Clause
44
Applications
for registration where quality contracts scheme in
force
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 239, in
clause 44, page 40, line 20, leave
out subsection
(3).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments No. 240, in
clause 44, page 40, line 23, at
end insert
‘and the
appropriate approval
authority’.
No.
241, in
clause 44, page 40, line 24, leave
out subsections (5) and (6) and
insert—
‘(5) The traffic
commissioner shall decide whether to accept or reject the
application.’.
Stephen
Hammond:
Under the Transport Act 2000, operators are
prohibited from registering additional services in an area where there
is a quality contract scheme in operation, subject to certain
qualifications. Clause 44 re-examines the issue and makes some
modifications to the rules that govern the registration of services in
areas where a quality contract scheme is operational.
My belief that the clause
requires some change stems from a number of concerns. That will be no
surprise to the Committee. First, is it right to restrict free
competition, let alone in an area with a quality contract? Should other
operators not be able to run services alongside the quality contract if
they see a demand? Last week, the Minister put it on record that if a
service was not detrimental to the quality contract she would regard it
as acceptable. The services provided under a quality contract may or
may not suffice in providing the services that locals require. It is
possible that the network of services could be improved.
Secondly—I return to my
fear that the traffic commissioners will end up being
micro-managed—the provisions of the Bill and of previous
legislation are designed to ensure that traffic commissioners are given
certain functions and that they have the appropriate proficiency,
resources and independence to carry out those functions. Beyond that,
it should not be necessary to interfere in their work. One of the most
important functions of traffic commissioners is the registration of
buses. They receive the registration application and, having weighed
all the pros and cons, they have to decide whether to accept or reject
it. Under the clause, they will be told who to consult and how to reach
that decision, but that calls into question the very independence of
the traffic commissioner.
The clause
removes from the traffic commissioner the function of accepting
registrations It does so by placing an obligation on the traffic
commissioner to invite representations from the relevant local
authority. If he receives a clearance certificate, he has no choice but
to accept the application. If he does not receive a clearance
certificate he has no choice but to reject the application. All he is
at that point is a thoroughly pointless middleman who does nothing but
pass the application on to the local authority to be approved, or not.
I am not sure that that was what the Government intended the traffic
commissioner to do at that point. One wonders why he becomes just a
pointless
middleman.
My
amendment would work in two ways. First, it would put an obligation on
the traffic commissioner to consult not only the local authority
running the quality contract scheme but the approvals board that
approved it. That is important, as the board will consist of
independent, qualified individuals with an intimate knowledge of the
arrangements of the quality contract scheme and its impact on the
registration of additional services. Secondly, the amendment would
remove from the clause the subsections that require the traffic
commissioner to comply with the issuance or non-issuance of a clearance
certificate. A traffic commissioner should not need to be told by
anyone how to do his job. His job is to decide on the registration of
bus services, but the clause takes that
away.
Ms
Winterton:
As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments
would place decisions as to whether
additional services could be operated in an area covered by a quality
contracts scheme with the traffic commissioner, rather than the local
authority that made the scheme. Perhaps I could briefly explain the
purpose behind the clause. It provides an exception to the general rule
that in an area where a quality contracts scheme is in place, all
services must be provided under quality contracts. That means that no
other services can be registered with the traffic commissioner to
operate in the area. There is already a power for the authority to
exclude certain services or types of service from the scheme, and they
may be registered with the traffic commissioner in the usual way. For
example, long-distance services with only one or two stops in the
scheme area might be excluded, or services for a niche market such as
tour buses or works
buses.
A need or demand
may arise, however, during the lifetime of a scheme for services that
were not anticipated when the scheme was developed, and which might be
advantageous, or further niche services might be identified that would
not particularly affect the viability of the scheme one way or another.
It would be very unsatisfactory if there were no way of allowing those
services to be provided other than by formally amending the scheme. The
clause would give the local transport authority the discretion to allow
operators to run additional services that were not detrimental to the
scheme, and those services would be registered with the traffic
commissioner in the normal
way.
