Official Report Of The Grand Committee On The Transport Bill
Tuesday, 27th June 2000.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.
The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn. I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.Title postponed.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Restrictions on providing services]:
moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 42, leave out from ("area") to end of line 43.
The noble Lord said: I welcome Members of the Committee to this rather novel procedure in the Moses Room. The purpose of today's sitting of the Grand Committee is to consider government amendments to the Transport Bill. A revised Bill, as amended by the Grand Committee, will be printed overnight and will be available tomorrow. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for agreeing to remove all their amendments from the Order Paper for today's purposes. I understand that the Public Bill Office has offered assistance to noble Lords in retabling their amendments so that the references refer to the new version of the Bill. We are grateful for the help of the House authorities. The Bill will return to the Floor of the House for consideration in Committee in the usual way.
This group of amendments deals with the application of relevant provisions of Part I of the Bill to the Crown. The amendments consist of two new clauses, the first of which lists the provisions that will bind the Crown or may be applied to Crown aircraft. The second new clause provides that the Crown may not be found criminally liable by way of Part I, but persons acting on behalf of the Crown may, in certain cases, be found liable for criminal offences.
The provision that the Armed Forces of the Crown are not required to hold a licence to provide air traffic services is also moved into this section from Clause 3. Finally, provision is made that nothing in these Crown application provisions may affect Her Majesty in her private capacity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exemptions]:
moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("(e) may be granted subject to such conditions as may be specified.").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments concerns regulatory and licence-related matters. The amendments are largely technical, and the bulk of the group—Amendments Nos. 6 to 11, which concern the powers of the Competition Commission to veto licence modifications proposed by the CAA—is merely bringing our Bill into closer alignment with other utility legislation.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 also make the Bill more consistent with other utility legislation. Amendment No. 3 permits conditions to be attached to exemptions from the offence created by Clause 3 of the Bill. Amendment No. 4 sets out in greater detail the provisions which may be included in the licence and in particular those provisions of the licence which will depend on the CAA giving the licensee a notice or a consent or making determinations.
Amendment No. 5 is important. It will allow the CAA to relieve the licensee of his Clause 8 duty in respect of services which he is not providing. While the licensee, who of course will be NATS, will be the main provider of air traffic services in licensed airspace, it will not be the sole provider and it would be unduly onerous if NATS were to be bound by statutory duties for services provided by others.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 extend Clause 31 so as to require the CAA to investigate alleged or apprehended contraventions of the licensee's Clause 8 duties, in the same way as it is required to investigate alleged contraventions of licence conditions.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 relate to Clause 32, which requires the CAA to maintain a register of provisions, modifications, notices and other matters for the purposes of Chapter I. Amendment No. 14 makes the wording of Clause 32 consistent with Clause 7, as amended by Amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 15 extends Clause 32 so as to include the terms of every notice made in connection with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
I rise to address the Deputy Chairman as much as other Members of the Committee. I am not quite sure what role we all have; that is, those of us who are not singing the solo which the Minister is singing, or supporting him. I wonder whether at any stage we are to debate the merits of any of these amendments. This is a rather puzzling procedure. We have 167 government amendments which, even if the noble Lord's singing is not interrupted by any discordant sounds from here, will put quite a strain on him and we should like to provide him with some intervals so that he can at least get his breath. I congratulate the noble Lord on the very suitable shyness on his part and on that of the Government with regard to wishing to get rid of this stage of the Bill as quickly and as quietly as possible without too much of the glare of public attention being directed to this thrilling subject.
In passing, I congratulate the Government on the choice of the Moses Room for our discussions on this particular occasion. The Moses Room has a wonderful quality—most of what one says in it is totally inaudible! Not even the skill of the Hansard Reporters will be equal to the task of getting down every sentence that is spoken. So one pays tribute to the Government's judgment in choosing this most doubtful of all arenas. The Government had this Bill in another place for three months where a docile majority let it through after limited debate, and now we have to make up for the deficiencies in the Bill that the House of Commons did nothing to disturb. It seems a very odd procedure. This is probably the first time ever that such a long series of government amendments has been sidelined in this way, whereby the Bill can be "comfortably cleansed", at least in the Government's eyes. The whole procedure is very confusing.Would it not be appropriate to say that what the noble Lord is referring to has been arranged through what we call the "usual channels"?
I am neither a part of the "usual channels", nor an expert in their procedures and I tend on the whole to be suspicious when agreements are reached between the usual channels on matters of procedure. When the Government start to attract the congratulations and the agreement of the Opposition Front Bench I always become worried, whichever side I am on, and I am somewhat worried today.
