Local Transport Bill [HL] Bill

moved Amendment No. 16: 16: Clause 12, page 14, leave out lines 9 to 13 The noble Lord said: This amendment is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I have tabled a number of amendments to the Bill which are designed to ““disability-proof”” it. I hope we shall reach Amendment No. 38 tonight, which is my next amendment, but I think we are unlikely to reach Amendments Nos. 69A, 70 or 82 which are also tabled in my name. I am unfortunately not able to be here on Wednesday as I have to go to Brussels, but the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has kindly agreed to take them over for me and I hope the Committee will allow him to do that. In moving Amendment No. 16, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 16 is a probing amendment. Its effect would be that the proposed new subsection (6B) would not be inserted into the Transport Act 2000 and operators would not be able to veto the requirements falling within proposed new subsection (6A) and subsection (6)(b), which cover maximum fares, frequency and timing, from being included in quality partnership schemes by making admissible objections. It would remove the ability of bus operators to submit admissible objections to the inclusion of such requirements—that is, requirements on frequency, timings and maximum fares in quality partnership schemes. The removal of the obstacles that have prevented the setting up of quality partnership schemes and quality contracts have been welcomed by disabled people’s organisations, which believe that it will encourage bus operators to provide buses and bus services that are more accessible to blind and other disabled people. The Government have indicated that quality partnerships can be used to facilitate the introduction of a key accessibility feature for blind and partially sighted people; namely, visual and audible announcements. The proposal to remove the bar on quality partnership schemes specifying minimum standards relating to frequencies, timings and maximum fares is also welcome. Difficulties with frequencies, timings and the bus timetable can make using the bus difficult for disabled people, particularly blind and partially sighted people. However, Clause 12 provides that quality partnership schemes will be able to include requirements on frequency, timing and maximum fares only if there are no admissible objections from operators. We are concerned that objections may be admissible that would jeopardise the ability of quality partnership schemes to provide for the needs of disabled people. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 16. As I have explained, Amendment No. 16 seeks to remove the words, "““Section 122(3) to (5)””—" of the Transport Act 2000— "““makes further provision with respect to such schemes””." Those subsections are inserted by Clause 17(3) and so, if Amendment No. 16 removes the reference to Section 122(3) to (5), it would seem logical to remove Clause 17(3) which puts those subsections into the Transport Act 2000. Amendment No. 18 is largely consequential on Amendment No. 16. However, in case these provisions are not removed, I shall say a word or two about Section 122(3). Clause 17(3) inserts Section 122(3) to (5) into the Transport Act 2000 and provides for regulations about schemes that specify frequencies, timings or fares. Section 122(3)(e) provides that regulations may make provision as to the meaning of ““admissible objection””. I do not necessarily object to the idea of admissible objections, but they ought to be scrutinised carefully. I am therefore not quite sure about Amendment No. 16A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which would leave the meaning of ““admissible objection”” as a matter for guidance from the Secretary of State and thus almost entirely outside parliamentary scrutiny. I would prefer to see draft regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister will commit to publishing draft regulations for the Committee stage so that we can have a good look at them. Will he make available the equality impact assessment on the Bill? Draft guidance on the meaning of ““admissible objection”” has been published this morning. It states: "““The Government also considers, again subject to consultation, that an objection should be an ‘admissible objection’””—" if it satisfies a number of conditions, the first and third of which are procedural. The first is: "““It is made in writing to the local transport authority proposing to make the QPS, within a specified time period””." The third condition is: "““The traffic commissioner has certified that the evidence submitted by the relevant operator is sufficient to substantiate the objection””." The second qualifying condition, however, is more substantive. It states: "““The grounds of the objection are either that it would not be reasonably practicable for relevant operators to meet the standards of service specified at the time they would come into effect (e.g. because relevant operators would need more time to procure more vehicles, or to take on more staff), or that the likely demand for the services would not be sufficient to enable operators to provide services, to the standard specified, on a commercial basis””." That guidance goes in the right direction but it would be helpful to see the regulations that will provide the basis for the guidance. I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to bringing them forward during the passage of the Bill so that we can scrutinise them. Can the Minister clarify whether this guidance implies that every bus service must be profitable as a whole, rather than requiring each individual bus service to be profitable. Obviously the services mandated by the quality partnership scheme as a whole must be commercially viable, but I presume that it cannot be the Minister’s intention that an operator can object to running any unprofitable services. Operators are able to exercise a veto power by lodging admissible objections, so these must be carefully limited. Disabled people may depend on services that, taken on their own, are not profitable and it would be very helpful to have the Minister’s assurance that it will not be a requirement that each individual bus route or service should be profitable. Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 make less drastic changes to Clause 17(3) than Amendment No. 18, which would strike it out altogether. I do not need to say any more about those amendments; they merely restrict the regulation-making power in different ways. I am happy to leave it to the noble Lords who have tabled them to explain their effect. I beg to move.