My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).--(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

moved Amendment No. 109:

Before Clause 107, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:("Duties of local transport authorities

:TITLE3:DUTIES OF LOCAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES

. Each local transport authority shall have a duty--

(a) to promote sustainable transport, including especially all forms of public passenger transport, and the conveyance of freight by rail or water, and

(b) to identify and safeguard such land as may be required for the improvement of transport infrastructure, including interchanges between modes.").

In moving Amendment No. 109, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 113. Before doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group and an adviser to Adtran.

The amendments relate to the duties of local transport authorities, first, to promote sustainable transport and, secondly, to identify and safeguard land. The first duty goes back to the 1998 White Paper, which devoted 15 pages to sustainable transport. It referred to health, jobs, the environment, integrated transport, climate change, traffic congestion, local air quality, a more inclusive society and various targets. It was a most impressive document, but I am sad that as yet there is no reference to sustainable transport in this part of the Bill which relates to local transport plans and bus strategies.

It is also quite surprising to compare the lack of reference to sustainable transport in this section with that in Clause 206, where one of the functions to be exercised by the Strategic Rail Authority is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Therefore, I would argue that if it is all right for rail, it is logical that sustainable transport should be referred to in connection with local transport as well.

I also believe that the local transport plans should include reference to freight as well as to passengers. The reason why I am taking a little time to explain this is that in two recent publications by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions there seemed to be a certain lack of reference either to freight or to rail freight. I give two examples.

First, in its guidance on the preparation of local transport plans--as the Committee will know, local authorities must submit them by the end of this month--the department's 150-page book contains one paragraph on rail freight. It recommends that:

"Authorities should liaise with rail freight companies and their customers".

It does not tell them how to do that; it does not even provide contacts for information, let alone an address for what is now the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority.

The second example is the guidance on methodology for multi-modal studies. This goes quite well with the route studies that have taken place with regard to roads. It seems to me that the guidance should refer to all modes of transport--road, rail and water--and should refer to freight, too. However, in the 80-page document only eight lines relate to rail freight. Again, I quote:

"It is good to know that encouragement of other modes of freight is likely to focus primarily on rail-borne freight".

That is very interesting but it does not provide much guidance to local authorities and regional agencies which are preparing the multi-modal studies. Therefore, I believe that it is important to have on the face of the Bill a reference in this area to sustainable transport.

I now turn to paragraph (b) of my amendment, which proposes to,

"identify and safeguard such land as may be required for the improvement of transport infrastructure, including interchanges between modes".

I believe that it is important to place a duty on local transport authorities to identify land for infrastructure improvements and interchanges. Later in the Bill, we shall come to the question of Rail Property Board land, so I shall not mention that further at present.

Traffic by rail or road is set to increase. The forecast percentage increase for rail is between 75 and 100 per cent over the next 10 years. However, it is clear that there is no land on which to expand these facilities: there is nowhere to park one's car when one wants to get on the train and there will be no intermodal terminals, be they for passengers or freight. It is interesting that a similar section is to be found in the Greater London Authority Act, which we debated a year or so ago. The Minister was kind enough to accept that it was important for the Greater London Authority to be able to own and develop land, and perhaps I may refer the Committee to Schedule 11 to that Act. Paragraph 14 sets out the provision for intermodal interchanges, and paragraph 15 allows the Greater London Authority to develop land. Therefore, there is a precedent which I hope will be useful.

Lastly with regard to land, I believe that we must look at local transport plans as a medium-term planning tool for local transport policy. At the moment, there is no easy way for local authorities to safeguard land for transport. As the Committee will know, the Department of Transport can safeguard alignments for major rail schemes and probably major road schemes. However, I believe that there is also a need for local authorities to be able to safeguard land for those interchanges. They may not have the funds to do so at present and they may not have the permissions. However, at least they can identify the land; otherwise, when they decide that they want to do something or obtain a budget for it, they may find that they cannot develop a park-and-ride scheme or develop an intermodal freight interchange because they do not have the necessary land.

In conclusion with regard to this amendment, I believe that it is absolutely vital that the question of land and sustainable transport is reflected somewhere at the beginning of Part II. I accept that my drafting may not be perfect and the Minister may say that it is in the wrong place. However, I believe that the principles are very important.

Before I sit down, I should like to speak briefly about Amendment No. 113 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and others. It is encouraging that in the first of their paragraphs they also note that there need to be policies for improving the movement of freight and people by whatever mode, including walking and cycling. My comments apply also to that proposal. I beg to move Amendment No. 109.

I rise to support the view expressed by my noble friend, who for many years sustained me as my number two in transport matters.

If the Minister comes to the view that these matters are implied and that the Government support the ideas behind paragraphs (a) and (b) of Amendment No. 109, so be it. However, I believe that it is incumbent upon him to say why those words are not included on the face of the Bill. At the moment, as I understand it, they are not included. Therefore, I ask the simple question: why not? It seems to me that in every respect--it does not matter whether the right words are used--my noble friend who moved the amendment has sustainable transport as the target of his views. Sustainable transport is the aim of the Government and, therefore, I believe that it should be set up. I do not necessarily believe (and neither does he) that the words used contain the epitome of everything that should be said. However, the basis of his remarks is that they promote sustainable transport, and that is dealt with in paragraph (b).

I do not believe either that the noble Lord opposite will regard his words in Amendment No. 113 as being the last words. I believe that the word "no" should have been expressed more vocally by the noble Lord opposite. But whatever is said, it is clear that a point of view has been expressed which should appear on the face of the Bill. However, I am more inclined to support the view of my noble friend who moved the amendment. I hope that, so far as this matter is concerned, the Minister will be able to reply in a positive way.

It is a pleasure to find myself running in double harness with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Like him, when I read the Bill I thought that it was deficient. Taking this part of the Bill at face value, one might come to the conclusion that the Government's real concern was buses, buses and buses, to coin a phrase--or to borrow one, perhaps. I am grateful for the support in principle of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I agree that none of us ever regards our phrasing of amendments as the last word on the issue, but we do our best.

Amendment No. 113 follows on from that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We have deliberately tried to introduce mention of other modes of transport and the issue of intermodal change.

Cycling and walking are clearly the most environmentally friendly and cheapest forms of transport, but they are not mentioned in the Bill. About one-third of all journeys are less than a mile, which is definitely walkable. About another third are between one and four miles, which is certainly cyclable.

Not by everybody.

Not by everybody, I agree, but certainly by a large number of people. If we are to encourage children to walk and cycle to school, which would greatly ease the morning rush hour, cycle routes and safe routes for walking ought to figure prominently in transport planning. The greatest problem for both categories of people is safety. Almost every morning there is a parental rush to the car somewhat after 8 o'clock because parents are concerned about how their children are to get to school in safety--and that means safety not just from traffic, but, heaven help us, from interference by other people. The car will remain a prominent means of transport, particularly in the less metropolitan areas, but we would support anything that would encourage walking or cycling, so we think that they should be mentioned.

The other two subsections in Amendment No. 113 were drafted in an attempt to ensure consistency and congruence between local and district strategic transport plans. Planning can influence the need for transport. Good planning can diminish needs to an extent, although its powers as a cure-all can be overrated. The two branches of the planning process should be brought together. We have tried to insert that in the Bill.

There will always be questions about what should be specified in the Bill. I can see the Minister's mind ticking already, working out how he will answer the question. However, a lot of people will read only what is in the Bill, not all the background literature--which I shall have something to say about subsequently. Of course, the professionals will study the background literature as well, but the bulk of the population will be guided by what we deliberate on here. That will inform what they think--I was going to say what we think--that the Government think. Like the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I think that what the Government are thinking--or what they are revealing of their thinking in the Bill--is inadequate.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley has raised an important point. Too often, local authorities are interested only in cars and buses, buses, buses, but buses cause congestion, too. If anybody wants to know about that, they ought to visit Oxford, which shows that having a lot of buses does not always solve the traffic problem.

I am principally concerned about heavy goods vehicles, whose presence in town centres often causes a great deal of congestion. They are allowed into areas where they should not be allowed. Local authorities and the country as a whole must examine the problem thoroughly and work out the role of the goods vehicle.

I am old enough to remember the time when most goods went by rail, not to the edge of towns, but into the town centre, because that is where the railway stations and marshalling yards were. Many of those yards still exist. There is a case for examining whether local authorities and the Government should begin to push heavy goods vehicles out of town centres and, in particular, out of residential areas adjacent to town centres, through which heavy goods vehicles have to travel, causing a great deal of inconvenience, danger and environmental pollution to the people who live along those routes. My noble friend has raised an important issue.

There is another problem with heavy goods vehicles travelling along our roads--and, indeed, through continents. It has long been the case that goods are only semi--or perhaps quarterly--manufactured on any single site. Absurdly, all sorts of products, such as ladies underwear or men's suits, might start in Bradford and finish up in Finland, for example. That is a journey of hundreds of miles across our congested motorways and roads and through the continent of Europe, almost to the continent of Asia. That needs thorough national and international examination. We are wasting a lot of fuel and causing a great deal of avoidable environmental pollution.

Those are some reasons why the amendment should be considered. I have one final point about lorries, on which perhaps there should be some national examination. Many lorries make journeys when they are either empty or not full. Those journeys would be unnecessary if there was proper planning of the transportation of freight.

I thank my noble friend for tabling the amendment and for raising this very important issue. I hope that the Government will take it extremely seriously.

I want to speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 109 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Some of my reasons for wanting to support it may strike terror into the heart of the Minister but let him not become too terrified because I shall comfort him thereafter.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reminded us of the GLA Bill. It is interesting to start with a general duty of the local authority to do X or Y. It is not the first time that such an idea has come into our recent legislation. The Government may respond by saying that this is not a Bill about the duties of local authorities; it is a Bill about specific items of local authority business. The Minister is nodding his head joyfully as I speak. But it would be of great assistance if some ideas, such as sustainability and the need to promote interchanges--and I can think of others too--which are being put forward in great detail could be written onto the face of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says that his amendment is not perfectly drafted. When do we see an amendment that is? However, a provision of this type could be used to bring in a number of themes which would then be applicable to whatever the local authorities involved do in relation to, for example, Clauses 107 to 112. Those are the basic clauses which deal with local transport plans and bus strategies. That is preferable to repeating the subject every time it seems relevant to subsequent clauses. You could, for the sake of argument, include a provision "to promote sustainable and accessible transport". That removes the need to keep on bringing in the extremely important idea of accessibility, about which many Members of the Committee wish to speak. It is possible to use other important words to indicate the kind of duty being imposed on a local authority, not in relation to every single thing they do but in relation to this Bill. That would be extremely helpful.

I look forward to the Minister's response. There has been a varied collection of speeches in support of the amendments. I ask the noble Lord to think about the matter in the way I have outlined as a way of providing some important guiding principles right at the beginning of the Bill.

I remember the arguments used during the passage of the GLA Bill. Ministers kept saying, "But it is right there, in Clause 1. It is not needed anywhere else". The same approach could be used here to satisfy some of the legitimate worries which people will be expressing during the course of the day about this part of the Bill.

I conclude rather frivolously by saying that I was rather appalled that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in talking about parking, referred to parking one's car rather than one's bicycle at the railway station. I am sure that was merely an oversight.

In Part IV we have a Strategic Rail Authority but I do not see any strategic transport authority to bring the whole lot together. Roads are administered by local authorities. Should there not be a national strategic transport authority?

In particular, I support paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 109. As a veteran of structure planning in county councils, I can vouch for the fact that everybody is in favour of extending park-and-ride schemes, of getting more freight onto the railway and of extending station car parks. However, when you try to implement any of those policies, they are always fought tooth and nail at ground level.

It is important that if we are to have a strategy for encouraging park-and-ride schemes, freight terminals and station car parks, they must find their way into the planning process at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, I welcome in particular paragraph (b) of the amendment.

Perhaps I may say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that he cannot have been to Oxford very recently because we have solved the problems of bus congestion. More and more people are using the buses. Both air pollution and traffic congestion have virtually been eliminated.

In a sense I am surprised but, nevertheless, grateful that we have had a wide-ranging debate on the first item on the agenda today. I remind the Committee that this amendment is the first under the clause headed "Local transport plans", although some of the issues raised have been somewhat broader. Those plans are designed to bring forward an effective transport system at local level.

I was slightly surprised by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. In normal circumstances--that is, when we are discussing local government legislation--he is the first to argue that very little should be on the face of the Bill and more left to the local authorities. In the transport context, he seems to be saying that local authorities should have everything laid down for them.

The Minister is absolutely right: I am all for leaving matters to local authorities. If that were happening in this instance, I should be content. Sadly, it is not. There is an awful lot of paper betwixt this Bill and the local authority before it can do anything in relation to a transport plan.

It is true that there is guidance in relation to local transport plans with which the noble Lord will be familiar. But the guidance is flexible and leaves a lot of discretion with local authorities. The more we put on the face of the Bill, the less flexibility there is. Therefore, I must say to my noble friend Lord Berkeley and others who have spoken that although I can be reasonably positive up to a point, I believe that the amendments are either unnecessary or, in some circumstances, undesirable. They are dealt with better both by the provisions in the rest of the Bill and by the process of guidance to local authorities over what they should deliver in their transport plans.

The requirement to set out policies for the movement of freight, for example, which was the burden of the main contribution of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, is provided in Clause 107(1)(a) and (2)(b). Clause 107(1)(a) states:

"Each local transport authority must ... develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within their area".

Subsection (2)(b) defines those services as including,

"those required for the transportation of freight".

Therefore, I believe that the freight issue is already dealt with clearly on the face of the Bill. I contend also that that covers the thrust of the proposed new duty in paragraph (a) of the amendment as regards the duty to promote sustainable transport. Current guidance on local transport plans is very specific on that and on the need for liaison and partnership working to improve integration between transport modes. Therefore, there is no need to specify that further on the face of the Bill.

Will my noble friend admit that the burden of the Government's policy in this respect is "sustainable transport"? Unless I am wildly mistaken, nowhere on the face of the Bill do the words "sustainable transport" appear. Does my noble friend not believe that the words are necessary in relation to the desirability to promote it?

The Committee will be aware, and certainly my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis will be aware, that sustainable passenger and freight transport is already the foundation of our local transport plan. We are not starting from scratch. The guidance specifically sets out that we expect authorities to integrate thinking and action across the policy areas, ensuring that transport policy works with environmental policy, with spatial planning, with health policy and so forth. Authorities should aim to provide transport choice for all within that sustainable context.

With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, the situation is slightly different from that of the GLA Bill in which we set up an entirely new authority with new functions. In this Bill we are talking about a transport policy that already exists, local authorities that already exist and a local transport plan process that already exists. Therefore, this is incremental. We do not need to state first principles again, whether in relation to sustainability or freight.

I hate to interrupt the Minister, but guidance can change. Anyone concerned with planning policy in the 1980s and 1990s will remember that the guidance on out-of-town shopping centres changed, first, one way, then another way and then back to the first way. To have something on the face of the Bill is comforting because, on the whole, governments find it less easy to be pressurised by individual interests into changing the guidance.

The benefit of guidance is that within that guidance local authorities have the ability to fashion their policies according to their local circumstances. Without that flexibility, over-prescription on the face of the Bill will restrict local authorities in that respect.

On the second point raised by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley in relation to the safeguarding of land, existing planning guidance sets out full and clear advice to local authorities in that area. PPG13, at present in draft form, states that local authorities should identify and, where appropriate, protect sites and routes, both existing and potential, which could be useful in transport infrastructure development. PPG12 makes clear that development plans should include only proposals that are firm and that have a degree of certainty of proceeding. That seems to be a sensible policy, while protecting land in appropriate circumstances. The guidance is also specific that authorities should have regard to planning and development plan strategies when preparing their local transport plans.

This Bill is on top of a pre-existing process that is familiar to local authorities and within a framework of a transport policy that is familiar to noble Lords. Therefore, I believe that it is unnecessary to prescribe on the face of the Bill some of the issues proposed by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the amendment in relation to planning tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.

I am much obliged to the Minister for giving way. I do not disagree with the majority of what he has said about transport, nor does my noble friend. However, I believe, particularly in the light of what he has said, that he should take this matter away for consideration. On reflection, it may be that the Government will take the view that he has expressed, but I do not believe that they will and nor do I believe that it is right that they should do so. None the less, I believe that it would be right for the Minister to take away the idea put forward by the noble Lord for careful consideration. Sustainable transport goes to the heart of that which the Government have been considering.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, decides what he will do with his amendment, to which mine is attached, I should say--

Perhaps the Minister could be allowed to finish what he has to say.

I was hoping that I had finished actually! In reply to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, clearly we shall consider what has been said in this debate. In general terms, it is not the Government's intention to prescribe more in this clause, which relates specifically to the process of local transport plans and not to the totality of transport policy.

If I was out of order I apologise. I was trying to prevent the Minister from having to rise twice, three times or possibly even four times. I could not let what he had said pass without pointing out to him that he had singularly succeeded in avoiding any mention of pedestrians or cyclists. They are the forgotten part of the transport equation and, in my view, they require some attention. I wanted to say that before the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made up his mind about what to do with his amendment. He has an interesting dilemma.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I thank them for their support. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for what he has said. I am partly comforted, but not entirely, because my objective was to see the words "sustainable transport" somewhere in this introduction. Those words are included in the duties of the Strategic Rail Authority, so if it is all right for the SRA to have sustainable development why cannot local transport? My noble friend said that it is all contained in the guidance, but, as I sought to point out, the guidance is fairly deficient on some of these matters. I would much prefer to see those words on the face of the Bill. That deals with paragraph (a).

On paragraph (b), on the issue of land, again I hear what my noble friend has said, but if the Greater London Authority is allowed to own and to develop land for transport, I do not understand why that phrase cannot be in this Bill.

On the PPG13 draft guidance, my noble friend talked about the firm proposals and certainty of proceeding. That is the difficulty with local authorities; one needs to look many years ahead when dealing with transport plans. Certainty of proceeding requires many things apart from simply having the land. I hope that my noble friend can reconsider that point too. Like other noble Lords, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said on this matter, and I may return to the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 107 [Local transport plans]:

moved Amendment No. 110:

Page 65, line 23, at end insert (", and

(c) those required for business and commerce operating in the area;").

Amendment No. 110 seeks to add words to subsection (2) of Clause 107, which reads at present:

"The transport facilities and services mentioned in subsection (1) are--

(a) those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in the authority's area, or visiting or travelling through that area, and

(b) those required for the transportation of freight".

We believe, as stated in Amendment No. 110, that it is appropriate to add:

"(c) those required for business and commerce operating in the area".

Of course, business and commerce are intimately involved in the movement of people and freight, but the straightforward, smooth and streamlined system of moving those people and freight may not always be in the best interests of business and commerce. Indeed, business and commerce should properly be taken into account in this matter.

A simple way of illustrating this point is that for years my local small town prayed for a by-pass and eventually achieved one. Everybody was immensely relieved. It was as though a river that had been pouring down a ravine through the middle of the community had been turned off. One month later the local chamber of trade met to protest that it had lost business, as it had. Some of that huge volume of traffic that passed through the town used to stop.

I do not need to argue as to who is right and who is wrong. That example makes the point. So business and commerce must have their views taken into account. All businesses need customers. It does not matter whether they are big multinational corporations or the village shop, they depend on customers; they depend on the smooth movement of both people and freight in relation to their business. But that may not be the same as in relation to their community, which is the way in which the Bill is presently biased.

Amendment No. 111 was tabled almost in surprise that nowhere in the Bill is the question of atmospheric pollution or greenhouse gas emissions mentioned. Considering this is the Transport Bill and the reduction of those emissions, among other things, is what the Bill is about, it is an extraordinary omission, particularly coming from a government who have preached the needs of cleaning up the atmosphere as a nation. I felt therefore that the words in Amendment No. 111 should be added to the Bill.

There are many different aspects to this problem. There is the strategic planning issue to be considered. But much can be done by local authorities in the immediate time-scale. Paradoxically, traffic authorities face a problem in this regard in that there is a huge conflict of interest between them and residents who want traffic in their areas slowed down to make crossing the street easier. Initially, sleeping policemen are requested at monotonously regular intervals. The residents then find that with cars accelerating or braking and, even worse, lorries driving down those roads, they experience much more noise and atmospheric pollution than before. But the way parking restrictions are laid out on streets can have an effect on the smooth flow of traffic.

We may find, particularly in some of the metropolitan areas, that the authorities are in a position to help to reduce atmospheric pollution by encouraging people involved in transport to take advantage of new technologies. For instance, if all buses and taxis were fuelled by compressed natural gas, atmospheric pollution in metropolitan areas would be dramatically reduced. I can well imagine, under the powers in the Bill, some authorities wishing to introduce experimental schemes of that nature. They are not barred at the moment, but there is nothing in the Bill to make them specifically consider doing so. The addition of Amendment No. 111 would encourage that. I beg to move.

The noble Lord's intervention on this issue shows exactly the point I identified in relation to the previous group of amendments; namely, that once we start specifying things in the Bill, the list becomes endless. There is little in what the noble Lord said in terms of policy with which I disagree. But it is a question of whether this should be done by stipulation on the face of the Bill or by guidance.

For those who doubt the efficacy of guidance, it is clear that Clause 111(1) places a legal requirement on authorities to have regard to the guidance. If we are too specific in the Bill and list all those who must be consulted or whose interests must be taken into account, then that list expands, as do the policy objectives.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, almost accepted that, if we were to add the reference to business and commerce, we would in a sense be duplicating what must be subsumed in the Bill--if it is not subsumed, then there is a problem--under Clause 107(2)(a),

"those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in the authority's area", and Clause 107(2)(b),

"those required for the transportation of freight", which clearly cover the commercial and business interests within the area. Amendment No. 111 seeks to add the words,

"those required to reduce atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gas emissions".

Again, that is already part of local authorities' existing duties which must be integrated with the local transport plan. Under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities are required to review and assess their local air quality and to designate air quality management areas where there are problems. The right way to draw the local transport policies and air quality processes together and to ensure consistency between them is through guidance, which we have already issued on local transport plans. The transport and air pollution guide which we issued earlier this year under Section 88 of the Environment Act 1995 already emphasises the importance of close co-operation between transport planners and environmental health officers.

