Clause
56
Traffic commissioners to keep
records about such
permits
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have no particular concern about the clause,
but I just want to check with the Minister that the traffic
commissioners will keep records of such permits. Can she confirm that
such permits will be open for public inspection as will the detail of
what the permits
grant?
Mr.
Knight:
My hon. Friend has asked one of the questions that
I was about to ask the Minister. Who will be able to see the permits?
For how long will the records need to be kept? What length of time will
the data have to be kept on
file?
Ms
Winterton:
As Conservative Members have said, the clause
will require traffic commissioners to keep records of community
transport permits granted by them and copies of permits submitted to
them by designated bodies. It is important that we have a better record
than we do at the moment of what community transport services operate.
The existing legislation does not place an obligation on the traffic
commissioners to keep records of permits, although we understand that
records are held by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency on their
behalf. As I said, we believed that it was important to improve our
record keeping of community transport operators and that it was right
to impose a requirement on traffic commissioners similar to that on
designated bodies.
As
for how long the data would need to be kept, obviously it would need to
be retained while the permit was in force. Other provisions in the Bill
will introduce time-limited permits. One of the issues that has come up
is that some permits were given out that had perhaps expired a long
time before. For the community transport sector as a whole, it is
important to have not
only good records, but up-to-date records and to know exactly what is in
operation at a particular time. Some difficulties had arisen previously
where permits had been given out, the service had completely stopped
operating, but nobody had any idea about it. As to who will be able to
see the records, I shall have to write to the hon. Member for Wimbledon
about that. I cannot see that there would be any problem with there
being a public record of what permits were available. However, I would
like to take the opportunity to check that and ensure that in any
consultation we have done with the community transport world we have
explored the options, so I shall come back to the Committee on that.
Mr.
Knight:
I do not want to make a meal of this. I think that
the Minister has been helpful, but may I make two points? First, would
she write to all members of the Committee and not just to my hon.
Friend the Member for Wimbledon on that particular point? Secondly,
would she be prepared to reflect on the length of time these records
should be kept? For example, there did not use to be a legal duty on
lawyers in the United Kingdom to keep the papers when they had finished
a case, but most lawyers now keep the papers for about seven years in
case an issue arises after the matter is finalised, where the papers
can be of help. I realise that this situation is not entirely on all
fours with what lawyers do with case paperwork, but an issue may arise
after a permit expires for which it would be helpful to see the
document itself, to see if any conditions were imposed in it and so
on.
Perhaps the
Minister could reflect on that and tell us on Report whether she
feels—I am not suggesting that it should go into the Bill, but
perhaps it should be in practice directions—that it is something
on which she would want to advise the traffic
commissioners.
Ms
Winterton:
I shall certainly consider whether there might
be circumstances where retaining the paperwork was appropriate, and the
reasons for doing so. I would not like to ask the traffic commissioners
to maintain excessive amounts of information, but I am prepared to ask
the community transport sector whether that is something that would be
helpful. I do not think that that would be a matter for the face of the
Bill, but it might be something that we could talk to the traffic
commissioners about in guidance.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 56
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
57
Attachment
of conditions to related
licences
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 244, in
clause 57, page 49, line 14, leave
out from ‘to’ to end of line 20 and insert
‘the licence mentioned in
subsection (1)
above’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 245, in
clause 57, page 49, line 21, leave
out ‘conditions are’ and insert ‘condition
is’.
No. 246, in
clause 57, page 49, line 25, leave
out paragraph (b).
No.
253, in
clause 57, page 50, line 8, leave
out from ‘to’ to ‘a’ in line 9 and
insert
‘the licence
mentioned in subsection (5)
above’.
No. 254,
in clause 57, page 50, leave out lines 11
to
17.
Stephen
Hammond:
This string of amendments relates to the power of
the traffic commissioner to attach conditions to operator licences.
