Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 49: 49: Clause 25, page 25, line 18, leave out subsection (6) and insert— ““(6) In subsection (2), for paragraph (c) (maximum period for which scheme to remain in operation) substitute— ““(c) that the scheme is to remain in operation until such time as the authority or authorities that made the scheme determine that it should not remain in operation””.”” The noble Lord said: My Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are in the same group. Amendment No. 49 would mean that once a quality contracts scheme was in place, it would remain indefinitely and would allow a local transport authority to renew that contract periodically without having to go through a new approval process each time. There seems to be an appropriate clause in the Bill, which sets out the process for the continuation of such a scheme. It appears to be a fairly lengthy process. My main point in putting forward this amendment is that once we have a quality contracts scheme in place which would remain indefinitely, if I have read the Bill correctly, we should be in a position where, instead of having to renew it after it has been in place for 10 years, "““it would remain in [force] until such time as the authority … that made the scheme determine””," otherwise. That would seem to me to bring it rather more in line—though my noble friend may correct me—with what happens in Transport for London which, as far as I know, does not have to go through the kind of approval process that is set out in the Bill when contracts are re-let. The Bill raises the maximum length of a quality contract from five to 10 years. Amendment No. 50, in this group, would remove the absolute restriction on the length of a quality contract and allow it to be governed by general legal principles. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that under EU law such a contract is generally limited to 10 years in duration but may, if the operator has made a significant investment in the service provided under the contract, be extended by up to 50 per cent. Obviously, if my noble friend agrees that that is the case—which he may not—the principle underlying the amendment would be that operators might be more willing to invest in assets such as garages, vehicles and staff development under a longer-term contract than they would under a shorter-term contract. I beg to move.