Clause
59
Additional
sanctions for failures by bus
operators
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 247, in clause 59,
page 53, line 5, leave out from
‘money’ to end of line
7.
The amendment deals
with a very specific power of the traffic commissioner. I welcome and
support the general thrust of clause 59, which states that, when an
operator is fined by the traffic commissioner, the money must be
invested either in the provision of local
services or used to compensate passengers on such services. That is
clearly sensible and laudable. If passengers suffer as a result of poor
services, it is only right that the fines should be used to improve the
services or directly compensate passengers. I can think of other areas of
transport in which such an approach might be welcomed. When Network
Rail was fined by the regulator for disruption to passengers over new
year, the money went straight to the Exchequer and not back into rail
improvements. Perhaps the Minister could impress it on her colleague
the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for
Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), that a similar approach in that
field would be welcomed as
well.
To
return to my amendment and compensating bus passengers, the clause says
that the compensation can take the form of payments of money or such
form, including the provision of free travel or travel at a reduced
price, as is specified. That raises a number of questions about whether
or not the latter part is tightly defined or clear enough. For example,
does it mean that only passengers previously affected by the poor
provision of service will be offered free or reduced travel? Or does it
mean that travel on the offending routes will be free or reduced for a
period of time, which would benefit people who had not previously been
caught up? Therefore, if an operator was obliged to offer the
latter—the free or reduced travel for a period—it could
result in some unintended consequences.
I am in favour of fining the
operators if they fail to provide the right service and of reinvesting
the money or giving it to those who need to be compensated. The best
way for that to happen and to ensure that there is no
ambiguity—unless the Minister wishes to add some other words to
the clause—is to make a direct monetary payment to the
passengers.
Ms
Winterton:
What we want to achieve is to give a
traffic commissioner more choice in the sanctions that can be imposed
against operators in such circumstances. The hon. Gentleman is right to
say that a traffic commissioner can fine an operator up to £550
for every vehicle operated under the licence. That penalty is paid into
the general fund. The problem is that that could worsen the position
for passengers, because the operator may simply pass on the cost of
that fine through higher fares without making any improvement to the
services. When an operator provides a bad service, there should be a
way in which sanctions can be used to bring direct benefit to those
passengers who have been affected. Ideas, such as offering free or
reduced travel, were developed in collective discussions in the Bus
Partnership Forum, which is a collective of industry, local authorities
and others, including the senior traffic commissioner.
By giving traffic commissioners
a range of options, they will be able to assess what is right on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account local circumstances. Sometimes,
it might be appropriate to give some free or reduced fare travel.
Having that flexibility can only add value to the work of the traffic
commissioners. If the operator was not happy with the sanction that had
been taken, it has the right to appeal to the Transport Tribunal. I
hope that the Committee
will agree that these are sensible additions to the tools available to
traffic commissioners and that the hon. Member for Wimbledon can be
persuaded to withdraw his
amendment. 6.15
pm
Stephen
Hammond:
I am always open to persuasion if the argument is
full of good reason. I am prepared to accept that the traffic
commissioner should have a range of tools available to him, although I
prefer the reinvestment in local bus services. I can see that he may
wish to direct free travel or whatever, but the question remains that
there may be an unintended consequence of people trying to use that
free travel even though he did not intend them to do so. None the less,
we will not go to the stake on this one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 248, in clause 59,
page 53, line 30, leave out from ‘to’ to ‘,
and’ in line 31 and insert ‘the appropriate local
authority’.
We
have agreed the principle that the traffic commissioner should have the
right to impose sanctions, and one of those sanctions is that the money
from fines should be reinvested in the bus service in the area. Under
the amendment, any fines payable under the clause would be payable to
the local authority and not, as the clause is currently drafted, to the
Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers. That is appropriate: it fits in
with the nature of the bus industry, which is a very local industry. As
we have stressed throughout proceedings on the Bill, the local
authority should have a key role in determining the provision of bus
services in the area. That function is carried out by local transport
authorities and local operators, so having any proceeds of fines paid
to national Government is an anomaly in comparison with the rest of the
Bill. I strongly believe that the proceeds of fines should be
reinvested in the bus services, and that that should be done by the
appropriate local authority, not by moneys going to the Secretary of
State or Welsh
Ministers.
Mr.