These conditions can be attached if the operator in question has failed
to comply with the requirements and specifications of his licence. Such
conditions can relate to the specific vehicles that can or cannot be
used by the offending operator. Broadly, that is something that
everybody will support, but the detail of clause 57 contains a much
wider extension to the power of the traffic commissioner and I am not
sure whether the Government meant that
intentionally.
I am
looking for some reassurance from the Minister regarding the
Government’s intention, for the clause will enable the traffic
commissioner to attach conditions not only to the licence of which the
requirements have been breached, but to other licences held by that
operator, and even to licences held by other operators connected with
the offending operator. I am worried that those powers are excessive in
the extreme, and that the punishment would be worse than the
crime.
It seems wholly
inappropriate that if an operator breaches the rules of its licence,
another operator, even a related or subsidiary company, can be punished
for the same offence, unless the traffic commissioner were going to
attach conditions to all those licences as well. I cannot think of
similar circumstances where such wide and varied penalties have been
proposed.
Furthermore,
if an operator holds several licences and one of them is breached, is
it fair that every other licence could have conditions attached to it?
The licences could relate to different types of service, for
instance.
Obviously,
the traffic commissioner needs the function to attach conditions to a
licence if the licence is breached by the operator, but the powers that
clause 57 gives him are much wider than that. Was that the
Government’s intention, and, if so, in what circumstances does
the Minister envisage those wide and excessive powers being
used?
Ms
Winterton:
As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments
would, in effect, negate the purpose of clause 57, which is to extend
the powers of traffic commissioners to take enforcement action against
operators who fail to provide services of a satisfactory standard. It
is the first of three clauses that will give traffic commissioners new
or enhanced powers.
At
present, traffic commissioners have at their disposal several powers
that they can use to take action against operators who are not
delivering a reliable service, who are not delivering the services that
they said they would deliver, or who are using vehicles that do not
meet the necessary safety standards. One of
those powers is that the traffic commissioner can attach conditions to
an operator’s licence. The conditions can be used to prevent the
operator from providing certain services, and can even go so far as to
prohibit an operator from operating any bus services at all in a
particular area. That
is an effective tool, but there are several difficulties with it. When
we debated part 1 of the Bill, I referred to the fact that Great
Britain is divided into eight traffic areas. When an operator applies
for a public service vehicle operator’s licence, he must apply
to the traffic commissioner for the traffic area in which the vehicles
are based. Those vehicles may then be used anywhere in Great Britain.
But a large operator with vehicles based in more than one traffic area
will have separate licences for different traffic
areas.
Under the
current legislation, it is generally accepted that there is no power
for a traffic commissioner to attach conditions to a licence held by an
operator in another traffic area. This means that even if conditions
are imposed, an operator can continue to provide services under a
licence held in a different traffic area unless and until the
appropriate traffic commissioner takes action against
him.
There is also no
power for a traffic commissioner to prevent operators from
circumventing the effect of licence conditions by transferring the
operation of services to a subsidiary of the same holding group of
companies. Such potential loopholes weaken the powers of the traffic
commissioner to take action if operators are
failing.
The clause
will give traffic commissioners the option, where conditions have been
attached to an operator’s licence, to direct a traffic
commissioner in a different traffic area to attach conditions to other
licences held by the company. The other traffic commissioner could
refuse only if there were good reason to do
so.
6
pm
The clause will
also give traffic commissioners powers to attach conditions to licences
held by operators connected with the original, defaulting operator,
such as subsidiaries of the same holding company. I hope that the
Committee will agree that it is only right that a bus operator should
not be able to use the current limitations on the imposition of
conditions on licences to circumvent enforcement action and, by doing
so, to continue to operate bad services. That is exactly why clause 57
is in the Bill.
The
hon. Gentleman’s amendments would undo those important changes,
leaving operators the opportunity to continue to circumvent enforcement
action. Moreover, amendments Nos. 245 and 246 would go even further,
watering down existing powers so that traffic commissioners would no
longer be able to impose a licence condition preventing a licence
holder from operating any services in a particular area. Because the
group of amendments would undermine the whole purpose of clause 57 and
leave traffic commissioners with even weaker enforcement powers than
they have at the moment, I cannot accept them, and I urge the Committee
to reject them. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman
will withdraw
them.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am not sure whether I agree with the
Minister’s contention that the amendments would weaken the
existing powers. I accept the possible need for an arrangement for
holding companies or subsidiary companies, so that licences could not
be switched from one company to another, as that would clearly not be
right. I am still not convinced that she has addressed the point about
the traffic commissioner’s greatly increased powers under the
clause. The powers could give the traffic commissioner the ability to
impose conditions on the licences of operators that are related,
although not through a holding company arrangement. I may wish to
consider the matter again on Report, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
58
Powers of traffic commissioners
where services not operated as
registered
Mr.
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I beg to move
amendment No. 260, in clause 58,
page 51, line 25, leave out from
‘and’ to end of line 27 and insert ‘to the local
traffic
authority’.
The
amendment would require that, where a bus service is not operating as
registered and the traffic commissioner, after investigating, issues a
report recommending remedial measures, a copy must be sent to the local
traffic authority, regardless of whether the local traffic authority is
expected to take remedial action. The Bill stipulates that a report
must be sent to the local traffic authority only if it must implement
any of the recommended remedial measures. The explanatory notes give an
example where the local traffic authority might be expected to make
changes to help with bus punctuality. There will be occasions on which
the local traffic authority is not expected to take any remedial
action, but we believe that it should be informed about what action bus
operators are to take, regardless of whether it is expected to do
anything.
Ms
Winterton:
Clause 58 is extremely important. In response
to consultation and discussions on the Bill, many people told us that
poor punctuality sometimes occurs when the local traffic authority is
failing in its duties, perhaps because it is not taking appropriate
action against parking or bus lane contraventions, or because poorly
planned road works are disrupting bus routes. The clause will give
traffic commissioners the power to hold traffic authorities to account
where their actions are part of the
problem.
Graham
Stringer:
If I remember rightly, about two and half years
ago, in answer to a parliamentary question about responsibility for
traffic delays and congestion, one of the Minister’s
predecessors said that two thirds of the problems with late buses were
caused by the bus operators themselves. Does she have an update on that
figure? That is an important matter, because part of the large bus
operators’ propaganda is that it is always the local
authorities’ fault. In fact, it is usually their own fault for
not having the right engineering facilities or drivers
available.
Ms
Winterton:
I do not have an update on that figure,
although I accept what my hon. Friend says. As I said, however, we
cannot ignore some of the results of the consultation on the draft
Bill, which showed that it is important to ensure that local
authorities fulfil their side of the
bargain.
Mr.
Leech:
The point of the amendment is not to suggest that
local authorities are never responsible, because they clearly cause
some of the problems, whether to do with congestion or whatever. I
agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley: most of the time
the operators are at fault. The amendment would ensure that local
authorities are informed of what actions need to be taken, regardless
of whether they have to take remedial action. That is not to suggest
that they should absolve themselves of any
responsibility.
Ms
Winterton:
I accept that point; I was simply explaining
the background to clause 58 and why it is important. The approach taken
in the clause is the right one. The traffic commissioner should send a
copy of any report to the relevant operator and, if any of the remedial
measures are for implementation by a local traffic authority, to that
authority. However, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would require
a copy of every report to be sent to the local traffic authority
regardless of whether any of the measures were for implementation by
the authority.
I accept
that the local authority might have an interest occasionally, and it
would be possible for the local traffic commissioner to send a copy to
the local authority if that were the case. However, I feel that the
approach in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would be too
burdensome. We believe that it is better for the local traffic
commissioner to have discretion over which authorities should receive
particular reports, rather than to be prescriptive in the Bill. In view
of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Leech:
I will withdraw my amendment, although we might
want to revisit the issue on Report. However, I do not quite accept
that it would be too burdensome to send the local transport authority a
copy of the report that is sent to the operator. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
58 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