I do not wish to prolong my remarks at this stage but I am concerned to know whether anybody expects anyone on this side of the Committee to say anything about the merits of the amendments that the Government are making. Alternatively, are they simply being put into the washing machine for a suitable piece of laundering?Before the Government Deputy Chief Whip intervenes, perhaps I can reassure him that my noble friends and I intend to speak on a number of the amendments. We are mainly concerned with matters of clarification. However, one or two possibly substantial points arise, although I shall not object to any of the amendments.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend and to Members of the Committee that I find this procedure quite helpful. It in fact gives the Opposition two bites of the cherry. We can listen to the Government's arguments on their own amendments at this stage in the Bill; the Bill will then be reprinted for us tomorrow and we go into the ordinary Committee in a week or 10 days' time. At that stage, if we wish, we can go over all the same ground again. Similarly at Report stage. So we get an extra bite of the cherry, which is helpful. We will also have the benefit of being able to read the Minister's explanation of his amendments rather than having to react to them immediately as one does at the ordinary Committee stage. Having said that, I have a point on this grouping upon which I should like some clarification. It concerns Amendment No. 10—the new clause after Clause 15. Having laid down a framework for both the Competition Commission and the Civil Aviation Authority in Clauses 1 and 2, the Government understandably want the Competition Commission to come within the new clause. However, reference to the Competition Commission under Clause 11 requires it to investigate whether matters referred to it,The modifications it makes under Clause 15 are those needed to prevent effects adverse to the public interest. This is a much wider test than the objectives set out in the new clause and could conflict. I wonder if the Minister could comment on that. The obvious solution is to limit the investigation by the commission to matters operating against the framework set out in Clauses I and 2. But that would rather take the teeth out of any reference. A public interest provision could be included in Clauses 1 and 2, but that would make them rather wide in scope. Is the Minister in a position to comment on that?"operate against the public interest".
3.45 p.m.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 11 deal with the role of the Competition Commission in the licence modification process. Clause 14 grants the Competition Commission a power of veto over some or all of the proposed licence modifications set out in a notice served upon it by the CAA. That power is limited to circumstances where the commission thinks that the CAA's modifications would not have the effect of remedying or preventing the adverse effect specified in the commission's reference report.
Amendment No. 6 will have the effect of clarifying the extent of the application of the commission's power under this clause so that the commission is able to give a direction only where it thinks that the CAA's proposed modifications either go too far or do not go far enough. Although in common parlance the words "appropriate" and "needed" have much the same meaning, we consider that "appropriate" in this context may be misinterpreted so as to extend the commission's power beyond that which is intended. The amendment will ensure that the commission is able to exercise its potentially swingeing power only in the necessary circumstances. Thus there is a back-stop provision for the commission to intervene at this stage in the licence modification process. The prime responsibility will remain with the regulator but the commission will be able to interpose a check if the regulator seems disposed to be too lenient or too draconian. Amendment No. 9 will require the commission, after making a licence modification, to bring the fact to the attention of all parties likely, in its opinion, to be affected by it along with the reason for making the modification. That will be done through the publication of an appropriate notice, and in the case of a licence holder the CAA and the Secretary of State, service of a copy of the modification itself. In that way we shall introduce greater transparency into the modification process where the Competition Commission has become involved. Amendment No. 10 is the first of the two new clauses directly related to the application of the commission's veto and modification powers which are exercisable under Clauses 14 and 15. This new clause requires the commission, when exercising its functions under subsections 15(2) and (3), to have regard to the CAA's duties set out in Clause 2. In this way both the CAA and the Competition Commission will, when considering licence modifications, be having regard to the same considerations. Accordingly, where the commission has exercised that power of veto under Clause 24, it will arrive at a modification which is entirely consistent with the CAA's general duties and which the CAA will be able to enforce. Amendment No. 10 follows equivalent amendments to be made to existing utility legislation by the Utilities Bill.3.45 p.m.
The Minister mentioned Clause 32 when he spoke to his amendment. That refers to a register of licence vetoes. Clause 32(2) states that:
We live in an electronic age. Does the Minister expect that details of the register will be published electronically?"The register must be kept in such premises and in such form as the CAA decides".
Yes, I would expect that.
I am mindful of the fact that it may be difficult to hear what everybody is saying in this room. Amendment No. 3 amends Clause 4, and Clause 4 provides for exemption to the general rules that it is an offence to provide air traffic services in a managed area. The amendment merely enables the Secretary of State to grant exemptions for that prohibition subject to condition. What is meant by the word "conditions" and how does that fit in with general concerns for safety and for Clause 8 duties? I simply do not understand Amendment No. 4. If you read it, it does not tell you anything and does not make much sense of what it does tell you. I am at a loss to know what to think about that one.
Amendment No. 5 has the sideline,It allows the CAA to lift Clause 8 duties off the licence holder in respect of specified services. It may be said that those duties are not strict enough anyway, and if they can be lifted I should like to know in what circumstances and in regard to which duties they can be lifted."Power to exclude services from the effect of section 8".
On Amendment No. 3 the sort of conditions which the noble Baroness asks about are those which might be imposed on those who benefit from an exemption, and conditions such as requiring the grantee to register with the CAA where that seems necessary, supplying the CAA with specified information or using specified types of equipment. Similar provisions are made in other utility legislation, and the Government consider that this amendment will enhance the regulatory regime, by giving it greater flexibility and allowing it to be tailored as necessary to the circumstances of the industry.
Amendment No. 4 sets out in greater detail the provisions which may be included in an operating licence.On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Licences: provisions]:
moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
("(1 A) In particular, provision of the following kinds may be included—
(1B) A reference in subsection (1A) to a person is to—(a) a person specified, or of a description specified, in the licence for the purpose concerned, or (b) if the licence so provides, a person nominated for the purpose concerned by a person falling within paragraph (a); and any of those persons may be the licence authority or some other person.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
Power To Exclude Services From Effect Of Section 8
(" .—(1) If a notice given by the CAA to a licence holder so provides, such air traffic services as are specified in the notice are to be treated as not being authorised services for the purposes of section 8 in its application to that holder.
(2) A notice under subsection (1) may specify the air traffic services by reference to part of a licensed area.
