 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, Annette Toft,
Committee Clerks
† attended
the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 6 May 2008(Afternoon)[David Taylor in the Chair]Local Transport Bill [Lords]4
pm
Clause 41Competition
scrutiny of functions and agreements relating to
buses
Norman
Baker (Lewes) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 258, in
clause 41, page 36, line 20, after
‘area’, insert
“including actions to ease
congestion on a highway
network.”.
Good
afternoon to you, Mr. Taylor. I am happy to move the
amendment. Before the break, we heard about the enthusiasm for
voluntary partnerships, which I am happy to tell the hon. Member for
Wimbledon I share. They are indeed a useful way forward. If they can be
made to work, they are preferable to quality contracts—although
they too have a role. The amendment would make them as attractive as
possible by making it explicitly clear that a voluntary partnership
arrangement can cover
“actions to ease congestion on a
highway
network”.
The
amendment would write that definition of a voluntary partnership
agreement into clause 41(2). The Minister might say that such matters
can certainly be taken into account by a voluntary partnership
agreement. If she says that, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment
in due course. However, it is important to put on the record that a
voluntary partnership agreement should cover such matters, not least
because there is reluctance among some local highway or transport
authorities to recognise that they too have a role to play in
delivering better bus services. It is not simply a question of
encouraging bus companies to put on more or better buses. If there is a
problem with the highway network, it can lead to congestion and delays,
which in turn is a significant disincentive for people who wish to
travel by bus.
An
example in my constituency is Brighton and Hove Bus and Coach Company,
which has been successful with a voluntary agreement with the local
councils. It has put on extra buses through Lewes to Ringmer and almost
as far Tunbridge Wells, and to Brighton in the other direction. That
has been successful, but there is a major problem with the junction at
Earwig Corner, which is out of Lewes on the way to Ringmer. There has
been complete inaction from the local county council in dealing with
the junction, and the consequence has been a knock-on effect on
punctuality all along the network from Brighton to Tunbridge Wells. Bus
passengers all along that route are being severely disadvantaged. A
voluntary partnership in that area, and more generally,
ought to pick up such problems. That should be a key part of dealing
with any agreement between bus companies and local councils. I would
welcome the Minister telling me whether that is the case. In
parenthesis, if she can put any pressure on East Sussex county council
to sort out that junction, it would be even more
welcome.
The
Minister of State, Department for Transport (Ms Rosie
Winterton):
Welcome back to the chair, Mr.
Taylor.
As the hon.
Member for Lewes has noted, the definition of a voluntary partnership
agreement requires the local authority to undertake to provide
facilities that might include bus lanes, new bus shelters and so on, or
do anything else for the purpose of bringing benefits to bus
passengers. We have deliberately cast that definition quite widely
because of comments that we received during the consultation process
from the Passenger Transport Executive Group and others.
Obviously,
it seems likely that if a local authority agrees to take action to help
address traffic congestion, it should deliver benefits to bus
passengers in the form of reduced and more predictable journey times.
As long as passengers are expected to benefit in that way, the existing
definition of a voluntary partnership agreement in the Bill already
delivers the effect that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would
have. I understand the point that he is making, but I think the matter
is covered in the Bill. I hope that provides the reassurance that he is
seeking and enables him to withdraw his
amendment.
Norman
Baker:
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that
those sorts of measure are included in the wider definition. I thought
that they probably were, but it was useful to check. Accordingly, I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): Good afternoon, Mr.
Taylor. I want to register some other issues about competition and to
get some comments from the Minister.
As the
Minister said earlier, the Government are working closely on this part
of the Bill with the Campaign for Better Transport and she has rightly
acknowledged the input of that organisation. I would like to raise an
issue that has not been tackled and which concerns the
organisation—that the changes made by the clause and by schedule
2 affect the way in which agreements between operators and local
authorities are deemed to be in the public interest or not. In effect,
they allow competition law to be relaxed so that bus companies can
discuss how best to work in partnership.
What has not yet been discussed
is how that competition law might relate to the integration of other
modes of transport. Although bus companies compete with one another,
they also compete with other modes of transport, most commonly the car
and the tram.
What can
the Minister tell us about how the market might be defined? For
example, a merger between two bus companies to create a dominant
operator in a given area could be seen as anti-competitive if looking
at the bus market alone and it might fall foul of competition
law while actually enhancing bus patronage. If the product of the merger
were to improve the attractiveness of buses overall, there might be a
switch from car to bus, something I am sure the Minister would seek to
encourage. In what circumstances might she be prepared to look again at
how we might define the market? What consultation has the Office of
Fair Trading had with the Department about the bigger picture? Buses do
not just compete with themselves, they compete with other modes of
transport as
well.
Norman
Baker:
That is an interesting contribution from the hon.
Member for Wimbledon. There is also the question of what happens when
the bus competes with the train and whether that should be taken into
account, particularly if the bus company and the train company are run
by the same parent, which does happen. Companies such as First run
buses and trains, sometimes in competition with each other. How do we
deal with that situation?