Leech:
I do not intend to say much on the amendment; I
just want to support it strongly. It is very important that where
services have been affected locally, the proceeds of fines go into
improving local services. It is completely appropriate that, rather
than going to the Secretary of State, the money should be reinvested
locally.
Ms
Winterton:
I would not like to raise expectations unduly,
but the amendment does raise some interesting points. I am not sure,
however, that it would work. It does not, for example, talk about
ring-fencing, and there are difficulties with the suggestion, but I am
prepared to have a look at the points that the hon. Member for
Wimbledon has made. As I said, there are difficulties. I am not sure
whether the proposal fits in with other cases, as we would require
local authorities to spend money on a particular area, which carries
with it certain considerations. However, I am prepared to look further
at whether there would be benefits for passengers. Discussion would be
required with a
number of other Departments, particularly the Treasury, with regard to
directing funds to a particular area. I cannot promise the hon.
Gentleman that it will be possible to introduce an amendment, but I
will certainly give the proposal careful
consideration.
Stephen
Hammond:
After seven and a half sittings, that is probably
as near as I am going to get in persuading the Minister to agree to one
of my amendments. I hope that she will put the point to the Treasury
carefully, stating that it is road user charges that are being
reinvested and that this is not about hypothecation of tax. I am sure
that the Treasury will see the wisdom of the amendment and that, on
Report, the Minister will introduce something similar. Following her
reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Knight:
I shall not detain the Committee long. However, I
would like the Minister to confirm that her understanding of proposed
new subsection (1A)(d) of section 155 of the Transport Act 2000 is the
same as mine and that the power being given to the Secretary of State,
in respect of England, and to Welsh Ministers, in respect of Wales,
relates only to the range of sanctions available, and that it is not a
power to intervene in any specific
case.
Ms
Winterton:
That is
correct.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 59
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
60
Operational
data
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Graham
Stringer:
In my quest to make the Whips’ lives that
much easier, I thought that it would be worthwhile to ask some
questions and make some statements on this clause to save us having a
debate on new clause 10. The purpose of the previous three or four
clauses that we have debate is to increase the enforcement powers of
the traffic commissioners and to help them to deal with bus services
that do not comply with registration requirements. Clause 60 deals with
the prevention of the misuse of records and the need to make them
available for inspection. It seems to me that both aims are quite
worthy; I agree with them and support the
clause.
If,
however, we really want to check rogue and cowboy operators, both large
and small, it would be worth while ensuring that bus companies have
real-time, global positioning system information available, and
requiring them to keep that information on a historical basis. We have
only to talk to drivers, certainly of the larger bus companies in
Greater Manchester, such as Stagecoach and FirstGroup, and they will
explain very quickly that if they are running behind schedule, they
will either miss out stops or take
shortcuts, and that they will not comply with their registration.
However, the records will show that they left on time and arrived on
time. They will not show that they did not travel along the right
route. The only way
for commissioners or any inspection body ever to get that right is for
accurate GPS information to be made available in real time and kept for
historical inspection purposes. That is the purpose of new clause 10,
but it might save time if, in considering clause 60, my right hon.
Friend would recognise that problem and agree that there are more
effective forms of record
keeping.
Ms
Winterton:
As my hon. Friend said, the clause will enable
traffic commissioners to impose sanctions on operators who fail to meet
statutory requirements to provide bus punctuality. It is important that
we ensure that traffic commissioners have access to regular and
accurate information on the punctuality of bus services, enabling them
to pinpoint areas of consistent underperformance. That will enable them
to investigate the underlying
causes.
My
hon. Friend made a good point about GPS systems and ensuring that, as
far as possible, bus operators use them. However, we should seek to
achieve that in other ways. When we talk about quality partnership
schemes and quality contracts, the thrust of the Bill enables local
authorities to have greater discussions with bus operators about the
use of such equipment to ensure that proper records are kept. That is
not something that we want covered under primary legislation, but it is
an extremely important point. There are areas in the country where, for
example, local authorities have invested with bus operators in
installing GPS to enable them to have joint information about
punctuality and important real-time information. When local authorities
want to say that the next bus arrives in 10 minutes and so on, they
often need the support that comes with GPS to be able to do
so.
