it is unlikely to
be given? I hope that the Minister can give the Committee some guidance
on that practice.
Ms
Winterton:
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that there
is the risk of judicial review in certain circumstances. As he said, he
read some legal advice that set out instances in which that might
happen. That goes back to this morning’s discussion. We want an
approvals board procedure and the ability to appeal to a transport
tribunal, because that minimises the risk of judicial review.
Therefore, the measures in the Bill mean that if a transport authority
has properly followed the process of either making or continuing a
scheme and the necessary criteria have been satisfied, we will not get
into a situation in which there will be further litigation.
However, on the specific issue
raised by the hon. Gentleman—whether the financial assessment of
the scheme will include funding for litigation—it is probably
true to say that a prudent authority will set aside some contingency
funding for litigation, which might arise for a number of reasons.
However, it is not reasonable to expect them deliberately to budget on
the basis that they will be taken to court. It would be quite difficult
to calculate the costs, and if the authority won a case it might
recover all the
costs.
In the
circumstances, I am not sure that it would be helpful to pluck a figure
out of the air and wave it in front of the public. Authorities have to
take such risks in relation to litigation in many areas in which they
work, but it is not necessarily appropriate for that to be put in the
financial assessment of a scheme such as
this.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am not suggesting that the chief financial
officer of any particular area should stand up and say what he expects
the cost of litigation to be, but in a number of areas there is a
general health warning attached to a statement. I want to understand
whether there will be in the statement a general warning that there is
the potential for litigation and compensation. That is what I am trying
to find out from the
Minister.
5
pm
Ms
Winterton:
I think that authorities are aware of where
there is potential for litigation. One of the difficulties with the
current situation is that local authorities are worried about
litigation and, as a result, feel that it is difficult for them to
bring in quality
contracts schemes. That is why we are trying to change the system to
give greater protection to authorities in how they can make schemes, so
that the risk is
minimised.
As
I said, I am sure that prudent authorities, when considering
undertaking projects where there is any risk of litigation, will take
that into account. That, frankly, is up to them. Part of how local
authorities decide whether to press ahead with a scheme will be
weighing up all the risks that they are likely to incur when doing so.
I know that that is the process that many—or some—local
authorities have gone through when looking at the issues around making
quality contracts at the
moment.
The hon.
Gentleman asked about compensation for bus operators. We do not think
that the issue is one where there should be compensation for bus
operators. They will not be deprived of their assets. They will be free
to deploy them elsewhere if, for example, they do not wish to tender
for quality contracts or fail to win any tenders. Again, the public
interest criteria that the local authority must satisfy include a
proportionality test, so they will want to look at any adverse
effects—for example, on local authorities—and satisfy
themselves that that is proportionate to the improvements for people
living and working in the area and to the achievement of the scheme
objectives.
I can
assure the hon. Gentleman that we will issue guidance to local
authorities on applying that test. All the measures, taken together,
will ensure that all operators have a fair opportunity to compete for
the right to operate services in an area where a quality contracts
scheme is set up. I hope that that explains the
situation.
Norman
Baker:
I want to pursue a couple of points. That aspect of
the Bill is important if local authorities are to have
confidence—which many of us want them to have—in the Act
that finally
emerges.
On
the compensation point raised by the Minister, the hon. Member for
Wimbledon rightly referred to good will, which is an important issue to
take into account. Historically, the Government have approached it in
different ways. For example, under the Hunting Bill—if I dare
mention it—no compensation was provided, because people still
had their horses, stables and so on. On the other hand, when fur
farming was made illegal, compensation was provided because the fur
farmers lost their livelihood. Two different approaches have been
adopted by the Government in recent
times.
Graham
Stringer:
It was
proportionate.
Norman
Baker:
That is the
answer.
It
will be perfectly possible for bus operators to feel aggrieved if they
have built up a route through their own marketing and
efforts—attracted passengers whom they did not have
before—only for it to be taken away from them because of how the
quality contracts work out. That is unlikely, however, because any
sensible local authority will want to build it into any system.
Nevertheless, the hypothetical possibility exists of someone losing
what they have built up, and they will not get compensation. Still
having their buses and garage will
be of little consequence to them if they have lost their route and,
perhaps, their livelihood. That might be the only route they operate,
for example, which is an
issue. We must first
address the natural justice aspect—I would like to hear the
Minister’s comments on that—but we must also address the
local authorities’ point of view and give them confidence that
if action is taken, a robust legal defence will be available to them
that they can be confident will work in the courts.
Pursuant to
that, I am interested to know—not expressly today, but in broad
terms—what guidance the Department for Transport intends to
provide to local authorities on dealing with potential legal issues. I
am not entirely happy with the Minister’s statement that it is
up to them. If local authorities or ITAs pursue quality contracts in a
way that is consistent with the Government’s intentions in the
Bill, it will be wrong and unfair if they end up considerably out of
pocket as a consequence of legal action. In such circumstances, will
the Department for Transport feel obliged to support local authorities
financially? That is an important point of principle—not just in
terms of natural justice, but in giving local authorities some
confidence and clarity on how the legislation will
unfold.
Ms
Winterton:
The point of this morning’s discussion
on the approvals board and transport tribunals was that we want to set
up a system that provides local authorities with greater certainty
without huge cost. We want local authorities to be able to go through a
process that will effectively agree that the public interest criteria
and proportionality have been
met.
The hon.
Gentleman chose a particular instance involving an operator running
down a perfectly well-running route that makes a profit and has lots of
passengers. I believe that local authorities will take a sensible
approach in such scenarios. That is why we have public interest
criteria to ensure that schemes bring benefits to passengers and offer
good value for money. If a local authority simply removes a
well-running route, depriving passengers of buses and the scheme of
that income, that, in a sense, would not satisfy the public interest
criteria. It is about getting the balance right between the
two.
To return to the
hon. Gentleman’s point about the Department stumping up all the
money for judicial review challenges, it is the role of the Government
and the Department to set up a system that works well for local
authorities, but it is then for the authorities to decide whether they
wish to go down that route. As I said, it is quite difficult for local
authorities. We know that judicial review can be expensive. That is
part of the risk that they must take into account. I am sure that it is
an incentive to ensure that schemes are
robust.
No
local authority will want to introduce a challengeable scheme that
might cost it a lot of money. It will also not be appropriate for the
Department to stand back and say, “Don’t worry, if it all
goes wrong we’ll pay all the costs.” That would be
ridiculous, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any comfort there.
However, the aim of the Bill is to minimise the possibility of judicial
review and to ensure that schemes are good value for money and fair to
all
concerned.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 20 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
| 
