| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Under the legislation, there is no obligation to make arrangements under Section 240(1). They are voluntary. While at the moment the reserve travel scheme guarantees the national concession, if it were disapplied as envisaged, there would be no such guarantee. If no arrangements existed at the end of a
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC31
Even if there were existing arrangements to roll over, this will still not guarantee free travel. The agreement specifying these arrangements is voluntary. There is nothing in the legislation which would prevent a party to the arrangements from terminating its agreement if it wanted to for whatever reason. It is also possible that the parties can vary the terms of the arrangements by agreement. They could, for example, agree only to offer half-price travel rather than free travel.
In summary, complex though the issue is, it comes down to a straightforward question of whether the amendments proposed by the noble Lord would be workable and in the interests of Londoners. I do not think that it would be right for us to rely on a voluntary agreement that could disappear at any time, and which includes terms that were not consistent with the national concession, which is the underlying principle of the Bill.
I recognise where the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is coming from. I see the force of his representation, but I fear that his amendments might have the most deleterious consequences for free travel in London just when we are seeking, under the Bill, to guarantee free travel across the nation. Therefore, I think that the Committee will recognise that I must oppose his amendments.
Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I think that that brief might be slightly out of date. Whereas it was the case that in London one or more boroughs could disagree and sabotage the scheme, there is now a system in place whereby there needs to be only a two-thirds majority of boroughs to agree the scheme. Usually that agreement is forthcoming. In the past, odd maverick boroughs objected. That system has now been supplanted in subsequent legislation. The legislation now is such that I believe—I stand to be corrected—that only two-thirds of the boroughs have to agree for a new arrangement to take place. Therefore, the reserve scheme is not necessary.
However, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. If indeed he is right, we will withdraw the amendment. If, indeed, I am right, then we would seek to return to the matter later.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I just want to point out the obvious fact. The noble Lord is absolutely right that only a two-thirds majority is required. But I am absolutely right to say that if agreement was reached by those two-thirds, we would be in exactly the position I described. Whether it is unanimous, one holding a veto or two-thirds, if, as a consequence of the amendments, we end up with no concession scheme in London, I think that I am right to resist them.
Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC32
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [The London free travel scheme]:
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Requirements as to scope]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 to 32 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Requirements as to uniformity]:
Clause 8 [Variation of scope of the national concession]:
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 34A not moved.]
Clause 9 [Variation of reimbursement and other administrative arrangements]:
Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 35:
The noble Lord said: Clause 9 will, among other things, allow the Secretary of State actively to centralise the operation of the scheme, including reimbursement and/or other administrative functions of English travel concession authorities under Sections 145 to 150 of the Transport Act 2000. I have tabled the amendment as I am keen to probe the reason why the Government feel the need to keep such a power, albeit in reserve, in the Bill. I would also be grateful if the Minister could explain in what circumstances the Secretary of State would consider using such a power to take over the running of a national concessionary scheme. This will be a national scheme, but the Government’s White Paper and all three national parties have said that we need to do things more locally rather than centrally. To nationalise this sort of thing at the moment would go totally against the grain of our attempts to make things happen more locally. We have talked about the problems of finance and I am sure that those might be resolved, so I see no need at all for the Secretary of State to take these powers, which are totally contrary to all the things that all three parties across both Houses of Parliament are trying to do at the moment. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why we need this reserve power. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I understand that this amendment and Amendment No. 36 have been grouped together. I advise the Committee that I cannot call Amendment No. 37 if Amendment No. 36 is agreed to, but we shall come to that in due course. Amendment No. 35 has now been spoken to.
Lord Bradshaw: I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. The complications of administering the scheme are such that it may be necessary to centralise the powers. I do not say that it will be necessary, but it has proved to be so in Scotland and Wales. The local authority’s
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC33
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, does not have to wait for the Minister to say something because he has expressed the argument more cogently than I could have done. I agree with him entirely.
I recognise the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that any powers accruing to a Secretary of State are to be investigated, examined and challenged in order to see whether they are in the national interest. We have no intention of implementing a national scheme on the basis of the Secretary of State taking responsibility for it but we are conscious of the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, eloquently described, that these are complex operations. There are 291 authorities outside London and potentially each one could have to negotiate schemes with all operators in its area.
