APPENDIX 7: LOCAL TRANSPORT BILL [HL]:
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Letter to the Chairman from the Rt Hon. Rosie
Winterton MP, Minister of State, Department for Transport
1. I am writing to set out the Government's response
to the issues raised and points made with regard to the Local
Transport Bill in the First Report (Session 2007-08) of the Delegated
Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee ("the Report").
I am grateful for the Committee's efforts in scrutinising this
Bill.
2. For the most part, the Report takes the view
that the degree of Parliamentary scrutiny proposed for each delegated
power is not inappropriate; this response therefore focuses on
the small number of provisions where the Report highlighted specific
points in boldface text for further consideration.
3. I should also take this opportunity to alert
you to a proposed Government amendment, which is being tabled
in good time for Committee stage. The effect of this amendment
would be to extend an existing delegated power contained in section
126(1) of the Transport Act 1985. I enclose a brief supplementary
memorandum which explains the background and the justification
for the proposed approach.
Responses to points raised in the Report
Paragraphs 27-28: Henry VIII powers to amend future
Acts
4. The Report noted that the Bill would confer
a number of Henry VIII powers to make incidental, supplemental,
consequential or saving provision, which would extend to the amendment
of any enactment whenever passed or made. The Report suggests
that "the House may wish to invite the Minister to make the
case to the House for each for these delegations to amend future
Acts". I am pleased to take the opportunity to set out that
case here.
5. In essence, the point made in paragraph 28
of the Report is applicable to each of the four provisions identified:
that is to say, the powers could be exercised some time into the
future, and so it may be necessary for secondary legislation to
amend Acts that have been passed in the intervening period. Taking
the provisions in turn:
- Clause 1(2) relates to an existing
delegated power for the Secretary of State, by order, to vary
the number or geographical limits of traffic areas. This power
could be exercised at any point in the future, in response to
changing needs and circumstances, and could involve significant
reform. For example, changes in the economic structures of the
industries which are regulated on a "traffic area" basis
could strengthen the case for reducing the number of traffic areas,
perhaps even to create just one traffic area for England. It may
also become more efficient or cost effective in administrative
terms to do so. If such a need were to arise in several years'
time, it might be necessary to make consequential amendments to
one or more Acts passed after the Local Transport Bill.
- Clause 6(3) relates to the provisions in sections
2 to 5 of the Local Transport Bill, which would (among other things)
lift the existing restriction under which a single traffic commissioner
is appointed to, and only has jurisdiction in, a particular traffic
area. Although the Government's intention is that these provisions
should be brought into force as soon as practicable after Royal
Assent, a significant amount of preparatory work will be needed
to ensure a smooth transition to the proposed new arrangements.
In the event that any enactments passed in the intervening period
included provision referring to, say, "the traffic commissioner
for a traffic area", an order made under clause 6(3) would
need to amend that provision. The functions of traffic commissioner
are wide and varied, and may be located in a number of different
existing and potential future enactments.
- Clauses 64 and 65 make provision relating to
the establishment of a new Public Transport Users' Committee,
or to the conferral of non-rail functions on the Rail Passengers'
Council (established under the Railways Act 2005). The purpose
is to enable a statutory body to be created which would exercise
functions relating to the promotion of the interests of bus passengers.
Again, the case for a delegated power to amend future enactments
rests upon the potential lag between enactment of the Local Transport
Bill and the making of any order under clause 64 or 65.
6. The Government has made clear that it intends
to consult fully with interested parties before determining how
best to proceed in this area. As with clause 6(3) above, it will
be important to ensure a smooth transition to any new arrangements.
It is possible that, as part of such a transition, a "shadow
body" could be established administratively and could operate
for a period as part of any transitional arrangements. The powers
that would be delegated under clauses 64 and 65 would incorporate
the necessary flexibility to allow for consequential amendments
to be made to any Acts passed during any such transitional period.
- Clause 80(4) relates to orders
making provision about Integrated Transport Authorities. The intention
is that local authorities should be able to review their local
transport governance arrangements at any point in the future.
It is therefore quite possible that an order could be made following
a review conducted in, say, five or ten years' time. Any such
order may need to amend enactments passed during that intervening
period, in order to give full effect to an area's proposals for
reform.
Paragraph 32: Additional sanctions for failures
by bus operators
7. The Report notes that clause 55 would confer
a power upon the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers to
provide, by order, that additional sanctions may be imposed by
traffic commissioners in respect of certain failures by bus operators.
In view of the breadth of this power, the Committee took the view
that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate.
8. The Government accepts this recommendation,
and intends to bring forward a suitable amendment in time for
Report stage in the House of Lords.
Paragraph 35: Order-making arrangements about
Integrated Transport Authorities
9. The Report also raised the issue of the
number of orders which Parliament might be asked to consider under
clauses 72 to 80 of the Bill. The exact number of orders to be
made would, of course, depend upon how many areas decided
to undertake reviews under clauses 68 and 70 of the
Bill, or were directed to do so by the Secretary of State. However,
we would not expect this to be a large number. Also, wherever
possible, we would prefer there to be just a single order made
in respect of each existing or proposed integrated transport area.
Although we cannot be sure at this stage, a reasonable estimate
might be that we would expect to make fewer than ten orders over
a period of around 18 to 24 months after the Bill was enacted.
This would not preclude areas carrying out further reviews, which
might lead to further orders, several years later. The timing
and scale of any orders further into the future is harder to predict,
but again we do not anticipate that this would be a very large
number.
10. Given that the Bill gives areas flexibility
to determine the scale and timing of the review which they undertake,
we would not expect that all existing or potential integrated
transport areas would be working to the same timetable. Given
that, we do not believe that it would be realistic to
make a single order introducing changes to all of these areas
simultaneously. However, depending upon the timing of reviews,
it might be possible for orders to be made in batches covering
more than one area at a time. We would be happy to explore this
possibility, particularly if there were concerns about placing
an excessive call on Parliamentary time.
11. As these orders would potentially
be making significant changes to the powers and functions
of statutory bodies, we remain of the opinion that it
the affirmative procedure would not be inappropriate.
November 2007
|
