 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Local Transport |
Local Transport Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 6 May 2008(Morning)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Local Transport Bill [Lords]10.30
am
Clause 23
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): On a point of order, Lady
Winterton. I seek your advice on the tabling of amendments. As we all
know, we have had a bank holiday, and a number of people were hoping to
table amendments to the latter parts of the Bill in the normal way. If
they are tabled today, they will clearly be starred amendments. Would
you would look favourably on such
amendments?
The
Chairman:
The advice to give to the hon. Gentleman is that
there have been weeks in which to table amendments, and I would not
look favourably on his suggestion at
present.
Clause 24Inquiries
by approvals boards for England
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 73, in
clause 24, page 22, line 23, at
beginning insert ‘Subject to subsection
(8),’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 74, in
clause 24, page 22, leave out line
25.
Clause 24
empowers the approvals board to hold inquiries. I envisage that those
inquiries will be an important part of the work of the board. Members
of the board will want to investigate the evidence provided to them by
the local authority that is proposing the quality contracts scheme.
They will want to examine any other representations made as part of the
consultation process. They will also want to consult as widely as they
consider necessary to reach an informed decision about whether to
approve the
scheme.
I
hope, therefore, that my first substantive amendment to clause 24 will
not prove controversial. Proposed new section 126C(4) provides that
inquiries held by approval boards should be held in public. Proposed
new subsections (8) and (9) provide that confidential commercial
information should not be disclosed, which seems sensible to me. There
is, however, a missing link, for it would be hard for the board to meet
in public and discuss commercially sensitive information without
disclosing such information.
There may therefore be certain circumstances when it would not be
appropriate for the board to meet in public.
My amendment would add the
words “ Subject to subsection (8)” to the end of the
provision that
reads:
“Any
inquiry held by the board for the purposes of section 126 must be held
in public.”
The intention
of the amendment, which I trust is not contentious, is to enable
confidential commercial information to remain just
that—confidential. I do not think that the Bill will allow that
to happen.
Amendment
No. 74 also relates to the provision that any inquiries must be held in
public. At the end of proposed new subsection (4), the Bill
says:
“This
subsection is subject to any provision made by
regulations.”
I am
concerned to probe exactly what sort of regulations might affect the
board’s ability to conduct its inquiries in public, other than
those that would be tackled by amendment No. 73. Therefore, I look for
guidance from the Minister on what regulations she is thinking
of.
The
Minister of State, Department for Transport (Ms Rosie
Winterton):
Welcome back to the Chair, Lady Winterton. I
hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance here. The Bill
already takes account of the need for commercial confidentiality in the
circumstances he described. It allows for regulations to be made that
might restrict public attendance at inquiries where appropriate. We
have it in mind that that might be used to restrict members of the
public from attending those parts of an inquiry that are concerned with
confidential financial information. A similar provision to that which
we envisage already exists in regulations on inquiries held by traffic
commissioners.
The
Bill will also make it a criminal offence to disclose protected
information. We will be consulting on the draft regulations later in
the year. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance
that the Bill covers his concerns and that he feels able to withdraw
his
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I think the Minister has just said that protected
information will cover commercial and commercially confidential
information. That being so, will she clarify another point before I
withdraw the amendment? What other reason might there be for an inquiry
not being held in public, other than information being commercially
confidential? Are there any other reasons that the Minister
anticipates?
Ms
Winterton:
I cannot think of many other reasons why there
might be a need for confidentiality. However, no doubt when we consult,
the experience that traffic commissioners already have of some
inquiries that they have held might offer further enlightenment. At the
moment, though, the main reason is commercially confidential
information.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am grateful for the Minister’s
explanation, but I am still troubled by the fact that the subsection
says
“subject to any provision made by
regulations.”
However, I
shall see what the Minister comes up with in the guidelines on this
point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
‘and shall supply a copy of that
document to all the persons listed in section
125(1)’.
