Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 22: 22: Clause 17, page 17, line 10, leave out ““not”” The noble Lord said: A quality partnership approach would function in the intended way only if it is fair and reasonable to both bus operators and authorities. I am not certain that the clause in question gives a reasonable balance of power to both parties. I am afraid that this may lead to undermining the quality partnership approach. Clarity and transparency are needed to ensure that there is no ambiguity in this section. The Bill states that, "““the revision of requirements as to frequencies, timings or maximum fares … is not be to regarded as a variation of the scheme for the purposes of section 120””." While I can see that this has a legitimate application, I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the present drafting would allow an authority to change requirements pertaining to frequency, timings or maximum fares without an operator’s consent. We talked about admissible objections from relevant operators and what they may constitute. While I agree that the point needs clarification, I do not think that it is fair that an operator might have an unreasonably modified requirement imposed without any grounds for discussion or disagreement. For instance, if the maximum fare proposed by an authority is not agreed in the first instance, what is to prevent an authority from modifying the fare at a late stage unchallenged? I contend that at present the drafting is not sufficiently attractive to operators, bringing into question how many quality partnerships would be opposed at the earliest stage. The operator should have a mechanism for objecting if a material change is made after the scheme has commenced. Indeed, it is unclear what would happen to a quality partnership application after an admissible objection has been filed. Can the Minister please clarify that? The amendment seeks for all revisions to be regarded as a variation of a scheme under Section 120. I beg to move.