Local Transport Bill [HL]

Of course, if there is disagreement with the decision and if there are reasonable grounds it will be open to do that. We have put tribunals in place in many areas of public law to try to ease out the need to have recourse to a higher court. That is welcome, because it makes the process easier and more accessible and produces a decision at a lower cost. Ultimately, in the circumstances that we jointly understand, a judicial review would be a practical proposition. If we are seeking to resolve issues in the best interests of the public, we do not want to end up going there on many occasions. For reasons of cost, a judicial review procedure would weigh heavily on a small operator, but less so against a larger transportation group. The impact on a local transport authority of an expensive and possibly protracted judicial review would be far greater than the impact of an operator appealing against a decision to the Transport Tribunal, which should provide a relatively quick and inexpensive form of redress. We can be quite sure that if the decision-making process were entirely in the hands of a local transport authority with no right of appeal to a tribunal, the temptation for those operators who can afford to go to judicial review would be extremely strong. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked a lot of questions. If I miss any—I am sure I will—we will, as always on these occasions, come up with a letter at the end of the Committee proceedings, which will seek to analyse in some detail what lies behind the questions and provide more information than I can give this afternoon. One of his early questions was how long it would take a local authority to get a quality contracts scheme in place. We recognise the need to ensure that the approvals process does not impose an undue hurdle or delay on implementing schemes. We estimate that a small uncontroversial scheme could go through the statutory processes beginning with the statutory notice prior to consultation in about 15 months. Within that estimate, six weeks is allowed, roughly speaking, for consideration by the Approvals Board. For a complicated scheme we may need to add up to 10 months for the tendering process, and for appeal to the Transport Tribunal perhaps a further three months. In addition, the approvals board may require a scheme to be modified, which may require some further consultation. We accept the case for inserting time limits into the stages leading to approval by the board. We have made provision in the Bill, but the timings will need to be specified in regulations. The noble Lord raised the issue of admissible objections, the process for which will be set out in regulations, and he asked about quality contracts schemes more generally. There is a power to hold public inquiries, and there are provisions to protect the confidentiality of financial information, which is right. It would be unusual if that were not the case. He asked whether the quality contracts scheme was possible only when there has been an attempt at a partnership scheme that has failed. The whole point of moving away from the ““only practicable way”” test is to avoid trying quality partnerships and failing first. It comes back to the point about how best to get improvements in the quality, range, frequency of services, and so on. We all recognise that working away at the quality partnership scheme, whether voluntary or otherwise, is the best way to get there. We need to see how it will work in practice and ensure that any quality contracts scheme is proportional and in the public interest—in other words, improves services. The noble Lord also asked about the powers of the Transport Tribunal and appeals to court. I can fairly say that appeals against decisions of a Transport Tribunal will revolve round a point of law only. The powers of tribunals will be set out in new Section 126E. I have covered the point about whether approvals boards can overturn the policies of elected authorities. That is not their primary purpose. It is for the local authority to determine policy, which is distilled from manifestos and commitments of local politicians. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about the costs. That will depend on the nature of the scheme. There probably is scope for cost reduction. A quality contracts scheme could help to avoid overbussing on busy routes, and the tendering process should help to maximise value for money for the local taxpayer, so there are potential benefits. I think that I have answered most of the questions. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, made a point about bus operators and decisions about what sort of services should run and who should be ultimately responsible for them. I come back to the point from which we departed at the beginning of this discussion; that is, that the Bill is designed to play its part in the continued development of bus networks across the country. We have seen improvements in many areas in quality, frequency and value for money. That is what we try at all times to keep in our mind. We want to ensure that we provide services for the convenience of passengers, so that we have continued beneficial growth in the number of passengers using bus services and get the evident environmental benefits from the continued expansion of bus networks. Ultimately, it is the passenger whose interests should be paramount. Services should not be designed around the convenience of bus operators, they should reflect patterns of genuine need in areas where we need to do more to improve the range and quality of services. I apologise for the length of my response. I acknowledge that I may well have missed some points that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in particular, made. I hope that I have provided reasonably comprehensive answers. If I have failed to do so, I shall endeavour to pick up those points and cover them in correspondence, which I shall share with the Committee.