The
purpose of the amendment is to explore exactly what “prescribed
manner” might mean. When the approvals board plans to hold an
inquiry, it will be required to publish a notice of inquiry in the
prescribed manner. I want to ensure that the words “in the
prescribed manner” ensure that all the people who are entitled
to receive a copy of that notice receive it. It seems only logical that
all people who are supplied with a consultation document should also be
told about any inquiry relating to the proposed scheme. The list of
people and operators includes local operators and various others,
including the chief police
officer.
I tabled an
amendment, which I believe had some support from the Liberal Democrats,
on extending the list of people to be consulted. Unfortunately, the
Minister was not minded to accept it. The crux of the matter is that
members of the approvals board must be given access to all the relevant
information and the full spectrum of opinion before they come to their
decision.
At the
moment, it is possible to conceive a scenario where a person or a group
of persons or an organisation that had made a representation to the
local authority objecting to the authority’s proposal to bring
forward a quality contracts scheme might have done so as part of the
consultation process. However, for whatever reason, the authority might
dismiss that objection, push ahead with its process and pass it to the
board for approval. There is nothing to ensure that the approvals board
will necessarily know of the objectors. It seems to me that the board
must be made aware of the objectors to the scheme, as well as the
reasons for it. Therefore, those affected must be made aware of the
inquiry.
My amendment,
therefore, says that the board, in addition to publishing a notice of
the inquiry in the prescribed
manner,
“shall supply a
copy of that document to all the persons listed in section
125(1)”,
which is the
provision detailing to whom the local authority must send a copy of the
document.
I look to
the Minister either to accept the amendment or to reassure me that all
persons to whom representations are made as a result of the
consultation procedure automatically get a right of hearing at the
approvals board.
Ms
Winterton:
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is
obviously right that people, particularly someone who has objected to a
scheme, should be informed of the fact that there will be a public
inquiry.
I hope that
the hon. Gentleman will accept that we want to cover that in
regulations, rather than in the Bill. Given that assurance, I hope he
will withdraw his
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am grateful to the Minister for her assurance.
Subject to seeing the regulations and ensuring that they specify that
point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 76, in
clause 24, page 22, line 31, leave
out from ‘to’ to ‘as’ in line 32 and
insert
‘such person or organisation as the
board thinks fit,
‘(b) by such
person or
organisation’.
Proposed
new section 126C(6) will empower the approvals board to ensure that any
costs incurred by the Secretary of State or by the board in connection
with holding the inquiry are reimbursed. That seems to me to be well
and proper. Oddly, however, such payments are limited in that the only
person to whom they can be made is the Secretary of State. Given that
costs may be incurred by the traffic commissioner chairing the board,
other members of the board or, indeed, a third party organising the
inquiry, why does only the Secretary of State stand to be
reimbursed?
When a
public inquiry is being organised by an independent approvals board, is
it right that the Secretary of State should be the one reimbursed? In
what circumstances does the Minister foresee the Secretary of State
incurring costs in helping the board to arrange an inquiry in a
particular area or case? Is that appropriate? Why is the Secretary of
State incurring the costs? Those costs are more likely to be incurred
by others. The board will organise and hold the inquiry; therefore, the
board will incur the costs. The Secretary of State is not a member of
that board.
The
amendment is probing and it seeks to find out why the Bill is so
worded. Why should other people not be entitled to reimbursement should
they incur costs in the organisation of the
inquiry?
Ms
Winterton:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
clarifying the purpose of the amendment, as we were slightly confused
about what it is trying to
achieve.
The purpose
of the provision that the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend is to enable an
approvals board to require one or more parties to contribute to the
costs incurred by the Secretary of State or the approvals board itself
as a result of holding the inquiry. Costs incurred by an approvals
board will ultimately be funded by the taxpayer, which is why the Bill
says that the costs will be paid back to the Secretary of
State.
I will set out
my objections to the amendment. First, as the Bill is drafted, an
approvals board can require a person to contribute to the costs of the
inquiry only if they are a party to the inquiry. It is unclear to me
why the hon. Gentleman wants to widen that provision. Under his
amendment, people not even involved in the inquiry would be required to
contribute to the cost of
it.
Secondly, the Bill
states that parties to the inquiry might be asked to make a payment to
the Secretary of State in respect of the costs incurred by the
Secretary of State or an approvals board. Under the amendment, the
costs incurred by the Secretary of State or the approvals board could
be reimbursed to other parties. I
am not sure why costs that are ultimately borne by the taxpayer should
be reimbursed to anyone other than the Secretary of
State.
Over and above
that, there are objections in policy terms to the amendment. Its effect
would be that one party—either a bus operator or a local
authority—could be required to contribute to the costs incurred
by the other party during an
inquiry.
10.45
am
The problem
with that would be that if, say, a bus operator knows that a local
authority would have to reimburse his costs there is no incentive for
the operator to keep those costs to a sensible level. Indeed, a
disruptive operator might deliberately spend a great deal of money
simply in the hope of frustrating the local authority which would
ultimately have to meet those costs.
With that explanation,
particularly in terms of why it says the costs would be repaid to the
Secretary of State, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
If I heard the Minister correctly, she is saying
that the Bill as drafted uses the Secretary of State as the collecting
point for costs whether they are incurred by the Secretary of State or
the board of inquiry. My concern was that costs would be payable to the
Secretary of State and not necessarily to the approvals board. However,
given what the Minister has said—that the Secretary of State is
acting as the collection point which was my concern—I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
24 ord
ered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
25
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 26making
of
scheme
Norman
Baker (Lewes) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 192, in
clause 26, page 25, line 4, leave
out subsections (3) and
(4).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 113, in
clause 26, page 25, line 1, leave
out subsections (2) to
(4).
No. 114, in
clause 26, page 26, line 3, leave
out
‘periods specified
in subsection (1), (1A) or’
and
insert
‘the period
mentioned in
subsection’.
No.
193, in
clause 26, page 26, line 3, leave
out ‘,
(1A)’.
Norman
Baker:
I will speak very briefly to the amendment as I
intend to withdraw it in due course, but I wanted to get one or two
comments on the record.
The proposal harks back to our
long discussions on clause 23 and new clause 5, on which there will be
a vote in due course. We identified various scenarios for improving on
the quality contracts scheme, which Members discussed at some length
last week.
The hon.
Member for Manchester, Blackley and I set out three options. The
proposal is a fourth; it would remove the Transport Tribunal from the
process, thereby eliminating one of the hurdles that local authorities
face. In my view it is the fourth best of the four options. The best
option is the one set out in new clause 5. However, it is an option and
I offer the Minister this opportunity to comment, having, I hope,
reflected over the weekend on the strong views that were put to the
Committee both by her colleagues and by me, and to let us know whether
she is likely to recommend to the House on Report some changes to the
quality contracts procedure, which as she knows know was severely
tested last week in
Committee.
Ms
Winterton:
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have spent
the weekend thinking of little else but him, his amendment and, of
course, my other hon. Friends. However, we did have a conversation
about it on Friday.
As I said previously, the real
issue is to make sure we have a robust system that not only gives local
authorities certainty about the way they can proceed, but also gives
good protection in terms of judicial review. In light of that, I hope
the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his
amendment.
Norman
Baker:
Well, that did not tell us very much, did it?
Suffice it to say that I will return to the matter on Report if the
Minister does not, but in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
‘(5A) In
subsection (2), in paragraph (c) (maximum period for which scheme to
remain in operation), for “ten” substitute
“five”.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 116, in
clause 26, page 25, line 30, leave
out from ‘operation’ to end of line 31 and
insert
‘for “must not be more than ten
years” substitute “which may be for a fixed period or
until such time as the authority or authorities that made the scheme
determine that it should not remain in
operation.”’.