The reality is that those matters are being built into the local transport plan process at local level through that process and other requirements on local authorities. The amendments therefore go beyond what it is sensible to specify on the face of the Bill.

The Minister's reply ran along the lines I was expecting. But his answer did not add to the clarity of the Bill. None the less, I shall study what he said with great care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 112:

Page 65, line 25, after ("document") insert ("containing targets").

It is not very often that I find myself in the position of offering assistance to the Deputy Prime Minister, but circumstances prevailed upon me to do so in these amendments.

In 1997, shortly after the general election, the Deputy Prime Minister stated clearly that he, "would have failed if, in five years, there are not more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car". I should hate for him to fail. That is why these amendments are essential to making local transport plans work. Without these simple amendments it will be impossible to measure the success or failure of policies employed within local transport plans. Without this analysis I fear that it will be difficult to share best practice between local transport executives or for best value to be judged objectively on behalf of the public transport user. Without these amendments how can we guarantee that this otherwise fairly interesting piece of legislation is taken seriously at a regional and local level?

Let me briefly outline the concerns that lead my party to deem that specific action to encourage challenge setting is necessary--concerns which Members of the Committee on all sides of the Chamber have expressed both today and previously.

Cycling and walking are in decline, yet doctors tell us, as we are all well aware, to take more exercise. Children are not allowed out to play because parents are concerned that they may be involved in traffic accidents, and the leading cause of death in the one to 14 age bracket is motor accidents. In relation to climate change, the weather the world is currently experiencing must be at least partly ascribed to climatic changes in our atmosphere brought about by pollution. Recent surges in the use of the private motorcar have seen levels of CO2 rise massively. That has led to significant increases in the numbers of asthma sufferers. The pollution levels on the vast majority of streets in Britain now exceed the safe standards agreed by the World Health Organisation, and those safety standards are there to protect human life and well-being.

Not only that, but the Confederation of British Industry believes that British businesses lose £19 billion a year as a direct result of road congestion. In the past decade, each car journey was subsidised in terms of road building, related costs to the NHS, and environmental degradation to the tune of 5p per kilometre or 9p per mile.

If we are to meet our national commitment, agreed at Kyoto, to reduce CO2 levels by 2010, we must add transport. It is less of a nettle because nettles are easier to grasp than a thorny rose that rips one's hands. More than 400 Members in the other place have signed a number of Early-Day Motions supporting traffic reduction, and the general public want significant progress. The Deputy Prime Minister promised as much and the Government must deliver. Targets will produce transparent change. Success can be monitored more easily and shared between local transport executives, leading to swifter benefits to our lungs and safety. I beg to move.

I begin by correcting the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in quoting my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. He gave an indirect quote that has been misused on a number of occasions. To this very day, my right honourable friend has to put people right on it. We have never purposed a target in the sense that the amendments suggest.

We support the idea of targets and they will appear in local transport plans. We have encouraged local authorities to draw up appropriate targets, but is it right to introduce a statutory duty to that effect? We think not. It is by no means clear what would be achieved by the amendments. A simple duty to include targets is vague. How many targets? In what areas? The duty could be met by a minimalist approach or by a maximalist and excessively prescriptive approach. We do not accept that it would be sensible to be restrictive in this part of the Bill. The nature of targets has to be built in by each local authority.

We have already set out in current guidance on non-statutory LTPs that plans and strategies should include targets and performance indicators across all areas covered by an LTP, as part of the monitoring process. It should be left to local transport authorities to determine the precise package of performance indicators and targets that best reflects their particular local circumstances. The current guidance on local transport plans also requires authorities to have regard to already established national transport or transport-related targets.

Amendment No. 116 would place a requirement on an authority to keep its local transport plan under review and to alter it if that were considered appropriate. The effect is to remove the power to alter the plan. That seems unduly Stalinist, when the noble Lord is usually flexible in such matters. The amendment would remove also the flexibility to react to changing circumstances. Retaining the power to keep the plan under review and to modify it must be central to making the process work.

I have to resist the amendments and Amendment No. 116 in particular as it seems undesirable.

Before the noble Lord decides what to do, perhaps the Minister could say whether the targets include one for road traffic reduction based on a national concept of what that ought to be, given that we are committed to Kyoto.

The climate change programme includes a CO2 target relating to vehicle emissions, which would be achieved through our broad transport and traffic management policies. That national target is not easily translatable into local transport plans. The issue is not total traffic volume--that can mean different things in different parts of the country and on different types of roads--but national and local authority targets relating to CO2 emissions, pollution and congestion rather than volume.

I am not entirely sure that I understand the Minister's concluding remarks but I shall study them and his earlier comments. Does the noble Lord agree that his first reply was a classic example of willing the ends but not the means? I stand by my observation that unless one places a duty on local transport authorities, one will not get the results--or the data one wants on the way. It is extremely likely that I shall gather some allies and return to this issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]

Clause 107 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 114:

After Clause 107, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN: ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT FOR DISABLED PEOPLE

(" .--(1) In addition to containing the proposals and policies required by section 107 above, the local transport plan--

(a) shall contain the Authority's proposals for the provision of transport which is accessible to disabled people;

(b) shall specify a timetable for the implementation of the proposals contained in the transport strategy by virtue of paragraph (a) above.

(2) In preparing or revising the transport strategy the Authority shall consult--

(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee; and

(b) such other persons or bodies which represent the interests of disabled people as it considers appropriate to consult.").

With this, I shall speak to Amendment No. 120, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. No doubt he will speak to those amendments himself.

Amendment No. 114 requires that transport plans include provisions for disabled people that are drawn up in consultation with organisation of disabled people and include an action plan for improving accessibility. The amendment is based on the provisions in Sections 142(2) and (4) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

I welcome local transport plans being placed on a statutory footing, and I see the Government's transport strategy as a considerable opportunity for local public transport to be greatly enhanced to the benefit of disabled people. Plans have a vital role to play in providing more coherent and comprehensive solutions, to create a safer street environment for disabled people and the public in general. Each local transport authority must develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within their areas. I note that transport facilities and services include those required to meet the needs of persons living or working in the authority's area or visiting or travelling through it. It should be spelt out that "persons" should include those with disabilities.

A study by Oxford Brookes University into provisional local transport plans demonstrated a lack of awareness of the issues affecting disabled people. The solution is to address those concerns, and action in the strategy to improve accessibility. This Bill ensures that such plans are kept under review, that they shall last no longer than five years--unless a subsequent amendment from my noble friend on the Front Bench is accepted--and that they shall have regard to any guidance. When local transport plans are under consideration, I hope that the needs of disabled people will be included.

The Guidance on Provisional Local Plans was very good in requiring consultation when developing plans, as shown in Table 18, Annexe D of the guidance. There is also a proposed requirement to consult on bus strategies. Extending this requirement to consult the whole local transport plan within the Bill is, I believe, sensible. It would promote integrated transport decisions being considered through consultation.

The purpose of Amendment No. 120 is to require local authorities to have a local walking strategy as part of their local transport plan in order to ensure proper improvements to the street environment. The quality of the pedestrian environment seriously affects disabled people's independent mobility and their ability to reach bus services and, in some instances, train services. Disability organisations consider it vital that a walking strategy is required to ensure access within the pedestrian environment. Requiring a local walking strategy would help ensure the implementation of Encouraging Walking--the Government's strategy to address the decline in walking. It would also help families with small children and elderly people who may be rather slow but not disabled. I beg to move.

I attached my name to this amendment for the simple reason that it seemed a reasonable provision to have on the face of the Bill and one that could help the Bill to succeed in its aims. The disabled have increasingly been brought into the planning of all services; and quite rightly so. Unless you think about these issues first, you sometimes end up with many more problems. It is infinitely more difficult to remove a set of steps that you are using than to have a ramp put in beside them in the first place.

Amendment No. 120 proposes a local walking strategy. I believe this would be beneficial. It is also important that the elderly and those with movement problems should be brought into consideration. The same safeguards apply in this respect. If we have a strategy for the disabled that has little breaks in it, we might as well not have a such a strategy at all. It means that there could be two types of public transport by which people think they can get around but then they hit something that is in the way; indeed, steps are a classic example. There is also the situation where people are moving along very crowded pavements that may have broken surfaces. Unless we bring all these considerations together, everyone will suffer. I hope that the Government will consider these amendments sincerely because they address one basic fact: if we do not consider all these issues as a whole and take into account all the people who will use the pedestrian environment, we shall not achieve very much.

I should like briefly to express my support for the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and for the other amendments in the group. Accessible transport is the single most important issue to ensure the integration of disabled people and in order to change attitudes towards them. Without this, disabled people are truly trapped in their homes; they are invisible. They then become dependent on services that they could otherwise provide for themselves.

Accessible transport is the most dominant issue in any meeting of local disabled people. It is an issue that seems to overwhelm any such meeting. Unless local authorities are actually required to provide accessible transport and it is spelt out in the Bill, they will not do so. I beg the Committee to support these amendments.

It goes without saying that I support the amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington. For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, my own amendments, Amendments Nos. 156 and 157, have been included in this grouping. Again, I believe that my amendments are fairly self-explanatory. They make sense and would provide a perfectly adequate addition to the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister telling me that he is totally in favour of what my amendments would achieve but that he does not think that this is the way to achieve it.

The Minister may also say that there is no need to add to this already long Bill by inserting such provisions that will, by some mysterious process, happen in any event without being placed in the legislation. We are all in favour of integration strategies; indeed, as I understand it, that is one of the purposes of the Bill. I very much look forward to listening to the way that the noble Lord will choose to reject my amendments.

I should like briefly to support Amendment No. 120. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, mentioned the size of the Bill, but I should point out that this Bill is smaller than the GLA Act. Section 141(1) of that Act requires the mayor to develop and implement policies,

"for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities", which include walking and services for pedestrians. I hope that that is helpful to our debate.

Perhaps I could put forward in a slightly more sophisticated way the argument in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, pre-empted me. When we are legislating, we do not repeat legislation that is provided elsewhere in the Bill or in other legislation. The issues that have been raised in this debate, especially those relating to the disabled, are well taken by the Government. We broadly agree with them. This Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that all members of society should have the opportunity for independent travel and mobility.

Clause 111(2) makes it absolutely clear that in preparing their local transport plan authorities,

"must have regard to the transport needs of persons who are elderly or have mobility problems".

Therefore, that provision is already clear. It is also not appropriate in legislation to provide for the detailed prescription that is better dealt with in guidance. Our guidance to local authorities is equally clear: local authorities and transport operators will have to consider the needs of disabled people from the start to the finish of their journeys.

Moreover, there are already statutory requirements in separate legislation to be observed in respect of accessible transport. New transport vehicles will need to meet detailed technical specifications set out in the regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act. That legislation will also require those involved in the provision of goods, facilities and services to the public to make their services accessible to disabled people. From October 1999, such providers have been required to make reasonable adjustments to their policies that exclude disabled people and provide auxiliary aids and services to facilitate access. From 2004, where there is still a physical barrier to service, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or avoid it.

All those requirements apply to local authorities and transport operators. They therefore apply in relation to local transport plans. We do not need a further prescriptive provision in this legislation. However, that is not to deny that we have total sympathy with the points made by noble Lords in this debate. Such issues are already covered both here and elsewhere in legislation; and, indeed, in separate guidance.

I turn now to the issue of integration, which is the focus of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Integration is central to the whole process of the local transport plan. It is not just integration between modes of transport in terms of interchangeability but in terms of the whole approach. We do not require a further provision on the face of the Bill to ensure that local transport plans deal with such issues in an integrated way.

Similarly, that applies to Amendment No. 120, which relates to walking strategies. A strategy for pedestrians, which, after all, is a pretty common mode of transport, needs to be covered. Indeed, there is a reference to pedestrians under Clause 107(2), which already makes it clear that transport facilities and services to be covered by local transport plans must include services and facilities for pedestrians. We do not, however, require a separate measure spelt out on the face of the Bill for all the different elements of the strategy which local transport plans need to provide.

However, the Bill requires the inclusion of a bus strategy within a local transport plan. The reason the bus strategy is given particular prominence in the Bill is that we need to alter an existing regulatory framework and provide the basic framework for the exercise of the new bus powers. But the bus strategy would be only one of a number of different strategies, some of which require legislative change; most of which do not. Local transport plans will, for example, include cycling as well as walking. They will include measures on street design, which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned. They will include parking strategies, and strategies on mobility, transport information, road maintenance and bridge strengthening.

Statutory provisions already exist; we do not need to repeat them in the Bill. That is why we have the power to issue guidance to pull all those measures together. However, we do not need any additional powers. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the length of the Bill. I do not think it sensible to agree to additional powers or additional prescription in this section of the Bill.

I have some sympathy--at least, I think that I do--with the noble Lord when he says that there is already sufficient provision elsewhere in the law to cover the needs of disabled people. However, if one accepts that, surely the noble Lord must accept that there is some onus on the department and on the Government to explain why the law is not better enforced. If the young, fit and able start to clamber about on buses, they are quite likely to suffer a mishap; and for the old and the disabled, buses present considerable difficulties.

I believe that the noble Lord said that something needed to be done about buses in this regard because they comprise an existing regulatory framework. That is awful language; I hope that the noble Lord will talk in rather more "human" language. However, I make the serious point that I hope that the constantly reiterated complaints made by and on behalf of disabled people--that they are treated miserably in terms of their local transport needs--will not obtain the response that the law already makes adequate provision in that regard. There probably is such provision, but what is miserably inadequate is the enforcement of that law.

This world is crammed full, like cans of sardines, with good intentions but, too often, they get absolutely nowhere. I hope that the noble Lord will stir up his department and the new authorities not merely into making plans--anyone can make plans--but into ensuring that those plans contain the appropriate provisions and are enforced. It is no good simply saying, "We have already done that", because it is not working.

I largely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said with regard to the disabled. I am not saying that we do not need any provisions for the disabled in the Bill; we have such provisions. There is a clear requirement on local authorities in drawing up their plans to have regard to the needs of the disabled. As regards existing legislation, the Disability Discrimination Act was enacted fairly recently and is being phased in. Therefore, its full effects have not yet been felt. However, it has resulted in changes to facilities such as vehicles, bus stops and access to the Underground, and to information to accommodate the disabled. Those provisions already exist. We want local authorities to introduce those changes more rapidly, if possible, to the benefit of the disabled. However, as I say, we do not need more powers or more prescription on the face of the Bill.

I am rather intrigued by the wording in this Bill and by that in the Greater London Authority Act. I take on board what the noble Lord said earlier, but I think that I am right in saying that the requirement on the mayor to provide transport which is accessible to persons with mobility problems was included in the GLA Act as a result of pressure that was brought to bear in Parliament. Rather than endlessly arguing about this matter and then pressing it to a Division, it may be less time consuming to admit now that the needs of people with mobility problems may be mentioned in guidance but that they are not included on the face of the Bill. We may have to return constantly to these important matters because of that omission. I believe that if we included the words "accessible transport", we may be able to satisfy the legitimate demands and worries of people with mobility problems. A measure that is included on the face of the Bill is permanent as opposed to impermanent or temporary.

I hope that I may correct one point that the noble Baroness made. The equivalent requirement to the GLA Act requirement on the mayor in this regard--the noble Baroness rightly said that that measure arose as a result of pressure that was brought to bear in Parliament--is included in Clause 111(2), which states that,

"a local transport authority must have regard to the transport needs of persons who are elderly or have mobility problems".

Therefore, there is no difference in that regard between this Bill and the GLA Act.

We have every sympathy with the disabled but we must be realistic. I am not disabled in the ordinary sense of the word, apart from having a second-class mind.

Noble Lords:

Oh no!

I have a second-class mind on a good day! Also, I do not see terribly well. I see the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, relatively clearly, but I see my old friend Lord Peyton less clearly. I see the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in a blur, although he looks well! However, I say seriously that when I travel as a passenger on motorways, map reading for my "chauffeuse", Lady Howie, I find it extremely difficult to read road signs. The other day on the way to Oxford we passed Junction 8A as it was not marked on my map and I could not see the sign. We had to take the long way round which created a certain amount of domestic disharmony! However, we got over that.

I also find that, at my age and with my sight, going down stairs is difficult, especially in such places as Westminster Underground station. I realise that that is a fact of life and that I am obliged to cope with that within my limited ability. I do not expect the relevant body to make road signs all over the country large enough for me to be able to see them, although that would be a great help and would certainly please my wife; nor do I expect steps everywhere to be constructed so as to enable me to use them without difficulty. The problems of those who are more seriously disabled should of course be taken into account, but there is little point in asking for the moon. Even if the moon is made of green cheese, we cannot possibly get it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for his compliment. I also wear glasses; I need bifocals when I am working in the Chamber so that I can read my notes and see the reaction of Ministers on the Front Bench on the other side of the Chamber.

Can you see me?

I can indeed when I am wearing my glasses. But if I took them off the noble Lord would, like me, be better looking--because he would be blurred.

In his original response the Minister mentioned guidance. The Bill was considered in another place for a long time before it even reached this House. Will the noble Lord be kind enough to send me a copy of the draft guidance before the next stage of the Bill? I notice that the noble Lord is nodding his head. I am very grateful for that.

This has been a useful debate. I need to read carefully what the Minister said in his response. I am not sure at the moment whether he has been able to satisfy me; I think there should be something on the face of the Bill. However, I shall read very carefully what he said and I shall check up on the other pieces of legislation that he mentioned to make certain that I and my advisers are satisfied. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 108 [Further provision about plans]:

[Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 117:

Page 65, line 36, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").

It is perhaps slightly unfortunate that the requirement to wear seat safety belts is not yet obligatory in this Chamber. I say that because I was inspired to table this amendment by no less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister.

I noticed that the Deputy Prime Minister had asked the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, in his capacity as Minister of Transport, to produce a 10-year plan for modernising and developing the transport system. That is a very laudable objective and it seemed to me that there was merit in the period of 10 years. Indeed, if one reads today's edition of The Times--and, I suspect, other newspapers, but I have not had time to read them all today--one sees a great announcement about a 10-year investment plan. Since we do not know what will be the final outcome of the Government's spending review, I hope that there was a clear agreement between the DETR and the Treasury before that announcement appeared in the press. All too often in the past we have seen announcements of this kind confounded by subsequent experience.

The Times reports what appears to be a huge 10-year investment programme--indeed, it is--but then one finds that the Government hope to get half of it from the private sector, which reduces it by a half; one then divides the sum by 10 and it comes back down to rather more than we are spending now but about what the previous government were spending on average year on year. So it is perhaps not quite the wonderful thing it is made out to be.

To come back to the point of the amendment, subsection (1) of Clause 108 imposes a duty to review transport plans--something we all find unexceptionable--and subsection (2) sets out the replacement time-scale, which is five years. One could perhaps accept a prejudice on the part of governments that they are infinitely wise and competent and can plan for 10 years with reasonable confidence and certainty as to what will happen over that time--except, of course, if we stop to think about it, we can have considerable confidence only that what we now think will happen over the next 10 years will be blown by the winds of time and the out-turn will be different.

The Government may feel, of course, that that can be taken into the planning. They may also feel that local authorities, being lesser mortals, can plan for only five years. I find that slightly hurtful to local authorities. There was a time when even local authorities were honoured with a 10-year planning time-scale. When the social services departments were originally set up, local authorities were invited to establish 10-year development plans for them. We know in the light of bitter experience that all too often those plans were blown adrift. It might be more honest of the Government to make the task of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, easier by inviting him to consider plans for a five-year period. They would then have a much greater degree of certainty. In any event, it seems to me that there should be a congruence between the two parts of the planning system.

When I tabled the amendment I had another, rather sneaky, thought in the back of my mind--that is, that the Government have said that a 10-year period is the time-scale during which the hypothecation of revenues from charging for congestion or levying for licences would last. This 10-year period is being constantly mentioned and it seems to me that it could be appropriately applied to local transport plans as well. I think I have advocated sufficient reasons why we should agree to the amendment. I beg to move.

My Amendment No. 118 is grouped with this amendment. I am not sure why. However, for the convenience of the Committee, I should like to speak also to my Amendment No. 149, which deals with the same subject as Amendment No. 118. It will save the Committee time in the long run.

The purpose of both amendments is to ensure that, in their consultations over local plans, local authorities include and make the consultations accessible to the range of disabled people--those who are blind, deaf or with learning difficulties--for whom ordinary printed material will not be effective.

Under Clause 108(4) an authority must publish the plan or the plan as altered in such a manner as it sees fit. Under subsection (4)(c) it must supply a copy of it (or any part of it) to any person on request, either free of charge or at a charge representing no more than the cost of providing the copy. We would also expect that the provision of the information would be in the preferred format of the individual requesting it, thus ensuring that service providers meet their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Disability organisations are concerned that blind, deafblind, partially sighted people and those with learning difficulties are excluded by the requirement to consult on proposed bus strategies, quality partnership and contract schemes through publishing a note in newspapers only. That is in Clause 135. This excludes people for whom print is inaccessible. Adding a "talking newspaper" would at least ensure that blind and partially sighted people have the opportunity to be involved.

My name appears on the two amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has spoken. He is right; the amendments should be taken together.

If one is trying to convey information it makes sense to ensure that everyone can understand that information. If the Government do not do that, they will be failing in their own objectives. Merely making sure that the information is available in formats other than print should not be beyond the wit of man in today's technological age.

Before speaking to the amendment, perhaps I may comment on the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has left his place. It was only minutes ago that he was referring--I thought with pleasure--to the fact that he could see my noble friend on the Front Bench, my noble friend Lord Swinfen who sits behind me and even myself. I am concerned lest the experience was too much for him and has caused him to withdraw. I can only hope that if he is unwell he will quickly recover.

As to my noble friend's amendment, I believe that it verges on the unkind to tempt a local authority into allowing a plan which will be imperfect from its very beginning to remain in existence and open to the public gaze for five years. In a very fast moving world, I should think that any plan of this kind would need to be given a decent burial after a minimum of five years, and probably less. Therefore, I would find it extremely difficult to go along with my noble friend.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which we support, draws attention to the importance of making all government, local and national, accessible. It raises some interesting points, not just for those who may have difficulty in reading print. All spheres of government need to think hard about how to present plans on which they want to consult. The world is changing. The use of modern technology, as well as old methods, needs to be kept under constant review. The language that we all use also needs to be kept under review. Those of us who spend too long in this Chamber trying to find the right format for "parliamentary-speak" and those in areas of government outside tend to lose sight of the fact that the language we use is not very accessible.

I turn to the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Brabazon of Tara. In proposing a period--it is a short period at that--within which local authorities must replace, not merely review, their plans, the Government are suggesting a backward step. We are now in the area of best value, rolling plans and performance plans. To propose that authorities might publish a plan, put it on the shelf and then take it down and dust it off five years later, or indeed 10 years later, is to overlook the way in which the Government would like to see local authorities conduct their business. I am sure the Minister will say to me, "That is not really what we mean. We do mean a rolling review". If that is the case, should we not say so? Should we not also remember that in requiring replacement--"replace" is the word used in Clause 108(2)--as distinct from review, we are requiring local authorities to undertake a prescriptive and probably very expensive exercise?

Amendment No. 117 seeks to alter the requirement for a local transport authority to produce a five-year local transport plan to a requirement to produce a 10-year plan. Amendment No. 118--I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for explaining it--seeks to place a requirement on an authority, when asked to supply a copy of its local transport plan, to do so in the format of choice of those seeking a copy. I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge that the amendment could be read as being the format of choice of the authority, but I am glad to know he does not actually mean that. However, I would advise the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, not to pray in aid the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the amendment. The noble Lord would do well to wait until the Government actually announce the 10-year transport plan later this month rather than rely on the latest piece of press speculation. There have been many items of press speculation. They conflict with each other. Some of them, or indeed all of them, may conflict with what actually happens.

Local transport plans are a move away from the previous annual bidding round under the transport policies and programmes--I am reminded of my time in local government--which meant that central government was often faced with making decisions on very small schemes. That wasted time and resources and meant such decisions were taken in isolation, often on purely financial grounds, rather than on the contribution such measures would make to a wider strategy. The intention is that local transport plans will change that. The system is built around five-year integrated transport programmes, devised at the local level in partnership with the community. That will provide local authorities with both more discretion and greater certainty than under the previous system.

The guidance to authorities on local transport plans makes it clear that the plans need to contain objectives; an analysis of problems and opportunities; a long-term strategy to tackle the problems and deliver the plan's objectives; a costed and affordable five-year investment programme; and a set of targets and indicators to measure performance. In setting their objectives authorities need to provide a mix of both short and long-term objectives, with short-term objectives for the five-year plans set in the context of a longer term strategy looking 15 or 20 years ahead. In that sense I suppose one could say that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is modest in its horizon in comparison with what the Government are planning. It must be, and it is, the detailed investment programme which is limited to five years.

In order to help with resource planning the Government aim to provide each authority with a firm allocation for the first year of the plan and indicative allocations for each of the subsequent years of the five-year plan. Actual allocations are dependent on the amount of resources available at the time and the performance of individual authorities in achieving their objectives and targets. However, if we moved towards 10-year plans, the level of certainty we could provide in terms of future allocations would very much diminish. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that, even perhaps in a shorter period than five years, one could only speculate about what might happen. I think that is particularly true of years six to 10. For that reason we cannot accept the amendment.

I turn to Amendment No. 118. I am sure that in drafting his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, meant that a local transport authority, when asked to provide a copy of its local transport plan, should do so in the format requested by those seeking the copy. That would ensure that the needs of those requiring copies in alternative formats such as Braille or large type were catered for. The noble Lord made that explicit in his speech. Local authorities, like other service providers, are already subject to the duties placed on them by the requirements of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. Since October last year, service providers have been under a duty to take reasonable steps to provide auxiliary aids or services to disabled people which make it possible, or easier, for them to access the service. Advice for service providers on this and the other duties under Part III are covered in a code of practice published last year by the National Disability Council. The code explains that the range of auxiliary aids or services which it might be reasonable to provide to visually impaired people could include documents in Braille or large print, on computer diskette or on audio tape. The noble Lord's amendment would duplicate the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.

The sentiment behind the amendment is admirable but we need to strike a balance. Already, under Clause 107(4)(c) we place a requirement on local authorities to supply copies of the local transport plan, either free of charge or at a charge representing no more than the cost of providing the copy. Crucially, authorities also have to discharge their general duties under the Disability Discrimination Act to provide information in alternative formats.

Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to ask a question about the cost. Will a cost be imposed on disabled people who require special formats over and above the costs incurred by those who do not require those arrangements? The noble Lord may need to write to me.

I may have to write to the noble Lord, but I can assure him that provision will be made in accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act on which the noble Lord is a much greater expert than I. My understanding is that the intention of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act is that no extra costs should be incurred by disabled people for any additional services they need and with which they would be provided under the Act. If I am wrong about that, I shall of course write to the noble Lord.

Fundamentally, for the reason that the amendment would duplicate the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, will not press it.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Of course I accept the chastisement administered by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who is in his place on the Bench behind me. He is perhaps appropriately placed to do so by reminding me--although I needed no reminder--that all too often local authority plans are blown away in the winds of time.

I cannot do anything about the Bill and the provisions that cover planning, but if it should blow away the plans made by local authorities in five years it is even more likely to blow away in the winds of time the plans of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. We may have a little difficulty in this area.

I am grateful for the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the question of planning. The noble Baroness pointed out that local government is moving more and more towards a system of rolling planning. The procedures in the Bill will therefore prove to be somewhat rigid.

I should like to welcome back, with a little surprise, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to the Government Front Bench. I was not aware that he would be addressing us on this Bill. I am delighted to hear that his voice is now fully recovered. It is a pleasure to see him at the Dispatch Box.

I should tell the noble Lord that I would not plead in support of my case today's article in The Times from a planning point of view. My ability to plan ahead when I put down the amendment had absolutely nothing to do with that article. Although possibly able to foresee what might happen in the coming day or so, I certainly could not have foreseen the fortunate coincidence of the article appearing today.

The noble Lord spoke of costed and affordable objectives, and five-year local programmes with certainty of funding. However, he said also that the first year's allocation will be made available as the plans are set up. After that, allocations will be on an annual basis. I wonder what that means? I accept that the Government do their best to look ahead five years in their financial planning--

I believe that the words I used were that the first year's allocation would be a firm allocation and that the following years' allocations would be indicative.

Indicative allocations are just that; namely, should the Treasury change its mind, indicative allocations become a different figure. That is the bitter experience over many years of everyone who has ever been involved in local government.

We have had an interesting debate. It has revealed a number of strengths and weaknesses in the Government's position in this area. I shall study carefully what has been said, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 119:

Page 66, line 14, at end insert--

("( ) In preparing and altering their plan, each local transport authority must ask people living or working in their area about their transport needs.").

The amendment seeks to add a new paragraph to Clause 108(4) requiring a local authority to consult on the making of its transport plan. I suspect that Amendment No. 123, which is grouped with my amendment, seeks to do the same but by slightly different and perhaps more economical means. However, I shall leave the noble Lord concerned to explain that amendment.

It is a curious fact that although, under Clause 110, consultation is required when a local authority formulates its bus strategy, no such requirement is imposed on the making of the local transport plan. The amendment attempts to correct that. I am sure that the noble Lord will tell the Committee that a great deal of consultation is already written into the guidance on this matter. However, I wish to point out that the requirement has not been written on the face of the Bill, and perhaps to a certain extent this is therefore a probing amendment.

However, the amendment is different from amendments we are tabling in a similar vein--calling for consultation--in other parts of the Bill because it addresses the issue of consulting with local people about their transport needs. When an authority is constructing its transport plan--I speak as one who has chaired the construction of a five-year review of such a plan--it is most useful to know about the needs of local people. The authority does not need to be told what is already being provided, but it needs to gather information on what people would like to see being done or what they feel they need. Various ways can be employed to accomplish such consultation. Polling is one method, but many others can be used. Indeed, I hope that my noble friend Baroness Scott of Needham Market--I am glad to have said her name correctly; for the first five years after I came to this House, people got my name wrong--will tell us more about those methods of consultation.

The objective of the new paragraph is quite clear. I beg to move.

I am most excited about the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. It conjures up a splendid picture of those working in local government preparing a draft of a transport plan and, in so doing, talking to local people. The noble Baroness is to be warmly congratulated on breaking such novel ground. I take great pleasure in saluting her for that. I hope that she will continue with such noble work for a long time to come.

However, I cannot resist the temptation provided by the amendment to refer to possible answers that officials might receive when talking to ordinary people about their journeys and the dispatch of their goods. Ordinary people embark on journeys, hoping to arrive at their destinations with reasonable expedition. They dispatch goods in the hope that they, too, might reach their destinations. However, what usually happens? Along the way, those people meet with interminable delays caused by the slowness of road repairs in their own areas. I wonder whether ordinary people might not in fact be shocked into silence when such questions are put to them by their own local authorities. If they answer at all, their authorities will be told to get on with their work and thus not impede people's journeys as much as they do so frequently at the moment. They may say that they are altogether fed up with the experience of roads being dug up frequently and over long periods by utility companies, which ought long ago to have learnt better and which would do well to study just the rudiments of good manners and consideration for other people.

I have long been envious. One of the great fashions of our time is the frequent leaking of letters. Never in my life had I been the recipient of a leaked letter until the other day, when someone kindly sent me a copy of a letter written by a representative of the utilities to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. I have no idea what the noble Lord's department will do with it. It expressed the hope that he or one of his minions--the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, perhaps--would take no notice of "this awful Bill" that I have launched. I have done so because the patience of ordinary people has become exhausted as a result of the dilatory tactics of utilities and highway authorities: with repairs being slowly undertaken and holes frequently left unattended over long periods of time, then forgotten about and not even filled in. I had a case the other day when those at Transco were reminded of the existence of a hole. "Oh, we haven't got one", they said. But eventually, after searching through their archaeological records, they were able to detect that they did, after all, have a hole! They said, "We're so sorry; we'd forgotten about it. We'll go and fill it in"--and surprise, surprise, they did. I merely want to place on record my deep gratification at receiving a letter for my study which was not intended for me at all. I very much hope that when Members of the Committee receive a copy of the letter they will take no notice of it and will burn it. I hope that not only will they bless my Bill during its remaining stages here, but that they will also see that it receives the blessing of another place.

There is no difficulty in finding out what people want and need and in trusting them to be able to tell the difference between the two. Over a period of time, local neighbourhood associations have grown up all over the country which are absolutely capable of obtaining local responses in a way that would not have been the case 20 or 30 years ago. I suspect that much of this is due to the rise of community politics as sponsored by the Liberal Democrat Party. It is certainly helped by Liberal- run councils, such as that in Richmond-upon-Thames, which treat as a serious business finding out what people want and need.

I have put my name to this amendment and to half a dozen others like it throughout the Bill. I shall not weary Members of the Committee or extend the Committee's work by rising to speak to every one of them. I merely register my belief, and that of my party, that consultation on local needs is vital.

Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 123, grouped with this one. The intention of that amendment is exactly the same, although one might have to think about it in order to see that.

Clause 110 opens with the words,

"In complying with section 109".

Clause 109 simply deals with bus planning; Clauses 107 and 108 refer to transport planning; and Clause 110 deals with consultation. If the noble Baroness will forgive me, it is a matter of preference for the wording. Amendment No. 123 would be a tidier way of ensuring that the consultation process is applied to the whole of the transport planning process, not merely to buses. It seems to me that the case has been well made and I do not want to take up the Committee's time further on this matter.

We on these Benches would have no problem in agreeing to that amendment. It is the issue of consultation that is important, rather than the exact wording.

I feel that over the past year or so I have been consulted to within an inch of my life on all manner of things. The problem is that the approach of all kinds of public bodies, and indeed the private sector, to consultation is bringing the process into disrepute. That is mainly because they say that they are "consulting" when they are "informing". People become irritated. They feel that even if they take the time and trouble to tick boxes and send back forms, no one will listen to what they have said, and it will make no difference anyway. Genuine consultation is quite different. We seek the Government's thoughts on how local authorities should be consulting.

At present, there is good practice in local authorities, but it is rather sparse and extremely patchy. For example, as part of the local transport planning process in my authority, we have created local action plans for all communities of over 3,000 people. These have created genuine and meaningful action plans to which people can relate, and they feel that this makes a difference to their lives. We have learnt a great deal from talking to people. It is easy to assume that we know best.

It is important to understand that local authorities are particularly well placed in this regard, through the work that they do as local education authorities or as providers of social services, and through their links with health services. Therefore, we seek a requirement for consultation on local transport plans on the face of the Bill, so that this is not merely a subject for guidance.

My hopes were raised for a moment by the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. He said that there is no difficulty nowadays in discovering what people want and need, and in being able to tell the difference. I thought that that was a plug for my trade of survey research, which has certainly shown over many years that it is possible, by suitably probing research, not merely number-crunching, to give people realistic options and alternatives, and to allow them to add to those and to respond to them in a way that corresponds to the sensible points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Alas, the noble Lord then seemed to return to a plug for Liberal Democrat local forums; and I am much less secure about those as a method for discovering what people want and need.

Clearly, local authorities should have regard to the transport needs of people working or living in their area. Effective participation is a theme not just for transport but for the whole of the Government's policy for modern local government. The White Papers, Modern Local Government--In Touch with the People in relation to England, and Local voices--Modernising Local Government in Wales, require local authorities to make consultation part of their culture. The best value regime introduces a customer focus for the provision of local services, requiring authorities to consult and then respond to the results. But we believe that the requirements for consultation and participation in local transport plans are best dealt with by guidance rather than on the face of the Bill.

Perhaps I should explain our approach to the issue of consultation and participation in the preparation, development and implementation of local transport plans. I believe all noble Lords agree that local transport planning needs to be an inclusive process. Authorities should actively involve local people, business, transport operators, users, health and education providers and environmental organisations in drawing up their local transport plans. Full and effective public consultation and participation is an integral part of their duties under best value. We attach a high priority to effective public involvement in local transport policy, and it will be a key factor in our consideration of local transport plans.

The need for authorities to achieve effective participation is made very clear in the existing guidance on non-statutory plans. It sets out the importance of public participation in establishing a genuinely inclusive approach which is vital if authorities are to achieve the support necessary to deliver change. It recognises that local people have the knowledge and insight into existing problems and ideas for their resolution. The Commission for Integrated Transport, of which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is a member--he was the only one of the signatories to this amendment who did not speak to it--said in its report on the guidance on provisional local transport plans:

"The [Commission for Integrated Transport] considers that the guidance on public participation is helpful and thorough, while leaving local authorities sufficient freedom to choose the best methods".

I could not have put it better myself. The commission wanted to see revised guidance to reflect the need for authorities to demonstrate public involvement during the development of the strategy within LTPs, and the onus on local authorities to demonstrate that they had successfully reached all key sections of the population and how proposals had been amended in the light of public comment. The latest guidance to local authorities in England reflects those views. The Good Practice Guide on the Development of Local Transport Plans which accompanied this guidance also includes examples of effective participation, establishing partnerships and possible tools for consultation.

I am becoming slightly confused. Clause 110 deals specifically with consultation on Clause 109 which is concerned with bus plans. They are also included in the guidance and are part of the transport plan. The noble Lord said that if the requirement for consultation was in the document there was no need for it to be on the face of the Bill. My question to the Minister is: at the next stage will he accept an amendment to remove Clause 110 altogether to make it consistent with transport planning?

I make two observations in response to the noble Lord: first, he should wait until I come to Amendment No. 123, to which I have not begun to respond; secondly, when the noble Lord reads my response and his version of it he will discover considerable differences.

As I understood it, we were discussing consultation, not one particular amendment vis a vis another.

I like to respond to amendments in the Marshalled List. I believe that that is a courtesy owed by government to those who have devised the amendments. If noble Lords want to broaden the subject matter into a general discussion of streetworks and roadworks, that is fine with me. However, it is my duty to respond to the amendments that are before the Committee. We consider that the requirements for consultation and participation are best dealt with by guidance rather than on the face of the Bill.

I turn next to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The requirements of Clause 110 relate specifically to the development of bus strategies rather than local transport plans as a whole. They are quite practical and ensure that other local authorities, bus operators and organisations that appear to represent users are consulted on the strategy. However, for local transport plans--this is where guidance comes in--we want to see wider consultation. The effect of Amendment No. 123, taken together with the other amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite to remove the requirement for local authorities to have regard to guidance, would be to restrict the extra consultation on plans.

We recognise the need for effective consultation and participation. I am more than happy to make the commitment that future statutory guidance issued under Clause 111 will be equally clear. We intend to have effective participation in local transport plans and provide a commitment to statutory guidance to cover the issue. I suggest that that is preferable to the options offered by these two amendments.

We have had a very full answer from the noble Lord. I look forward to reading the complete flavour of the noble Lord's response in Hansard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 108 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 121:

After Clause 108, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:LOCAL SPEED LIMIT ORDERS: GUIDANCE

(" . The Secretary of State shall, within 5 years of the coming into effect of this Act, publish revised guidance for the making of local speed limit orders in the context of a speed management strategy forming part of a local transport plan.").

Amendment No. 121 is a new departure compared with the amendments that the Committee has been considering. The amendment seeks to add to the Bill a mechanism whereby the Government can carry out a major plank of their road safety strategy when they are ready to do so, or at any rate within five years from the date of implementation of the Act.

The Government's road safety strategy clearly indicates that they believe it necessary and desirable for local authorities to be able to classify the roads in their districts and apply different speed limits to them, preferably on the basis of particular areas rather than one road, or part of a road, at a time. The Government made clear in their strategy that a legislative framework was required to enable them to give guidance to local authorities as to how to apply various speed limits in different ways. Obviously, speed is closely connected to safety and what might be called a better way of life. Speed is also a frightening element of traffic movement for pedestrians and cyclists. I believe that in the country horse-riders are one of the most vulnerable groups. This amendment is part of an attempt to enable local authorities to provide safer roads within their areas by considering strategic, long-distance routes and those suitable for heavy traffic in a different way from minor roads in villages or small towns.

I am grateful to the department for the assistance provided to me in framing the amendment. I hope that I have done it correctly. No doubt what is good about it stems from the department's advice and what is bad about it stems from my failure to understand the exact way in which to insert an amendment into a Bill. I hope that the amendment will find favour with the Minister. I beg to move.

I support the amendment, bearing in mind the danger to horses and riders. Some rural roads, in particular minor roads, are narrow, bending and with high hedges over which neither drivers nor riders can see. In areas where there may be a lot of riding, it would be advisable to have some speed limits on roads outside the built-up areas.

I support the amendment. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, had some drafting help. The amendment refers to a period of five years. Therefore, nothing will happen very quickly.

I draw the Committee's attention to the White Paper which is now two years old. Page 61 contains almost identical words to those used by the noble Baroness. It refers to 20 miles per hour speed limit zones; and to the fact that the frequency of accidents has been reduced by about 60 per cent, with those to children being reduced by 67 per cent. Something needs to be done. The amendment is in line with the transport strategy. I hope that it can be accepted by the Government who might consider reducing the period of five years to three years.

As the Minister responsible for the Road Safety Strategy, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness's desire to smooth its path in respect of speed limits. I am not entirely clear that a requirement to issue guidance is the key point although there is a need for guidance in that respect. The current guidance is helpful in technical detail so far as it goes, but the speed review we conducted last year in parallel with the Road Safety Strategy indicates a need to ensure greater clarity, greater consistency and more of the area approach to which the noble Baroness referred.

The speed review recommended using the DETR's New Approach to Traffic Appraisal as a basis for developing an assessment framework for setting speed limits. The safety strategy indicated some moves and broad objectives in relation to residential areas, and villages in particular. We are completing this new advice which will be issued to local authorities. It is complex and cannot be issued instantly. I would expect the next advice to be issued on that basis within the next three years and, therefore, well within the noble Baroness's time-scale.

I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment now. We shall consider whether the appropriate formulation would require new guidance. If it relates only to guidance, it may be unnecessary. On the other hand, were there to be regulatory provisions we need to see whether the present powers of the Secretary of State are sufficient. While understanding the objective of the amendment, I should like to consider the issue further. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I knew that I would make some major error. I shall consider his reply. Before Report stage, perhaps we can consider whether there is a need for legislative provision. This aspect of the Road Safety Strategy was clearly ticked off in the "legislation required" column. If the provision needs to be phrased differently, we have time between now and Report stage to get it right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 109 [Bus strategies]:

moved Amendment No. 121A:

Page 67, line 3, at end insert--

("( ) In developing their bus strategy, a local passenger transport authority, including Passenger Transport Executives, must have regard to the pay and conditions of their employees and best employment practice.").

In moving the amendment, I first declare that I am a member of the Unison Parliamentary Group.

This part of the Bill aims to improve local transport services by facilitating quality partnerships and quality contracts designed to improve the standards of bus services throughout England and Wales. Everyone supports the need for better bus services and the need to encourage more people back on to public transport in an effort to reduce congestion and environmental pollution. However, there is concern that in its present form the Bill fails to make explicit provision for the needs of employees, within the context of both local bus strategies and quality contract schemes.

Paragraph 11.17, on page 40 of the Government's daughter document to the transport White Paper, From Workhorse to Thoroughbred, states:

"A well trained and well motivated workforce, with decent pay and conditions is essential if we are to realise the full potential of the industry in meeting passengers' needs".

However, at no point in this Bill is it acknowledged that employee terms and conditions are a fundamental component of quality services. The Bill fails to ensure that employee terms and conditions are a material factor when drawing up local bus strategies and hence when entering into quality partnerships and quality contracts. As such, I and others, including Unison and other trade unions, are concerned that contracts and partnerships will be entered into on the basis of cost and frequency alone, without regard to the important and crucial needs of staff who are, as acknowledged in the consultation document, key to successful partnerships and better services. Happy and contented staff make for good and punctual services, and civility attracts passengers. Discontented staff make for surly service and drive away passengers--the reverse of what the Bill seeks to do.

Problems are also likely to occur in the tendering for quality contracts. The consultation document also acknowledges that there are disadvantages to the quality contract schemes. These include the fact that, as stated in the Government's own document,

"Experience suggests that contracting can become a competition between operators for the lowest cost wages and conditions for staff".

That is unacceptable.

Local authority owned bus companies, trading at arms' length, may find that they lose contracts because they are obliged to observe pay and conditions standards that exceed those found in many private bus companies. The lack of a level playing field in this area may, in the worst case scenario, not only lead to loss of jobs and low staff morale, it would also have a negative impact on services.