While I take my
hon. Friend’s point about supporting the idea of giving more
power to traffic commissioners to request information about bus
punctuality, it means that local authorities will be able to work with
bus operators and that, in some cases, reaching agreement about the
fact that they would like buses operating with the GPS if that were
appropriate in their area. However, we can address such issues in other
ways rather than through primary legislation. I have especially in mind
the fact that, as he is aware, technology can move on. I am sure that
we want not want to be restricted to one type of technology under the
Bill when other types might become available in
future.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 60
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
61
Revival
of certain powers of
PTEs
Mr.
Leech:
I beg to move amendment No. 261, in
clause 61, page 54, line 26, at
end insert—
‘(2) After
subsection (1)(vii)
insert—
“(viia)
to require operators of public passenger services (within the meaning
of section 9A) to display within any vehicle or premises used for
providing those
services information appropriate to enable users of those services to
make representations (including complaints) about them to the
Executive. (viib)
as a result of any representations (including complaints) it has
received from users of public passenger services pursuant to subsection
(1)(viia), to make and publish recommendations or representations in
such manner and to such persons as the Executive sees
fit.”’.
The
amendment is fairly self-explanatory. It would require bus operators to
display information in their vehicles and bus stations that detail how
a customer can make a suggestion or a complaint about the services that
they operate to the relevant passenger transport executive. It would
also mean that the PTE could use the suggestions and complaints to
inform any recommendations that it might wish to make about bus
services. For example, it might want to inform the revamped Passenger
Focus or the Secretary of
State.
The
problem is that much of the time people do not know to whom to make a
complaint. Passengers get on buses and inevitably the person to whom
they complain is the bus driver. I—and I am sure that this is
the case for other hon. Members, too—have been told by numerous
constituents who, having followed through their complaint or suggestion
about the service to a bus driver, were told that the operator of the
service knew nothing about it. That is mainly because the bus driver is
too busy and forgets that a complaint or a suggestion was made or that
such matters just never filter back to those who should handle such
matters. The amendment would give people clear information about whom
they can contact or speak to, and to whom they can make a complaint or
suggestion. It is eminently sensible, and I hope that that the
Government will take it on
board.
6.30
pm
Ms
Winterton:
I certainly agree that there should be clear
information available to bus and coach passengers about how and to whom
they can make comments or complaints about the service they are using.
That issue came up time and again in consultation. In response to the
debate on the matter in the other place, the Government amended the
Bill on Report to insert what is now clause 70. That clause will give
powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to require certain
persons to display particular information in appropriate places. That
could go wider than just information about complaints. What we have in
mind is local authorities, bus companies and scheduled coach operators
being required to display on passenger vehicles, at bus stops and bus
stations or in timetable leaflets the contact information for customer
service and passenger representation. Those notices might also be used
to raise awareness of the new bus passenger champion and to ensure that
passengers have appropriate customer service contact
details.
It is more
appropriate to have the powers as laid out in clause 70 than to give
powers to PTEs, which would be the effect of the amendment. First, the
suggested powers would help only passengers who lived and travelled in
PTE areas; they would not help to address issues in other parts of the
country. Secondly, we want to ensure consistency throughout England in
the information available to passengers. That will be more effectively
achieved by the appropriate power being with the Secretary of
State.
In a sense, the amendment would
also address complaints against the operator, but there might be
instances where passengers wish to complain about a local
authority—for example, if it is not enforcing bus lanes
properly. The powers in clause 70 will allow the appropriate
information to be provided to passengers who want to make such
complaints.
I hope that
I have reassured the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington that I take
the issue of information about complaints seriously. We feel that the
amendments that we have made through clause 70 are a more appropriate
way to deal with that. With that reassurance, I ask him to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Leech:
We may return to the issue on Report, but with that
reassurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Graham
Stringer:
I beg to move amendment No. 128, in
clause 61, page 55, line 2, after
‘under’, insert ‘section 10(1)(i)
or’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 129, in
clause 61, page 55, leave out line
8.
No. 130, in
clause 61, page 55, line 10, at
end insert—
‘(7) For
subsection (1)(i) (power of PTE to carry passengers by road)
substitute—
“(i)
in the event that a quality contract is terminated or local services
provided under it cease in whole or in part to be provided, to carry
passengers by road within, to and from that area for the purpose of
maintaining local services provided under the quality contract for so
long as is required to procure another person to provide such services
under the relevant quality contracts
scheme;”’.
Graham
Stringer:
The amendment was introduced and debated in the
House of Lords, so I will not repeat everything that was said there,
although the Government’s arguments for not accepting it were
quite weak.