No.
256, in
clause 26, page 25, line 30, leave
out ‘ten’ and insert
‘five’.
No.
117, in
clause 26, page 25, line 34, at
end insert—
‘(2B) If the
scheme is specified to be for an indefinite period pursuant to
subsection (2)(c), then the authority or authorities shall, every time
that the authority or, where there is more than one authority, each
authority, reviews its local transport plan pursuant to section 109(1)
(further provision about plans: England) or section 109B(1) (further
provision about plans: Wales), review the effectiveness and
appropriateness of the scheme and the extent to which the scheme
continues to satisfy the criteria in section 124 (quality contracts
schemes).’.
Stephen
Hammond:
The amendments look to the next stage of what the
Bill discusses. We have moved on from the approvals process to the
making of the scheme itself. I have made it very clear that we support
partnerships, but that we are very concerned about the impact and
effect of quality contracts. I see some scope for improving what is to
be on the statute book.
The first
place where I detect that scope for improvement is in the length of
schemes. The Transport Act 2000, which introduced quality contracts,
specified that schemes should operate for no longer than 10 years. The
Bill does not try to change that time period, although it does make
provision in subsequent clauses for extensions of a scheme beyond its
original duration.
I
think the Bill should change the quality contract. The maximum duration
should be brought down from 10 years to five years. The reason for that
is simple: I remain unconvinced by anything I have heard from the
Minister or anyone else that quality contracts will do anything to
improve bus patronage. They bring back a significant element of
regulation. It does not seem to me that in most areas there will be the
astronomical amount of financial backing that the central Government
have given to London, which is why the regulated market in London has
flourished.
Graham
Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): I
have listened on a number of occasions to the hon.
Gentleman’s point about the difference between London and the
rest of the country. What is not clear to me is the Conservative
intention when the Bill becomes law. Are the Conservatives giving a
commitment that—in the unlikely event that they ever become the
Government—they will repeal the sections relating to quality
contracts?
Stephen
Hammond:
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been
for the last week, but I would have thought it highly likely that the
Conservatives would be in government relatively soon.
Our position is clear. As we
said on Second Reading, and I have already said in Committee, we are
not convinced by anything we have heard that quality contracts will add
to bus patronage. I tabled a number of extra amendments regarding
quality contracts, which would have given the Government a chance to
prove that they would do that, but so far we have heard nothing but
assertion. We have seen no evidence. On that basis, our Front-Bench
position is that when we come into power in a couple of years we will
look very carefully at the system. At the moment, our intention would
be to repeal quality
contracts.
Norman
Baker:
In the meantime, will the hon. Gentleman be issuing
instructions to Conservative councils not to use quality
contracts?
Stephen
Hammond:
I would not presume to tell local councils how to
behave—nor, I assume, would the hon. Gentleman—so I will
be doing nothing of the sort. It would be extremely wrong of me.
Likewise, I assume that the hon. Gentleman will not be instructing
local authorities to use the contracts. It is up to local authorities
to make their own
decisions.
Norman
Baker:
I am grateful for that reply. We do not instruct
our councils. We are grass-roots up, but I was not sure that the same
approach was applied by the
Conservative party. Perhaps the word ‘instruct’ was wrong.
Will the hon. Gentleman be encouraging his councils not to take up
quality
contracts?
Stephen
Hammond:
I will be encouraging our councils to take up
partnership schemes, be they voluntary or
statutory.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): It is
interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he is not in the
business of telling his councils how to behave. If he intends to repeal
quality contracts, should he get into government, so that local
councils do not have the option of adopting them, surely he is telling
them that they will not be able to adopt quality contracts. That is
exactly what he is doing.
Stephen
Hammond:
The hon. Gentleman is taking an extraordinary
position. Central Governments of all hues pass legislation that has an
impact on local authorities. Is he seriously telling
us that central Governments should not pass any legislation because it
would have an impact on local authorities?