Despite the Government acknowledging the problem in the consultation document, the Bill fails to make any arrangements to help to counteract the practice by making sure that bus strategies, quality contracts and quality partnerships consider the terms and conditions of employees. Without employees, one will have no bus services. If employees are badly paid, there will be bad bus services. Greater value would be added to quality partnerships and to quality contracts if all companies were required to present high standards of pay and conditions similar to other competitors in the field.

The amendment would ensure that in drawing up local bus strategies, local transport authorities must have regard to best employment practice. This would help to ensure that such conditions were a factor when entering into quality partnership schemes and quality contracts. By amending Clause 109, a clear and positive statement would be sent out to employees and employers alike that best value means best employment practice.

Why have the Government failed to include in this part of the Bill provisions for employees' terms and conditions? Furthermore, will the Government assure the Committee that local transport authorities and bus operators will be obliged to incorporate best employment practice within their bus strategies? Best employment practice should include the protection of core terms and conditions and mirror image pension rights from equal opportunities policies, health and safety commitments, trade union recognition and training opportunities. I feel sure that my noble friend will agree with those aspects and will want to incorporate them.

In conclusion, in order for best value to be a success, it is essential that best employment practices are encouraged and facilitated in relevant legislation. In my view, the Government have not taken sufficient measures to demonstrate to staff that best value is a positive step forward. Moreover, it is time that staff were seen to be the solution to poor and unattractive services and not the culprits. I beg to move.

I support the amendment. It is difficult to put into words what my noble friend is trying to achieve but he has made a good attempt at it. Unless the quality of service on buses is improved in many places, we shall not achieve the wholesale diversion of passengers which everyone wants.

I understand that in many parts of the country there is a shortage of drivers. There is a shortage of train drivers and there will soon be a shortage of lorry drivers. They cover surface transport. If we cannot recruit such drivers, properly train them and persuade them to stay in the industry, we shall not achieve the quality of service, frequency and reliability that is essential.

As many Members of the Committee have said, sadly, one has to be something of an acrobat to stay on a bus! If one suffers from a disability, it is even more difficult. I live in Oxford where, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, we have special buses with a floor that can be lowered so that passengers can climb on. But if they are not sitting down by the time the driver moves off they will probably be more disabled than when they started the ride! That is not the way to attract more people onto the buses.

Only yesterday, when I was standing at a bus stop, a lady complained that the bus went by without stopping. She said, "I had my hand out but the driver took no notice". The bus was not full but he was probably in a hurry. We must do something about such incidents. I am not sure what the answer is, but I commend my noble friend for raising the issue and for tabling the amendment.

I appreciate much of what was said by my noble friends Lord Stoddart and Lord Berkeley. It is true that if the morale and commitment of the staff are not right we shall not be able to deliver effective improvements in service to the public. However, the Bill is primarily about delivery of service to the public; it is not about industrial relations and the terms and conditions of those who are employed.

Clearly, the transport authorities can take into account issues relating to terms and conditions if the effect of those terms and conditions is to undermine the performance of the service. It is open to local authorities to specify, for example, training standards for bus staff as part of the quality partnership standards. However, the broader question of how to deal with the staff of the local authorities, including those of passenger transport executives, is perhaps better addressed in a local government Bill rather than in a transport Bill.

My noble friend's amendment addresses,

"the pay and conditions of their employees"; that is, local passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives. An additional problem with the drafting of the amendment is that the passenger transport authorities, not the executives, have responsibility for the strategy. However, by and large, the employees of the operators might be affected and not those of the local authorities or the passenger transport executives.

Clearly, we would wish for a good and positive best employment practice within all areas, particularly those of local authorities, but I do not believe that the Bill is the place to prescribe that. If anything, it should be in a local government Bill. As regards the employees of the transport authorities, as my noble friend's amendment does not address the employees of the operators it does not achieve what he intends. In any event, I do not believe that the provision would be appropriate here.

I thank my noble friend for his helpful reply and I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his intervention in support of my amendment. It was difficult to frame and it is appreciated that there may be other means of achieving the ends.

I want to ensure that in the PTEs and the PTAs there is a realisation that transport services will succeed only provided the employees are satisfied, well remunerated and like their jobs. I speak as a former chairman of the Reading Corporation transport undertaking, so I know a little about negotiating procedures. It is necessary to have a well paid staff who are motivated to serve the public. People who are not satisfied and are frustrated will start their buses off sharply and will not consider the passengers who are standing in the rain at the bus stop. They should instead realise that the passengers are their livelihood and because they are properly considered they will give them good service.

I want to consider what my noble friend said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]

Clause 109 agreed to.

Clause 110 [Consultation and publicity about bus strategies]:

[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 124:

Page 67, line 11, at end insert--

("( ) the traffic commissioner for each traffic area covering the whole or part of the area to which it relates").

Before speaking to the amendment and to others standing in my name, I must declare an interest. I am a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, and a member of the British Railways Board. I make it clear that the amendments are my personal work and that I have received no advice or guidance from anyone connected with either of those two bodies.

I propose the amendments, with the support of my noble friends, because I believe that they will improve the Bill and make a useful contribution to the implementation of the policies contained in the Government's integrated transport White Paper, with which I am almost totally in agreement.

I want, first, to talk about the traffic commissioners. This is the first of a number of mentions in the Bill of the traffic commissioners and of the duties attaching to them. When we discussed Part I, which relates to NATS, a great deal was said about safety. A commitment was expressed on all sides of the Committee to safety. The Government's road safety strategy makes it clear that road safety is a key aim of the six traffic commissioners who license bus, coach and heavy goods vehicle operators.

One of my concerns is that traffic commissioners are under-resourced. I believe that they are also under-utilised. However, we must not be complacent about safety in the whole area of road transport. I mention the fact that in the last year for which records are available 576 people lost their lives as a result of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. In the context of our discussion on NATS last week, that represents two air crashes. Tremendous horror was expressed in the Chamber at the prospect of air transport safety being in any way compromised. However, we compromise safety in road transport every day, every week and every year.

The traffic commissioners are one of the principal groups of people whose duty it is to promote safety, and they work with the Vehicle Inspectorate. We must remind ourselves that on average 20 per cent of vehicles over 3.5 tonnes fail their test by the Vehicle Inspectorate and 12 per cent do so the second time that they are tested. Passenger service vehicles do not do a great deal better: 15 per cent fail the test and 9.1 per cent do so on a repeat test.

Therefore, in moving the amendment, I want to ask the Government whether they intend to review the resources available to traffic commissioners in order to enable them to carry out all their duties properly. What we propose and what the Bill says is that traffic commissioners are to have additional duties--referred to on pages 70, 71 and 74 of the Bill--particularly in regard to quality bus partnerships.

In my view, it is axiomatic that if a traffic commissioner is to play a part in the administration of a quality bus partnership, he should be a consultee of the bus strategy of a local authority. Either the traffic commissioners are important people in whose judgment the Government place trust or they are not. If they are important and if they are to be involved, they should be consultees at the beginning of the development of a bus strategy. As the Bill is written and as we continue with the subject of quality partnerships, there comes a point when the traffic commissioner must be part of the enforcement process of that quality partnership further down the line. Therefore, the amendment makes the traffic commissioner a consultee at the beginning of the process.

However, in order to play his full part in the administration of quality partnerships, in the whole realm of safety and in the proper regulation of road transport, I readily accept that the traffic commissioner must have adequate resources at his disposal.

Before we move on from the question of resources, all operators--freight and road passenger operators--have always said that they would be prepared to pay a little more for their operator's licence if that money was spent on the enforcement resource available to the traffic commissioner. Again, it is a principle of fair competition that people should obey the rules: they should not overload; they should not allow their drivers to work excessive hours; and they should maintain their vehicles properly. The effect of not enforcing the rules is to move one of those principal pillars away from fair competition.

Amendment No. 125 deals with the issue of users. However, I shall stop at this point and ask whether we may have a response to Amendment No. 124. I beg to move.

If I am to respond properly to this amendment--I believe that I am responding only to Amendment No. 124--I must say quite a lot about traffic commissioners as well as something about the bus strategy. Perhaps I may explain the main responsibilities of the traffic commissioners and the powers that they are given under the Bill. I shall then refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with regard to the resources available to them.

The main responsibility of traffic commissioners is to ensure that bus services meet the necessary statutory operating requirements and comply with their registered details. The Bill provides for traffic commissioners' involvement, but at the level of the detailed schemes which local authorities bring forward under the Bill rather than the bus strategy. They will be consulted on quality partnership schemes, quality contract schemes, ticketing schemes and information. That is referred to in Clauses 114, 124, 135 and 138.

Of course, the commissioners will be kept informed of the outcome of the matters on which they have been consulted. That is because they will have enforcement functions in the event of contravention by a bus operator. Failure to comply on the part of the bus operator will leave him open to action by the commissioners for breach of his registration conditions, except in respect of a quality contract operator, who will be answerable to the contracting authority. That is provided for in paragraphs 10 and 22 of Schedule 11.

Therefore, we believe that we have made appropriate provision for the traffic commissioners in the matters with which they are concerned. They have important powers, which they are well qualified to exercise, to oversee entry to the bus industry in terms of financial standing and professional competence and to monitor bus services to ensure compliance with their registered details. We are widening that activity under Part II of the Bill to include enforcement of quality partnership schemes, ticketing schemes and passenger information. Those will all be similarly enforced under the existing registration system.

The mechanism to which I referred is set out in paragraphs 10 and 22 of Schedule 11, which provide that operating in breach of the provisions will attract the sanctions available under Sections 26 and 111 of the Transport Act 1985. They include the power to levy a financial penalty on the operator, currently in the form of a requirement to repay 20 per cent of the fuel duty rebate received for the previous three months. That can be a sizeable sum, and in the past the traffic commissioners have shown themselves ready to impose those penalties on under-performing operators.

Clauses 154 and 157 of the Bill provide for greater flexibility, both in the circumstances in which penalties can be paid and in the size of those penalties. That ensures that the financial penalty available is effective and flexible and the traffic commissioner can vary it up to specified limits to suit the circumstances of a particular case.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the issue of traffic commissioner resources. He wanted an assurance that we recognise the need for resources. We do, indeed, recognise that it is important for the commissioners to have adequate resources to carry out the enforcement role that I described. That is why last year we made additional resources available to cover the cost of using Vehicle Inspectorate staff to undertake monitoring of bus services. I am pleased to say that we have recently agreed that that arrangement should become permanent. We have made available £0.5 million annually in order to enhance the monitoring role.

I have gone into some detail about the work of the traffic commissioners because that is the context in which I say, with some regret, that we cannot accept the amendment. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to require the traffic commissioners to be involved in the bus strategies. By definition, they are strategic policy documents designed to set out in broad terms how the local authority intends to exercise its bus functions. We do not consider those to be matters on which it is appropriate to trouble the traffic commissioners. They do not have responsibilities as regards overall judgments about the local bus network, whereas user representatives, who are referred to in Clause 110, may well be expected to have a view on those matters. Nor do the commissioners have wider interests of the kind that justify other local authorities and bus operators being consulted on bus strategies.

I hope that by setting out the difference between the two roles I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, not to press the amendment.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Bus quality partnerships may become quite complex documents in time. It may be difficult for the traffic commissioners to carry out their duty of enforcing them when it comes to excluding non-compliant operators from use of the facilities. There may be difficulties ahead for the Government.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on that, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 125:

Page 67, line 15, leave out paragraph (d) and insert--

("(d) users and potential users of such services or organisations appearing to the authority to be their representatives.").

I have also tabled a series of similar amendments that have been grouped with this.

The amendments would make a slight change to the wording of the clauses that refer to the consultation process for bus strategies, quality partnership schemes, quality contracts and bus ticketing schemes. The Bill says that the local transport authority must consult,

"organisations appearing to the authority to be representative of users of such services".

The amendment would require the authority to speak to users of the services as well.

The difference may not seem profound, but it is important for bus travel. Bus travel is not as well represented by user organisations as rail travel. There is a structure of rail user organisations that works fairly satisfactorily at a regional level and even at a lower level than that.

The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, may have accused me by implication of being naive, but it is important to try to find out what bus users feel about new services. After all, good ideas often come from the users. That is as true for a service as it is for a tool or instrument. The people who use the service know how it affects them day to day. The amendments do not need any further explanation. I beg to move.

I have several amendments in this group. However, before I speak to them, I should explain that I have notified the Government and those who have put their name to it that my Amendment No. 134 has been degrouped. I shall speak to it with Amendment No. 131, because that makes more sense. I spoke to my Amendment No. 149 when we were dealing with Amendment No. 117.

I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, because they are better drafted than mine and would achieve the same end. Many people have little faith in the local democratic process, particularly when it comes to safeguarding the interests of disabled people. Disabled people are in a minority and their needs are not necessarily well known to the non-disabled majority. Consequently, the demands of the non-disabled majority generally overwhelm the needs of disabled people. Local democracy understandably generally favours majority interests, because that is where votes are.

I should like local transport authorities to be specifically required to consult disabled people and their organisations, regardless of whether they are bus users. Accessible buses are coming and must be in service by the end of 2017. With accessible buses will come far more potential users. They should be consulted, together with existing users, on the services that they would like. If not, their needs may well not be met.

I should like to add to what my noble friend Lady Thomas has said about bus users. As £500,000 was confirmed as going to the traffic commissioners on the previous amendment, I shall have another go.

Until recently, I was the chairman of the bus appeals body. That task has now been taken over by the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, who is not in his place, but will be here later. It became apparent to me that bus users are different from rail users. Rail users are generally articulate and well able to complain. They do so at length--usually, I imagine, with somebody typing their letter for them.

The bus appeals body received complaints from bus users who were dissatisfied with the treatment that they had received from bus companies. Often, the letters that came were not well written and had obviously been produced with great trouble on very poor notepaper. Such people find it difficult to make their views known.

The National Federation of Bus Users is a largely voluntary organisation that is gradually expanding its activities. It seeks to bring together the complaints of users and to present them in a way that forces bus companies to face up to the shortcomings in their services. It has very little funding. It receives some money from the Confederation of Passenger Transport, but, like all user bodies, it is uneasy about being dependent on the provider for its funds.

I have raised with the Minister in another place on a number of occasions the possibility of finding some means of making a modest sum of public funds available to help the federation to make its presence known to a wider audience and to formulate complaints so that they can be addressed. Mr Hill has said that he is looking for a way of providing some assistance. Can the Minister say whether some means has been found of providing modest assistance to the National Federation of Bus Users? If he is not able to say anything today, I should be glad if he could write to me. We have to try to do something for bus users, whose welfare is not being well catered for. They include the disabled people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred. This is a modest measure that would not involve large sums of money, but it would do a great deal to help a disadvantaged group of transport users.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I should like to emphasise in particular the importance of consultation with potential users of services. The Royal National Institute for the Blind's recent report entitled Rights of Way said that 40 per cent of blind and partially sighted people never used public transport, because it was too difficult or too inaccessible. Unless potential users, those who are not already using the services, are consulted also, the services will never reach a standard at which they can use them. For that reason and the other reasons already expressed, I support the amendment.

I support the aim of the amendments. We must bring in potential users and those who have traditionally found it difficult in order to ensure that they are considered in the process.

The amendments which relate to a requirement to consult are unnecessary because there is already provision in the Bill to ensure that there is consultation with user groups, organisations representing the disabled and others involved in the community when drawing up the local transport plans.

Some of the specifications are quite difficult to achieve; for example, the reference to potential bus users. I am not entirely sure which organisations represent potential bus users except in so far as they are already designated by, for example, organisations for the disabled and others. Clearly, there are organisations representing the deaf and partially sighted. Those people have difficulty hearing announcements or reading the printed word, to which my noble friend Lady Wilkins referred.

The Bill already acknowledges the needs of such disabled people by requiring authorities to have particular regard to their needs in the local transport plan set out in Clause 111. In general, we require local authorities to be inclusive in their consultation and policy-making processes with clear public involvement, participation of relevant organisations and so on. To some extent, we must allow local authorities to draw up their own lists of particular organisations which they should consult as guided by the Bill and the further guidance under this Bill and earlier Bills.

Therefore, it is not sensible to engage in listing all the groups of users that should be consulted. By definition, one interest group is bound to be omitted and the more organisations that are listed, the more likely it is that a body will be excluded whereas the general provisions will cover the requirement to include.

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, spoke to amendments relating to passenger information for those with particular needs. He raises a very valid point in that regard and I hope that I can give him some reasonable reassurance. Clearly, our objective must be that information should be accessible to all--disabled and non-disabled and potential users alike. We are making a start on that by honouring our commitment to the provision of public transport information over the telephone from a single national number covering all modes. That will be known as "Traveline". It is being developed across the country through collaboration between operators and local authorities and will be in place nationally later this year. That will provide a one-stop shop.

I am pleased to say that from the outset, the "Traveline" service will include, for example, a minicom facility for deaf people. That is only a start. We intend to enhance the initial service once it is in place. We are continuing discussions with DPTAC, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. Additional requirements can be built in to address the particular requirements for those who suffer from a disability.

As to local bus information, Clause 138 requires authorities to determine what information should be available and the way in which it should be provided. Again, in the consultation process which precedes that, local authorities are required to be, and will be, inclusive in their consultation process. Some time ago, DPTAC produced guidelines on the legibility of timetable information, for example, and it has been working with local authority officers to produce new guidance.

Amendment No. 141 is slightly different. It requires that quality contract applications to the national authority should show evidence of support from users. Again, that is already covered in that the consultation, which is to assess the degree of support, will be reported to the national authority. On the other side of the argument, under Clause 125(3) there is provision for written representations to be made to the national authority when it is considering a quality contract application and before determining that application. The national authority will obviously be expected to take such representations into account.

Therefore, the provision for consultation already exists. In some ways, the specification of user groups may make matters worse rather than better. With a general provision on inclusiveness of consultation and the provision of information, we are meeting the main points raised in the debate.

In my efforts to be brief, I may have been difficult to understand. I do not propose any additional clauses except that proposed in Amendment No. 141. My main objective is to ensure that when consultation is mentioned in Clause 110 on bus strategies, in Clause 114 on quality partnership schemes, in Clause 124 on quality contracts and in Clause 135 dealing with bus ticketing schemes, that consultation should not just be with organisations of bus users which, as we have said, are rather thin on the ground, but with bus users and their organisations. That is all that I suggest.

However, I shall read with care what the Minister said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]

Clause 110 agreed to.

Clause 111 [Plans and strategies: supplementary]:

moved Amendment No. 127:

Page 67, line 30, leave out subsection (1).

In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 128. They are separate amendments. I can understand why they are grouped together because they both deal with the same subject, but they are separate in the sense that the first seeks to remove absolutely the Government's power to issue guidance in this matter and the second seeks to limit the contents of the guidance.

I recognise that these amendments are, in a sense, an attempt to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted because the guidance was issued in March. However, we need to think extremely carefully what we are about because Clause 111 says that in drawing up transport plans, local transport authorities "must have regard to" the guidance. My view--and it may be a narrow view--is that that makes the guidance statutory guidance. This Bill has 342 pages, 265 clauses and 30 schedules. As if that is not enough, in effect, those words which I have quoted from Clause 111 add another 150 pages to the Bill.

It was because I could not see quite how to debate that guidance that I tabled these amendments. I hope that Members of the Committee will tell me that I am not abusing the process by doing so when they have heard what I have to say.

The guidance is a very significant document. I simply begin with the introduction: "What is an LTP?" It states:

"LTPs have replaced the Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) system of bidding for capital resources, which was no longer delivering efficiently".

When I asked under which legislative authority the transport policies and programme system is derived, which has distributed money for highways purposes to local authorities for so many years, I did not receive an answer. I went to the Local Government Association, to my own local authority and to the Library. The best answer I found came from the Library, "Because this is the distribution of funds the Treasury can just do it". Therefore, they can change the system. I assume that in this instance we are concerned with a deal that has been struck between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury. I hope that there is complete agreement between the two departments on this matter. I hope, when the Minister replies, that he will give me an absolute assurance that there is complete agreement and understanding as to what is taking place.

It is interesting that we are able to change completely a system of financial allocation without reference to statute at all, which as a local authority man--I am sorry to mention my local authority background--I find quite fascinating. Nobody in any local authority has been able to do anything without statutory backing, until now. In recent legislation we have begun to put in aspects of a general power and a general competence. However, that is as it may be.

The document also states:

"Under TPP, authorities were allocated funding for individual schemes. This meant the Government took decisions on very small schemes, often costing as little as a few thousand pounds. It wasted time and resources and meant decisions were taken in isolation, often on purely financial grounds"-- and so on.

What does this wonderful document achieve? We may have thought we were heading for an easier, simpler system. On the next page, there is a section headed, "What will LTPs deliver?" The contrast between local transport plans and the transport policies and programme are set out at the top of the page. We find that a local transport plan,

"does not require detailed list of schemes, but rather indications of where the main problems are and how they will be tackled ... Plans will be assessed on the quality of the strategies they contain"-- and so on. We are dealing with a bidding programme. As one reads on, one finds that another line reads:

"Ministers will be looking for evidence that a local transport plan is of a high standard across the board, as assessed against the criteria in Annex D".

Annexe D is wonderful; it is a mine in which one can dig for ideas for a long time. Annexe D includes a whole series of identified problems and talks about objective settings, about the minimum requirements of a plan and about the characteristics of a good local transport plan, which, in principle, as we have heard, should not be detailed and need not go into individual schemes and the reasons for them.

I turn to "Strategy development". It is tempting to read out the whole document. Of course, if I were rash enough to do so, it would be seen to be a patent filibuster. What is required under "Strategy development" is,

"Clear evidence of a fundamental review of existing strategy ... a robust analytical or evidence based approach ... Alternative solution(s) tested, in particular alternatives to major schemes ... a clear link between objectives, strategy and the specific measures in the LTP ... Identifies cross-boundary issues ... Steps being taken to ensure consistency with the local authority development plan and the national and regional planning guidance ... Programme of public participation reported, with indication of how this has influenced strategy ... consideration of links with other relevant local strategies (e.g. Health Improvement Programme, education policies)"-- and so on. Those are only "Minimum requirements". Then we find "Characteristics of a Good LTP". They are,

"Full range of potential solutions tested and appraised ... topic based ... and local area-based strategies pulled together in a coherent way in over-arching strategy ... Strategy incorporates measures to tackle cross-boundary issues in partnership with neighbouring authorities ... Clear evidence of close integration with other relevant local strategies ... Principles of good participation have been followed in developing the strategy, in particular, evidence that public fully involved in consideration of alternatives".

Under "Implementation Programme"--I shall be a little briefer this time--it states:

"Clearly identifies the level of resources bid for ... Identifies the cost and timing of all major schemes (£5 million) proposed ... realistic about the level of available resources".

We have already heard about the reliability of available resources. That may or may not be all right. It continues:

"Indicates effectively the scope for modifying the implementation".

In other words, what do you do if you do not receive the money?

The document refers to,

"Clear indication of priorities ... Identifies contribution of the private sector ... commitment of partners clear ... Identifies clearly any significant statutory or other consents that may be required ... includes details of planned revenue expenditure".

Again, that is a minimum requirement. A good LTP will also contain,

"contingency plans in case statutory or other consents are not forthcoming ... Maximises contribution of the private sector, both as a source of funds and as a provider of services ... Groups small scale projects into appropriate programmes".

If you believe the preamble, small projects are not supposed to be considered at all.

The document states:

"Clearly explains what part of the programme is supported by revenue resources ... explains how this relates to the proposed capital programme", and so on. I have not counted the sectors, but there are about 16 or 20 of them, all of which set out what is to be in a good local transport plan.

Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. There are 27 paragraphs like that and he has read out only two. Perhaps I have made the point!

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I did not want to bore the House with these wretched things. However, this is exceedingly important because local authorities are obliged to comply with all--I stress "all"--these matters in intimate detail.

The result is that Hampshire has a plan that has to be submitted some time this month--I do not remember the precise date and that is not relevant to the point that I seek to make. It is 800 pages long and cost over £300,000 to produce. This is supposed to be a simplified, straightforward, non-detailed system of planning highways expenditure allocation, among other things. Of course, the programme is more than that, but this procedure would not be necessary if it were not for the fact that this is also a bid process for financial allocation. The reason that it becomes so intrinsically detailed and appallingly hard work is because, as it is a competitive bid programme, every local transport authority must perforce ensure that its plan has the characteristics of a good local transport plan, as defined. Therefore, each has to produce all the detail.

Another result is that Kent, which wanted to purchase 20 reflective jackets for those manning road crossings on dark, winter nights, felt that it had to include that in the plan. Otherwise, simply putting 20 more people on its crossings did not make sense; they had to have reflective jackets for the winter; and if the council wanted a good plan, it had to fill in all the detail.

There are 150 pages of such details. They receive no supervision from Parliament at all. That produces a serious constitutional issue; that is, the question of the status of statutory guidance and Parliament's supervision of it. Unfortunately, technically, we have no means of looking at that. That is my excuse for tabling these amendments.

Amendment No. 127 simply seeks to remove the power to make that guidance. I recognise that the stable door has been opened and the horse bolted, so there is not much point in that amendment. Amendment No. 128 seeks to limit the power. I raise this issue not in the sense of the detail, but in the constitutional sense; that is, that we need to think carefully what we are about. It is my view that this Bill is not 342 pages long; it is 492 pages long, and 150 pages contain no supervisory powers whatever. That must be wrong. I beg to move.

If the Committee agrees to Amendment No. 127, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 128.

I suppose I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for not reading out all 150 pages. Nevertheless, he rather misled the Committee in his description of the use of the guidance.

In this guidance the Government are attempting to provide a steer to local authorities as to how they should construct their plans and we will assess bids, which were previously assessed on a one-off basis, against their holistic approach to transport within their areas. It is something which sensible local authorities will be doing in any case and something which needs now to lock into the process which the Government are requiring. But it is not a straitjacket. It is not legislatively forcing local authorities to do something which it is not in their interests to do. They must have regard to the guidance. The bids--if we continue to call them "bids"--will be judged against their total approach to planning. But they will not be constrained, in the way that direct legislation may constrain them, to meet all the objectives of the guidance document.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seems to be suggesting that we should delete all requirements to "have regard to". He also seemed to be suggesting that, in so far as the Government were to go down this line, all of it should be on the face of the Bill. That is entirely the wrong approach and a totally different argument from that put forward when we discussed local government legislation; namely, that local authorities should be given as much flexibility as possible. There should certainly be guidance and a general indication of what national policy is; but it should not be prescriptive in the way that both primary and secondary legislation are.

Guidance is the right approach. It is not intended to be unduly prescriptive. It seeks to guide local authorities on specific issues. The requirement that local authorities should "have regard" to guidance means that a local authority must not disregard it; but neither does it have to follow it slavishly. That is the purpose of guidance and the balanced approach of its effect. One of the amendments would delete that constructive relationship and the other would seriously constrain what could be put into guidance. Neither would be healthy for the relationship between the national and local transport policies.

One can argue as to the bits and pieces in guidance. But in that sense it is not binding. There will always be differences of emphasis. But the approach we have taken in the Bill is the most appropriate. Any other approach would be more prescriptive and less able to convey the relationship between national and local government decisions. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not pursue either amendment.

The Minister misunderstood my motives in tabling these amendments. It was certainly not to put 150 more pages on the face of the Bill. It was to debate the issue of parliamentary supervision of statutory guidance. I am sorry that others chose not to take part in this debate. An issue arises in this regard which, on a day when we regulate and legislate in increasing detail across the broad spectrum of society, is wider than this Bill.

The Minister said that local authorities will continue to tender their bids because it is in their interests so to do. He is perfectly correct. If they do not tender their bids, they will not receive any money. But he who pays the piper also calls the tune. The Minister said that the Government, in considering the allocations, would consider the total plans. I have set out in these amendments a limited number of the things that the total plans must contain. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out that I described only two sections, and there are, in fact, 27. Every local transport authority in the land will sweat through those 27 because of the fear that, if they do not, they will not receive the money they require.

But it is worse than that. A local authority with independence of mind may disagree with the Government on certain policy issues and wish to treat the whole matter in a different way. It would be reassuring to know that a local authority that was sufficiently bold to hold its own opinions would still receive the money. But the way that governments have worked in the past does not give me confidence that that would be the case.

I listened to the Minister with a great deal of interest and there is a wide gap between us. I shall consider what he said. On the whole, at this stage, I feel that I should leave the matter of the guidance being on the face of the Bill. But I feel that I ought to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 128, which deals with the issue of the content of the guidance. For my part, the Minister has not given a satisfactory response to that issue which is much wider than the question of placing the guidance on the face of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 128:

Page 67, line 38, at end insert--

("( ) Guidance issued under this section shall be confined to that necessary to ensure consistency of information and presentation within plans, and consistency between plans and with national policy.").

On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 128) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents 130.

Division number 1

See full list of votes (From The Public Whip)

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 111 agreed to.

Clause 112 agreed to.

Clause 113 [Quality partnership schemes]:

moved Amendment No. 128A:

Page 68, line 15, after ("authority,") insert ("Passenger Transport Authority and Passenger Transport Executive,").

In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 137A, 153A to 153C, which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Perhaps I may declare interest at this stage, as I am a member of UNISON.

This part of the Transport Bill aims to improve local transport facilities through the implementation of best value and the further establishment of quality bus partnerships and quality contracts within local authorities. The purpose of these amendments is to seek further clarity as to whether passenger transport authorities and passenger transport executives fall within the best value remit of the legislation.

Over the years, the six PTAs and PTEs, which, between them employ over 5,000 workers, have been extremely successful in fostering the development of integrated public transport involving bus and train and, where appropriate, ferry and air services. Indeed, they provide much of the infrastructure such as bus stops and bus stations. Moreover, in the case of Tyne and Wear, they own and operate the Metro system. In Manchester and South Yorkshire they were instrumental in the planning and operation of the new light rail services in both Manchester and Sheffield. They also play a major role in securing the provision of socially needed bus and train services by way of the subsidised tender system, including rural services and special community transport services. Elsewhere, some of those responsibilities are undertaken by local county councils.

PTAs and PTEs have, therefore, a great deal of responsibility in relation to the provision of integrated transport services in their particular areas. It is important that they should be obliged to abide by the same standards of high service as other local government transport authorities. However, as I understand it, they are not currently subject to the same best value legislation as local government transport authorities. In its current form, the Transport Bill does not appear to provide for any measures that will make their position clearer and thus provide the necessary safeguards.

The proposed amendment to Clause 113 and to Clauses 123 and 140 would ensure that both PTAs and PTEs are subject to the same legislative provision as local transport authorities, especially when entering into quality bus partnerships, quality contracts and subsidised tendered services. This also applies to the new national passenger information service. Without such direction on the face of the Bill, I have concerns that PTEs will not feel it necessary to follow best value principles and procedures in setting up contracts, partnerships and when procuring tendered services. Therefore, it would be most helpful to hear from my noble friend the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that both PTAs and PTEs will abide by the same legislative rules as their local authority counterparts. I beg to move.

I should point out to my noble friend that there is a distinction between PTAs and PTEs in this context. This amendment seeks to add references to both of them alongside the current references to local transport authorities. As regards PTAs, I can assure my noble friend that such reference is unnecessary, as these authorities are already included within the definition of a "local transport authority" in Clause 107.

As for PTEs, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to give them identical powers to the PTAs. That would lead to some overlap and confusion. In any event, the two bodies have different powers and functions: essentially, the PTE is the executive arm of the PTA. Therefore, the Bill rightly gives to PTAs the same powers as other local transport authorities--county councils and unitary authorities--to develop and implement schemes for quality partnerships and quality contracts and arrangements for passenger information.

At points, the Bill recognises the particular role of the PTEs by providing in Clause 109(4), for example, for their advice to be taken into account by the PTAs in connection with the bus strategy. But it is the PTA that remains the body with the principal powers and duties. That is already covered in the same way as applies to other transport authorities. In the light of my remarks, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reassurance about PTAs. I note what he said about PTEs; namely, that, in his view, this amendment is not appropriate for them. I shall certainly read his response in Hansard to consider what was said in that respect. However, having been reassured on the position of PTAs, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 129:

Page 68, line 30, after ("congestion,") insert ("road accidents,").

As drafted, the Bill requires those who initiate quality bus partnerships, among other things, to consider the question of reducing traffic congestion, noise or air pollution. This is a very small amendment, which seeks simply to include "road accidents" among those matters that should be considered for reduction. I believe this to be an unexceptionable issue. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will consider this to be a helpful amendment, as it was intended to be. It has been grouped with Amendment No. 175, which makes precisely the same point regarding a different part of the Bill. Nevertheless, it is relevant. I beg to move.

I should normally be very responsive to the noble Lord's call to register road safety in various parts of the Bill, but I do not think that it is appropriate here. There is a direct relationship between the level of bus take-up and the provision of bus services with congestion, pollution and air quality, which means that such issues can be built into the quality partnership or contract. However, the relationship with road accidents is less clear.

In one sense the increase in bus take-up provides a safer mode of transport because travelling on a bus is statistically safer, for example, than travelling by car. But the total effect may not be so direct because a smoother bus journey and less congestion may actually lead to faster speeds and, therefore, the possibility of further accidents. Indeed, when considering road safety, one has to take the whole journey into account, such as walking to the bus stop before the journey and away from it afterwards.

It is therefore within the total transport plan that the issue of road safety has to be addressed, rather than in the particular instrument of quality partnerships or quality contracts. The link between better bus provision and fewer road accidents does not seem to us clear, unlike the link between better bus provision and a reduction in congestion and pollution, which is already included in the Bill.

The link with the payment of bus subsidy in Clause 151--which Amendment No. 175 seeks to amend--is even more tenuous in our view. The primary purpose of subsidy is to ensure an adequate bus network, plugging gaps in what is offered commercially by providing non-remunerative services. Subsidy may also be paid to enhance services, perhaps with a view to promoting public transport use--hence the relevance to congestion and pollution in Clause 151(2). However, to link the payment of bus subsidy with the prevention of road accidents does not seem appropriate. The important issue is the total approach to preventing road accidents rather than giving a subsidy to a particular form of transport. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment, although I accept that it is well intended.

I am grateful for the Minister's comments and for his sympathy with the objective behind the amendment, even if he does not think that it is appropriate. I shall study his comments with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 130:

Page 68, line 38, leave out from ("facilities") to end of line 40.

Clause 113(5)(b) addresses quality partnership schemes and states that the facilities which may be specified in a scheme,

"may not be facilities which are required to be provided as a result of section 138 or 139", which refer to the provision of information about services to the public.

I do not know how one can provide a quality service if one is not required to provide information about that service to the public. I am a little puzzled at that exclusion. I hope that the Minister will comment on the Government's thinking on that matter. I do not believe that a service will be of a high quality unless the public are fully informed about it. I beg to move.

In our estimation the proposal seems sensible.

I reassure the Committee that there is nothing sinister about the proposals. It is certainly possible for a quality partnership scheme to include requirements as to bus information to passengers, and many will do so, as is the case at present, although practice varies throughout the country. Subsection (5)(b) is simply aimed at avoiding duplication of powers. Thus any facilities which relate to information and are required to be provided under the separate powers on passenger information under Clauses 138 and 139 may not also be covered within a quality partnership scheme. It is not intended that in other circumstances they should not be included. I hope the Committee will accept that reassurance.

The Minister is reassuring. I shall study his comments and, as always, do my homework. However, on the strength of his comments, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 131:

Page 68, line 43, leave out from ("meet") to end of line 45.

Clause 113(6)(b) addresses the requirements of a quality partnership scheme. It states that the standard of services which may be specified in a scheme,

"do not include requirements as to frequency or timing of the services".

That seems rather an odd requirement to exclude from a quality contract. I believe that such a scheme should refer to the frequency and timing of services. I accept that, given the vagaries of traffic, the British weather and the accidents of life, these are hazardous matters to try to predict in a contract with any precision. Nevertheless, it seems to me completely wrong that they should be excluded. I beg to move.

Amendment No. 132, which stands in my name, is grouped with Amendment No. 131 and tries to achieve much the same result but by slightly different means. Clause 113(6) determines the standards that can be specified in a quality partnership scheme. Clause 113(6)(b) excludes local transport authorities from adding frequency and timing of services to those standards. Amendment No. 132 states not that they must do so, but that they may do so. I hope that that will meet the "flexibility test" as it is not a demand.

However, these standards can be specified in a quality contract. We understood that the Government consider that, as regards the provision of bus services, quality contracts may be, as it were, younger sisters or less important members of the clan. However, if one can obtain these standards only by going down the quality contract route, that is what these authorities may be tempted to do, bearing in mind that the two matters that passengers most frequently cite as being important are precisely timing and frequency of services.

My name is attached to Amendment No. 131. As I mentioned when we discussed Amendment No. 125, I degrouped from it Amendment No. 134 and said that I would address that amendment with Amendment No. 131.

As I see it, the purpose of Amendment No. 131 is to allow quality partnerships to specify details of timing and frequency of services. Amendment No. 134 would require local transport authorities to consult organisations of disabled people before introducing quality partnership schemes, whether or not they are users.

Timing and frequency of services are key factors that stop disabled and elderly people from being able to go out independently. Timing has a bearing on when to shop, when to visit friends and places of entertainment, and on how disabled people get to work. If an authority or authorities propose to make a quality partnership scheme, they must give notice of the proposed scheme and, inter alia, consult such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of users of local services as they think fit.

For reasons that I stated earlier this evening, I should like to see local transport authorities specifically required to consult disabled and elderly people and their organisations, whether or not they are current users. It is extremely important that both elderly people and disabled people without their own private transport know the frequency and the timings of public transport.

In responding to these amendments I am very conscious that this is an issue relating to Part II of the Bill which is of concern to several noble Lords. I respect their views, but I should like to argue that there is another point of view, which I shall try to set out for the Committee.

I begin by looking at some matters of legal principle. We have two quite separate concepts in the Bill: quality partnerships give local authorities new powers to set overall standards for bus services as a condition for the use of facilities that the local authorities provide; quality contracts give local authorities powers to determine all the details of bus services in a particular area, including the specific details of timetables.

There are different procedures for the two concepts. Quality partnerships are a matter for a local authority's own discretion, subject to various consultation requirements; quality contracts require the consent of the relevant national authority, which seems only right for such a significant and substantial departure from the present arrangements under which bus operators have quite a margin of commercial discretion.

These amendments would seriously blur the distinction between quality partnerships and quality contracts. They would give local authorities a very significant degree of control over the details of the bus operators' timetables and frequencies in the circumstances of a quality partnership. The result would be that the quality partnership would take on some of the crucial characteristics of a quality contract and other important aspects of quality contracts would be side-stepped; in particular, there would be no need for the consent of the national authority to such a quality partnership.

So we would have legislation with two blurred and overlapping concepts; we would have something which looked very much like a quality contract but achievable by the quality partnership procedures--achievable by the back door, some might say. I cannot think that it would be right to put such provisions on to the statute book.

Perhaps some noble Lords may seek to argue that I am relying on technical legal arguments. I would therefore seek to underline my point by looking not at the legal issues but at the practical ones. As the Bill stands, quality partnership provisions in Clauses 113 to 122 give local authorities the power to set mandatory standards for bus services as a condition for the use of the facilities which the local authority has provided. A typical example of a facility might be a new bus lane; an example of standards set by a local authority might be that all buses must be less than three years old.

A key feature of these standards is that they apply to all bus operators even-handedly; the local authority does not need to negotiate separately with individual bus operators. The standards are set and publicised and all bus operators therefore know where they stand; they either meet the standard or they cannot use the bus lane. Enforcement is for the traffic commissioner. So if a new operator wants to come in, he does not need to seek any approval from the local authority; he merely registers his service with the traffic commissioner in the usual way. In making that registration, he will confirm to the traffic commissioner that he meets the published standard for the use of the bus lane.

However, if the local authority had the power to set standards in respect of timetables or frequencies, we would find ourselves in an entirely different world. No longer would we have the even-handed approach as between different operators; instead, the local authority would have to take a view not only on each individual bus operator but on each individual bus service. So every operator would need to go to the local authority and negotiate over the timings of each service before they could be allowed to run.

We can see, therefore, what the inevitable result of these amendments would be. Even if we look only at frequencies rather than at detailed timetables, it is clear that different frequencies will be appropriate for different services. The frequency that is right for a service to an outlying rural village will be quite different from that required to link a city centre to a railway station or for a busy commuter route. So one frequency fitting all simply will not work. The local authority will have to take a detailed view, case by case. The same will be all the more true if the local authority is looking not at overall frequencies but at full timetables. So the local authority will be taking detailed control over services run by operators.

I hope that I have made it clear that this amendment is much more significant than it might at first sight appear. It would upset the balance that underlies the idea of quality partnership--the balance between the local authority (which should be given new powers, as we firmly believe) on the one hand, and the bus operator (who should be allowed a measure of commercial discretion) on the other.

Certainly, the present position is not perfect. That is why we are giving local authorities the important new quality partnership powers in the Bill. For the first time, these will allow local authorities to require bus operators to meet certain standards. That is a significant step forward.

The Bill retains the principles of balance and of quality partnership, with local authorities and bus operators working together. Local authorities will use their skills in traffic management and provide facilities, and they will be able to impose legal conditions on the use of those facilities. Bus operators have their own skills, too, and they will be able to contribute their operational judgments on timings and frequencies.

The Committee can find the definition of "quality partnerships" in Clause 113(2), where that idea is reflected on the face of the Bill. The Committee might then look at the definition of "quality contract" in Clause 123(4) to see the clear difference between the two.

Let us not forget that we already have a range of success stories up and down the country with voluntary quality partnerships, which have already produced examples of significant increases in bus patronage without detailed local authority powers over timings and frequencies. We believe that it is right to strengthen local authority powers, as I have indicated. That way, both local authorities and bus operators can invest with confidence, knowing that low quality bus operators will not be able to make free use of facilities and undermine the quality standard.

Given those success stories, I am not persuaded that detailed powers of local authority control over timetables are appropriate. I should stress, as the Committee will know, that it remains open to local authorities and bus operators to reach voluntary agreements on matters of timing and frequencies. That has been done successfully in the past; it can be done in future--in ways, incidentally, that keep the Office of Fair Trading happy. I suggest that it is the appropriate way ahead, offering the prospect of successful partnerships rather than a relationship based on control.

It has been suggested that this is all very well but that we are now working under a new Competition Act regime, and concern has been expressed about the attitude of the Office of Fair Trading to such voluntary agreements. It is not for me to speak for the OFT, but I believe that these fears are unfounded. I see no reason to think that voluntary agreements between operators and local authorities on frequencies and timings--even if they are caught by the Competition Act--will inevitably be outlawed by the OFT. Of course the OFT is concerned for the travelling public--as are we all--and it wants to be sure that operators are not making cosy deals under the guise of a voluntary quality partnership. But the OFT will also be concerned with the public interest; the important point is to discuss the issues with it openly and to show how the public will benefit. If there is doubt, the OFT can always be approached informally for its view.

I recognise that many in local government and the bus industry are keen to see guidance from the OFT on its approach to both voluntary and statutory quality partnerships. Frankly, I share that view and I shall make representations to the Director-General of Fair Trading accordingly. I very much take the points made by noble Lords over time in that respect.

I have deliberately spoken at length because I know that this is an important issue and I felt that the Committee was entitled to a full explanation of the Government's view.

I turn now to Amendment No. 134, which seeks to add organisations representing disabled people to the consultation process. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said earlier, the Bill already acknowledges the needs of disabled people in Clause 111, which requires authorities to have particular regard to their needs in the context of the local transport plan and bus strategy. We shall be encouraging local authorities to be inclusive in their consultation and policy making. I am concerned that if we were more prescriptive than that by seeking to put such organisations on the face of the Bill, it would be more likely than not that we would probably omit one particular interest group or another. I would argue to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that we can safely leave it to the authorities to decide how best to meet the spirit of what is required by way of consultation in the light of the guidance on local transport plans which has been issued.

I submit that the provisions in the Bill on quality partnerships already give local authorities significant and valuable extra powers which, on all the evidence, will provide the basis for successful partnerships in future. The Bill already lays a firm foundation for such future success. These amendments would entail a significantly different approach. Therefore, I cannot recommend them to the Committee.