(3) A notice under this section may be modified or revoked by a further notice given by the CAA to the holder concerned.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Commission's power to give direction]:
moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 10, line 9, leave out ("concerned are not appropriate") and insert ("set out in the notice are not the modifications which are needed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Position where Commission gives direction]:
moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 9:
Page 10, line 41, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
Page 11, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
Page 11, line 26, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 27 and insert ("must—(a) publish a notice in such manner as the Commission thinks appropriate for bringing the matters to which it relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the modifications, and (b) serve a copy of the notice on the licence holder, a copy on the Secretary of State and a copy on the CAA.
(7) The notice under subsection (6) must—(a) state that the modifications have been made, (b) set them out, and (c) set out the reasons for making them.").
On Questions, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
Commission's Duty As To Modifications Under Section 15
(" .—(1) The Competition Commission must exercise its functions under section 15(2) and (3) in the manner it thinks best calculated—
(2) These interests are the only ones to be considered under subsection (1)(a)—
(3) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to furthering interests includes a reference to furthering them (where the Commission thinks it appropriate) by promoting competition in the provision of air traffic services.
(4) If in a particular case there is a conflict in the application of the provisions of subsections (1) to (3). in relation to that case the Commission must exercise its functions under section 15(2) and (3) in the manner it thinks is reasonable having regard to the provisions of subsections (1) to (3) as a whole.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
Sections 14 And 15: General
(" .—(1) The provisions listed in subsection (2) apply in relation to the exercise by the Commission of its functions under section 14 or 15 as if—
(2) The provisions are—
(3) The 1973 Act is the Fair Trading Act 1973.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 27 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Investigations]:
moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:
Page 21, line 14, after ("contravention") insert ("of a section 8 duty or").
Page 21, line 18. at end insert—
("(3) A section 8 duty is a duty imposed on a licence holder by section 8.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Register]:
moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 21, line 28, leave out ("direction or determination made or") and insert ("requirement or determination made or direction,").
Page 21, line 29, at end insert—("(ee) the terms of every notice given under section (Power to exclude services from effect of section 8);").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Crown shareholding]:
moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 32, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Grounds on which the Secretary of State may be satisfied that a scheme is in place as mentioned in subsection (3) include the grounds that the arrangements for the disposal of the shares include provision obliging the person acquiring them to ensure the completion of the project.
( ) For the purposes of this section a project concerns the development of major facilities if (and only if) the Secretary of State thinks that the value of the project is above £200 million.").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments makes a number of technical amendments to Part I Chapter II of the Bill, which contains provisions relating to transfer schemes and sale arrangements. Amendment No. 16 proposes the addition of two new subsections to Clause 48. Their aim is to clarify and strengthen the intention behind subsection (3), which was added to the Bill at Report stage in another place, with a view to reaffirming the Government's commitment to the two-centre strategy.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 24 are technical in nature. They provide clarification to the drafting of paragraph 25 of Schedule 6, which contains detailed provisions on transfer scheme arrangements, and make consequential changes to Schedule 7, which deals with taxation matters and transfers.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 provide a definition of the term "Northern Ireland Minister", which is used in Clauses 53 and 62. I beg to move.
In my remarks on the first group of amendments I should have thanked the Minister for sending us all a letter and an explanation of some of these government amendments. I also sympathise with the Deputy Chairman for having to go through the whole of the Bill, clause by clause.
I have three quick questions. First, I believe that Amendment No. 16 is slightly more than just a technical amendment, as it includes three matters that I would like to know about. The Minister has said that this concerns a two-centre strategy. However, I wonder why the amendment includes the words,Surely the value of a project is either over £200 million or less than £200 million. What do the thoughts of the Secretary of State have to do with it? Secondly, why has a figure of £200 million been chosen for this particular exercise? Thirdly, what happens if the developer fails to complete the project, having given the assurances that were made at the beginning?"the Secretary of State thinks".
In relation to the semantics, we can assume that the word "thinks" is synonymous with the word "believes" in the context of the decision to be made.
The figure of £200 million as the cut-off figure was put into a second new subsection so that we could provide the missing definition of what constituted major facilities. It covers a project that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, and according to our knowledge of the progress of a project, has a value in excess of £200 million. That figure was chosen because it is intended to capture the two major projects of Swanwick and the new Scottish Centre, but not others.On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 60 agreed to.
My Lords, as a Division has been called in the Chamber, the Committee stands adjourned for ten minutes.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 3.59 to 4.09 p.m.]
Schedule 6 [Transfer schemes]:
moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 20:
Page 187. line 48, at end insert—
("( ) an instrument or instruments under paragraph 9;").
Page 188. line 1, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 3 and insert ("in relation to an agreement under paragraph 11 by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (2)(b) of paragraph 14 shall be disregarded.").
Page 188, line 7, after ("11,") insert—
("( ) an instrument under paragraph 9,").
Page 188. line 10, at end insert ("or the instrument").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Transfer schemes: tax]:
moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 24:
Page 195, line 13, after ("6,") insert—
("( ) an instrument executed under paragraph 9 of Schedule 6,").
Page 195, line 24, after ("6") insert ("or is effected by an instrument executed under paragraph 9 of that Schedule").
Page 195, line 33, after ("agreement") insert ("or instrument").
Page 195. line 34. after ("agreement") insert ("or instrument").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Interpretation]:
moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Page 41. line 3. at end insert—
("( ) a Northern Ireland Minister;").