There is no doubt that the new national scheme will put a greater burden on administering authorities and involve more complex reimbursement arrangements. We are aware that many operators are reluctant to undertake so many negotiations; that they would prefer a single negotiation with government. Full centralisation would provide greater consistency in the level of reimbursement made to operators, which is why they are interested in it. But we have not accepted the argument that we need to implement the scheme on a centralised basis and do not intend to work that way if and when the Bill becomes law. We think it is right to preserve the power because to remove it would remove flexibility from the Bill against a background where we are not, and cannot be, entirely sure that the national scheme can be implemented on the basis of such a large number of potential negotiations being carried out.
Local government and bus operators have been working together for a number of years now, with a great deal of success in many areas, and there may well prove to be a satisfactory implementation of the scheme. No one will be happier than this Administration if that proves to be the case. We do not intend to implement the power unless we are forced to do so but, for ourselves and any future Administration, we cannot see the scheme fail through a breakdown of negotiations. We think it is right to have in the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to act if this important concept proves to be unrealisable through the other methods I have described. That is why I have spoken at great length, but with somewhat less conviction than the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on why the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, should withdraw his amendment.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC34
Baroness Hanham: As we are in Committee, perhaps I may ask a question. I hope the Minister will forgive me if the answer is buried in the Bill. I am not sure about the negotiations over these concessionary schemes. I can see that each local authority can deal with its own local bus services but innumerable bus services criss-cross the country. These are national services which are nationally organised and nationally run. Is it the intention that each of the concessionary authorities will deal with these national companies—for example, National Express—on its own, or will there be some kind of central negotiation which will enable them all to come to the same arrangements in national travel schemes?
Lord Davies of Oldham: As I have indicated, the department does not see the Secretary of State playing that role. The way in which the structure evolves is for others to determine. I have not the slightest doubt that local authorities will see that it is in their interest, when they are dealing with a body like National Express, for some negotiations to take place on a broader basis than just each individual authority. In the first instance we are looking for the arrangements to be derived on that basis rather than a national scheme implemented by the Secretary of State. While I cannot quite call it a reserve power in the Bill, the Committee will recognise that we have here the potential for the Secretary of State to take responsibility for the scheme if we are not successful with our other arrangements. National Express is not a particularly good example because it largely runs coach rather than bus services, but I recognise what the noble Baroness says. Bus companies can be very big operators and a lot of complex negotiations will take place.
We start off on the premise that local authorities have developed their discretionary schemes over a period of time. They have a great deal of expertise at their disposal and they know the contours within which they are working. They will know the framework for reimbursement and the Bill provides for that. We will see how it goes. We merely think it wise to have a power for the Secretary of State within the framework of the Bill in case such arrangements do not work out.
Baroness Hanham: I am not questioning the power particularly, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. It was just something that jumped up into my mind as we were going along, as the scheme is clearly being extended from local authorities out to those seeking to travel further afield. As I understand it, the noble Lord’s expectation is that local authorities will come together where necessary to negotiate outside and beyond their current boundaries. This is something we may need to bottom out.
Lord Hanningfield: I do not want to disagree at all with my noble friend, but taking the example of Essex, 90 per cent of all journeys will still be made within the county, whether to the shops or to hospital. It would be lovely for people to take advantage of the scheme and go to Aberdeen or wherever, and hopefully many will do so, but most of these journeys—millions of
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC35
I do not know where the figure of 291 comes in, but it seems to be a lot. At Second Reading we looked at reducing the numbers in the counties, for example, by using the county as the transport agency rather than all the districts as well. There could be a way of simplifying that number. I spend my life doing this all the time. Local government can deliver this scheme rather better than setting up some national administration to do it, but I agree that we need reserve powers. Will the Minister slightly expand on the figure of 291 because it sounds like a lot of authorities? I am not certain how that works out. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, talked about the problems of money going to districts and counties having to get it back again. That mechanism probably needs to be simplified. Sorry to expand this topic, but as we are in Committee it is good idea to try and get some of these answers for further debate later on.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Two hundred and ninety-one is the number of travel concession authorities outside London. They will not all be negotiating units.
The Government take pride in local authorities and we recognise the value of their work in this aspect of transport policy. However, a national scheme introduces a much more challenging dimension than that which has obtained in the past, but as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has said, local authorities make sure that in all sorts of ways they come together and authorise someone to do the work on their behalf when it comes to negotiations with big providers.
We know also that the moment the scheme comes in, someone will travel from Brighton to Berwick for free by using their bus concession. They will get into the Guinness book of records as the first person to do it. Someone else will then do it faster and earn their own place in the record book. But a bus is not a coach, which does not stop as frequently as a bus, and in essence this is a scheme for local services. So of course it is right for us to say that local services ought to be negotiated by the local authority concerned. All we are doing with regard to this provision in the Bill is not abrogating that position; far from it—that is not the basis on which we are doing this. However, it is a power we require in case things go wrong. There would be no point in introducing the Bill if it were not for the fact that the scheme itself is universally considered an asset to the nation.
Lord Hanningfield: We have had an interesting debate on a point that we should try to discuss further, but with that response I shall not pursue my amendment today.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC36
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 37:
Clause 9, page 7, line 13, at end insert “, by allowing such appeals to be submitted at any time rather than 28 days after the commencement of a scheme as provided for by the 2000 Act”
The noble Lord said: This is the last amendment and I rise to move it in the fond hope that having given us no concessions at all this afternoon, the Minister may feel that I have hit upon something here which is an anomaly. At the moment, appeals have to be submitted within 28 days of the commencement of a scheme. That is a perilously short time during which neither the local authority nor the operator will have any idea of whether the scheme is a good or a bad one. The present rules on this state that unless an appeal is lodged within the first 28 days, it cannot be made. Earlier I gave figures for the use of bus services in Oxfordshire and I know very well that appeals were made. In the event, those appeals were withdrawn because the volume of business was much greater than had been anticipated either by the local authority or by the operator. But that will not always be the case. Other operators which have been badly affected have in fact been ruled out by the 28-day time limit. It is a very short period in which to judge the development of a bus business, one that depends on seasonal fluctuations and many other things.
The amendment provides that appeals can be “submitted at any time”. The Minister may decide that an appeal should be submitted with a certain period and I would accept that, but my main submission is that 28 days is far too short a time in which to make a sound judgment as to the efficacy of a scheme and the price at which it has been purchased. I ask the Minister at least to say that this is something that, in the light of our brief experience we have had of the operation of the scheme, he is prepared to look at again. I beg to move.
6 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, because he has identified an important issue. It is right that bus operators have the capacity to appeal the amount they are being reimbursed if they think it is unfair. There have been a number of appeals to the Secretary of State by bus operators against the level of reimbursement provided by local authorities for carrying concessionaires during this financial year, and a number have already been determined. The process has worked reasonably well, and it is fair, but I have no doubt that we could improve upon it, and I shall listen to those who present a case for changes to the appeal process.
I cannot support the principle of appeals being submitted at any time—although the noble Lord may have kept the amendment open and wide in order for it to be probing. It is important that appeals are a last resort. We want the negotiations to succeed, and appeals to take place only when negotiations have effectively broken down. Allowing appeals at any time could risk undermining local negotiations, and the noble Lord will recognise the problems there. Any appeal creates some uncertainty for the local authority. Under the current arrangements, they know the magnitude of
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC37
I do not think that the noble Lord’s concept of open-ended appeals in Amendment No. 37 is acceptable, but I hear what he says: that he is just testing the Government at this stage. We are open-minded about this question. We have not been working the system for long, and there is no doubt that improvements can be effected. However, we would certainly continuously resist the concept of the open-ended appeal, which has profound implications for local authorities. No doubt the noble Lord will pursue this issue further.
8 Jan 2007 : Column GC38
Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Reciprocal arrangements for providing travel concessions]:
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 51 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 61 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Repeals and revocations]:
Bill reported without amendment.
- The Committee adjourned at 6.04 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |