| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
While I cannot promise to bring something back at a later stage of the legislation, I can say that we are close to an announcement, prior to which perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Low, could agree to hold further discussions with my right honourable friend Rosie Winterton. We are all committed to delivering more accessible taxis and making it easier for disabled passengers to use public transport. That is a common and shared objective. The implementation of that is very important, and I know from my discussions with Rosie Winterton that there has to be a further period of consultation—not a long period, but certainly to meet the usual three-month obligation. We have to ensure that we can achieve what is set out, and we want to carry out some further work.
We are reviewing the uncommenced sections, and an announcement is to be made shortly. We want to evaluate all the options. Certainly we need to have some discussions, not just with the National Association of Enforcement Officers—which, I am glad to say, shares our enthusiasm, and I welcome that—but also with the Local Government Association and others who have an interest in this matter. We want to reflect carefully on DPTAC, because it has important comments to make on these issues too.
16 Jan 2008 : Column 1347
Having said that, and I make these comments in a positive light and with the intention of ensuring that we get matters right, I hope noble Lords will not press the amendment, which is defective in some respects, but will enable us to continue our beneficial discussions so that we can progress and ensure that the objective we all seek can be achieved.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, what does the Minister think might be achieved between now and Third Reading, which is in about two weeks’ time?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a matter of diaries. It is my hope that we can have some useful discussions with the moving spirits behind the amendment so we can make some progress in that regard. I asked whether it would be possible to give a date for an announcement, but the answer has come back that that would be unwise; we do not want to commit ourselves to something that we do not then deliver. However, the term “very shortly”, to my way of thinking, means exactly that. I do not want this thing to drag on any longer because that would not be in anyone’s best interests.
Lord Low of Dalston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full and considerate reply. I do not doubt for a moment his good will and sincerity, and I take his reply as positive. I detect in it a determination on the part of the Minister and the Government to find a resolution to this matter, as he said, “very shortly”. At the same time, I need to make it clear that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, was very anxious to get a resolution today and to test the opinion of the House. She thought, as do I, that “very shortly”—and there are obviously varying opinions about how long that is—must mean some time before August, which is the date specified in the amendment. As I said in moving the amendment, if Section 37 can be brought in, we find it difficult to see why Section 36 cannot.
6.45 pm
I have listened to the Minister’s careful exposition. He has indicated that there are certain difficulties in the way of implementing the provision in this way and further work is necessary to get it right, and he has offered to meet us to discuss it. In those circumstances, it would be churlish not to respond positively to those indications and offers and to press the amendment. On the basis that we are happy to meet the Minister and his colleague Rosie Winterton to discuss the matter further, with a view to getting a positive resolution to this matter quickly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Powers of traffic commissioners where services not operated as registered]:
Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 65:
“( ) must, if the implementation of any of the measures in the report would affect the operation of bus services in an integrated transport area, send a copy of the report to the Integrated Transport Authority for that area;”16 Jan 2008 : Column 1348
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 66. The two amendments pick up an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rosser in Committee. They concern the punctuality reports that traffic commissioners may prepare under the new Section 27A of the Transport Act 1985 that would be inserted by Clause 55 of the Bill.
I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing our attention to the point. In the clause as drafted, traffic commissioners are required to send copies of a punctuality report recommending remedial measures to the operator and, where recommendations about such measures are for implementation by a local traffic authority, to that authority. However, there is no statutory requirement to send copies to the integrated transport authority, which may also have a strong interest in the remedial measures; for example, because the implementation of those measures might affect the operation of buses in their area. In the metropolitan areas, the integrated transport authority, rather than the local traffic authority, is responsible for developing and implementing local transport policies, and that authority would have an interest in ensuring that such recommendations were implemented effectively.
The amendments will remedy the situation and create parity between the two tiers of authority in metropolitan areas. Outside the metropolitan areas, the issue does not arise because the same local authority is responsible for both transport and traffic.
The first amendment will affect subsection (6) of the inserted section. It would make it obligatory for the traffic commissioner to send a copy of a report to an integrated transport authority where any remedial measures proposed would affect the operation of services in their area.
The second amendment will affect subsection (7) of the inserted section and will add Integrated Transport Authorities to the list of further persons to whom the traffic commissioner may send a copy of the report but is not obliged to. This would cover cases falling outside the scope of the first amendment; for example, because the report did not propose any remedial measures, or none within the authority’s own area, but could still be relevant to its transport planning role. There is a similar mention in subsection (7) of local traffic authorities, so once again the amendment would put both types of authority on the same footing. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we must not assume that making a report to the Integrated Transport Authorities is simply a way of chastising bus users. If the problems are about congestion, the matter is referred to that authority so that it can take some action. It is an area where some authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has said, have been very dilatory in the past, while they concentrated on such issues as he described, rather than putting their own house in order.