Page 41. line 18, at end insert—
("( ) "Northern Ireland Minister" includes the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Air navigation: directions]:
Amendment No. 27:
Page 42, line 16. leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 27 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 to 33. Clause 63 provides that the Secretary of State nominates a member of the Civil Aviation Authority to perform air navigation functions, and it goes on to provide for national security functions. These amendments provide that the Secretary of State should in addition have the power to nominate another member of the Civil Aviation Authority to consider the relationships between air navigation functions and national security. If there is a difference of opinion between the nominee and the Civil Aviation Authority about those activities, and if the nominee thinks that if the Civil Aviation Authority's opinion prevailed it could have effect contrary to the interest of national security, the CAA must refer the matter to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must consult the CAA before giving directions to it as he thinks fit.
In practice there would be a non-executive member of the Civil Aviation Authority appointed on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Defence, and the national security nominee will be that member. That is provided for in the substantive Amendment No. 29. It was felt that the member nominated to perform the air navigation function should balance civil and military interests, as he is required to do under Clause 63(1), while the MOD-nominated member would be in a better position to represent the interests of national security. The national security nominee may authorise a member or employee of the Civil Aviation Authority to act on his behalf.
The current definition of "managed area" is contained in Clause 68, which is concerned with interpretation. At present the term includes any area outside the United Kingdom in which the United Kingdom has undertaken to provide air traffic services. The final proposed amendment, Amendment No. 33, revises the definition to apply to air navigation services. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 42. line 30, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 32.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
National Security
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may nominate a member of the CAA for the purposes of this section, and in this section references to the national security nominee are to the person nominated under this section.
(2) Subsection (3) applies if—
(3) In such a case—
(4) The national security nominee may authorise a member or employee of the CAA to perform on his behalf the functions which he is to perform by virtue of this section; and while such an authorisation is effective references in subsection (2) to the national security nominee are to the person authorised under this subsection.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Directions: supplementary]:
moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 32:
Page 42, line 44, leave out ("or (6) or section") and insert (", (National security)(3) or").
Page 43, line 1. leave out ("or (6) or section") and insert (", (National security)(3) or").
Page 43. line 11. leave out ("63(6)") and insert ("(National security)(3)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Interpretation]:
moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 45. line 7. leave out ("provide air traffic services") and insert (''carry out activities with regard to air navigation").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 69 [Charges for services]:
moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 45, line 13, leave out ("traffic").
The noble Lord said: The most important aspects of this group of amendments to Chapter IV of the Bill relate to the introduction of three new clauses. In the first new clause (Amendment No. 45), together with Amendments Nos. 34 and 40, we are seeking to allow the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to charge for certain services that it provides. Those are where the CAA provides services in the performance of air navigation functions under Chapter III, for which Eurocontrol is to collect charges under the Eurocontrol agreement; and the CAA may include an amount in respect of specifying, publication and recovery, where under that agreement, Eurocontrol collects a charge in respect of the specification and publication of that charge and its recovery.
Currently the Civil Aviation (Route Charges for Navigation Services) Regulations 1999 provide that aircraft operators must pay charges to Eurocontrol in respect of navigation services made available in specified airspace. Post-PPP, instead of the Secretary of State making regulations to set our charges, the CAA will have responsibility for specifying those charges, and hence it is intended that the powers in the Bill will be sufficient to enable it to do so. The meaning of "chargeable air traffic services", as currently drafted in Clause 73, would not include all of the CAA's services provided in performing its Chapter III air navigation functions, nor would that provision allow recovery of the CAA's Chapter IV cost of specifying, publishing or recovery. Where these services are properly recoverable through Eurocontrol the CAA should be allowed to do so and that is what these amendments will achieve.
The second new clause (Amendment No. 46) places further duties on the CAA and provides that the CAA must specify charges under Clause 69, if it thinks that it should do so in order for the United Kingdom's international agreements to be fulfilled. Further it must exercise those powers in a manner best calculated to take account of those agreements. The CAA must also exercise the power to specify in relation to Clause 73(2)(b) services—air traffic services that are provided outside the UK by international agreement—currently those in the Shanwick Oceanic Area, if it thinks that it should do so to enable the provider of these services to be paid for their provision.
The third new clause in this group (Amendment No. 47) seeks to ensure that, where information is given to the Secretary of State by the CAA concerning services and performing air navigation functions, or a licence holder concerning air traffic services, proposing the charges to be submitted to Eurocontrol, the Secretary of State must as far as practicable ensure that the information is given to Eurocontrol. However, that duty does not apply to information given by a licence holder if the CAA tells the Secretary of State that the giving of the information to Eurocontrol could result in the licence holder being paid charges, the calculation of which was in contravention of the provisions of the licence.
This new clause also ensures that if money is received by the Government from Eurocontrol in respect of those services, then the Secretary of State must as far as practicable ensure that the money is paid to the provider of the service. Similarly, if money is due to be paid by Eurocontrol, the Secretary of State must, as far as practicable, ensure that the money which falls to be paid, falls to be paid by Eurocontrol to the service provider. The reference to money being received by the UK Government is to money being received by a person on behalf of the Government.
Amendment No. 35 is in consequence of the new clause, Clause 46(1)(b).
Amendment No. 41 ensures that the CAA cannot charge for the same service both as an air traffic service and as one which it provides in performing its Chapter III air navigation functions.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 provide the meaning of the "Eurocontrol agreement" and "Licence holder" for inclusion in the interpretation Clause 77. Amendment No. 42 is in consequence of Amendment No. 48.