In
normal circumstances, traffic commissioners do not have the power to
reject applications to register, provided the operator is licensed. It
is right that the local transport authority that made the scheme in the
first place should decide whether a proposed new service is compatible
with the quality contracts scheme. The amendments would take that
function away from the local authority and give it to the traffic
commissioner. He would apparently have total discretion as to what to
allow and what to reject. Although the local transport authority would
be consulted, the decision would be entirely out of its hands. That
would make it possible, for example, for an operator to register a
service that would compete with one provided under a quality contract,
possibly undermining the financial basis of the
contract.
The aim of
providing flexibility is to allow the local authority to say that it
accepts that a particular service will not undermine the quality
contracts scheme, and that it is happy for it to go ahead and for it to
be registered with the traffic commissioner. We believe that the local
authority that made the scheme should have the discretion to do so, and
we do not believe that the decision should be handed over to the
traffic commissioner. I hope that that explanation is useful and that
the hon. Member for Wimbledon will withdraw his
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
That was helpful in some ways, but not entirely.
I was trying to explore why the traffic commissioner becomes just a
middleman at this point. What is his function if he simply passes round
pieces of paper? It is right that the local authority should be
consulted, but ultimately the traffic commissioner should have the
chance to look at the application.
Ms
Winterton:
It would just mean that a service would be
registered with the traffic commissioner in the
normal way. As I have said, in normal circumstances, if an operator is
licensed, it simply registers with the traffic commissioner. The point
is that that would happen during a quality contracts scheme. In normal
circumstances, it would not be allowed to register, but if the local
authority agrees that it can do so, it would register in the normal
way.
Stephen
Hammond:
Again, I was listening carefully to the Minister,
and I am somewhat reassured by what she said, although I might like to
test this point again on Report, if given the opportunity. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
44 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
45
Traffic
regulation conditions for anticipated traffic
problems
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): For the benefit of the
Committee, will the Minister put this clause into context and tell us
what eventuality will be covered by it that escapes the scope of
current legislation? Will the clause be used to deal with transient
problems or only where there is a persistent and permanent problem or
an anticipated persistent and permanent
problem?
Ms
Winterton:
The clause will extend the circumstances in
which a traffic authority may ask the traffic commissioner to impose
traffic regulation conditions on bus operators to include situations in
which the authority foresees a likely traffic problem. Under current
legislation, a traffic commissioner can impose traffic regulation
conditions on operators of local bus services following a request by
the traffic authority in response to a traffic problem in a particular
area. Traffic regulation conditions may be imposed only to prevent
danger to road users, to reduce severe traffic congestion or to reduce
or limit noise or air pollution. The conditions are attached to the
public service vehicle operator’s licence of the bus operators
providing services in the area where the conditions apply. For example,
they may prevent certain operators from using certain routes, or
stipulate that operators may stop at certain places for no longer than
a given time. They may also restrict the use of noisy tourist
commentaries or specify minimum emissions standards.
In response to consultation on
the draft Bill, a number of people told us that the problem with those
provisions was that they could be used only where a problem had already
arisen, resulting in a delay before the conditions could be imposed,
during which time serious problems might arise, such as severe
congestion and danger to road users arising from so-called bus wars. We
appreciate that difficulty, so provisions in this clause mean that a
traffic authority can make a request to the traffic commissioner for
traffic regulation conditions to be imposed in anticipation of a
problem, rather than after it has arisen, which will help
traffic
authorities to be proactive in dealing with potential problems. I
believe that that will help reduce congestion and provide a quicker,
safer and more reliable service for passengers. I hope that the
Committee will support clause
45. 4.30
pm
Mr.
Knight:
I thank the Minister, who has answered most of my
concerns, except the point I made when I caught your eye,
Mr. Taylor. Will the provision be used to deal with
transient problems? For example, the borough of Sandwell has an annual
transport weekend on which it takes over a large field and has a
display of vehicles going through the town centre. Will the provision
be used to deal with such occasions, which perhaps occur only once a
year, but when they do are massive, change the pattern of congestion in
a town or city and clearly need to be
addressed?
Ms
Winterton:
The point is that they could be either.