The
amendment would allow passenger transport executives or integrated
transport authorities to be the operator of last resort if a bus
company decided to move its fleet out if it went bankrupt or for some
other reason could no longer operate services. It may be that no other
bus operators in the area could come in and immediately replace the
existing operator. The Government’s argument against is that the
PTE—the integrated transport authority—would have to
comply with EU regulations, be competent in the PTE operational scheme,
and have managerial competences and
certification.
That is
a lot of words, but when we consider some bus companies, which in
effect are run by a couple of men and their dog—the purpose of
the 1985 Act was to allow small bus companies to compete with large
ones, among others—those words do not seem to carry much
weight.
It is not
expected that operator of last resort will be used on many occasions.
In fact, it will probably be used very infrequently. Not for the first
time in this debate, we can look for similar situations elsewhere.
With rail franchises, we find that Network Rail—previously
Railtrack, I believe—has the power to be the operator of last
resort. In fact, in the south-east, it became the operator of last
resort for a time. In the London system, Transport for London has the
authority to be the operator of last resort, although I think that
London is probably one of the last places where that power would need
to be taken up. It
seems slightly unreasonable not to have something in the Bill that may
be used only occasionally—in an emergency. If it were used, it
could be useful as a benchmarking exercise to see how a locally run,
publicly initiated bus company operated against many of the private
operators.
It is
unlikely that this section of the Bill will be used, but we have the
opportunity to include a measure that may be used occasionally, or
hardly ever, and it seems unreasonable not to take it. At some future
time, somewhere in the country, somebody might regret it if we do not
do
so.
Ian
Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): It is good to see you in the
Chair, Mr. Taylor. Earlier today, I highlighted instances
where I felt there would be the need to allow transport authorities to
be the operator of last resort, and I hope that the Minister heard as
well as listened. I know that she listened, but I hope that she heard
the example that I gave of a quality contracts scheme being awarded and
an operator walking away from an existing contract that it provides. In
such circumstances, residents, passengers and workers would be left in
an insecure
situation.
Over the
past 10 years, I have argued in the House that it would be sensible to
allow passenger transport authorities to be an operator of last resort
for all sorts of different reasons. If the Government were to accept
that there will be unusual circumstances in which no provider is left,
a local transport authority could make provision almost as a stop-gap
until such time as a private operator was found to deliver the
service.
Indeed, I
would like to go further and say that that should be encouraged in a
wider sense, so that transport authorities could provide a service but
on a temporary basis. I hope that the Minister will listen and hear
what hon. Members have
said.
Ms
Winterton:
As my hon. Friends know, the main purpose of
clause 61 is to put PTEs on equal footing with other local transport
authorities. While those other authorities do not have a specific power
to lease buses to operators, they do so by using their general
well-being powers under local government legislation. The PTEs are in a
different position—first, because they have no well-being powers
and, secondly, their explicit power under the Transport Act 1968 to
lease out buses was disapplied by secondary legislation following
deregulation.
The Bill
will give the renamed integrated transport authorities well-being
powers, but those powers will still not allow them to do anything
specifically prohibited under other legislation. The other
disapplication of the appropriate legislation amounts to a prohibition
on them leasing buses. Clause 61 will restore the power to do so, but
only in specified circumstances consistent with their current statutory
functions.
The amendments aim at a partial
restoration of the power of PTEs to operate buses, which, as my hon.
Friends said, was their primary function before the implementation of
the 1985 Act. One problem with that suggestion is that I am not sure
whether the Committee is aware of the commitment needed for a PTE to
play the role of operator of last
resort.
For such powers
to be of any use, it would have to be possible for the PTE to exercise
them at a moment’s notice. Otherwise, it might as well let an
emergency contract, which it can do. The PTE would certainly need a
public service vehicle operator’s licence, the necessary
financial standing and a professionally competent transport manager
available any time the emergency might arise. The requirements of the
licensing system need to be satisfied at all times while the licence is
in force, not just on the rare occasions when an emergency arises. The
PTE would also need vehicles and drivers to operate the services.
Arguably, those of the failed company would be available, but they
would not necessarily fall into the PTE’s
lap.
Similar
problems arise with the operator-of-last-resort powers in rail
franchising legislation, which my hon. Friend the Member for
Manchester, Blackley referred to. There are few undertakings qualified
to step in and run a railway at short notice, so there is no
alternative to those powers. The letting of emergency bus contracts,
however, is quite a commonplace occurrence, particularly with school
bus services, for example. That seldom causes serious
problems.