The remaining Amendments Nos. 36 to 39, 43 and 44 are consequential upon Amendments Nos. 34 and 40. I beg to move.
I have one brief question on Amendment No. 47, paragraphs 4 and 5. In brackets, it says, "so far as practicable", as to whether or not the money should be handed over to the person who provides the service. Why should it be impractical that the money should not be handed over? Perhaps the noble Lord could give a brief explanation as to the circumstances that might cause that to arise.
Perhaps I may ask a question on Amendment No. 46. The CAA must exercise the powers set out,
I have noted that in this Bill and in the amendments we are using the good plain English term "thinks" instead of "considers"; "takes a view" and so forth. I do not object to that. But this is a very subjective provision. It seems to put the CAA in the position of having to take a view rather than in the objective position that if an international agreement requires it, then it should do so. In other words, it is the CAA taking a view about international agreements rather than, as one might expect, the Secretary of State saying that we need to comply with the following international agreement. My second point on this is that I assume it is implied that if, as a country, we are having a row over the international agreement in question, the CAA can have regard to that and does not need to get on with exercising those powers regardless of the difficulty over the agreement. It would be absurd if the CAA were, by this requirement, put in the position of acting entirely separately from other international interests.I can see the need for some such clause to require the CAA to do all of this when necessary and sensible. Therefore, in principle, I do not object to the clause."if it thinks it should do so".
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, as far as practicable, one would of course assume that that took account of the kind of commercial contingencies faced by every business. In this case, too, there is a particular reason for it, about which he rightly enquires. Our understanding is that we would not be able to bind Eurocontrol. I should stress that we do not expect any problems on that front. Although we would not be able to bind Eurocontrol and that is as far as it is practicable to go in a relationship with them.
On the CAA and its relationship to international agreements, the CAA has a locus in that respect because it is the regulator. However, under Clause 85 the Secretary of State can also issue directions to the CAA. On Question, amendment agreed to.moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 46, line 5. leave out subsection (10).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Chargeable air traffic services]:
moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 44:
Page 47, line 31, leave out ("traffic").
Page 47. line 32, leave out ("air traffic").
Page 47, line 34, leave out ("traffic").
Page 47. line 35, leave out ("air traffic").
Page 47, line 43, at end insert—
("(cc) services which are provided by the CAA in performing its air navigation functions (within the meaning of Chapter III) and for which Eurocontrol is to collect charges under the Eurocontrol agreement;").
Page 48, line 1, after ("services") insert ("which do not fall within paragraph (cc) and").
Page 48, line 2. leave out from ("the") to the end of line 3 and insert ("Eurocontrol agreement").
Page 48, line 4, leave out ("traffic").
Page 48, line 16, leave out ("traffic").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 47:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—
Amounts For Recovery Etc
(".—(1) This section applies if—
(2) In specifying the amount of the charge the CAA may include an amount in respect of the specification and publication of the amount of the charge and its recovery.
(3) References to an amount include references to a method of calculating an amount.").
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—
Further Duties Of The Caa
(".—(1) The CAA—
(2) The CAA must exercise its powers under section 69 in relation to services falling within section 73(2)(b) if it thinks it should do so in order to enable the provider of the services to be paid for their provision.").
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—
Secretary Of State's Duties
(".—(1) If information is given to the Secretary of State by the CAA concerning the charges the CAA would like to be paid in respect of chargeable air services which fall within section 73(2)(cc), he must (so far as practicable) ensure that the information is given to Eurocontrol.
(2) If information is given to the Secretary of State by a licence holder concerning the charges it would like to be paid in respect of chargeable air services which it provides and which fall within section 73(2)(d), he must (so far as practicable) ensure that the information is given to Eurocontrol.
(3) But subsection (2) does not apply if the CAA tells the Secretary of State that giving the information to Eurocontrol could result in the licence holder being paid charges whose calculation was in contravention of the provisions of the licence.
(4) If money is received by the government of the United Kingdom from Eurocontrol in respect of a chargeable air service falling within section 73(2)(cc) or (d), the Secretary of State must (so far as practicable) ensure that the money is paid to the person who provided the service.
(5) If money falls to be paid by Eurocontrol in respect of a chargeable air service falling within section 73(2)(cc) or (d). the Secretary of State must (so far as practicable) ensure that the money falls to be paid by Eurocontrol to the person who provided the service.
(6) The reference to money being received by the government of the United Kingdom is to money being received by a person on behalf of that government.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clauses 74 to 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Interpretation]:
moved Amendments Nos. 48 and 49:
Page 50, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) The Eurocontrol agreement is the multilateral agreement relating to route charges signed at Brussels on 12 February 1981 or any agreement replacing it.").
Page 50, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) "Licence holder" has the meaning given by section 37.").
On question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 78 to 89 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 90 to 94 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Air traffic: information]:
moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 200, line 7, at end insert—("( ) for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function of the European Commission in respect of Community law about competition;").
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53. Schedule 9 prohibits the disclosure of information gained under this part of the Bill, except with the consent of the person to whom it relates or where otherwise permitted. The schedule goes on to list a whole series of purposes for which disclosure could he permitted. This group of government amendments has been requested by the Competition Commission to ensure that an inability to disclose air traffic information obtained under Part I of the Bill does not frustrate either its functions or those of the independent Television Commission under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or those of the European Commission in respect of Community competition law.
Paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 9 allows the bodies listed in paragraph 3(2) to disclose information obtained under the Bill while carrying out their functions under the enactments listed in paragraph 3(3).
The first amendment will provide for disclosure for the purposes of facilitating the functions of the European Commission under European Community competition law. The fourth amendment provides for disclosure for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of the functions of a body listed in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 9 under the Competition Law Enforcement Regulations 1996. The remaining amendments would allow the Competition Commission and the ITC to carry out their functions without being frustrated by an inability to disclose information under the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 53:
Page 200, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) the Independent Television Commission;").
Page 200, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) the Broadcasting Act 1990;").
Page 201. line 1, at end insert—
("( ) any subordinate legislation made for the purpose of securing compliance with Articles 84 and 85 of the, Treaty establishing the European Community;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 95 and 96 agreed to.
moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
Crown Application
(".—(1) The provisions mentioned in subsection (2) bind the Crown.
(2) The provisions are—
(3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council apply, with or without modification, any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (4) to any aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of Her Majesty.
(4) The provisions are—
(5) This section (except so far as it relates to Chapter V) has effect subject to section (The Crown: other provisions); and, so far as it relates to Chapter V, it has effect subject to section 73 of the Competition Act 1998.").
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
The Crown: Other Provisions
(" .—(1) No contravention by the Crown of a provision contained in or made under this Part shall make the Crown criminally liable; but the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session may, on the application of a person appearing to the Court to have an interest, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the provisions contained in or made under section 3(1), 86(7) or 87(5) apply to persons in the public service of the Crown as they apply to other persons.
(3) However, section 3(1) does not apply if the services there mentioned are provided by or on behalf of the armed forces of the Crown; and the person to whom and aircraft for which the services are provided are immaterial.
(4) Nothing in section (Crown application) or this section affects Her Majesty in her private capacity; and this subsection must be construed as if section 38(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (meaning of Her Majesty in her private capacity) were contained in this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clauses 97 to 103 shall stand part of the Bill?
Before we agree that these clauses stand part, I should like to make the point that we have now departed from Part I of the Bill—we wave it some kind of farewell just for the moment—and remind the Committee of what my noble friend Lord Brabazon said, that this procedure would give us two bites of the cherry. I feel he underestimated the meal that is in front of us. I do not feel as though I have had one bite of the cherry, but that I have swallowed two or three bags without tasting any of them. I congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have carried this through. It impresses me greatly and I permit myself to wonder, rather timidly, what would have been the reaction of the government party had it still been in opposition and been confronted with such infernal proceedings—I chose the adjective intentionally—as we have been met with today. It is merely a sign of our innocence, which I hope will endure for ever, that we have been able to get on with this; and the Government ought to be very much obliged to us.
I should say in passing that when we reach the second part of the Bill, the ignorance which I have on the first part is slightly remedied. Many years ago when I was Minister of Transport, most of the time I was buried in that great heap called the Department of the Environment where nobody made any decisions at all, and nobody understood any issues when they reached a certain level. In those days, the government in their wisdom were totally convinced that air transport had nothing to do with transport at all, and therefore there was a Department of Civil Aviation, which was more or less entombed inside the DTI—a pretty unhappy fate for anybody—and so I had nothing to do with it. However, I had some involvement in some of the other problems with which the later stages of the Bill are concerned, and I hope from time to time to make some contribution, but I doubt whether I shall feel capable of intervening in this present procedure, which is, I must say, marvellously speedy. Without embarrassing any of my colleagues on the Committee and any party, I wonder how many of us had any very clear understanding of the details of the contents of Part I of the Bill as it came before us originally, and how many have a good, clear understanding of everything that has happened in the past half-hour or so as the noble Lord, in the manner of a deft and extremely skilled conjurer, has altered the shape of the proposals which are before us. I do not wish to impede progress, at least at this stage, but I thought I should take the opportunity of making one or two comments particularly relative to my noble friend's choice of metaphor of bites of the cherry; we have had more than that.I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, had answered the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, very fully, when he pointed out that this is a qualifying round and does not affect the actual tournament. We return on Thursday of next week to our full consideration of Part I, and indeed the rest of the Bill. Otherwise, the government amendments would have been dealt with together with opposition and other amendments. That would have confused the issue as to the Government's intentions. This Bill will be published tomorrow morning in the form of what I think is technically called a Keeling schedule. It shows the relevant clauses as amended by the amendments which are being put before the Committee. The Opposition have lost nothing by this procedure. It merely means that they have two opportunities to ask questions on government amendments.
Clauses 97 to 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Quality partnership schemes]:
moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 63. line 43, leave out from ("strategies-) to end of line 4 on page 64.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 to 62. These amendments, taken together, ensure that local transport authorities can bring forward quality partnership schemes which are provided in the Bill, but which would now be able to include existing facilities. Mostly, they respond to representations we have received, in particular from local government. But we believe they will be widely welcomed.
As currently drafted the Bill provides for the making of a quality partnership scheme on the basis that the facilities to be provided by local authorities—for example bus lanes and so on—are not already in existence. Thus Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 104, for example, refer to an obligation to "provide" facilities and of "facilities provided", and Clause 105(2) refers to "proposed facilities". The wording of Clauses 106(4) and 108(1) also presuppose that local authorities must be allowed time to provide those facilities in the future.
