moved Amendment No. 63A:
63A: Clause 54, page 47, line 10, after ““operator””)”” insert ““consistently over a period of time, with due regard to any exceptional circumstances””
The noble Earl said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 63B and 64A. All these amendments deal with the traffic commissioners’ judgment in determining whether a service is not being operated ““as registered”” and the measures available to rectify such problems.
We welcome the highlighting of the punctuality issue and its effect on passengers’ perception of local bus services. It seems desirable to allow the traffic commissioner to investigate the root causes of such issues and prepare reports to make suggestions for improvement for both the authorities and the operators.
My point in Amendment No. 63A concerns the initial judgment by the traffic commissioners. It should be remembered that this is one of the commissioners’ quasi-judicial functions, which we have discussed. If the traffic commissioner network is populated by competent individuals who are knowledgeable about transport matters—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised—this should provide no problems. However, as it stands, the Bill gives no guidance about the circumstances in which a traffic commissioner can deem a local service to be operated ““not as registered””. Specifically, no mention is given of the timeframe that such observances should take. I would like to think that any problem should persist over a period of time, with due regard to exceptional circumstances and other situational details, before action is taken by a traffic commissioner. The Minister may say that this is a matter for guidance but, without provision being made in the Bill, the potential exists for a traffic commissioner to exercise poor judgment.
Where a problem is identified with a particular service, the Bill allows traffic commissioners to publish a report containing remedial measures to be implemented by operators and local traffic authorities. Amendment No. 63B would ensure that this report was consistent with any local transport policy that might be affected by the measures. This will ensure electoral accountability and also that any advice is not at odds with the other plans that a local authority may have.
Furthermore, if the advice is to be effective, it should be reasonably practicable to implement and have regard for the other pressures that authorities may be facing. I speak here only for authorities but I am sure that bus operators would like the same considerations to be made from their point of view.
Advice should be in proportion to the problem faced. I am certain that many suggestions can be made to improve punctuality, but there needs to be acknowledgement that they should offer value for money. The traffic commissioner network is perhaps not the best judge of what is affordable to local authorities, and I can envisage that advice might not be sensible in some cases. If recommendations are undeliverable, they will be meaningless.
Clause 55 makes revision to the section of the Transport Act 2000 that deals with penalties, although I believe that these have now been renamed ““sanctions”” by virtue of the last subsection of the clause. The idea of traffic commissioners fining operators in the event of poor performance seems reasonable, and the Bill allows traffic commissioners a wider range of options than at present. The idea that money can be returned to benefit bus services and passengers is more favourable than simply fining operators, under which passengers might see an increase in the fares that they pay.
However, the revisions to the subsection of the Transport Act that deals with the amounts of such penalties provide no more clarity to the situation. At present, paragraph (a) of the subsection stipulates that operators can be fined up to £550 per vehicle. However, paragraph (b) of the same subsection is somewhat vaguer and allows the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to specify another amount. I am unclear how this may work in practice, and it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify exactly what that means.
As the Bill revises and increases the powers available to the traffic commissioners where services are not operated as registered, this matter needs to be addressed. I believe that there needs to be some guidance, otherwise the powers could be used in an unpredictable or inconsistent manner. That could have the unintended consequence of passengers thinking that they had received a worse deal in one part of the county compared with another. Guidance could take the form of a penalty policies statement published by the traffic commissioners in advance. This would provide clarity to operators and ensure that the penalty system functioned as intended, with consistency given to traffic commissioners’ decisions. I beg to move.
Local Transport Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Earl Attlee
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 December 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Local Transport Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c170-1GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:37:06 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429753
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429753
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_429753