I thank the Minister for that very full explanation. Viewed from the point of view of a local authority, when a quality partnership is set up facilities previously enjoyed by people are often taken away. For example, streets are closed to motorists or carparking charges are substantially increased. People then feel forced into using the public transport provided. If a facility which people have heretofore enjoyed is taken away from them, they need some reassurance that what is to be put in its place is suitable. Setting aside fares, in judging the suitability of any transport service, frequency and reliability are consistently at the top of people's lists of requirements. When designing an integrated transport policy one would wish to ensure that buses actually meet trains at the station. That involves timing. Buses should start and finish at certain times of the day. When spending several million pounds on a park-and-ride scheme, a sufficient frequency of buses should run in order to make the scheme convenient to users. It should not be a matter of helping the bus operator to fill every bus regardless of how long people have to wait. By providing a park-and-ride system and taking away the ability to park in the centre of a town, people are to some extent being forced to use the bus service.

What my noble friends propose is not that frequencies and timings should be a compulsory part of a quality partnership. They cannot be so because by its nature it is a voluntary agreement. Towards the end his speech the Minister offered some comfort. He said that there is no harm in these matters being covered in a voluntary quality partnership; they can be part of a voluntary quality partnership. I should like to be sure on that point. If one had to go out and sell to the electorate a scheme which involved them giving up their previous method of travel and adopting a new method, in a democratic process, some reassurance would need to be given that what they would receive was at least as good as, and one would hope better than, that which they had previously enjoyed. Taking away road space to create bus lanes inevitably means that the facility for people to park in front of their house or in front of shops is denied to them. It is a bargaining process between the local authority and the electorate and between the local authority and the bus companies.

What we are seeking is that nothing should be ruled out of the discussion. Using the word "may" in our amendment is intended to make it clear that a quality partnership does not allow a local authority to specify in detail the timings and frequency of services but rather requires it to give a broad specification of the kind of service which people can expect.

I am also concerned, as is the Minister, about the influence of the Office of Fair Trading. We can probably return to that issue at a later stage. I shall leave my remarks there, save to say that many voluntary quality partnerships are extremely successful and many of them include reference to timing and frequency.

Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will consider something a little less prescriptive than what he has proposed. My noble friend the Minister gave a very clear exposition of what is expected from the partnerships. If a local authority is introducing bus lanes, or whatever, obviously the local authority will want to see something in return. Some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, were probably more relevant to quality contracts, but perhaps not.

At the moment we seem to have the standard of service being confined to special types of bus and so on. I wonder whether it is possible to introduce a minimum level of service without specifying timetables. That would get over the concerns raised by my noble friend the Minister and make the provision a little less prescriptive. It would mean that at least some services operated rather than none.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I am happy to reconfirm what I said earlier. It remains open to local authorities and bus operators to reach voluntary agreements on matters of timing and frequency. Just as it has been done in the past, so it can be done in the future. In reply to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I would simply say that we can leave the matter to the creativity and the self-interest of the parties involved to ensure that they develop new levels of service.

I am grateful to the Minister for an extremely comprehensive reply which ranged over the field rather more widely than the specific amendments. The fact that he had the full attention of the Committee shows that it was recognised as a significant response.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for what she said about her amendment. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for supporting the argument. However, in his response the Minister certainly gave us serious cause for thought. We shall need to study with care what he has said, but I do not think that we shall find it necessary to return to the subject, which will be of intense relief to the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]

Clause 113 agreed to.

Clause 114 [Notice and consultation requirements]:

If Amendment No. 133 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 134.

[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]

Clause 114 agreed to.

Clause 115 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 135:

After Clause 115, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:INVESTIGATION BY COMPETITION COMMISSION

(" . The Competition Commission may at any time investigate whether the appropriate authority has acted in the interests of the public in connection with a scheme and issue a report setting out any changes to a scheme which it regards as necessary to protect the interests of the public.").

Amendment No. 135 seeks to give the Competition Commission an opportunity to look at what is done under quality partnerships. There are a number of arguments in favour of that. However, it appears unnecessary to go over those arguments in view of what the Minister said in his previous response. I do not at this stage wish to take up the time of the Committee on the amendment. I shall need to look carefully at what the Minister had to say in his previous reply. I beg to move.

I submit that the Bill already contains sufficient provisions to promote the public interest. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment.

I tried to get out of pressing my amendment! I apologise; I tend to muddle the procedures a little every now and then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 116 agreed to.

Clause 117 [Effect of scheme]:

moved Amendment No. 136:

Page 71, line 35, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

If I have read it correctly, this part of the Bill seeks to bar other operators from using the facilities provided in a quality scheme. We do not think that that is right. If the new quality partnership schemes are to deliver good services, they should be open to all those who wish to become involved.

However, once again, I understand that the Minister may well have covered this area in his previous reply. However, I look forward to receiving an assurance that that is the case. If it is, then I shall be clear about my next action. For the time being, however, I beg to move.

Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 137. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already responded to this point, but for the sake of clarity I should like to cover it briefly. This clause covers the question of enforcement by the traffic commissioners of a quality partnership. Our amendment seeks to establish how those undertakings, which form a part of the quality partnership, will be enforced.

If I have understood correctly what has already been said, the traffic commissioners will have knowledge of the quality partnership in all respects. An operator seeking to register a new service within that quality partnership will need to give an undertaking to the traffic commissioners that the service complies with the quality partnership. The service will then be registered and will be able to run.

However, I am concerned about what will happen if it is found that the service being provided by the new entrant operator does not comply with the details of the quality partnership? Who will bring that to the attention of the traffic commissioners and what action should the commissioners take? Would they deregister the service concerned; namely, take away the licence? Furthermore, does a public hearing need to be held to process this, or would a fine be imposed under the arrangements described later in the Bill which are to replace the withholding of 20 per cent of fuel duty rebate?

Both of these amendments relate to the enforcement of quality partnership schemes. The first amendment, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and his noble friends, seeks to omit subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 117. Those subsections prohibit a bus operator from using quality partnership scheme facilities unless he has given a written undertaking to the traffic commissioners that he will provide services to the necessary standard, and will do so when using the scheme facilities.

These provisions go to the heart of a statutory quality partnership scheme. They are what crucially distinguishes it from existing voluntary arrangements. Schemes under Clause 113 represent a partnership in which both operators and local authorities agree to enter into commitments. As I said earlier, the authority will undertake to provide certain facilities such as bus lanes or other bus-related infrastructure. In return for using those facilities, the operator will agree to provide services to certain standards which may, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, involve the bus itself. However, other aspects such as driver training and customer care may also form parts of those services. Once the scheme has been made, those commitments will be binding.

Under the clause, authorities are under a duty to provide and maintain the facilities, while operators must meet the standards if they are to enjoy the use of the facilities. Omitting subsections (4) and (5) would, I believe, negate the whole object of Clause 113. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, anticipated that I would not commend that course to noble Lords. It would critically weaken a central plank in the Bill.

The second amendment, tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would extend the regulation-making powers in Clause 121 to include regulations with respect to the means of enforcing such undertakings and enforcement with regard to,

"operators ... excluded from the partnership".

I think this may arise from a misunderstanding of the Bill. It may therefore be helpful--the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, invited me to do this--if I take a moment to explain exactly how the enforcement mechanism is intended to work. I hope that that will persuade noble Lords opposite that no further provision is needed.

The position is as follows. As I have said, there is a balanced partnership in which both local authorities and bus operators must bring something to the benefit of the travelling public. Once a quality partnership scheme has gone through the consultation process and has been agreed, it is duly made and brought into force under Clause 115. Bus operators can choose to opt in or out of the scheme. If they opt out, they may continue to run bus services in the area, subject to the normal registration process, but they will be denied access to the special facilities provided by the local authority in connection with the scheme. They could not, for example, make use of a new bus lane to avoid traffic congestion on the route, or perhaps they could not use the new quality bus shelters provided with real time information displays about when the next bus is due. If they do, they will be operating in breach of Clause 117(4). That in turn means that they will be open to action by the traffic commissioners. One can imagine that other bus operators, as well as the local authority, would be keen to report any breaches of the prohibition. It would otherwise be a case of one bus operator, who had not invested, trying to steal a march on another who had.

On the other hand, operators choosing to opt in to the quality partnership scheme must give a written undertaking to the traffic commissioners under subsection (4) that they will provide bus services to the necessary standards while using the scheme facilities. If they fail to do so, except in the circumstances set out in subsection (5), they also risk sanction from the traffic commissioners.

Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the range of sanctions open to the traffic commissioners for breach of a quality partnership scheme is the same as currently applies to breach of the bus registration system. As paragraph 95 of the Explanatory Notes explains, this is secured by virtue of Schedule 11, paragraphs 10 and 22. Those paragraphs apply the relevant powers from the Transport Act 1985. They include the power to levy a financial penalty on the operator, currently in the form of a requirement to repay 20 per cent of the fuel duty rebate received for the preceding three months.

As I explained, in the past the traffic commissioners have shown themselves ready to impose such penalties on under-performing operators. Additionally, Clauses 154 and 157 of the Bill provide for greater flexibility both in the circumstances in which penalties can be paid and in the size of those penalties. They will ensure that the financial penalty available is effective and flexible, and thus capable of being varied to suit the circumstances of a particular case. Beyond that, the traffic commissioners can impose conditions on the operator's "O" licence, limiting the number of vehicles he may operate or, in extreme cases, prohibiting the bus operator from running any local services for a specified period of time or until other appropriate remedial action has been taken.

I hope that that satisfies noble Lords that a wide range of penalties has been provided. In our view, further provision by way of regulations on enforcement are not needed. With those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Once again I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He has filled in a great deal of background detail which helps my understanding of the circumstances. I shall need to study the reply with care, but it seems most helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 117 agreed to.

Clauses 118 to 120 agreed to.

Clause 121 [Regulations about schemes]:

[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]

Clause 121 agreed to.

Clause 122 agreed to.

This may be a convenient moment for the Committee (on Re-commitment) to adjourn during pleasure. I suggest that the proceedings begin again at precisely 8.30 p.m.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 to 8.30 p.m.]

Clause 123 [Quality contracts schemes]:

[Amendment No. 137A not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 137B:

Page 74, line 40, leave out paragraph (b) and insert--

("(3A) Other local services may be provided in the area described in a quality contracts scheme if they have been in operation for at least twelve months before the quality contract scheme comes into operation.

(3B) The operators of these services must submit an annual review of the quality of the services provided and a plan to achieve the levels of service that are set out in the quality contracts scheme.").

This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 138A and 144. The amendments deal with quality contracts as opposed to quality agreements; therefore the issue is different from that in earlier debates. However, reading into what was said previously, I believe that I shall receive the same kind of response to this group of amendments. The amendments seek to preserve the rights of people who already provide a service on a particular route if a local transport authority decides that it should be subject to a quality contract.

This is a necessary step. Here we are dealing with a mechanism which, subject to ministerial approval, could be seriously anti-competitive. One could envisage circumstances in which some local authorities--which, to my great regret, do not always behave in the most responsible and proper way--might come to an agreement with a particular service provider to provide a service to the exclusion of all others. If someone is already providing the service and it is already in a competitive position, we do not think that that is quite right. The rights of the competing organisations to provide a service, in a situation where they have already provided that service for some considerable time, should be preserved.

This is a fairly straightforward issue. I have heard the Minister's replies to earlier debates in respect of quality agreements as opposed to quality contracts. However, it is still worth considering this point. The right to deprive someone of his living by contract is a dangerous thing--but that is in effect what the Bill permits. I beg to move.

There is a clash of principle here. The noble Lord is arguing that operators who previously offered services in an area should continue to be allowed to operate them once a quality contract is agreed. The Government believe that that seriously undermines the whole principle of quality contracts. The contracts will signify an arrangement under which a local authority determines the bus network frequency and fares and lets a contract to a single operator or to a consortium of operators.

The presumption in those circumstances must surely be that the local authority decides what bus service is needed and secures that by means of a contract with the operator. If it were open to other bus operators, whatever their history, to have the freedom to continue to operate within a quality contracts area, they might well compete directly with the contracted service, probably concentrating in a cherry-picking way on the more profitable of various routes. That would be an odd situation, given that a quality contracts scheme is designed to be all-embracing and is an arrangement to cover the whole area. Frankly, it is not possible to run a quality contracts system in parallel with a partially deregulated regime for buses.

I understand the concern for the pre-existing operator. But that operator will have had the opportunity of bidding for the quality contract and his organisation will have lost the bid. That is a natural feature of commercial life. In this situation it means that the operator will no longer have the right to run those routes. That is the logic. I do not believe that the noble Lord's logic, anxious as he is to protect the previous operator, is sensible. It would undermine the whole concept.

I believe also that the noble Lord's amendments are technically defective; however, I do not expect that he wants me to go into that at this time of night. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

I hear the Minister's explanation, and it does not surprise me. I had anticipated his response. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The mechanism of quality partnership is likely to be a very satisfactory one. The mechanism of quality contract may be satisfactory, if it is used in a very limited way. But if a service is in effect being run by two competing companies, both of which are contributing to and operating a service that is satisfactory to the public, and in that situation the local authority decided that it preferred a "quality contract", one or other of the two operators currently making a living out of that route would be deprived of that living.

I accept that this provision is subject to ministerial sanction and, because the provision of moneys through grant is involved, that is a significant fact. However, I am not sure I am completely satisfied with the Minister's answer. I shall consider what he has said, and then consider what I wish to do about it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 138 and 138A not moved.]

Clause 123 agreed to.

Clause 124 [Notice and consultation requirements]:

[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]

Clause 124 agreed to.

Clause 125 [Approval of proposed scheme]:

moved Amendment No. 140A:

Page 76, line 10, after ("scheme") insert ("indicating the target for passenger miles in the scheme and what number of passenger miles travelled will be regarded as "scheme failure" under which the scheme shall cease").

This amendment seeks to include in the principle of quality contracts some definition of use and benefit to the public; and, if those criteria are subsequently not met, the recognition that the quality contract scheme is failing and should therefore be regarded as a failure, and that the scheme will then cease.

I accept that in such a situation there are all kinds of difficulties. But people's public transport needs evolve, as so many things do in life. When one begins a subsidised service one cannot tell with certainty, however optimistic one may be, exactly what will happen to it two or three years down the road. My amendment provides a mechanism to deal with failure so that public money, which comes out of the pockets of taxpayers up and down the country, does not continue to be paid to the operator of a bus service that no one wishes to use. I would have thought that that was a simple and reasonably acceptable principle. The wording of the amendment may not be perfect but I hope that the principle is. I beg to move.

As the noble Lord has explained, the amendment requires a local transport authority which approaches the Secretary of State for approval of a scheme to submit specific information about targets for bus passenger mileage. If those targets are not met, effectively the scheme is abandoned. That is a little too prescriptive. The Bill already lays down a test for making and approving a quality contract scheme in the first place. It includes the requirement in Clause 123 that the authority must be satisfied that it is the only practicable way to implement its bus policy so that it meets the best value test of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The appropriate national authority--the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales--must additionally satisfy himself or itself that the whole scheme is in the public interest.

Once the scheme is up and running it is for the local authority to ensure that the arrangements achieve what is intended. It would not be appropriate to take one aspect of the scheme--namely, the level of patronage in terms of passenger miles--to define when a contract should be ended. Other local authority objectives which relate to congestion, pollution or accessibility may not necessarily be subsumed within the passenger mileage index. It does not seem sensible, therefore, to define a single criterion whereby the system, not the local authority, cuts off the quality contract and decides that the scheme has failed. The Bill already contains suitable powers to revoke or vary schemes in circumstances where there is a problem. I do not believe that an automatic trigger for such a move is appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.

The Minister's reply is fascinating. I cannot conceive how pollution is reduced if an empty bus runs around the countryside. Apparently, if a particular bus operation is subject to a quality contract it is an environmentally good thing to do, if I slightly misinterpret the reply of the noble Lord. Equally, that same empty bus does nothing to help anyone gain access to anything. This is a serious issue. It may well be that I must think up another amendment. In the light of the Minister's response, it appears that the only quality contract that can reasonably be arrived at is one that is subject to a rolling review. There must be some mechanism to prevent the waste of public money on the provision of useless bus services in the countryside. In my somewhat limited experience, local authorities, with the best of intentions, make decisions the results of which subsequently prove to be unfortunate. There must be some mechanism to recognise those circumstances and to deal with them, which means bringing the contract to an end.

Before the noble Lord delivers his verdict in this case, I believe that he makes a very serious point. I am sorry that I did not intervene earlier. I hope that if at this stage the noble Lord withdraws his amendment he will return with something else at a later stage.

The noble Lord almost takes the words out of my mouth. I must look very carefully both at the response of the Minister and the wording of my amendment to see how it can be improved. The noble Lord will be relieved to hear that at least at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]

Clause 125 agreed to.

Clause 126 [Making of scheme]:

[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 142A:

Page 76, line 34, after ("area") insert ("or route or routes").

This is really a probing amendment. At present the Bill provides that a quality contract scheme must specify the area to which it relates. However, bus services are organised on a route basis and many different routes can cross the same area. It is also possible that more than one operator will provide services in any particular area. In its current form, therefore, the Bill fails to recognise the complexity of the present bus routes and appears to restrict the scope of quality contracts to a defined geographical area. That may not work.

I believe that a quality contract could and should be considered for one or more routes, not just one particular area. The amendment would allow scope for greater flexibility and innovation. I hope that my noble friend is able either to accept the amendment or reassure me that it is unnecessary. I beg to move.

If my noble friend's objective is to achieve flexibility and room for manoeuvre, the clause provides more than would be the case if it was amended in the way he suggests. The clause currently requires the tenderer not only to specify the area but to provide an outline of the local services to be provided. If we went further and required a specification as to routes, the room for innovation would be limited in terms of the tendering. The detailed routes may not be settled at the point of tender. We have deliberately framed the provision in a way which allows a degree of latitude to meet the transport needs of the particular area. If we simply specified pre-existing routes, or those routes plus a few desirable routes, it would place the process into a straitjacket whereas tenderers, particularly in a competitive situation, might well come forward with alternative ways to meet the transport requirements.

I believe that there is a respectable argument for keeping the provision in its present form and allowing the details of particular routes to be left to the tendering process. However, the process already requires a comprehensive outline of the routes to be provided. We believe that the local authority should have freedom of manoeuvre. The tendering process is itself a bit of an iterative process. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend is content to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. The noble Lord will understand that we need to think about the matter. We may want to return to the issue at a future stage, but I doubt it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 142B:

Page 76, line 36, leave out ("21") and insert ("12").

The amendment deals with the issue of time-scale. Clause 126(2)(b) provides for a 21-month delay in the introduction of a quality contract scheme once approval has been secured. I am not convinced that such a lengthy delay is necessary given that all the parties--they will include the existing operators--will have been consulted during preparatory stages and will appear, therefore, to have had ample time to plan ahead for the introduction of the scheme. I believe that a 12-month period is sufficient unto the day. However, it is a probing amendment. I ask the Minister why such a lengthy delay has been specified in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment No. 143, which stands in my name, is linked with Amendment No. 142B. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that compensation is paid to bus operators who lose business--no doubt in some cases their entire business--as the direct result of the imposition of a quality contract.

The lack of a clause allowing for the payment of statutory compensation raises a number of issues: moral issues; employment issues; and issues of future investment. On moral grounds, it cannot be right for a business or a part of a business to be taken away as a direct result of a change in the law without some form of compensation being paid. I assume that the reasoning behind the Government's decision was that the 21-month lead-in period prior to a quality contract would be sufficient time for operators to adjust. I am afraid I find that difficult to accept.

Indeed, in the case of smaller operators who cover only a single area and who lose out as a result of exclusion from an exclusive contract, there will be nowhere else for them to go and it is very likely that liquidation, with resultant job losses, will be the only option.

That brings me to my second point concerning employment issues. In the case of larger operators, it is unlikely that all the bus workers could be found jobs in other parts of the country even if they wished to move. The issue of pension rights is one that would need careful consideration; and, at a time when the bus industry is working hard to retain staff through improved conditions of employment for workers, the loss of job security would be a serious blow.

Lastly, I turn to investment. While I am sure that the larger bus operators in the United Kingdom would be able to bear the loss of a certain amount of their business, there will still be an adverse effect on their ability to invest in better passenger services. The Government have a duty to ensure that bus passengers are not penalised as a result of this policy. I hope that my noble friend will clarify the Government's position and give me some assurances.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld. There may be two fairly large bus companies in a town or city both of which have bought the companies, the ownership having passed on since the original days of privatisation. In the event of a quality contract being awarded, one of them could find that a large part of its business disappeared. It has purchased the goodwill of a business as well as the fixed assets such as the buses. It has taken over the labour, often under TUPE regulations. It seems only fair and, as the noble Lord said, natural justice that, provided the people who are dispossessed have been behaving normally, they should receive some compensation.

Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangement conforms with other law? Is the noble Lord satisfied that it is not open to challenge either here or in courts in other places?

Amendment No. 145, which stands in my name, is grouped with these amendments. It is a fortunate grouping. It sets out to achieve the same purpose as the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld. If we were to flip a coin to see which amendment we preferred we might need a two-sided coin. His amendment may be better than mine. However, the principle is the same.

We are discussing the integrity of the process under which quality contracts as opposed to quality partnerships are made and awarded. If a quality contract is made only in those circumstances where nothing else will provide a service, there may not be a problem. The difficulty is that the Bill does not seek to define the circumstances under which a quality contract is appropriate as opposed to a quality partnership.

For perverse reasons, a local transport authority could fall out with someone who is providing bus services. It may decide that the solution is to provide a quality contract scheme and thereby deprive an otherwise reputable company or business of its livelihood. That would not be correct or proper. In that situation, the issue of compensation is entirely appropriate. We are not talking only of compensation for the business. There are questions of redundancy, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, said. There is the issue of redundant investment, and all those other factors.

If the Minister replies that the appropriate relevant authority approves a quality contract scheme in a situation where there were competitive services, we have no difficulty. But, if he cannot give that assurance, I suspect that we may need to think again. I am happy to support what has been said on the matter.