The real position, however, is that there are already a substantial number of voluntary quality partnership schemes, many established relatively recently, with purposes similar to the statutory schemes now envisaged under the Bill. The representations we have received suggested that there could be positive advantages if authorities were able to incorporate such existing facilities within a quality partnership scheme under the Bill. There would be advantages to authorities and operators alike. Authorities would be able to package up existing and new facilities in a quality partnership scheme, and demand the same standards of all operators using the facilities. And the operators, especially where they have invested recently on the strength of local authority provision, would benefit from protection from low quality competition.
The government amendments accordingly provide for quality partnership schemes to include existing facilities. In so doing, they strengthen the "partnership" concept already inherent in the Bill by providing that both facilities provided by the authority and standards to be met by operators must lead to improvements in the quality of bus services or help to reduce traffic congestion or pollution. That is the effect of Amendment No. 57.
It has always been the intention that statutory quality partnership schemes should represent a partnership, with both operators and authorities operating a quid pro quo. This amendment makes that even more explicit. It will apply to all quality partnership schemes whether or not they involve existing facilities.
The amendment also makes it clear that there must be genuine improvement. Authorities cannot, for example, bring forward quality partnership schemes which are primarily dependent on facilities which already exist, demanding major investment by the bus operators. There must be a reasonable element of additionality.
The other substantive amendment in this group is Amendment No. 60, which introduces a new clause empowering the appropriate national authority to make regulations in connection with quality partnership schemes involving "existing facilities". Those regulations are designed to ensure flexibility and to protect operators who are already using existing facilities. They might additionally be used to impose more onerous consultation or consent requirements; to limit the age of pre-existing facilities; to allow for particular facilities or classes of facility to be specified, or the circumstances in which they might be specified; and to allow appropriate modifications to be made in the quality partnership scheme procedures. That is Amendment No. 60, which is the substantive new clause.
The remaining amendments are purely consequential. These amendments will improve the Bill and allow the benefits of statutory quality partnerships to be extended to a wider range of circumstances. I beg to move.
These provisions amend the detailed requirements for quality partnership schemes, to bring benefit to people using the services. In addition, reference is made to the need for consultation in the schemes.
There seem to be two drawbacks to the current wording. First, the benefits should be such as to be enjoyed by people not currently using the service— primarily because of one form of disability or another—but who would like to be able to use the service. Secondly, the requirements for consultation should also extend to people who are not using or cannot use the service at the time, as it would be desirable for quality partnership schemes to be used to widen the use of public transport, such as buses.I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said about this change, which is in response to representations received from local government. I hope that we might take it as a precedent and that many other representations that we shall make, which have come to us from local government, will receive equally favourable consideration.
I ask particularly that the existing quality partnership schemes, of which—as the Minister said—there are many, will under Clause 108 enjoy no lesser status or protection than the new quality partnership schemes, save that they may have to be improved. We want to believe that the existing schemes are not second class in the consideration of the Government or in the eyes of this Bill and the law, should this Bill become law.In response to the first question, it is clear that the inclusion of existing facilities—and indeed, the whole question of quality partnerships—is based on the improvement of the service. This includes the extension of the service and therefore must include its extension for the use of those who cannot currently, for one reason or another, enjoy the service. That would clearly cover improvements made to ensure that disabled people or others, who previously had not been able to use the service, can now do so. As far as the consultation provisions on that are concerned, the general provisions on consultation will certainly allow consultation with the representatives of disabled people in the locality. Thus, that point is already covered. In relation to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, we always take seriously representations from local authorities. However, I cannot give him the 100 per cent guarantee he seeks on that matter.
As regards existing quality partnerships, if they wish to move into the statutory quality partnership arena, they will have the same status as the new partnerships. There may be some quality partnerships that will not be statutorily based. It is hoped that they will have the same effect locally but there will not be the statutory backing for those particular arrangements between the operator and the authority.4.45 p.m.
Will the Minister be kind enough to say how many authorities are involved? There seems to be a legion of them and here we are dealing particularly with the appropriate national authority. I have very little idea as to which is the appropriate national authority in that context.
When I use the term "authority" in this context, I refer to the local authority, in most contexts the local highways authority and, in certain circumstances, there may be lower level authorities which enter into such agreements. However, principally I am referring to the highways authority. I believe I am right in saying that there are about 100 such agreements either in existence or in the process of being agreed on a voluntary basis. We shall need to see how many of those will transfer to a statutory basis. But this provision will provide statutory backing for that kind of arrangement between the operator and the local highway authority.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Amendments No. 57 and 58:
Page 64, line 10, at end insert—
("(3A) The authority or authorities must be satisfied that both the provision of those facilities and the provision of local services of that standard will—(a) improve the quality of local services provided in the whole or any part of their area, or combined area, by bringing benefits to persons using those services, or (b) reduce or limit traffic congestion, noise or air pollution.
(3B) A quality partnership scheme may not be made unless the authority or authorities have complied with the notice and consultation requirements imposed by section 105.").
Page 64, line 45, leave out ("(2) and (3)") and insert ("(3) and (3B)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 [ Notice and consultation requirements]:
Amendment No. 59:
Page 65, line 13, leave out ("proposed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 106 to 108 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—
Regulations About Schemes Involving Existing Facilities
(".—(1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision about the specifying in quality partnership schemes of facilities which are already being provided before the schemes are proposed ("existing facilities").
(2) The regulations may in particular—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 agreed to.
Clause 110 [ Variation: supplementary]:
moved Amendments Nos. 61 and 62:
Page 68, line 6, leave out ("that in section 104(1))") and insert ("those in section 104(1) and (3A))").