Lord Rosser: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward this amendment in response to the amendment I moved in Committee, and on which my noble friend said that she would reflect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
16 Jan 2008 : Column 1349
Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 66:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Revival of certain powers of PTEs]:
Lord Rosser moved Amendment No. 67:
Clause 58, page 51, line 7, after “subsidies,” insert “or where the vehicles concerned are let to a person who operates a vehicle or vehicles under a permit granted under section 19 of the Transport Act 1985,”
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill proposes reinstating the PTE power to own vehicles and provide them to operators. The purpose of this amendment is to enhance that power to formally allow PTEs to provide vehicles to community transport operators. Unless I am very much mistaken, in Committee the Government did not specifically engage with what was intended as the main point of this amendment, which was to allow PTEs to provide vehicles not only for commercial operators, but for community transport schemes. Obviously, there are financial issues involved in such schemes and for those who run and organise them. This amendment would regulate the status of such support by the local transport authority. It would also be in line with one of the wider aims of the legislation, which is to support and promote the community transport sector.
This group of amendments includes Amendment No. 70. If that amendment had been agreed in Committee, which it was not, it would give the PTE, as the operator of last resort, powers if a quality contract was terminated or services under that contract ceased. In Committee, the Government agreed to look at the operator of last resort powers again. The Minister has since indicated that the Government have decided not to move from the Bill as it stands on this particular issue. As far as the reasons that have been given are concerned, reference has been made to the position of an operator who, in effect, goes out of business, and to the powers of either an administrator or a receiver, among others, to address the situation that might arise. Within London, for example, these powers exist. Once again, there appears to be a discrepancy between what the Government view as appropriate in London, and what they view as appropriate outside.
It is not only a question of companies that might become insolvent. There are, presumably, issues of franchise default or termination—although they will be very few and far between, and nobody would suggest otherwise—where the operator of last resort powers might, in some circumstances, be needed. I know that there is an argument about whether transport authorities are in a position to own their own fleet of vehicles, depots, and so on, but presumably they might be able to rent or lease vehicles. They might be in a situation where there has been a default or termination over a number of services in an area, rather than a situation where the local transport authority wishes to step in and provide vehicles for all services. There might be a need on certain routes. It might be part of a package of measures, involving other operators, put
16 Jan 2008 : Column 1350
I have read the Government’s views on this in light of the representations we made in Committee, and have made some further points, which I hope my noble friend will be prepared to reflect further on. I beg to move.
Lord Snape: My Lords, listening to my noble friend I am struck by the fact that he has told us continuously, on behalf of the Passenger Transport Executive Group, that quality contracts were the way forward. Somehow, bus services the length and breadth of the country would be transformed, if only quality contracts could be implemented. The great failing of the 2000 Act was not to implement quality contracts. Now, of course, comes a safety net: this wonderful system that PTEG would inflict upon operators nationally has to be provided with a fail-safe mechanism. I understand why.
If we are to have franchising of bus services, it is obviously conceivable that the lowest bidder will be awarded the franchise. Again, experience leads me to believe that, all too often, the lowest bidder is not the best long-term choice. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has to erect this safety net on behalf of PTEG, but surely there is a better way of doing it. If the quality contract goes ahead and the chosen operator fails, there is nothing—under the legislation as I understand it—to stop another operator being installed on a pro tem basis until the contract can be re-let. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong. I wonder whether, when the noble Lord winds up the debate on this amendment, he will tell us, or give us an estimate of, how much money will be needed to acquire a bus fleet and rent premises. This is no cheap matter, but it was somewhat glibly skated over. Buses can be leased but, again, this is not necessarily cheap, unless one wishes to lease those glorified bread vans that disfigured our roads for some years after the 1986 Act, but which have thankfully now been swept away. I wonder if PTEG has thought about the financial implications of becoming the operator of last resort.
I put one more point to the noble Lord, which he could, perhaps, reflect on in winding up, provided he has been adequately briefed. Could there be a temptation to choose the weakest operator, in the knowledge that there may be an opportunity to become the operator of last resort and, indeed, move into the bus business? This is a not inconsiderable temptation, as I know from some of my conversations with the Passenger Transport Executive. I do not mind it wanting to become the operator of last resort, although I do not think that it does that very well. Again, talking about the bus industry of the past, I cannot remember this wonderful system that local authorities ran so well. As a regular user of buses in my youth, if I wanted to get home after 11 pm, it had to be either by taxi or Shanks’s pony, because the local authority was never keen to provide a late-night bus service.