Despite the multi-party approach, I find the basic concepts of noble Lords misplaced. We are talking here about a contract from a public authority. It has changed the nature of the contract; nevertheless there is an open contract procedure. One company may not gain that contract; another company will do so. It is not normal for the public authority in such circumstances to compensate the loser for failing to get that contract. I do not envisage the situation as any different from any other public sector contract in that respect. All bus operators who already operate, or desire to operate, within that area will have been given a chance to bid. They will have had a fair chance. They will have received the invitation to tender; and they will have been able to put in a tender. It will be fair competition at that point. But, as with many other public services, at the point where the contract is awarded that contract becomes exclusive for the period in question.

We recognise that there could be a serious transitional problem in moving from one operator or partial operator to a single operator. There are staff, capital and operational implications. That is why we have provided for a period of 21 months to elapse and why we could not accept a narrowing of that period to 12 months. Clearly, in many circumstances we would need to deal with a transitional period for the transfer of staff, of routes and, in some cases, of buses.

The two issues which have been raised are complementary but in the opposite way to that in which they have been raised. As regards employees, raised specifically by my noble friend Lord Hogg, nothing in the Bill affects the normal application of TUPE regulations. Their broad purpose is to ensure the ordered transfer of employees. Where a quality contract scheme involves any transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the regulations, as in most cases it would, the protections afforded by TUPE will have direct effect. The situation is more complicated in relation to pensions, but the TUPE arrangements which exist in normal circumstances may in future apply in these circumstances, too.

I therefore believe that Members of the Committee are barking up the wrong tree. The principle of a quality contract is that it becomes an exclusive contract and that compensation is not appropriate.

The situation which the Minister described is credible in London where route tendering takes place and somebody loses a route or two as there is a swings-and-roundabout situation within the city. Some people have to move jobs not without disruption to their lives. However, within cities such as Manchester, it is possible that the Government will be taking away whole livelihoods. The opportunity of redeploying is less likely to arise in, say, Manchester than in relation to routes in London.

If quality contracts are let to a consortium of operators, that will not necessarily apply. However, I believe that in some cases a city-wide or PTE-wide quality contract could lead to someone having stranded assets. That would not apply in relation to the letting of contracts in London or to refuse disposal contracts.

The Minister did not pick up the point which I thought I had made plain as regards the circumstances in which the Government might agree to a quality contract scheme. I have every sympathy with a quality contract when there is only one operator or, as in some rural areas, none at all. There, the only way of running a service, for which one would pray there was a level of demand, would be through such a scheme. There is a clear distinction between that situation, which would warrant a quality contract scheme, and the one outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. He pointed out that under the legislation it is conceivable that a passenger transport authority for a metropolitan area might seek to make a single quality contract scheme and thereby deprive a number of people, who are providing a good service and a living for many people, of the ability to make that living. Therefore, there is a distinction.

I wish that the Minister had answered my point but perhaps in the flow of his eloquence he simply forgot.

I did not forget it, but the answer is more complex than the noble Lord was looking for. The Secretary of State, when approving a quality contract, will take into consideration everything which surrounds it; for instance, the content and the way in which it has been drawn up. Certain aspects would undoubtedly be possible disruption, the non-optimum use of existing assets and so forth. All those issues could be taken into account in deciding whether to approve.

As regards the noble Lord's second remark, quality contracts come into play when the local authority is satisfied that it cannot reach its transport objectives without going down that road. Therefore, there will have been a failure in the previous system. Whatever the operator was providing or potentially could provide, the local authority will already have judged that it would be better provided on a single arrangement with a single operator or consortium of operators with statutory backing. That judgment will have been made by the local authority before it goes down the quality contract road.

There is a closer analogy with the situation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, relating to refuse collection. In most circumstances in which the contractor changes, the majority of staff, and the majority of trucks, are taken on by the new contractor. I suspect that we would see a similar situation were a major local authority such as Manchester to move to a single and new contractor under a quality contract. Therefore, I believe that the degree of disruption has been exaggerated during discussion of the amendment.

I recognise the difficulties and complexities to which my noble friend referred. I shall want to reflect on whether I with others have been barking up the wrong tree, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]

Clause 126 agreed to.

Clause 127 agreed to.

Clause 128 [Effect of scheme]:

[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]

Clause 128 agreed to.

Clause 129 [Tendering for quality contracts]:

moved Amendment No. 146:

Page 78, line 38, at end insert--

("( ) An invitation to tender under this section may not include conditions with respect to the terms and conditions of employment of persons to be employed in providing any service to which the invitation to tender relates.").

I have been trying to decide whether this is the reciprocal of Amendment No. 121A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, or whether it is the reverse. But I am afraid that in the end I had to conclude that it was the opposite! However, that gives me cause for hope because, if it is the opposite of that particular amendment, presumably it should support the position that the Minister took in rejecting that amendment. Indeed, I believe that the Minister made the case for this amendment when he rejected that one. I must confess that I had some difficulty in understanding why the two amendments were not grouped together in order that we might have this rather interesting debate at the same time.

However, in response the Minister said that the Bill was about service to the public and not about terms and conditions of employment. He said that one could not legislate in this Bill for the employees of bus companies. In a sense, that makes my case. The history books show that on occasion in the past local authorities--I do not wish to point a finger in any particular direction--were not unknown for slipping clauses into contracts which related to the conditions of service of employees of contracting companies. I felt that that was improper then and I believe that it would be improper now.

I support what the Minister had to say earlier and I hope, therefore, that he might support me in this amendment. I beg to move.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tempts me, but I fear that he misinterprets me. My previous position in relation to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stoddart was that we should not on the face of the Bill require local authorities to be constrained to observe the terms and conditions of the pre-existing contractor. That remains my position. However, the Government would wish to change the situation where effectively there was a blanket ban on local authorities being able to do so, should they wish to and should they regard that as part of the way in which they can achieve better value.

Contrary to the noble Lord's view, we believe that it is perfectly proper for local authorities to do that if they wish to exercise that degree of influence. It may well be, for example, that training provisions and the level of experience of workers is important to the delivery of value for money and performance standards. Local authorities should be able to take such matters into account.

However, to complicate matters further, that is not the position at present. The Government intend to modify the current situation by means of an order under the Local Government Act which would allow local authorities to observe employment terms and conditions on a voluntary basis. I am opposed to that being done, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart argued, on a mandatory basis, but I would allow local authorities to do so. In the meantime, and until I move that order, the noble Lord's amendment is redundant because the current position is that local authorities are banned from so doing. Therefore, I believe that we should have the substantive discussion on an order under local government legislation in a few weeks' time.

I do not wish to enter a debate about when we shall break for the summer. However, it is interesting, to say the least, to see how the ground has shifted between debate on Amendment No. 120 and that on Amendment No. 140, if I may express it in those simplistic terms.

I am quite pleased to hear that my amendment is redundant, although that will lead me to certain conclusions. At the moment I am somewhat disturbed to hear that the matter can be settled in another way under different legislation in a few weeks' time, even if none of us is here. However, I suspect that we shall have to be here in order for that to happen. Clearly, there will be something to say at that point.

I believe that this is an interesting issue. I shall need to consider both what the Minister said and what he considers to be appropriate courses for future action. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 146A:

Page 79, line 24, at end insert--

(" ( ) If no acceptable tender is received or if there are no tenders for a service, after consultation, the terms of the contract shall be revised and the tender procedure re-started.").

This small amendment is intended simply to deal with the situation in which no acceptable tender for a quality contract is received. People may say that that cannot happen because one will never arrive at a quality contract if one does not negotiate it. However, in an open tender process it is conceivable that no satisfactory tender--or no tender at all--will be received. There should be provision to deal with that situation. I should prefer the terms of the contract to be looked at and the tender procedure to be gone through again in full. The alternative appears to be for the authority to come to a negotiated conclusion with someone who had previously not tendered satisfactorily.

Local authorities must have proper tendering processes. An element of negotiation may help to make some complex contracts more satisfactory, particularly for construction projects, but we are not dealing with a situation of that complexity. For the sake of everybody's peace of mind, the Bill should contain a mechanism such as that outlined in the amendment. I beg to move.

The Bill already recognises the possibility of there being no acceptable tenders and makes provision for regulations under Clause 130(2)(a) in those circumstances. It is not sensible to prescribe in detail in the Bill what should happen. Local authorities will have a number of options open to them. They might include short-term action, such as the use of emergency powers--which is covered by the same clause--to maintain continuity of service. There might be a retendering exercise, with or without modification to the proposed contracts. A local authority could even fundamentally review the need for a quality contract scheme.

It is not helpful to box local authorities into a single course of action in those circumstances. They should be free to take whatever action is appropriate, subject to any regulations that may be made. We should leave local authorities with that flexibility, given that the Bill already recognises that eventuality.

At least I should be grateful that there is a possibility of regulations rather than guidance. I shall need to consider carefully what the Minister has said. We are discussing people's livelihoods, so the issues involved are important. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 129 agreed to.

Clauses 130 to 133 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 147:

After Clause 133, insert the following new clause--

:TITLE3:QUALITY CONTRACT SCHEMES: GUIDANCE

(" .--(1) The appropriate national authority may issue guidance concerning the carrying out by local transport authorities and metropolitan district councils of their functions in this Part in relation to quality contract schemes.

(2) Those authorities and councils must have regard to any such guidance.").

I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 151 and 154. The amendments would make the same provisions in different places in the Bill, making it possible for the appropriate national authority to issue guidance in relation to quality contract schemes, ticketing schemes and the provision of information.

The amendments are linked to a previous set of amendments that I spoke to on the consultation processes. As those previous amendments have fallen, it may be best to treat these as probing amendments. We want to be sure that we understand the Government's intentions on guidance in those three areas.

If our previous amendments on consultation had been accepted, the way in which it was carried out would have been a major part of any guidance that the appropriate national authorities put forward. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have any idea of using best practice as a way of informing guidance.

So I really have two questions in relation to these amendments: first, whether there is already or is going to be guidance on those particular items--and I repeat they are quality contract schemes, ticketing schemes and the provision of information; and secondly, if so, whether part of that guidance will propose the use of best practice in areas where it may not be very widely used at present. I beg to move.

These amendments would empower the appropriate national authority--the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales--to issue guidance with respect to quality contract schemes, ticketing schemes and passenger information, and would require local transport authorities and metropolitan district councils to have regard to that guidance.

Of course we already have equivalent provisions in the Bill for local transport plans and bus strategies. That is because central government have particular policy objectives that they wish to have taken into account in those contexts; and because we are making statutory what is currently a non-statutory process.

We have also made an exception in the case of quality partnership schemes. To some extent, those build on experience with existing voluntary quality partnership arrangements on which the department is already preparing a good practice guide. I shall return in a few moments to the issue of good practice. Under those circumstances, we felt that it might be helpful to develop that in the context of the move to statutory quality partnerships. We have taken the power to issue guidance in Clause 122.

But the focus of much of Part II of the Bill is on the delivery of local solutions to local problems. These are primarily matters for local authorities to decide in the light of local needs. We have no particular wish to burden authorities with central guidance on every issue.

It could be said that our existing guidance on non-statutory local transport plans is already too long. We do not agree. We are responding to requests from authorities to be clear and to address issues in some detail. But we do not see the same need for general guidance on schemes for ticketing or passenger information, for example. These are not areas where we think it is necessary to be prescriptive from the centre. Decisions are really down to local authorities, and then only where there has been a failure to secure satisfactory arrangements with operators without recourse to statutory powers. Clause 134(7) requires local transport authorities to co-operate with one another in relation to ticketing schemes. The Bill makes similar provision in connection with quality contracts and bus information.

So we do not accept the need to add these additional provisions on guidance to the Bill. There is always scope for informal guidance on any relevant matter. There is always scope for the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to collect together and to publicise examples of good practice. It may well be that the Secretary of State will want to do that in the light of early experience of the powers in the Bill.

But we should avoid giving any impression that local authorities cannot get on with implementing their new powers without waiting for further guidance from Whitehall. In fact, I am slightly surprised that the Liberal Democrat party should be seeking to turn a Labour Government into control freaks. We are certainly not control freaks and we have no intention of either being type-cast in that way or being dragged into giving guidance to which local authorities must have regard. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter.

When the Minister said that he was not interested in sending out too much guidance, my noble friend on my left said, "I hadn't noticed"! We can return the compliment or the tease with good measure!

I listened carefully to the Minister's clear response and, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 134 agreed to.

Clause 135 [Notice and consultation requirements]:

[Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 not moved.]

Clause 135 agreed to.

Clause 136 [Making of scheme]:

moved Amendment No. 150:

Page 83, line 26, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 27.

This is another amendment designed with the good reputation of the Government in mind. It is designed to help them. Page 83, line 26 of the Bill deals with ticketing arrangements under which authorities may vary or revoke a scheme. Under Clause 135 a ticketing scheme is subject to certain notice and consultation requirements. Subsection (6) of Clause 136 states:

"The authority or authorities may vary or revoke the scheme; and the variation or revocation is subject to the same procedure as the making of the scheme"-- which seems to be entirely reasonable. If one has taken fully into account the views of the public, it seems perfectly appropriate to follow that procedure if one wants to vary or revoke the scheme. If there had been a full stop there, I would have been content; but the sentence continues:

"except to the extent that the procedure is modified by regulations made by the appropriate national authority".

Should the regulations ever be promulgated, we shall have an opportunity to discuss them. I hope that the Minister will take the course of greater discretion and accept my amendment which would prevent him having the embarrassment of standing up at some point in the future and explaining to the House why it was that the legislation passed so recently--you can bet your bottom dollar it will not be that far away--requires modification.

I do not believe that it is reasonable for that little escape clause to be in the Bill. What is written on the face of the Bill is not unreasonable. I beg to move.

I believe that the boot is on the other foot. If I were to accept the amendment, I believe that someone would have to return to the Dispatch Box to say, "Sorry, chaps, we did not think about the implications that varying or revoking a ticketing scheme may have, and we may now need to introduce regulations for making a modification". We are getting into pretty recherche stuff now. We are talking not about making a ticketing scheme, but about revoking or varying such a scheme, which would relate to a small minority of cases anyway.

I can assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister in subsection (6). We include the regulation-making power to ensure flexibility. Over a period of time--the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, may be right to say that it may be a short period of time--the normal procedures for making a ticketing scheme would benefit from some modification in the event of a scheme being varied or revoked. It is difficult to predict precisely what would be needed. But it is also possible that ticketing schemes will need to be varied over time to bring in operators or modes, for example.

In Grand Committee we introduced government amendments that recognised the fact that there are through-ticketing schemes between buses and trains or trams. For instance, if we had suggested 15 years ago including trams in the Bill, everybody would have thought we were talking about Blackpool and not about the considerable number of cities which are now introducing trams. We would not have anticipated that. There may be an OFT investigation of the ticketing schemes which makes it necessary for us to issue regulations. All we are looking for is a degree of flexibility to respond to future developments. If we made regulations, they would of course be the subject of prior consultation with the relevant interests. There is nothing sinister in that.

I do not suggest it is sinister; I suggest it is misguided. It shows a remarkable lack of confidence in the legislative process in which we are engaged if the Government have to keep writing in escape clauses to cover something different happening in the future.

The Minister gave an interesting reply, but not a satisfactory answer. He said that legislation should be a legislator's charter. If we pass a law, we should pass in that law the right to pass more laws. I do not approve of that. I have always felt that we already have far too much law on the statute book. When we add regulation to law and guidance to regulation, heaven help us, but that is what we are doing in this Bill.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, decides what to do, I should point out that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made no objection to this regulatory power.

I am aware of that, but that does not prevent me having an opinion on the matter. However, I shall study with care what the Minister said, though I believe I shall disagree with him. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 136 agreed to.

Clause 137 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]

Clause 138 [Information about bus services]:

[Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 not moved.]

Clause 138 agreed to.

Clause 139 agreed to.

Clause 140 [Bus information: supplementary]:

[Amendments Nos. 153A to 153C not moved.]

Clause 140 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]

Clause 141 agreed to.

Clause 142 [Power to obtain information about local services]:

moved Amendment No. 155:

Page 85, line 40, at end insert--

("(7) If information is disclosed in contravention of subsection (4), the local transport authority which required its provision shall be liable to compensate the operator which provided it for any loss suffered by that operator as a result of its disclosure.").

Clause 142 deals with the collection of information on services. It gives local authorities, of necessity, the power to collect information which may be commercially sensitive.

That of itself is not a problem. If we go through the Bill, we find that under certain circumstances it permits the disclosure of that information. But there is nothing in the Bill which compensates a commercial organisation if it is financially disadvantaged as a result of either the improper or inadvertent disclosure of information which it had been required to provide. There is an important principle of commercial justice behind the words such as "inadequate though they may be" that local authorities are used to acknowledging--in general very well and with the greatest propriety. There have been occasions when the usual high standards have slipped. Where that happens, the operator who is disadvantaged as a result should be entitled to compensation.

Such occurrences may be rare but when dealing with legislation one has to anticipate difficult situations. One hopes that they will never occur, but they might. So it is necessary to incorporate the right of redress. The amendment has that intention. Even if the wording is not appropriate, I hope that the Minister will at least consider the principle. I beg to move.

Clause 142(6) already makes the unlawful disclosure of information obtained by an authority a criminal offence. Moreover, a statute does not change existing common law unless it expresses an intention to do so. The Bill expresses no such intention. There is a well-established right of action at common law in cases where information known to be confidential comes into the possession of a person who unlawfully discloses it to a third party in breach of his duty of confidence. Incidentally, the third party is himself placed under a duty of confidence in such circumstances. He may also be sued and cannot simply plead that the information was in the public domain.

Information obtained under statutory powers is subject to such a duty of confidentiality. It would be open to an operator in such circumstances to take action in the courts to restrain wrongful disclosure by means of an injunction--a remedy not mentioned in the amendment--or to obtain compensation. Then it would be for the courts to decide whether to grant an injunction or order that compensation should be paid.

However, it is not the case that any disclosure of that information would always be unlawful or actionable. In some instances the court may consider that it was in the public interest for the information to be disclosed. The court is able to exercise its discretion in the matter. The amendment would appear to make all cases of disclosure actionable--except in so far as they were consented to or allowed under subsection (4). That cannot be right. The general common law rules are preferable and should continue to apply. A provision of the kind proposed is not needed when a civil right of action already exists. I hope that the noble Lord agrees and will withdraw his amendment.

The Minister says that I have got it wrong, that existing legislation has got it right and that the principle behind the amendment is covered. I am sure that the situation that the noble Lord describes is correct, because we can rely on what he says. None the less, I am sufficiently sceptical of everything that I am told to check. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 142 agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 not moved.]

Clause 143 [Civil penalties for bus lane contraventions]:

moved Amendment No. 157A:

Page 85, line 43, leave out ("approved").

I shall try to be quick and straightforward in moving this amendment and speaking also to Amendments Nos. 157B and 159A. These amendments all refer to the new clause which provides civil penalties for bus lane contraventions, which we welcome, and specifies which local authorities may operate the scheme. The clause was introduced by the Government in Grand Committee. At that time, I questioned what criteria would be required for a local authority to be "approved" for the purposes of this clause. The Minister replied that such "approved" authorities would be those which have a "decriminalised parking regime". He said that the provision for approval is there,

"primarily to ensure that schemes can be checked to ascertain whether appropriate regimes are in place to ensure that the schemes are operated fairly".

He then added that the provision,

"might also allow a degree of flexibility in relation to decriminalised parking regimes as far as the national authorities are concerned".--[Official Report, 27/6/00; col. CWH 34.]

I have tabled these amendments not only to make the point again that I should like to see every local authority able to deal with bus lane contraventions, but also to question the Minister about the "degree of flexibility" that he mentioned. I take the point that schemes should be fair, though whether it is necessary for central government to judge whether or not they are fair is another matter. But if they are also to be flexible, I wonder how that equates with fairness. Perhaps the Minister could spend a few minutes on the description of the criteria for approval and tell us how the system will operate. I beg to move.

I believe that I may have slightly exaggerated the degree of flexibility in these arrangements. Although the provisions in the Bill imply a degree of flexibility, in the present circumstances the intention is to ensure that only local authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement powers may be approved under the system. There are a number of reasons involved. First, we must ensure that those powers will only be exercised by authorities that have the means to do this properly; in other words, they will already have in place an administrative system on the basis of the decriminalised parking regime.

Secondly, we must avoid the anomaly that local authorities without decriminalised parking enforcement powers would be able to enforce moving offences in bus lanes but not at the same time be able to enforce parking offences in bus lanes, which would be the case in those circumstances. Thirdly, there is the question of the appeals system. The existence of a decriminalised parking regime would allow motorists who dispute penalty notices to make use of the National Parking Adjudication Service, membership of which is limited to authorities that have taken on decriminalised parking enforcement powers.

Therefore, although it is conceivable on the first criterion that an equivalent regime could be established, there would still be problems as regards the second and third. In practice, we are limiting it to those local authorities that are, or will be, operating a decriminalised parking regime. Authorities outside London that have not taken on decriminalised parking enforcement powers would need to establish their own separate adjudication system which would simply not be practical.

In Grand Committee I said that the vast majority of local transport authorities within England are now moving towards decriminalised parking enforcement powers. Therefore there would be a relatively small number, certainly in the urban areas, which would fall outside this provision once all those authorities come through the pipeline. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.

Before I do not press the amendment, I hope that I may ask a further question for clarification. Clause 143(2) provides that a local transport authority is an approved authority if it has decriminalised parking enforcement powers and if an order has been made approving it. The Minister has explained that an authority needs to have decriminalised parking enforcement powers before it is approved. Does he envisage that all authorities that have decriminalised parking enforcement powers will be approved, or are there other hurdles to be cleared before approval is given?

I doubt whether there are circumstances where an authority with an up-and-running scheme for decriminalised parking would not be approved. However, representations may be made to the Secretary of State at the time of approval which he would have to take into account. Therefore, I cannot give an absolute guarantee on that point.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 157B not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 158:

Page 86, line 13, at end insert ("where the existence of the lane is clearly signed and marked on the road surface").

Clause 143(3) defines a bus lane contravention as,

"a contravention of any such provision of--

(a) a traffic regulation order,

(b) an experimental traffic order, or

(c) a temporary traffic restriction order, as relates to the use of an area of road which is or forms part of a bus lane".

Clause 143(4) states,

"And an area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may be used--

(a) only by buses, or

(b) only by buses and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic specified in the order".

