Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 63: 63: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause— ““Fees for registration of services (1) Section 126(1) of the TA 1985 (application of section 52 of the PPVA 1981, which relates to fees, to registration of local services etc) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (a) after ““for the variation”” insert ““or cancellation””. (3) After paragraph (a) insert— ““(aa) the continuation in force of registrations under that section;””.”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 63 would update and increase the flexibility of the fee regime that applies to the registration of local bus services. This regime has remained unchanged for the past 20 years. It would provide a more equitable fee structure for different types of operator and route. It also would provide the Secretary of State with a further option for funding any additional costs incurred by the traffic commissioners, for example, relating to the proposed punctuality regime, from the industry. It does not mean that we would definitely do so; that debate is for another day. If, for example, we were to raise fees to cover some additional traffic commissioner enforcement—this is only for argument—under the current arrangements for charging fees in connection with bus service registrations, only a proportion of operators would bear those costs. Punctuality enforcement benefits all operators, yet charges would hit only those operators who have either registered new services or varied existing ones. Cancellation of services has a transaction cost, though there is currently no charge. In addition, it seems reasonable to charge a fee for a registration to continue in force, much in the way that a holder of a PSV operator’s licence pays a regular fee for the ongoing validity of that licence. It has been suggested on many occasions that if the traffic commissioners are to carry out additional work, they will necessarily require more resources. Clearly, there are two ways of funding that: either through the department and therefore taxation, or through the industry. I understand that the bus industry might be nervous at viewing this new power. However, I stress that further work needs to be carried out on the additional resources needed, and no decision has been taken on how much, if any, of that burden should fall to the industry. A well-run and modern industry should be able to manage the costs associated with competing in the market, including any regulatory or enforcement costs. I do not currently have an estimate of how much any additional work might cost, but I do not expect it to be excessive. The detailed work on the arrangements for the bus punctuality regime is still taking place, in particular through the Bus Partnership Forum, and that work will consider the level of any necessary traffic commissioner involvement. I also assure Members of the Committee that any changes to the fees regime would be subject to consultation. We are in a position where we are anticipating possible future changes and ensuring that the appropriate statutory powers are available should a particular option be decided on. I stress that the final details have not yet been determined. This is simply an opportunity to bring in some additional flexibility to the fee powers and to make them more fit for purpose in today’s world. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clauses 46 to 53 agreed to. Clause 54 [Powers of traffic commissioners where services not operated as registered]: