Clause
31
Approval
of continuation of
scheme
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 215, in
clause 31, page 28, line 45, leave
out from ‘authority)’ to ‘applies’ in line
1 on page
29.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 216, in
clause 31, page 29, line 2, leave
out from ‘one’ to end of line
3.
No. 217, in
clause 31, page 29, line 4, leave
out subsection
(2).
No. 218, in
clause 31, page 29, line 14, leave
out subsections (3) to
(10).
Stephen
Hammond:
Clause 31 provides the same approvals process
that we have discussed previously. As I understand it, it is stating
that the approvals process can apply to extensions as well unless they
are deemed to be exempt extensions. That and the strong independent
process of approval are vital and I am wary of circumstances in which
they may be bypassed.
The clause sets out
circumstances in which such an exemption would apply
but the rules are somewhat complicated. If the Government believe that
they are formulating an approvals process that does the job it is
intended to do, can the Minister tell us why should there be exemptions
from the process? It does not seem that there is any particular reason
or benefit to the public validity of an approval or an extension that
certain ones can suddenly become exempt from the process.
The approvals board is designed
to be independent. It is a qualified group of individuals with the
power to make decisions in the best interest of local people. That is
the purpose of the board and that is what it should be allowed to do. I
am, therefore, looking to the Minister to give us some clear
indications of circumstances in which such exemptions might
apply.
Ms
Winterton:
The amendments would move us back to the
position where, in all circumstances when a local authority proposed to
continue a quality contracts scheme beyond its initial period the
scheme would have to be made again from scratch, with a full approvals
process in every case.
We want to change the current
legislation because it is not possible under that legislation for a
quality contracts scheme to continue beyond its initial
period—the authority has to go back through the full process of
making a new scheme. We want there to be a more flexible, lighter
touch, which we are bringing in under the Bill.
Under the provisions, an
authority that wanted to extend its quality contracts
scheme would need to publish a consultation document reporting on the
effectiveness of the scheme so far, as well as making the case for
continuing it for up to a period of a further 10 years. The proposals
would be subject to the same consultation procedure and approvals and
appeals process as a new scheme, but with appropriate modifications and
certain exemptions from the approvals process.
In particular, where it was
proposed that the scheme should not be expanded to cover additional
services, the scheme would not need to be submitted for approval. The
new approvals process with certain modifications and exemptions would
apply to any application to continue a quality contracts scheme beyond
10 years. We have set out the conditions that would need to be met if
the scheme is to be exempt from this process and impose a requirement
on the local authority to publicise any such proposal. Other than for
exempt proposals the application would need the approval of the
approvals board or Welsh Ministers. Only schemes that had achieved
their stated objectives or were well on the way to doing so, and where
there would be public benefit, would be likely to be
approved.
We now come
to the exemptions. Proposals in the draft Bill would have required
every continuation scheme to go through the approvals process. However,
one of the key functions of the approvals process is to ensure that the
effect on deregulated services is properly taken into account. If a
quality contracts scheme is already in force and will usually have been
in force many years, as long as the scope of the scheme is not widened,
there will be no such services to take into account. In those cases,
there seems little point in submitting the continuation scheme to the
approvals board or Welsh Ministers.
However, we accept that some
authorities will want to modify the schemes when they continue them,
either to adjust the boundaries to take account of road or planning
developments since the existing scheme was approved or to vary the
description of services that are excluded from the scheme or to bring
in additional services. If any changes of that sort meant that services
previously operating outside the scheme would be part of it, it seems
appropriate for the approvals process to apply. That is a necessary
safeguard because without it a local authority could greatly expand the
scope of an existing scheme, making it virtually a new scheme, without
going through the approval process.
In order for a continuation
scheme to be exempt, two sets of conditions need to be satisfied. The
first is that there is no increase in the geographical area, or only to
such a minor extent that no existing bus services or additional local
authority would be taken into the scheme. Any one of those conditions
must be
satisfied.
Norman
Baker:
Where the approvals process kicks in, in the
circumstances described by the Minister—for example, an
extension to geographical area—I assume the approvals process
would look only at the impact of any amendment rather than looking at
the entire scheme
again.
Ms
Winterton:
No, the scheme as a whole would be looked at in
terms of the continuation process because in those instances it has
reverted, and because it has changed it does not come under the
continuation process.
As we said earlier, an
approvals board is able to talk about modifications.
I am sure that in those circumstances there would be a look at the
scheme as it had been
running and a look at the effect of the new geographical area in it.
That would be quite reasonable. Otherwise, the current scheme would not
be looked at all and it would simply be a new scheme starting. In those
circumstances, where it was expanding, it would be quite reasonable to
say that the approvals board looks at the scheme as a whole and at how
it would continue as a whole. Otherwise, there would be two
processes—one the continuation scheme and one a new quality
contracts
scheme.
Norman
Baker:
Would the approvals process be able to take into
account comments people had fortuitously taken the opportunity to make
about elements of the scheme that would not in fact be affected by a
geographical
extension?