Nothing in that measure states that a bus lane must be clearly identified on the surface of the road and--this is equally important--clearly signed. There may be a provision to that effect elsewhere, but I have not been able to discover it in the time that was available to me to study this complex Bill.

It seems to me that an experimental traffic order would be introduced temporarily and therefore might not be deemed to warrant appropriate signing and marking. A temporary traffic restriction order could also cause difficulties in that regard. Therefore, I believe that it should be stated on the face of the Bill that a bus lane is a bus lane only where the existence of the lane is clearly signed and marked on the road surface.

The Minister will probably tell me that a bus lane could not possibly be a bus lane without that. If he gives me that assurance, I shall be delighted with his reply and withdraw the amendment. However, as I was in a state of blissful ignorance, I felt that it was necessary to table the amendment to assure myself and the wider world of the situation. I beg to move.

I reassure the noble Lord that a bus lane is not a bus lane unless it is marked as a bus lane and the markings comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994. That signing requirement applies equally to orders enforced by the police and to orders enforced by local authorities under decriminalised procedures, and to temporary arrangements. The matter is therefore already covered in regulations and the amendment is not necessary.

I am delighted with that reply. It gives me great pleasure to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 159 and 159A not moved.]

Clause 143 agreed to.

Clause 144 [Mandatory concessions outside Greater London]:

moved Amendment No. 160:

Page 87, line 32, after second ("person") insert ("or young person under the age of 19 years and undergoing full-time education and training").

In moving Amendment No. 160, which stands in the name of my noble friends, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 164 in the group.

We on these Benches welcome the creation of a national concessionary fares scheme to replace the rather piecemeal provision that exists at the moment. We further welcome its extension to those with disabilities. Amendment No. 160 seeks to extend the scope of the scheme to young people up to the age of 19 who are in full-time education. It seems to us that we should be doing everything we can to encourage people in this age group to stay on in further education. It is fairly obvious that most of them will not live within walking or even cycling distance of their chosen place of education. Outside London they will fall back on either buses or private motor cars, and there will be a significant financial burden which we know is acting as a deterrent to many of them staying on at school or going to college.

Young people of this age should also have a reasonable expectation of being able to access leisure facilities and other activities which give them a meaningful social life. This is particularly important in rural areas. Many of them are feeling pretty irritated at being lectured about yob culture when they are given little opportunity to access the kinds of facilities they ought to have. Some are probably looking forward to being marched to a cashpoint as a kind of distraction from their normal life.

We feel that the absence of some kind of concessionary fare scheme for young people of this age is depriving them of access to these facilities and forcing them into a position of having to run a car. Apart from the fairly obvious fact that this adds to congestion, we should consider that this age group is significantly at risk from accident. We should not encourage them to use cars more than they have to. It is an age where the travelling habits of a lifetime are likely to be settled and we should do everything we can to encourage them to use buses, at least as part of their normal travelling arrangements. It is a habit which will stay with them for life.

I am sure the Minister will comment on the cost of such a scheme, but our original discussions with the bus companies suggest that this will be fairly modest. All the evidence suggests that increased use will offset most of the cost. It is possible for local authorities to run concessionary fare schemes for young people--some do--but, of course, if we rely on that we shall have exactly the same kind of piecemeal provision for young people that we are trying to get away from with pensioners.

Amendment No. 164 seeks to equalise at 60 years the age at which the concessionary fare scheme for older people operates. I know the arguments have been well rehearsed in other areas but the current scheme perpetuates a glaring inequality which has no place in modern legislation. Parliament has already agreed that the pension age should be equalised--although it is a very slow process and will not be complete until 2020--and, having accepted that this kind of inequality is wrong in principle, it is quite nonsensical to enshrine it in new legislation. I beg to move.

Grouped with the two amendments to which the noble Baroness has spoken are Amendments Nos. 165, 170 and 173. Amendments Nos. 165 and 170 put bones into the situation about which the noble Baroness has spoken--that is, the disparity of rights between men and women when it comes to receiving benefits because of old age and being encouraged to use local transport in old age. This is an important matter. As the noble Baroness said, the principle has already been conceded. We have here an opportunity to accept an important provision. I regard it as one of the most interesting issues raised in today's discussions. I certainly hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.

I shall not speak to my Amendment No. 173 with this group. I shall speak to it with Amendment No. 171 later on. I find the groupings rather peculiar. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 161, 163, 167 and 169 in one group; I shall speak to Amendment No. 169A on its own; and I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 171, 172 and 173 as a group. I have advised the Front Benches and the Lord Chairman of my intention.

Perhaps I may say a few words in support of my noble friend and, in particular, in support of the amendment on concessionary fares for elderly people. I was struck by two comments in briefings on this matter. The first was from the Equal Opportunities Commission. I am sure that such an organisation would not make the comment without considering the point very seriously. It considers that there is no legal or moral justification for linking a scheme for concessions to the elderly with the state pension scheme. I accept that point. The second comment was from PARITY, of which I am a vice-president. PARITY says that it is not aware of any state, apart from the UK, that has or permits such discrimination. It also points out the irony that until now local authorities have had the power to set at 65 eligibility ages for concessions, subject only to the minimum ages of 60 and 65 respectively for women and men. It now seems that this is not to be allowed. PARITY makes the point that it seems wrong to oblige local authorities to discriminate on grounds of sex.

One feels a degree of sympathy for both the points raised in this group of amendments. Nevertheless, I shall have to reject them. Concessionary fare legislation has always linked retirement age to the provision of concessionary fares. It would be odd and cut across other principles if we were to change that in this context. As Members of the Committee have said, the Pensions Act 1995 envisages eventual equalisation at which point the knock-on benefits would also apply. In that context there is some justification for maintaining that. I do not accept that there is no argument for so doing.

There is an even more difficult case in relation to young persons. I accept many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Market Needham. Do I have it the right way around this time?

Needham Market!

My apologies again. I certainly would not wish to rule out such a provision. However, we have to consider the costs. Were we to subsidise this directly, we would have to take on some of the costs of services that were already provided locally and therefore the net benefit would not necessarily be evident.

Clause 146 contains a power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to extend the eligibility by statutory instrument. In that sense, we have deliberately kept the door open for developments such as this at an appropriate time. Extension of such concessions to young people would be one of the areas that in the future we would address. I hope, with that partial reassurance, that these amendments will not be pressed.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps I may extend an invitation to the noble Lord and other noble Lords to come to Needham Market. I am sure that, following a good lunch at one of our many wonderful pubs, noble Lords will remember the name. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 161:

Page 87, line 34, leave out from ("area") to end of line 35.

As I mentioned earlier, in moving Amendment No. 161, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 163, 167 and 169. They all deal with the same subject; namely, mandatory travel concessions outside Greater London.

The purpose of the amendment is to extend the minimum half price concessionary fare to groups of disabled people not covered by the recent government amendment and to allow them to use door to door transport where mainstream public transport is accessible. Amendment No. 161 would remove the time restrictions on the scheme.

The Bill will introduce a national concessionary fare scheme for elderly people between places in a given area and beginning at a relevant time. I welcome the Government's recent amendment to extend that concession to certain disabled people, but I should like to add to that the groups of disabled people that I have already mentioned.

I am also concerned that the scheme is limited by the expression, "relevant time", meaning between 9.30 a.m. and 11 p.m. That implies treating adults like 14 or 15 year-olds who have to be home and ready for bed by 11 p.m. I believe that this scheme should apply to all journeys in the local area regardless of the time. The restrictions could, for example, mean that someone returning from a night out in the town no longer received the concession, making the evening out impossible.

Of greater importance, it also means that if the scheme is extended to people of working age, they will be unable to benefit from the concessions while working. In my view there are unlikely to be problems of congestion during peak periods because people who do not need to travel at those times will choose not to do so, thus ensuring that they are more likely to travel in comfort. However, removing the restriction will allow people to undertake their journeys as necessary.

I am concerned that the national concessionary scheme fails to recognise that travel patterns are often independent of local administrative boundaries. The voluntary national concession scheme for free travel for blind people in Scotland provides concessions throughout the country and across different modes of travel. The proposed scheme would benefit from similar provisions relating to the area of operation and integration across modes.

Any elderly person--any person of pensionable age--residing in a travel concession authority's area who travels on an eligible service on a journey between places in that area, and beginning at a relevant time, is entitled to be provided with a half-price travel concession by the operator of the service. That is fine for those who can jump on and off buses. Regrettably, it inequitably leaves out those whose impairments prevent them from using buses and whose age may have made them ineligible for the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance. I think that these disabled people should, like their more mobile colleagues, enjoy a statutory minimum fare concession scheme on transport services set up specifically to meet their needs. I beg to move.

Because Amendment No. 167 is also being spoken to with this amendment, I should point out that if Amendment No. 167 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 168.

These amendments would mean that the disabled would receive a concession allowing them to travel in a more civilised manner; that is, more often at the times that they probably want to travel. We are attempting to ensure that the disabled have the right to travel at times which are more in line with working.

In this Chamber we have often heard how the disabled have higher costs generally. If they work, they would probably benefit from these fare concessions to a far greater extent than would normal working people because their income will need to cover higher costs, thus the marginal benefit is higher. If someone does not have very much money, any amount of saving will go that little bit further. Also, moving the times for concessionary travel will bring disabled people much more into the mainstream. That aim is laudable. I hope that the Government will at least give the principle behind the amendments a good hearing.

I think I follow the grouping of the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. There now seem to be three different items covered in the grouping: the question of the timing of concessionary fares; the question of carers and other groups of disabled; and the form of transport. Perhaps I may take the issue of the times first, and make two points.

Before doing so, I should mention to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the original change from 9 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. was made in Committee in another place as a result of a Liberal Democrat amendment. Admittedly, at that point it applied to pensioners and not so much to the disabled; and the bulk of those who will take advantage of the concession will continue to be pensioners.

My first substantive point is that these are minimum criteria. There is nothing to stop local authorities going beyond that minimum, by continuing or introducing an earlier start time for concessionary fares, either for the whole group or for some of the group if they believe that that accords with local priorities. The shift to the later time of 9.30 a.m. was not made lightly. There was a significant number of representations from local government, initially from the PTE group which deals with transport in our larger cities. It urged the later time because it was worried about the pressure of undue demand on public transport facilities at that point, given the number of school journeys still being made at that time of day, the need to reposition vehicles following delays and congestion in the morning peak, and so on, and the fact that buses need to be back at the right time. The group said that 9.30 a.m. was a common start time in metropolitan areas. Since then, similar worries have been expressed by local government. So there is a balance to be drawn, and there is room for debate as to what is the best solution. But bearing in mind that these are minimum criteria and that local authorities can vary them, I believe that we have struck the balance reasonably. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press that amendment.

Amendment No. 163 seeks to extend the provisions to other areas. I was particularly struck by the issue of companions travelling with a disabled person. There are clear administrative difficulties. In the case of companions, there would need to be a proper identification procedure and an assurance that the companion would use the concessions only when travelling with the disabled person. A variety of different cards might be necessary in those circumstances.

In relation to people who have used in-patient mental health services, also included in the amendment, such people are not at present among those for whom local authorities can provide concessionary fares on a discretionary basis. The principle underlying our national proposal is that we are merely building on existing statutory eligibility to make this a national system and not adding new categories of people. A particular difficulty may arise in the case of people who have previously had in-house treatment for mental health problems in terms of the time that has elapsed since treatment, the kind of treatment received and so on. It is not clear to me that continuing support is necessary in this area.

Having said that, I do not dismiss out of hand the possibility of looking at these extensions and I undertake to consider them further. There is a case to be considered particularly in relation to carers. We shall need to look at cost and administrative complications. If I conclude that it is right to make a change, there is already an order-making power in Clause 146 which is available to implement that decision.

The noble Lord seeks by this amendment--there are later amendments which relate to the same matter--effectively to extend the concession to community transport. These amendments provide that the statutory minimum concessionary fare should apply also to services operated under Sections 19 and 22 of the Transport Act 1985 for disabled people who cannot use mainstream public transport. Section 19 deals with specific services for such people, and Section 22 is about services that are run for a similar purpose but are available to the general public. There is a question as to how the concession will apply. There is also a question as to how it relates to the separate issue of providing fuel duty rebate for such services.

I shall need to give further consideration to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord to see whether it can be fitted into the system. However, we are talking here about a very different matter from the provision of a concessionary fare on a scheduled, or near-scheduled, route; it is an on-demand service that may already be provided free, or nearly so. A number of matters must be taken into account before we can take this further. However, we shall look at this further. I hope that, with those remarks, the noble Lord will not press the amendment tonight.

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to consider these matters further. If in a particular area a good number of disabled or elderly people need to travel outside the relevant time, they will probably use their own vehicles and add to congestion. Therefore, the removal of the relevant time provisions will ease rather than worsen congestion. I hope that in the case of door-to-door transport provisions the Minister will bear in mind that often severely disabled people have the smallest incomes and, therefore, can be described as the poorest of the poor in this country. I am sure that they would very much appreciate any help that the Government could provide. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 162:

Page 88, line 8, at end insert--

("(6) Where a flat fare scheme is provided which overall offers better value than a half-price travel concession the flat fare scheme may be substituted by the authority.

(7) An appeal against such substitution may be made to the traffic commissioner for the area.").

Amendment No. 162 is a very important amendment related to flat fare schemes. The Bill proposes that a half-fare scheme should be introduced for people of pensionable age. In many towns and cities the local authority provides a flat fare which for most people is a distinctly better option than a half-fare. Where one has a flat rate, which is often 30p, the ordinary single fare may be 40p or 50p. However, the vast majority of fares are 60p, £1 or £1.50. A flat fare in a city is extremely valuable to an operator in terms of its simplicity.

Elderly people make up a large proportion of bus passengers. They become used to tendering 30p. They have the money ready, drop it down, and the bus moves off. A change to a half fare scheme involves calculation. The lowest fare may be 50p. Therefore the half fare cost is 25p for a short journey and a 30p flat fare scheme is a more generous offer and would be allowable. But one still has two different fares within that company's area. In many cases the situation would be far more complex.

The amendment seeks to provide that where there is a flat fare scheme at present, provided that it gives better value to the vast majority of users than the half fare scheme, it should be possible to leave the flat fare scheme in place. It suits better the vast majority of users. It suits the bus companies. It is less complex to administer. One of the most important factors is that the boarding of buses should take place as quickly as possible so that the bus does not hold up the traffic flow.

We recognise that someone has to exercise a judgment as to whether a flat fare scheme is better than a half fare scheme. The amendment provides that that person could be the traffic commissioner. In other suggestions it is the regional office of government. The traffic commissioner might provide a faster route to obtaining an answer to a local problem.

Perhaps the Minister can reassure us about the resources to meet the costs of these schemes. The sums mentioned in Committee in another place fall short of the likely cost; a large sum might fall on local authorities. In another place, the Minister said that he expected local authorities which had different schemes in operation to allow existing schemes such as token schemes to operate and for users to have a choice of both schemes. A local authority might have to fund the half fare scheme and continue to fund a parallel token scheme which some individuals might choose instead of the half fare bus pass.

It is a complex but serious issue for bus operators who seek to simplify travel by bus. In many cities bus companies and local authorities are united in their view that flat fares should be left in place provided they pass the test of being best value for the user. I beg to move.

I appreciate that there is concern on this issue. However, there are three reasons why we should stick with our present position.

First, the White Paper promised travel at half fare on buses. There was no reference to "most buses", "except where there is a flat fare" or, to use phraseology in the noble Lord's amendment, "overall". We should need to be more convinced than at present to abandon that commitment.

Secondly, it will be difficult for someone to make a judgment on whether one scheme "overall" offers better value than others. "Overall" is a difficult word when we refer to individual fares for individual journeys and have to weigh one journey against another. There is plenty of scope for serious grievance and, possibly, legal action. That is a difficult task to put on the hard-pressed traffic commissioner, particularly since he otherwise has no involvement in the concessionary fare scheme.

Thirdly, cheap fares for short journeys may be particularly valued by the elderly and disabled--those facing mobility difficulties. They may value their short journey to the shop and it might be hard to explain to them why, when the flat fare is more than half, we were not giving them what we had promised. I hope that those in local authorities and among the operators who are concerned about the matter will think around those difficulties.

I would not rule out alternative answers. One answer might be to have a lower fare for short journeys and a higher fare for longer trips. However, that begins to move away from the simplicity of the initial approach. I hope that a solution can be found and that we can deliver a provision which meets most concerns. For the moment, I am not convinced that we should move away from the principle.

As regards funding, in Grand Committee my noble friend indicated that the cost of moving to a concessionary fare scheme on a half-fare basis would be fully funded. It may be that some local authorities will continue to run existing schemes, but that will be a matter for them. The additional cost would be met by central government and that is clearly provided for.

I thank the Minister for that reply. There is a danger that people who at present enjoy a flat fare may find that in its place they will be paying a half fare which costs more. That will not be seen to be fulfilling the hope in the White Paper, which is cheaper bus fares.

I hope that before Report stage the Minister will consider the issue carefully and perhaps talk to people in the bus industry and local authorities to see whether he can put forward a satisfactory test. It might be, for instance, that 90 per cent of journeys must be cheaper. I realise that there is a judgment to be made in such issues--there often is--but there is genuine concern among many people. It is not just a matter of me talking late at night in order to pass the time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 144 agreed to.

Clause 145 [Mandatory concessions: supplementary]:

[Amendments Nos. 163 to 167 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 168:

Page 89, line 1, leave out ("9.30") and insert ("9.00").

It has been a long vigil to move Amendment No. 168, which is short but important. An issue of principle is involved.

The issue in question is referred to on page 89 at lines 1 and 2. The same subject is also referred to on page 92 at lines 30 and 31. It relates to the time of implementation of concessionary fares for elderly and disabled people, who are particularly concerned about hospital appointments.

It was said earlier that as regards public transport, the disabled were miserably looked after. Perhaps the same can be said of pensioners.

In London the time of 9 a.m. has worked perfectly well for approximately 20 years. The county of Essex also operates a 9 a.m. start for the concessions, and it is applicable in other parts of the country, too. Therefore, why does it not apply throughout the whole country? I should have thought that this would be the time to bring some rationality to the whole issue. As it is set out in the Bill, this is a somewhat restrictive measure.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to tell the Committee what consultation has taken place with pensioner organisations and the disabled. I am sure that they would have voiced the strongest objections to this provision. As a friend of this Government, I also say to the Minister that it is time for them to take more notice of pensioners. I should like to know who was the skinflint who brought about the alteration in the Bill. I understand that originally it was proposed that the scheme should commence at 9 a.m. Perhaps the Minister can give the Committee answers to those questions. I beg to move.

I support the amendment, having spoken to a similar one earlier.

I am in danger of repeating myself. In answer to my noble friend's last question regarding a skinflint, I do not believe that the proposal reflects a skinflint move. As a result of substantial representations to both Opposition parties and to ourselves, it was agreed in Committee in another place that the present provision of 9 a.m. led to an excessive demand on the public transport system and that it would be easier, both for pensioners and for the operators, if the concession were to start at 9.30 a.m. That view was fairly widespread across the country. It relates partly to the fact that school journeys are still taking place at 9 a.m. and partly to the fact that in some parts of the country people are still travelling to work at that time.

My noble friend is of course right that in the past in London and in many other parts of the country a 9 a.m. start has operated relatively well. There is nothing to stop local authorities which believe that they can operate it well expanding the time in any direction, including a start time of 9 a.m. Therefore, where there are particular local circumstances and particular problems about journeys to hospitals, for example, local authorities can extend the time. However, I believe that we should have been foolish to ignore completely the widespread view of local authorities and operators that a shift from 9 a.m. should take place.

I understand the problems in relation to hospital appointments, although even at 9 a.m. some problems would arise in that regard. I also understand the point regarding disabled people who travel to work at that time, but I do not believe that that issue was raised when the Committee in another place changed the time. At that point, the concession related only to pensioners. Therefore, to some extent, our generosity has now raised an anomaly.

In answer to another point raised by my noble friend, I have received representations from various pensioner organisations about this matter. We must balance those against the representations made by local authorities and operators. For the moment I am not convinced that we should change the provision, but I have no doubt that we shall return to this issue at a later stage.

Does not the Minister appreciate that the provision will divide the country? People in Wales could say, "Well, they've got it at 9 o'clock in London. Why can't we have it at 9 o'clock?" I am disappointed with the Government's attitude. I shall take every opportunity to raise the issue again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]

Clause 145 agreed to.

Clause 146 [Variation of mandatory concessions]:

moved Amendment No. 169A:

Page 89, line 25, at end insert--

("( ) applies to disabled people whose disabilities prevent their making use of ordinary public passenger transport services,

( ) applies to services operated under sections 19 or 22 of the Transport Act 1985 that are fully accessible to people who travel in their wheelchairs,").

Any elderly person of pensionable age residing in a travel concession authority's area who travels on an eligible service on a journey between places in that area and beginning at a relevant time is entitled to be provided with a half-price travel concession by the operator of the service. I welcome that. I also welcome the amendment made in the Grand Committee to extend the statutory minimum concessionary travel scheme to disabled people.

That is fine for fit people of pensionable age who can jump on and off buses, but it will not help disabled people of pensionable age whose disabilities prevent them from using public transport. To travel anywhere beyond the confines of their home, many of them have to resort to door-to-door services such as taxis and Dial-a-Ride. Regrettably, the current provisions inequitably leave out those whose disabilities prevent them from using buses and whose age may have made them ineligible for the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance.

Like their more athletic colleagues, those disabled people should enjoy a statutory minimum fare concession scheme on transport services set up specifically to meet their needs. The amendment is a question of fairness. The Government pride themselves on being fair, so I hope that they will agree to it. I beg to move.

The amendment refers to transport facilities covered by Sections 19 and 22 of the Transport Act 1985. However, the Bill treats those two categories of service differently. The statutory minimum concession applies to all services that qualify for the fuel duty rebate. That includes the bulk of services under Section 22, because they are counted as local services and details of their routes are registered with the traffic commissioner. There are a few that are not eligible for fuel duty rebate, but the majority of Section 22 services are eligible for the concessionary fare.

Section 19 services are not eligible for the fuel duty rebate, so they will not initially be eligible for the concessionary fare scheme. However, the order-making power in Clause 146 wi