[Inter
r
uption
.
] That is the logic of
the hon. Gentleman’s position. All the way along we have said we
supported partnership and partnership routes, whether they be voluntary
or statutory, and we will continue to support them. It has been a
consistent position.
Mr.
Betts:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
giving way again. My position is not at all
extraordinary. I completely accept that central Government have a right
to propose legislation to the House, and that the House can pass it
and, therefore, direct local authorities to behave in a certain way.
However, I thought the hon. Gentleman’s party wanted to devolve
more powers and responsibilities to local authorities. Surely what he
is saying about quality contracts is that if those powers were given to
local authorities, he would want to take them away if he got into
government. That is the reverse of the philosophical position his party
is now adopting.
Stephen
Hammond:
The hon. Gentleman has already made that point,
but as I have already told the Committee there is no evidence yet that
statutory partnerships work. I want a chance to see them work. That
seems the right road to go down. I prefer voluntary partnerships, and
if they do not work there are powers for statutory
partnerships.
I have
made the point that most companies and most areas will not receive the
financial backing from central Government that we have seen in the
regulated market in London, which is why it has flourished. The
inevitable consequence is that there would be potential for bus
operators and local authorities not to increase bus routes but to cut
them. What is more surprising is that if we look at what will happen
under the Bill, some of the operators—particularly some of the
smaller, independent operators, who provide a valuable
service—will face a real impact.
I draw the Minister’s
attention to the operator Trent Barton, which, as she
may know, operates in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire
and runs a fleet of about 270 modern buses on a network of local
routes. In the company’s response to the consultation on the
Bill, it talked about the impact of the legislation, saying it may be
forced to close or to reduce its size. Unlike larger bus operators,
Trent Barton cannot necessarily move to another part of the country.
The company mentioned some of the benefits it has brought to
passengers, which it might not necessarily be able to do under a
quality contract; for example, the Spondon flyer, which doubled the
amount of bus usage in a particular suburb of Derby and was openly
praised by the local authority in its local transport
plan.
Trent Barton is an example of a
smaller operator that has successfully brought investment, innovation
and improvement to bus services in an area. There is a possibility that
quality contracts will destroy that and if we cut out small,
independent operators, we will cut out a potentially valuable source of
bus services and patronage. Cutting them out for 10 years seems wholly
arbitrary and detrimental. I accept that the figure of five years is
somewhat arbitrary, but it is significantly better than the original
figure of 10 years.
Norman
Baker:
I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not like
the quality contracts process. Inevitably, it is inevitably quite
complicated and relatively bureaucratic, as it needs to be to protect
people, for the reasons he has given. If we have such a process every
five years, will it not load up costs and make the whole business of
quality contracts less desirable and
attractive?
Stephen
Hammond:
There is that possibility, but local authorities
are forced by central Government to do plenty of other things every
year or every three years, which could put much greater costs on them.
The proposal may or may not add extra costs, but there is a greater
benefit, because quality contracts remain an unknown
quantity.
11
am
Graham
Stringer:
I intend to come to some of those issues on
amendment No. 127. The hon. Gentleman says that the amendment on five
years is arbitrary, but is it not completely out of kilter with
depreciation of a bus, and is that not genuinely related to innovation
and to the length that a contract should be—if we want new,
better buses with access for the disabled, for
example?
Stephen
Hammond:
I certainly accept that five years is out of
kilter with the depreciation period of a bus, but equally one might
argue that so is 10 years. I understand that the total depreciation
period is between 15 and 20 years. I am not sure whether the hon.
Gentleman is suggesting that we go to the total depreciation
period.
Quality
contracts remain an unknown quantity: not one exists anywhere in the
country and we do not know what their impact will be. I and my
colleagues fear the worst. No one has produced any evidence in their
favour. We have heard assertion—that is all it is—that
they will be significantly better than bus partnership schemes. Making
assertions about 10 years is a brave and dangerous step to take. I
shall test the will of the Committee on this
matter.
Norman
Baker:
The hon. Gentleman began by decrying quality
contracts. We understand that that is his position, but the amendment
relates to how long they should run, rather than the concept of quality
contracts, which, whether he likes it or not, we have largely dealt
with. I fear that he was seeking to re-run the argument, rather than
deal with how long the contract should run, and to undermine the
concept of quality contracts by reducing the period to five
years.
If there are
to be quality contracts, which I support, there has to be a sensible
time period. There is the question of depreciation of vehicles,
referred to by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley; the question
of the cost of setting the contracts up; and the question of making
them work, rather than continually having to revisit them and prepare
for the next round of bidding and processing. If bus operators and
local authorities are continually looking to the next process rather
than getting on with delivery, that will lead to a worse service. It is
not sensible to approach this in such a way.
The hon. Member for
Wimbledon also raised the issue of small bus companies. I accept that
that is an issue, as I did in earlier discussions. I raised the example
of Norfolk Green to add to his
example.
There is a
very small chance that good small bus companies will be disadvantaged
as a consequence of the introduction of quality contracts—I
raised the issue with the Minister earlier—but I happen to think
that the likelihood of that happening is quite small and remote, so it
is worth taking the chance. I accept that there is the possibility of
it occurring, but if it does occur and the Norfolk Greens of this world
have their bus routes taken away, it will not matter whether the period
involved is five years or 10, because such companies will not come
back. If they disappear, they will not hang around for five years
waiting for the next quality contracts to be
created.
If the hon.
Gentleman’s objective is to defend those companies, this, if I
may say so, is not the right way to do
it.
Ms
Winterton:
My hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Lewes
are right to point out that the hon. Member for Wimbledon has said that
he would abolish quality contracts if a Conservative Government were
returned to power. That is quite clear. It is part of the undermining
of the system of quality contracts—trying to pare away at it,
obviously with the ultimate threat that if a Conservative Government
were to be returned—no matter what councils had done in the
meantime to set up quality contracts in what they felt was in the best
interests of their constituents and the people in their local authority
areas—quality contracts would be
abolished.
From my
discussions with Conservative councillors —I have said
it before, but I will say it again—I think that there is a lot
of enthusiasm for the approach that we are adopting in the Bill and
that they will be severely disappointed that there has not been a
change of heart on this particular policy by Conservative Front
Benchers, even during debates in
Committee.
We need to
be clear. The Transport Act 2000 gives quality contracts 10 years to
run. That is the current position, and we are not changing that in the
Bill. What we are doing is allowing the tenders for contracts, or
the contracts themselves, to be for 10 years rather five. That is
because a quality contracts scheme is likely to involve a quite major
reorganisation of local transport in an area, and a well-constructed
scheme should form part of a long-term strategy to improve public
transport. It is also likely to involve a high degree of investment,
both by the local authorities in infrastructure and by the contracted
operators in better-quality
vehicles.
We believe
that a 10-year time scale will often be necessary to justify such
investment and to achieve the desired outcomes. It is possible for
local authorities, if they so wish, to have a shorter period. Again, we
have said that that is up to local authorities to decide. We believe in
devolving decision making and trusting people at local government level
to make the best decisions for their areas. The Bill is part of that,
and that is why we are sticking to what was in the original
Bill.
Frankly, as I
have said, because of the investment necessary on both sides, we do not
believe that a five-year maximum would be sufficient in the majority of
cases. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to
withdraw his amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
As I have said several times in response to the
Minister, I find her unconvincing and not reassuring. Yet again, she
has made assertions but produced no evidence on them. Until we hear
evidence, I see no reason to change my position. I am open-minded, if
the Minister would care to give me some evidence, but we have heard
only assertion, so I wish to test the will of the
Committee.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes
10.