Ms
Winterton:
Obviously, if the scheme went through the
entire approvals board process again, people would be able to make
comments about the existing scheme. The continuation scenario would be
that if the local authority issued a consultation document, people
could appeal against it. If the scheme reverted to going through the
whole approvals board process because it had changed, people would be
able to make representations to the approvals board in the same way as
previously.
Norman
Baker:
The point I am trying to get at is this: if it is
deemed sensible to make a small geographical extension to the scheme
and that triggers the process, I understand why it has to be looked at,
but if the whole process or scheme can be looked at again, that is a
disincentive to make that small geographical
amendment.
Ms
Winterton:
Again, we have to strike the right balance
between changing the current legislation, which requires any scheme to
go through the approvals board process all over again, and having
flexibility, so that if a scheme is extended outside the geographical
area or there are additional services, the scheme can be considered as
a whole. Frankly, the alternative is to have a continuation in one area
and a new scheme in another area. It is obviously in a local
authority’s remit to be able to do that.
The second set of criteria that
come under the exemptions are that there should be no reduction in
registered bus services previously excluded from the scheme. Both of
those conditions must be satisfied for a continuation scheme to be
exempt from the approval process. As I have said, that is the right way
forward in striking a balance between the two processes. I hope that,
in view of that, the amendment will be
withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I think I heard the Minister say that, except for
minor alterations, all alterations to quality contracts that are
proposed as an extension will have to go through the approvals board.
If that is so, I am happy with that reassurance, and on that basis I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
31
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
32 to 35 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
36
Regulations
about
schemes
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 222, in
clause 36, page 33, line 28, leave
out paragraph (b).
Clause 36 is mainly
uncontroversial and makes small amendments to the Transport Act 2000
that are consequential to changes made in the preceding clauses. As I
understand them, they relate to regulations that can be made about
quality contracts. The changes in the clause merely ensure that the
regulations can be made about continuations as well. However, if I
understand it correctly, subsection (3)(b) makes a change of somewhat
greater substance. It provides that the regulations may be made by the
appropriate national authority in addition to matters already listed in
the act, namely
“the
procedure for determining such applications”,
meaning, of course, the applications for
approval of quality contracts. Why is subsection (3)(b) necessary? In
what circumstances would those regulations be made, and what sort of
regulations are they? The amendment is entirely
probing.
12
noon
Ms
Winterton:
The amendment would remove the
regulation-making power in clause 36 that enable regulations to be made
to set out the procedure for determining applications for the approval
of quality contracts schemes or the continuation of such schemes. In a
sense, the amendment would mean that an approvals board’s
actions would not be defined. The Government believe that it is
important that the procedures for an approvals board should be clearly
and legally defined, and that is the purpose of the clause. Subsection
(3)(b) refers to
the
“procedure for
determining such applications”,
which deals with how the approvals board
would receive applications. Removing it would mean that it would not be
possible to set that out in legislation.
Subsection (3) is simply about
the regulations and how the approvals process might work. Removing
paragraph (b) would undermine the whole system of quality contracts and
approvals boards, so I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
The purpose of the amendment was to probe and to
understand exactly what was meant and exactly what procedures were
referred to. Given the Minister’s reassurance and explanation, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
38
Guidance
about quality contracts
schemes
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 223, in
clause 38, page 34, line 8,
after ‘authority’,
insert
‘, the Senior Traffic
Commissioner, and the Public Transport Users’
Committee’.
I
regard clause 38 as slightly ominous. It deals with the whole issue of
guidance and what may or may not be in guidance, regulations and the
Bill. Proposed new section 134A of the Transport Act 2000
states:
“The
appropriate national authority may issue guidance concerning the
performance by local transport authorities of their functions under
this Part in relation to quality contracts schemes”.
Inevitably, it goes on to
say:
“Those
authorities must have regard to any such
guidance”.
This morning,
the Minister has been helpful to our understanding of the Bill and its
language, and I am sure that she will be helpful again now. However, I
am unsure that she will be able to satisfy us why only the
“appropriate national authority” will be able to issue
the guidance.
I am
not suggesting that every body should be allowed to issue guidance to
which local authorities must have regard. That would clearly be
unsustainable. However, but two bodies in addition to the
“appropriate national authority” are competent and
qualified enough to issue guidance: first, the senior traffic
commissioner, whose functions include the registration of bus services
and the overview of bus services in local areas; and, secondly, the
public transport users’ committee, which is the dedicated
passenger watchdog.
We should remind ourselves that
the guidance is about the performance of local authorities in respect
of quality contracts. As has been discussed, the stated aim of quality
contracts schemes is to bring about improvements for bus users. Who
better to judge whether that aim is being achieved than bus users
themselves, through the organisation set up to represent them? Another
stated aim of the quality contract is to ensure that other bus services
will not be adversely affected. Who better to pass judgment in relation
to that criterion than the traffic commissioner?
Beyond the
appropriate national authority, the senior traffic commissioner and the
public transport users’ committee could offer useful,
appropriate and constructive advice to local authorities when carrying
out their function of regulating bus services, particularly in this
part of the Bill. The thrust of the amendment is to say to local
authorities that there are two other bodies beyond the appropriate
national authority that could help them to formulate better
policies.
I hope that
the Minister will accept that the senior traffic commissioner and the
public transport users’ committee are experts; they are
independent and qualified and they should be able to issue guidance to
local authorities on this matter, which rightly falls within their
remit. That would help local authorities and ultimately, help
passengers by encouraging local authorities to ensure, by having regard
to what they have said, that the bus services for passengers will be
better. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Norman
Baker:
I have a simple question. The Minister has been
telling us throughout our discussion of the Bill that we do not need to
have everything written into it and we should rely on regulations or
other informal means. I am struggling to understand why the clause needs
to be included at all, given that the Minister or any national
authority can issue guidance at any time it
likes.
Ms
Winterton:
As has been stated, the Bill confers a power on
the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to issue statutory guidance
to local authorities about quality contracts schemes. Local authorities
would be obliged to have regard to such guidance. The amendment tabled
by the hon. Member for Wimbledon would empower the senior traffic
commissioner and the public transport users’ committee to issue
such statutory guidance, as well.
The guidance is intended to
assist local authorities in deciding whether a quality contracts scheme
is a realistic option for their area and, if it is, how they might
introduce it. The Department has produced draft guidance, which is
available to the Committee and is also on the Department for Transport
website. We will be issuing a revised draft for formal consultation
later in the year.
As
far as involving the public transport users’ committee is
concerned, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that the Secretary
of State announced on 8 April that we intend to widen the remit of
Passenger Focus, the rail watchdog, to include functions relating to
local bus and scheduled coach services in England. That followed public
consultation on how to deliver strengthened bus passenger
representation. Subject to working up the details of conferring these
official functions on Passenger Focus and further consultation, that
means that the powers to establish a public transport users’
committee for England would not be taken up immediately. Retaining the
powers in the Bill, however, gives us the flexibility to establish such
a multi-modal committee in the future.
As I have said, we have already
issued draft guidance and will revise it later in the year. Waiting for
the bus component of Passenger Focus to be established so that it could
help to write the guidance would delay the process of making guidance
available to local authorities. Passengers might be best served by
their passenger representative groups offering comments on individual
quality contracts schemes when
consulted.
Stephen
Hammond:
I hear the Minister’s point about the
potential delay, but surely that can be covered by issuing additional
guidance?
Ms
Winterton:
Would that be different to the original
guidance that has already been published? If we wanted to publish some
guidance fairly quickly to be able to assist local authorities that
wished to take up quality contracts, we would not like to then delay
further. I will deal with the matter of consultation later.
It is not clear why
the hon. Gentleman thinks that the relevant national
authority—the Secretary of State in England and the Welsh
Ministers in Wales—is not best placed to develop statutory
guidance. The purpose of the guidance is to provide authorities with an
overview of the legislation and to assist them in the
development of schemes to ensure that they can work up realistic and
well structured proposals where that is the right thing for their
area. To answer the
question put by the hon. Member for Lewes, the reason that this
provision appears in the Bill is that the guidance is statutory
guidance. Local authorities will be obliged to have regard to it, which
gives the guidance more weight. In any appeal against a scheme, the
local authority’s actions and decisions will be considered in
the light of the guidance. That is why it is included in the Bill in
this way.
The traffic
commissioners and the passenger representative body will look at
quality contracts from a particular perspective. The traffic
commissioners will have a major role in the approvals board for
schemes, and a separate power is introduced in the Bill for the
Secretary of State to issue guidance to that board. One of the
strengths of the approvals board structure is that it provides an
independent and impartial assessment of proposals to make a quality
contracts scheme. As I have said before, we believe that it is
important to preserve that independent role; we do not want it to be
compromised by the senior traffic commissioner having the power to
issue statutory guidance to local authorities. That is why we believe
that the best method of issuing guidance is to have it prepared by the
Secretary of State and the Welsh
Ministers.
We also
have concerns about statutory guidance potentially emanating from three
different sources: the relevant national authority—the Secretary
of State or Welsh Ministers—the senior traffic commissioner and
the passenger representative body. We think that that would be rather
confusing for authorities, especially if they were expected to have
regard to guidance that sought to represent the stance of very
different bodies.
That said, we will,
of course, consult the traffic commissioners and passenger groups on
the guidance and will continue to seek their views, particularly those
of the traffic commissioners as they gain approvals board experience. I
hope that that explains why we have taken our stance and that the hon.
Member for Wimbledon will consider withdrawing the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I listened very carefully to the Minister. I am
not entirely satisfied with the explanation or the rationale behind the
senior traffic commissioner not being involved in issuing guidance. I
take the point that there may be some confusion, but I still think that
that gentleman has a role to play. None the less, I wish to go back and
have another look at this. I give notice to the Minister that I might
raise this matter again on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
38
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