Ms
Winterton:
The point is that what we are trying to achieve
here is limited to the competition between bus services. We are talking
about voluntary partnership agreements between local authorities and
bus operators. I take the point that there might be times when it is
important to take into account that a railway service might be running
along the same route but we are talking about the specific situation
where bus operators are allowed to run along particular routes as and
when they want, if it is a commercial service. In other areas a subsidy
can be given by the local authority.
We are trying to get over the
fact that it has been difficult for one or more bus operators to sit
down with the local authority and work out, for example, what might be
appropriate in terms of the frequency of patterns of
service—that is definitely between the bus operators themselves.
We have discussed at other points in the Bill whether it would be a
good idea, when considering overall integrated transport plans, to look
at how bus services fitted in with rail services, for example. However,
in this case, we are talking specifically about the issues of bus
operators, because they would be talking about running along particular
routes—the local authority would like to sit down with them and
organise such things as the patterns of service. I take on board the
comments made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, but that would fit into
another part of how the local authority or integrated transport
authority would want to look at other services in its overall transport
plan.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 41
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 2
agreed
to.
Clause 42
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 3
agreed to.
Clause 43Determination
of applications for registration where restrictions in
force
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 225, in
clause 43, page 38, line 14, leave
out subsection (5).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 226, in
clause 43, page 38, line 18, leave
out ‘that question’ and insert
‘whether to accept the
application’.
No.
227, in
clause 43, page 38, line 19, leave
out ‘those representations’ and insert
‘any relevant representations made
by a relevant authority or a relevant
operator’.
No.
228, in
clause 43, page 38, line 25, leave
out subsection (7).
No.
229, in
clause 43, page 38, line 28, leave
out
‘If subsection (7)
above does not
apply,’.
No.
230, in
clause 43, page 38, line 29, at
end insert—
‘(za) accept the
application;’.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am speaking to a series of amendments dealing
with one particular theme, which we discussed when we looked at the
quality partnerships part of the Bill. Local authorities have some
powers to impose restrictions on bus services that operate in an area
where a quality partnership is also in operation. Clause 43 looks at
the issue from the other side—that of the prospective traffic
commissioner. My amendments are motivated by a concern that some
unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions are being placed on traffic
commissioners carrying out their functions. Under the provisions of the
clause, when the traffic commissioner receives an application for a
registration in an area where a quality partnership is in operation, he
must first give notice to the authority and the operator or operators
party to the new quality contracts scheme. The authority or the
operator may make representations to the traffic commissioner, which he
must consider in making his
decision.
I
am trying to see why that provision is necessary. When traffic
commissioners decide whether to accept the registration applications
made by the operators, they already take into account all local
circumstances that might be affected by such a registration. The
traffic commissioner will know about the quality partnership in the
area, and will bear in mind the impact that he believes additional
registrations would have. I am not clear why he needs to be placed
under the obligation to take into account additional representations.
It seems to me that an element of the clause is telling the traffic
commissioner how to do his job, which is neither necessary nor
appropriate.
Ms
Winterton:
The clause will give traffic commissioners
powers to determine whether applications to register new services, or
to modify or withdraw existing ones, would be detrimental to a quality
partnership scheme. That is linked to measures in clause 13, which
would allow a local transport authority to include registration
restrictions in a scheme. When making such decisions, the traffic
commissioner must apply the registration criteria contained in the
scheme. The clause sets out the procedure to be followed when an
application to which such restrictions apply is received. If the
traffic commissioner decides that an application would be detrimental
to the quality partnership scheme, he may turn it down, he may require
the applicant to amend it or he may require them to undertake that they
would provide services to the standards specified in the scheme. The
clause also
provides a right of appeal to the Transport Tribunal against decisions
of the traffic
commissioner.
We
included the provisions in response to concerns that a successful
quality partnership scheme could be undermined by disruptive
competition—by competitors not prepared to meet the standards
specified in the scheme. The purpose is to protect operators and
authorities that might have made significant investment in facilities
or standards of service. The provisions also provide protection for the
passengers who benefit from the improvements in service that a scheme
should
bring.
4.15
pm
The
amendment would prevent the traffic commissioner from making an
assessment as to whether a registration application would be
detrimental to services provided under a quality partnership scheme. He
would instead be limited to basing his decision on the registration
criteria and the representations and evidence put before him. He would
obviously have to consider representations from operators and
authorities as part of the decision-making process. Indeed, if no such
representations are made, the legislation stipulates that he must
accept the application.
We believe
that the changes are necessary. It is important that the traffic
commissioner should be able to make such assessments, as that will
ensure that quality partnership schemes cannot be undermined in the
ways that I outlined earlier. We included the provision for
registration restrictions to help prevent destabilising
competition—it is often seen in so-called bus wars—which
can affect operators that have invested in quality partnership schemes
and the passengers who need the services. We believe that limiting the
assessment strictly to the relevant representations with authorities
and operators would diminish the commissioner’s ability to make
an informed decision. That is why I urge the hon. Member for Wimbledon
to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I listened carefully to the Minister, and I am
reassured by her words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 43 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 7 May 2008 |