Local Transport Bill [HL] Bill

moved Amendment No. 12: 12: Clause 12, page 13, line 22, at end insert— ““( ) Restrictions can include the specification of a minimum period of operation for new services.”” The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. The quality partnership approach has much potential in producing positive outcomes for passengers. As I and other noble Lords mentioned at Second Reading, the public interest should be paramount when considering bus services. The introduction of fares, frequencies and timings is therefore to be broadly welcomed. However, for a partnership to function properly, there is a need for the arrangement to be fair for both the authority and the operator. I hope to raise some points to develop this argument. We read with interest Clause 12(4) on the proposed new registration restrictions. I should not like to see the use of quality partnerships unjustly restrict access to the market. The introduction of a quality partnership along a route does indeed raise some points when proposed new services alongside the partnership are considered. Under the clause, the Bill will allow local authorities to specify restrictions on the registration of any local services where they consider it necessary or expedient in cases where such services would be detrimental to the scheme. The proposals under the clause have potential but I have some concerns. It must be remembered that a low-quality operator by definition would not be able to use the facilities and services provided by the local authority under some of the arrangements. Certainly in regard to the provision of bus shelters, the existence of a quality partnership would preclude the operator from using the corridor anyway as the bus would not be able to pick up passengers from the shelters unless operating in a ““hail and ride”” manner. There may be legitimate reasons for certain services running close to each other rather than at an even headway—for example, buses with vastly different routes may converge coincidentally on a quality partnership corridor at a similar time. In this case, timings at other points in the network or scheduling efficiencies may be the main concern—for instance, meeting a rail service. Does the Minister agree that these factors should be borne in mind when devising registration restrictions? On the local transport authority side, Amendment No. 12 would allow local authorities to specify minimum periods of operation on services within a quality partnership area. If the minimum term was, say, a year, that would discourage a bogus operator from deliberately disrupting the market and undermining the quality partnership approach. Frequent changes to the arrangements of bus services all factor into the public perception of unreliability. For similar reasons, Amendment No. 14 seeks to place restrictions on the number of times an operator can change its service per year and to increase the notification period required for each change. At present, 56 days’ notice is required in England before changing a service; in Scotland, it is 70 days. My amendment proposes that under a quality partnership scheme this would increase to 90 days to discourage services being changed too frequently. As I have mentioned, alongside punctuality, one of the main determinants of the public’s perception of reliability is how consistent a service remains over time. Overly frequent changes can serve to undermine the benefits that a collaborative approach would bring. The amendment has been included in the quality partnership section as it could have real potential in encouraging local transport authorities to take up a quality partnership arrangement. This would prove an additional benefit in setting up a scheme and would further differentiate the quality partnership approach from the voluntary scheme. I beg to move.