We have moved on from those days. If we are to have local authorities running bus services, albeit as the operator of last resort, it is incumbent on the
16 Jan 2008 : Column 1351
I do not suggest for a moment that local authorities would come under that category. However, before anyone on their behalf puts forward such an amendment, they should tell your Lordships how much money is involved and why the obvious alternative, that of installing another operator until the quality contract can be re-let, cannot be considered. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will resist this amendment as ably as he did in Committee.
7 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have not had a full discussion on these points, and I did promise in Committee to look at them again. There are two separate issues: the leasing of vehicles to community transport groups and whether the PTE should have the power to operate the vehicles as a “last resort”. I shall deal with these in reverse order. I apologise for not dealing as properly as I should have with the first of the two issues, which is why I shall spend a little more time on it towards the end.
We said that we would reflect on the issue of operating powers for PTEs, even in the narrow terms set out in Amendment No.70. Indeed, the more we think about it, the less convinced we tended to be. In Committee, noble Lords referred to the comparable case of rail franchises, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley mentioned that the Strategic Rail Authority had kept a team of qualified people at the ready in case it was necessary to step in to prevent a service being disrupted by the failure of a contractor. No doubt that piece of information was provided to support the need for such a measure, but in fact it also brought home to us just what an enormous commitment it would be for a PTE to profess to be the “operator of last resort” and to have the necessary legal powers.
For the powers to be of any use it would have to be possible for the PTE to exercise them at a moment’s notice, otherwise they might as well let an emergency contract. My noble friend Lord Snape has made quite a lot of that argument. I agree with him: it would be very difficult to acquire that level of expertise in that sort of timeframe. The practicalities of it are that they would need a public service vehicle operator’s licence, the necessary financial standing and a professionally competent transport manager available at any time the emergency might arise. They would also need the vehicles and drivers. Arguably those of the failed company would be available, but they would not necessarily fall into the PTE’s lap.
What is more likely to happen, particularly if we are talking about a company of any size, is that receivers or administrators would be called in and would continue to run the company’s affairs as best they could until a buyer was found. In particular, they
16 Jan 2008 : Column 1352
That might not happen in the case of small operators, particularly sole traders, but they would generally be managing small contracts, and I think that one could fairly argue that it should be easier to replace them on the open market. I am told that where, for example, a contractor defaults on a schools contract, there is little difficulty in finding another operator to step in, even at very short notice. Local transport authorities with a quality contracts scheme have powers to let emergency contracts under Section 131 of the Transport Act 2000 until a new permanent contractor is found.
The PTEs, I understand, are more worried about what would happen if a big contractor should fail and, for any reason, the administrators were unable to keep the company trading, or chose not to do so. In that case it is hard to see how a PTE could step in more effectively than another operator, or several other operators, each taking a slice. The PTE would need a very large operator’s licence, say for as many as 200 or 300 vehicles, and a means of getting hold of those vehicles and the people to drive them. One assumes that they would not have them on permanent standby. I find it surprising that this argument has been put forward as robustly as it has. I do not think it is a practical proposition; I am not sure that PTEs would welcome these powers in the long run; and I think it would be onerous to require them to set up a permanent shadow organisation which had little to do for most of the time.
Finally, I doubt whether it would provide what we could reasonably envisage as good value for money.
I have rather more sympathy for the other proposition contained in the group of amendments. This is a separate issue. Again I reiterate my apology to my noble friend that in Committee we were so exercised about the “operator of last resort” issue that we rather overlooked this one. I am sorry about that because it is clear that there may be some merit in this amendment which was not fully exposed in that debate.
I fully understand that one practical way in which a PTE could help the community transport sector, particularly dial-a-ride services for older or disabled people, is by purchasing suitable vehicles and leasing them, perhaps for a nominal fee. This may be a more cost-effective way of supporting these services than other forms of grant aid—and it appears that, unlike local authorities, they may be prevented from doing so because of the effect of the disapplication of the leasing power in Section 10 of the Transport Act 1968.
I am not certain whether the amendment would entirely achieve what my noble friend is arguing for. It would seem to extend only to services aimed at elderly or disabled people. That is because it would be caught by the words “public passenger transport services” which appear at the end of the paragraph in Clause 58. Services provided under Section 19
16 Jan 2008 : Column 1353
I am not sure whether my noble friend intended the leasing power to be restricted in that way. I suspect that he did not. I also suspect that the PTEs may want the power to extend more widely, even if their main concern is to support services for older or disabled people.
My commitment today is simply this: we can see merit in the amendments. We are happy to take away this issue and see whether we can move in the direction indicated in my noble friend’s amendment and better perfect it to fit the purpose which I think he probably intended for it. I hope on those terms that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw this amendment and to not pursue the others in the group.
Lord Rosser: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response, in particular to Amendment No. 67. We await what emerges further on that.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |