Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 46: 46: Clause 24, page 23, line 23, leave out ““who was consulted by the authority or authorities”” The noble Earl said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 56. The Minister has indicated that the approvals and appeals process has been designed to be as streamlined as possible. Many of your Lordships have raised concerns about how the proposals would work in practice, especially when considering the financial implications of appeals. It is our view that consultation should be paramount when setting up a potentially highly contentious scheme. In the parts of the Bill that deal with appeals when setting up and continuing a quality contracts scheme, it is curious that there exist provisions that appeals may be lodged only by persons originally consulted during the consultation stage of the proposal. That creates a perverse incentive to consult as narrowly as possible, which is not in the interests of performing a well rounded and meaningful consultation. The amendment is linked to my earlier amendment, which sought to ensure that neighbouring local transport authorities were consulted when setting up a quality contract scheme. If, for instance, this were not explicitly mentioned, one can imagine that it might be in the interests of an authority to neglect this important consultation. Thereafter, the neighbouring LTA would have no opportunity to appeal against an application. Should this be the case, legitimate reasons why a local authority may oppose or suggest would be entirely overlooked, with the possibility of the quality contract undermining the relationship between neighbours. The need for consultation is therefore evident. In ironing out these issues and collaborating with other authorities, a scheme is more likely to be a success. I suggest that we allow any person or organisation listed in the consultation requirements in the Transport Act 2000 to express their view, regardless of their contribution at earlier stages in the process. I beg to move.