Division
No.
13
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 206, in
clause 26, page 25, line 43, leave
out subsection (10) and
insert—
‘(10) Subsection
(10) (power by order to vary the period mentioned in subsection (2)(b))
shall cease to have
effect.’.
The
amendment is designed to be probing. The original provisions on quality
contracts in the 2000 Act gave the appropriate national authority the
power to vary the date on which a scheme will come into operation.
Clause 26(10) will amend that so that the national authority has the
power to vary the date on which the scheme is made and any date
relating to an appeal on such a scheme.
Given that we have just heard
from several Labour Members who were anxious to jump to their feet to
defend quality contracts as a localist measure put in place by local
authorities, I am surprised that they are not now jumping to their feet
to say, “Why would the national authority want this
power?”.
Will
the Minister say under what circumstances she envisages the Secretary
of State interfering in such a localist measure in such a manner? Why
does a national authority need the power to meddle in the scheme, which
will have been proposed by a local authority and approved by an
independent approvals
board?
Norman
Baker:
The consultation stage, as I recall it, drew
attention to a number of comments from individuals who were concerned
that the time lag between a scheme being made and coming into operation
was, at 21 months, unduly long. That was seen as a difficulty that had
to be overcome if we were to see implementation of quality contracts. I
see the Minister nodding, so she accepts the point that that is a long
time lag. What steps has she taken to reduce that time lag and what
should the time lag be in most
cases?
Ms
Winterton:
The amendment would remove what we believe is a
very necessary flexibility to be able to amend aspects of the quality
contracts scheme timetable through secondary
legislation.
The 2000
Act provisions, as amended by the Bill, provide that a quality
contracts scheme must be made not later than six months either after it
has been approved or, in England, after any appeals against decisions
of the approvals board have been finally disposed of. The Bill also
continues a requirement in the 2000 Act that there must, in England, be
a period of at least six months between the making of the scheme and
its coming into
force.
As the hon.
Member for Lewes said, the period was originally 21 months. That was
changed to six months through secondary legislation at the request of
local authorities and others who felt that the original 21 months left
too long a time lag. However, the original position of 21 months still
remains in Wales, although that will be harmonised through the
Bill.
Any of those
periods can be varied by an order made by the Secretary of State or the
Welsh Ministers. That gives flexibilities to shorten or lengthen the
six-month period if, with the benefit of experience, that is considered
necessary. In the past, there has been a change from 21 months down to
six.
To remove the
order-making power as the amendment suggests, so that it would not be
possible to change those periods, would remove the flexibility that we
want. The only way that the periods could be changed, if it was proved
necessary, would be through primary legislation. As all members of the
Committee know, passing primary legislation is a lengthy
process.
Norman
Baker:
Will the flexibility that the Minister envisages
allow the period to be extended beyond six months? In due course, that
might have implications for the viability of particular bus companies,
if the uncertainty went on for too long.
Ms
Winterton:
Yes, it does include the possibility of
lengthening the period. Here, we have in mind perhaps a situation where
there are difficulties in ordering new vehicles or in constructing a
bus lane. Over time, it might prove necessary to have that greater
flexibility in the
system.
Bus operators
may fear that the order-making power might be used to reduce a limit to
below six months, but it may be used to lengthen a limit if that is
considered desirable. I assure the Committee that no changes will be
made without full
consultation.
In my
view, it is necessary to have that flexibility in making quality
contracts schemes and I ask that the amendment be
withdrawn.
11.15
am
Stephen
Hammond:
I am grateful for that explanation. One moment we
are being localist; the next, we are for national direction. The
Minister wants the flexibility to have national direction at one moment
and then to castigate everybody else if she does not consider them as
localist as the next person. I want to look very carefully at what the
Minister has just said and possibly to revisit the matter on Report. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
26 o
rdered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
27 and 28
o
rdered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 7 May 2008 |