However, if the problem were transient, we would expect the traffic
regulation condition to be transient as
well.
Graham
Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): I am grateful to
the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire for bringing this issue up
under the clause stand part debate. I know that the Whips want us to
bounce on very quickly, so I will not take much time. Will the Minister
tell us whether the regulations, because they refer to the safety of
passengers, will deal with the situation that arose in the north of
Greater Manchester where the wheels kept falling off
FirstGroup’s buses? This is not a joke; it was a serious danger
to passengers. An inquiry found FirstGroup in Rochdale in north Greater
Manchester not fit and proper to be running that route. It registered a
wholly-owned subsidiary of FirstGroup to run exactly the same routes.
The traffic commissioner was just applying the law. The passenger
transport authority, which had instigated this inquiry, was incensed,
as were the travelling public. Will that anomaly and unfairness be
dealt with under this or any other section?
Ms
Winterton:
I believe that that would be an issue for
existing road safety rules, which are for the traffic commissioner to
enforce. For example, the traffic commissioner would be able, through a
licence condition, to take action in that instance. I will take away my
hon. Friend’s point and if there is different advice that I
ought to be giving, I will write to members of the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 45
ordered to stand part if the
Bill.
Clause 46
ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause
47
Fees
for registration of
services
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 242, in
clause 47, page 41, line 26, leave
out subsection (2).
The purpose of this probing
amendment is to encourage the Minister to explain to the Committee why
a bus operator should be required to pay a fee for cancelling the
registration of one of its services, if that fee is beyond that which
covers the administration. A fee is already payable when a service is
registered under the provisions of the Transport Act 1985. The
circumstances in which a fee is payable are extended by this clause so
that a fee can also be incurred when a service is continued or
cancelled.
I would like
to be reassured by the Minister that the only purpose of charging a fee
is for recovering administrative costs. If so, could she give us some
indication of how she intends to give guidance on how these costs will
be calculated and how the traffic commissioners are going to set these
fees? Can she reassure us that they are set only at a level that covers
administrative costs. I am sure that in the interests of maximum
patronage, in certain areas operators must be given flexibility to
respond to the demands of the travelling public. If it were a punitive
fee, there would be some serious issues about what was being provided.
I understand that costs must be covered, but I seek a guarantee from
the Minister that the purpose of the clause is to cover administrative
costs only. What guidance does she intend to give on how those
administrative costs might be
assessed?
Ms
Winterton:
It might help if I put it in the context of
what we are trying to achieve in clause 47, which will allow the
Secretary of State to update the range of fees payable by the operators
of local bus services. I stress that any new fees would be set out in
regulations and subject to further consultation.
The regime covering the fees
paid by the operators of local buses has remained unchanged for the
past 20 years. Before an operator can start running a bus service, he
must register the particulars of that service with the local traffic
commissioner, and a fee is payable then. If he wants to vary the
details of the scheme—for example, by introducing a new
timetable or changing the number of services—a further fee is
payable. However, he does not have to pay a fee if he cancels the
service altogether, which carries a transaction charge, or if he simply
leaves it as it is.
The clause will allow the
Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for fees to be
payable in additional situations. For example, a fee could be charged
for the cancellation of a local service. What is known as a
continuation fee could also be charged—perhaps an annual fee
where registration particulars are unchanged. Holders of a bus
operator’s licence already pay a fee in order for their licence
to continue in force. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have
pointed out that we need to ensure that the traffic commissioners are
properly resourced. They are at the heart of ensuring that bus
operators deliver good services and will play an important role in
enforcing the new punctuality regime. I stress that no decision has
been taken to increase the fees burden on operators at this stage, but
it is important to think ahead. That is why we have taken the powers. I
hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will understand why we
have done so and withdraw his amendment.
[
Interruption.
]
Ms
Winterton:
You weren’t listening, were
you?
Stephen
Hammond:
I was listening carefully and attentively to the
Minister, as ever, but I was worried that the Whips need to make
progress and that the door handle might have come off. I listened
carefully to what she said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
47
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses 48
and 49
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
