Local Transport Bill [Lords]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall make some progress. I will try to give way toward the end of my speech. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) claimed that the Bill watered down the requirements for consultation on local road charging. However, local charging authorities will retain all their existing powers to consult interested persons and the public, and to hold local inquiries. The Bill merely removes the Secretary of State's powers to consult and hold an inquiry, and to require a local charging authority to do the same. Those powers were needed when the Secretary of State had the role of approving local services, as they enabled her to ensure that a proper local consultation process or inquiry had been held in connection with a scheme that had come before her for approval. However, in the absence of that approval role, there is no need for the Secretary of State to interfere in decisions by a local authority about what is best for its area. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire also claimed that the Bill was about national road pricing. It is not: the implementation of any such scheme would require further legislation, and the fact that more than 80 per cent. of current congestion is in urban areas means that that is where the immediate priority lies. The Bill focuses on giving local authorities greater freedom so that they can tackle their local congestion problems. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire also asked for clarification about historic vehicles, in which I know that he has a keen interest. Clause 50 makes it clear that the use of historic buses for tourists would not be prohibited: its provisions apply only to taxis and private-hire vehicles that are used to provide local bus services and which are deemed to be wheelchair accessible. Accessibility will be determined by the local authority, in accordance with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I hope that that clarification satisfies the right hon. Gentleman. The amendment says that the Bill should be denied a Second Reading because it"““encourages…Quality Contract Schemes…fails to give due weight to…consultation and local consent…and because it transfers revenue-raising powers to the National Assembly for Wales””." The Bill gives local authorities a range of options to choose from, according to their local circumstances. Where partnerships are working, they can continue to flourish, but where they are failing to deliver real improvements in services—as is demonstrably the case in some areas—it is important that local authorities have other options at their disposal to deliver improvements that will benefit passengers. That is why quality contracts schemes need to be a more realistic option, and why the Bill will enable quality partnership schemes to cover service frequencies, timings and fares. On local road charging schemes, it is right that decisions designed to tackle congestion should be taken at a local level. It is clearly important that local authorities consult with those who would be affected by a scheme, but they must determine how best to engage with interest groups in their areas. Moreover, it is not novel to transfer revenue-raising powers to the National Assembly for Wales; it is already open to the Scottish Parliament to make provision for trunk road charging in Scotland. Any proposals for charging on Welsh trunk roads would be subject to full scrutiny by the National Assembly. After the distractions posed by road pricing, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) returned the Chamber's attention to the Bill's central concern—the provision of decent bus services. He asked a number of questions about the details of the Bill, and he gave notice that he would return to those details in Committee. I am sure that he will do so. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made his usual thoughtful contribution, and we are grateful for his qualified assessment of the Bill's usefulness, and for his statement that he would support it this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) then delivered a stinging rebuke of deregulation. In response to an intervention, he explained to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) that the blame for poor bus services could be laid at the door of previous Conservative Governments. He offered an analogy with arson, saying that one does not blame the fire brigade that tackles an arson fire: instead, one blames the arsonist responsible for it. As an ex-fireman, that analogy had real appeal for me, but my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey added that it was deregulation that had caused the problems with bus services, and that is something that we are dealing with. He then detailed the work that he was doing with, and on behalf of, his constituents to improve his local bus services. I acknowledge his concerns about procedures, and his final comment was that we should ““end the nightmare””, as he described it. The hon. Member for Peterborough raised a series of legitimate road safety concerns, but I was somewhat confused by the fact that although he asked us to go further in relation to the clauses he mentioned, he is declining to give the Bill a Second Reading. That just does not make sense to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made a powerful contribution detailing his and his constituents' experiences, good and bad. He expressed his support in general terms, and also expressed his aspirations for more support for proposals including that for a successful Sheffield tram. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) raised the issue of bus company subsidies and encouraged the Government to look more seriously at finding solutions on quality contracts this time. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) told us about his election address and about writing to the previous Secretary of State for Transport on the issue. I congratulate him on his success, and I expect that he will want to secure a place on the Bill Committee, to ensure that he fully delivers for his constituents. He clearly described the political dividing lines on the Bill, and I hope that the Bill proves a useful campaign tool for him, as well as satisfying his electorate. I am sure that the description he gave of the Conservative party being on the side of the bus operators, while he is on the side of the passengers, will resonate with the good people of Wirral, West. My very patient hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy) got an opportunity to raise the issues of concern to her. She compared transport to other essentials for her constituents, and especially mentioned parents who are juggling work and child care. She demonstrated how in touch she is with her constituents, describing the problems encountered in Bristol and explaining why the Bill is important, not least to young people. She raises transport issues, including cycling issues, regularly with the Department, and I am sure that she welcomed the Secretary of State's recent funding statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) and my hon. Friend the bus driver from Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) were the last Government Back Benchers to speak; they reinforced the arguments on the need for the Bill. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) raised Welsh issues, and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet made much of the framework powers. Those powers were introduced at the specific request of Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government. The Bill devolves a new framework power to the National Assembly that will enable it to make provision about charging on Welsh trunk roads. There is nothing novel about that, as I said earlier. It is already open to the Scottish Parliament to make provision for trunk road charging in Scotland. The Bill does not allow for charging on all roads in Wales. Charging on local authority roads—95 per cent. of the Welsh road network—would remain a matter for the relevant local authorities, not the Welsh Assembly Government. Ministers in the Assembly Government have made it clear that if they were to propose charging on trunk roads in Wales, it would be specifically in the context of new road developments in the areas with the worst congestion problems. Furthermore, it would be for the National Assembly for Wales to consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise the powers, and if so, how to do so. That would be done through making what is called an Assembly measure. Any measure would have to be debated by the Assembly and would be subject to its scrutiny procedures. We are absolutely clear that those powers do not enable tax-raising. The Government of Wales Act 2006 does not allow tax-raising powers to be devolved, and clause 115 of the Bill makes it clear that it deals with schemes for imposing charges. I have not had a chance to speak about the passenger champion—an issue raised by hon. Members on both of the Chamber—or the detail of other aspects of the Bill. As I say, I have a 50-minute speech and fewer than 15 minutes in which to deliver it, so much will be done in Committee. In conclusion, the Bill makes real the Government's commitment to devolving greater powers and responsibility to local authorities. It does so in respect of three areas—local bus services, local transport governance and local road charging schemes. It is only by creating those real, new opportunities for local communities that we can achieve the transformation of local transport that is still needed in so many areas. The Bill will create real, new opportunities for local communities, and I urge every local authority to exploit those new opportunities to their fullest potential. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Opposition amendment, and I commend the Bill to the House. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The House proceeded to a Division.