Local Transport Bill [HL]

My Lords, this issue was debated very fully in Grand Committee; it was evident then, as it is today, that it gives rise to some very strong feelings from both the local authorities and operators, but from totally different directions and perspectives. The passion is understandable but let me bring us back to what we are trying to achieve here. Again it is a question of securing a reasonable balance and what lawyers call a proportionate way of dealing with things. The support for an approvals board from operators is at least as strong as the opposition to it from local authorities. The arguments do not really seem to have moved on greatly since the idea was first floated. There seems to be no way in which we could satisfy both arguments, and there is no evident compromise available to us, so I cannot do much more than reiterate the points that I made in the previous debate. We decided on an approvals board to try to get that reasonable balance between the legitimate interests of local authorities on the one hand and the reasonable expectations of the bus operators on the other. The Transport Act 2000, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned, requires schemes to be approved by the Secretary of State or by Welsh Ministers in Wales. We had particular reasons in England for concluding that this was not the best way of doing things. I will not go into those reasons again, but we concluded that operators would be vulnerable if local authorities could make schemes without any independent assessment. That was not acceptable. A local transport authority that promotes a scheme can never be a disinterested party. It must actively support that scheme and rightly be convinced that it is in the interests of the local community. That is only fair and proper. However, how can operators be sure that their interests are to be properly protected by such a local authority? They could have a great deal to lose, and they have a right to be properly heard. They may not welcome the idea of a quality contracts scheme in any circumstances, but they would welcome it a great deal less if they felt that the local authority had made a poor case and gained public support without a proper analysis of the problems and some of the solutions. They could well persuade a court of law that the authority had damaged their interests with no tangible or evident public benefit. I am aware that some local transport authorities say that they are prepared to risk judicial review and believe that they could fend off any challenge, but there are wider public issues at stake, including whether a court of law is the right forum in which to debate what are really issues of transportation planning and transport economics. The Approvals Board, with the transport tribunal providing the appeal mechanism, would be much more appropriate fora in which to resolve these matters. In Committee, I gave some indication of the role that the Approvals Board should play. It would not be part of its role to say whether a local transport policy with a quality contracts scheme that it aims to implement is good or bad—that is clearly a matter for local decision by the electorate—but it is legitimate for the board to satisfy itself that the policy is at least internally consistent, that the effect of the scheme will be to support the policy, and that the assessment of the costs and benefits of the scheme are based on sound transport economics. All these matters can be best addressed by a panel of experts of the sort that we have in mind for approvals boards. It is not simply a matter of whether the authority has gone through all the procedures, consulted all the right people and taken note of their views. That is part of the story, but not the whole of it. One might argue that an elected authority, because it is democratically accountable, has the right to take a risky decision that may turn out to be fundamentally bad, so long as it does so in good faith and in the procedurally proper way. That, however, will be small comfort to an operator whose directors may not have a vote in the local authority area if that operator loses its business as a result of a bad decision. It would be of even less comfort to passengers hoping for improved bus services. I recognise that strong passions have been aroused in this debate, but I am not in the end persuaded to move on the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about integrated transport authorities and their ability to take on highway powers. They could do that, but it will be for local authority areas to consider when they review governance arrangements and submit their proposals. It could work in that way; we see no particular problem with it. The noble Lord made the point on previous occasions that there would be some benefit in that. As I said earlier, getting things such as bus lanes and bus priority systems right would no doubt be a bonus, and being able to bring discussions with the highways authorities more directly into play would seem to be quite a sensible way ahead. With that slight digression, while I cannot accept the amendment, I hope that my noble friend will be happy to withdraw it. We have sought throughout to strike a reasonable balance and find a way forward that, while it may not please everybody, at least finds a sensible route through this particular dilemma.