Mr.
Leech:
Does the Minister accept that without those powers
local authorities could be held to ransom by operators over quality
contracts?
Ms
Winterton:
I will come to that. My point is that, taking
the issue of quality contracts, local authorities already have powers
to enter into emergency subsidy arrangements with an operator. We have
a power in the Bill to disapply the usual tendering requirements in
certain
circumstances.
Mr.
Leech:
In fairness, the Minister has just proved my
point—it is all about subsidised services and operators making a
fortune at the expense of the
PTE.
Ms
Winterton:
I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman has to
balance what he is saying. A PTE could bring in a private operator
under a contract to the local authority more quickly than an authority
could get hold of enough drivers, vehicles and so on to operate a
service of its
own.
We
understand that PTEs would be concerned about the consequences of a
large operator suddenly pulling out or falling on hard times and being
unable to carry out its contractual duties. It is also true that in
those circumstance receivers or administrators would be called in to
continue to run the company’s affairs as best they could until a
buyer was found. In particular, they would want to keep services going,
as they would bring in
revenue.
6.45
pm
Maintaining
contractual obligations would take precedence over discretionary
activities, so services outside quality contracts schemes—if we
want to look
again at the quality contracts system—could be more at risk than
those provided on a purely commercial basis. While I understand the
point being made about being the operator of last resort, the problem
for PTEs would be that requirements would have to be in place the whole
time to fulfil that and we believe that the ability to allow emergency
contracts, which we have powers to do, is available under existing
legislation.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): May I put a
possible scenario to my right hon. Friend? She is indicating that the
clause gives new powers to PTEs to enable them to purchase vehicles
that they can hire out to operators on a contractual basis, which may
fit this particular requirement. Would it be possible for a local
authority under its well-being powers to tender for such a
contract?
Ms
Winterton:
As I understand it, that was disapplied under
the Transport Act 1968. If I mistaken in that, I will write to the
Committee. In terms of emergency powers, we believe that it is possible
for local authorities to have adequate facilities in place to ensure
that if a contractor failed the local authority could put the contract
out very quickly and the usual tendering process would not have to be
undergone. For that reason, we do not believe that it would be
reasonable to expect PTEs to have some of the large operators’
licences that could be possible for 200 or 300 vehicles and be able to
fall back on trying to get them up and running with drivers and people
running them. Frankly, it is more likely that that would be more
effectively achieved by actually going through the emergency tendering
process that we have in place. With that reassurance and clarification,
I hope that my hon. Friends will withdraw their
amendments.
Graham
Stringer:
I shall eventually withdraw the amendment, but
in a way it will be in spite of my right hon. Friend’s arguments
rather than because of them. There was one argument and one point that
I do not think she dealt with, although she went through a number of
scenarios. In a sense, I agree with her because, as both my hon. Friend
the Member for Eccles and I have said, the provision would be used only
in the most exceptional and potentially unforeseeable circumstances.
The Minister has gone through all the alternatives—yes, there
will be alternatives—but she did not say why the emergency
powers are held in London and not the rest of England.
My
second point has run through a lot of our arguments. Let me say clearly
that some very decent people own and run bus companies. There are good
bus companies that run services with integrity and that are good for
passengers, but there are also absolute rascals out there who will use
anything they can to get one over on the public sector and get subsidy.
They threaten and they push. We have mentioned Brian Souter and
Stagecoach. During the so-called bus wars in Manchester, that company
did not behave reasonably but said, “We will close this city
down. We will park buses on all the roads in the city centre if you
don’t do what we want.” That part of the atmosphere in
which towns such as Preston and cities such as Manchester have had to
operate. To deny even relatively small powers such as the amendment
proposes
is to give the rascals a benefit. The powers will not do down or harm
the decent bus
companies. I hear what
my right hon. Friend says. All the other available powers might well be
able to deal with an emergency, but they might not. I have been in a
number of situations in local government where companies have gone
bankrupt or other things have happened, and the lawyers have searched
through the law books to see what they can do. In such situations, it
is important to have as many powers and alternatives as possible to
deal with something damaging to the communities we represent.
We may come back to the
amendment. It is not the most important amendment moved, but the
Government’s case seems particularly weak.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61
ordered to
stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses 62
to 65
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
