Local Transport Bill [HL]

As we have discussed previously, any order by the Secretary of State introducing changes to existing transport governance arrangements in a particular area would be made in the light of the reviews and proposals for change put forward by those local authorities which would be affected. These amendments would provide that certain aspects of orders and directions could not be made without the consent of any authority which would be affected. Amendment No. 78B would have the effect that an order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 72 could not provide for the delegation of a function of an authority without that authority’s explicit consent. This clause—unlike Clause 74 which we will come to shortly—does not enable the delegation of functions of any authority other than the ITA itself and its executive body. It would allow for those authorities carrying out a review of governance to propose that certain functions of the ITA itself should be delegated to an executive or delivery body of the ITA. So, it could allow for instance for certain functions to be delegated to a passenger transport executive which was responsible for delivering the ITA’s policies on public transport in the area or it could enable the functions of a PTE to be exercised by the integrated transport authority itself. Given that any such functions delegated via an order would remain within the overall ambit of the ITA structure, we do not believe that it is necessary to include an explicit requirement for consent to be given to any such delegation, which I suppose could be tantamount to a form of veto. Amendment No. 78B would have the effect that an order made under Clause 74 could not provide for the delegation to an ITA or its successor body of the functions of a local authority in its area without the consent of the local authority. As I made plain earlier in our discussions, the series of reports on transport governance which were published recently have identified possible problems with existing arrangements. One issue which is frequently highlighted is the current separation of powers in the metropolitan counties between the PTAs, which are responsible for planning and procuring public transport services, and the district councils, which hold powers over roads as the highway authorities and traffic authorities for their areas. For example, while the PTA has overall responsibility for bus services, the installation of bus priority measures such as bus lanes, which are a key factor in improving services, is a matter for the district councils. In carrying out governance reviews under Clauses 68 and 70, authorities will want to consider whether changes to existing arrangements for carrying out local authority functions could lead to better integrated decision-making and implementation. In particular, authorities will want to consider how far, if at all, the current division of responsibilities for roads and public transport creates a barrier to improving transport services in the area. It might be that any necessary improvements could be best achieved through joint working, without the need to formally transfer functions. But Clause 74 could enable functions which are complementary to each other, such as bus operations and bus lanes, to be exercised in a co-ordinated manner by one statutory authority, which seems to be very sensible. As I have reiterated, we are looking for local authorities in an area to come up with their own proposals for improvement, and we would expect that authorities carrying out a review would want to ensure that any transfer of functions to an ITA which was proposed enjoyed the full support of the authorities concerned, otherwise they are less likely to work. I should stress two points here. First, any such changes made by an order would, of course, be subject to consultation with those authorities which would be affected and to the affirmative resolution procedure in your Lordships’ House and in another place. Secondly, given that representatives of local authorities in an area would have to provide a majority of the members of each ITA, they would retain the ability to influence how the ITA exercised any of its functions, including those functions which had been transferred to the ITA from a local authority. On Amendment No. 80B, Clause 75 offers another way to enable an ITA to influence how an area’s local road network is managed without the need to formally delegate the highway or traffic powers of the local authority. This would enable an ITA to be given a power to direct local highways authorities and local traffic authorities as to how they carry out those functions. The functions to which this power might be applied include the installing of traffic management measures, local regimes for parking, the carrying out of road maintenance works and so on. In existing PTA areas these functions belong to the metropolitan district councils. As with the other powers in Part 5 of the Bill, it would be for the authorities carrying out the governance review to consider whether such a power to direct should be given to an ITA. An order which gave an ITA this power to give directions would need to specify those individual roads or descriptions of roads on which the authority could be directed—for instance, the roads carrying major bus routes. A direction which was then given under this power could, for instance, specify that the highway or traffic authority either should or should not take a particular course of action. An example might be that a local traffic authority must install a bus lane on one of its roads in order to improve bus reliability on a key radial route in an urban area. Another example of a direction given under this power could be that a local highway authority must not carry out road works on a key strategic road at a particular time or on particular days. Where an ITA was given such a power to direct, we would not expect a direction to be a frequent event. In London, Transport for London already has a related power to direct London boroughs. In the vast majority of cases, discussion between it and the boroughs has managed to resolve any disagreement over individual works and it has not proved necessary to resort to the direction-making power. There is no reason why the same should not be true in ITA areas, particularly given that representatives of the individual councils in the area would constitute a majority of an ITA's members. I apologise to the noble Lord and the Committee for the rather lengthy explanation. I thought it would be useful and, perhaps, enable the noble Lord to understand how we see these things working in practical terms, and therefore make him happier to withdraw his amendment.