Page 68, line 27, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(3B)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 111 to 123 agreed to.
Clause 124 [ Joint and through ticketing schemes for buses]:
moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 77, line 4, leave out from ("tickets)") to end of line 14 and insert ("of any of the descriptions which may by covered by a ticketing scheme and to which the scheme applies.
(3A) The descriptions of tickets which may be covered by a ticketing scheme are—(a) tickets entitling the holder to make more than one journey on particular local services or on local services of a class specified in the scheme (whether or not operated by the same person), (b) tickets entitling the holder to make a particular journey on two or more local services (whether or not operated by the same person), (c) where a particular journey could be made on local services provided by any of two or more operators, tickets entitling the holder to make the journey on whichever service the holder chooses, and (d) tickets entitling the holder to make a journey, or more than one journey, involving both travel on one or more local services and travel by one or more connecting rail or tram services.
(3B) A connecting rail or tram service, in relation to a ticketing scheme, is a service for the carriage of passengers by railway or by tramway (or by both) which runs between—(a) a station or stopping place at or in the vicinity of which local services stop and which serves any part of the area to which the ticketing scheme relates, and (b) any other place.
(3C) Different arrangements may be specified in a ticketing scheme for different cases.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 63 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66, 83, 84 and 86. The main purpose of these amendments is to extend through ticketing schemes for buses under Clause 124 of the Bill to include bus/train and bus/tram ticketing. In this we are responding to suggestions that that would be a valuable addition and serve to strengthen the integrated nature of the Bill.
Amendment No. 63 introduces substitute provisions in place of subsections (3)(a) to (c) and subsection (4) of Clause 124. The key addition is the new paragraph (d), which allows ticketing schemes to extend to buses and "connecting rail or tram services". These are defined in the new subsection (3B). The definition is deliberately broad. It speaks of rail or tram services which run between a station or tram stop where, or near where, local buses stop, and which serves any part of the area to which the ticketing scheme applies, and any other place. So a ticketing scheme can include train or tram services which may be just outside the boundary of the authority making the scheme, if they provide connecting services with local buses. In short, the pattern of travel connections is more important than the administrative boundary of the scheme-making authority.
Amendment No. 64 introduces an important caveat. Ticketing schemes cannot include train or tram operators unless they have given their consent. There are good reasons for that. In the case of train operators, the position is that rail franchise agreements already require them to participate in multi-modal ticketing schemes proposed by a relevant local authority, as long as the franchising director (in future, the Strategic Rail Authority) has approved, and provided that participation is at no net cost to the train operator. The main benefit of this amendment, therefore, will be to ensure that once such arrangements are in place, local bus operators can be obliged to participate.
Similarly participation by tram operators is to be subject to their agreement. Many tram operators already offer multi-modal ticketing, and some have specific clauses in their concession agreements in that respect. The Bill deliberately does not seek to override those. But, again, it will mean that bus operators can be bound into a bus/tram scheme that the tram operator has agreed.
Amendment No. 65 adds the Strategic Rail Authority to the bodies to be notified of a ticketing scheme under Clause 126. Amendments Nos. 84 and 86 provide for definitions in Clause 150, and Amendment No. 83 amends a drafting error to ensure that the definition of "national authority" in Clause 150 also applies to Clause 126, which contains regulations about ticketing schemes.
I hope that these amendments will be welcomed as a further demonstration of our desire for integrated transport. I beg to move.
I congratulate my noble friend on his amendments. They may assist in doing away with interminable queues at bus stops when nobody has a travelcard and everybody pays a 70 pence fare with a £5 note. I have one question for my noble friend on Amendment No. 63. New subsection (3B)(b) states that a ticket can be bought on a bus for a journey to any other place in the country. Any noble Lord who has tried to buy a train ticket from a station that has a computerised system, especially for complicated journeys such as those on Virgin, will know that it takes a couple of minutes. If such a ticket is to be sold from a bus, it will be very exciting for the other passengers. Can my noble friend tell me where it is proposed to sell these tickets? Will they be readily available? Will bus conductors have credit card machines? How will it work?
It is not difficult to prophesy that in any new arrangement ticketing problems are bound to arise. I want to be reasonably sure that the Government are now engaged—without waiting for the Bill to be enacted—in some form of consultation with bus operators. Putting it as delicately as I can, not all of them are known for their flexibility. I hope that Ministers will ensure that at this stage they come to some arrangement which will hold water when the scheme comes into effect.
Again, we on this side welcome the amendment. However, we have some concerns, which have been partly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is a fact that under the present system used by the railways for issuing tickets, tickets can be bought for use on buses and trams, but there is virtually no reciprocal arrangement for the railways to accept tickets that have been sold on buses for travel on trains. A great deal needs to be done before the intentions that are set down here can come into effect.
We are also concerned about the effect of the Competition Act and the relationship between the powers of the Director-General of Fair Trading, the local authority and the bus companies, and how we believe they will be able to interfere with ticketing and other things. However, when we come to debate Schedule 10, I shall say something more about that. Specifically in relation to tickets I should say that bus companies are now extraordinarily reluctant to enter into any ticketing arrangements, because there are two barriers. If the local authority under the Bill promotes a ticketing scheme, the Director-General of Fair Trading will consider it without charging a fee. But if a bus company promotes a ticketing scheme, for each scheme it is required to pay a fee (I believe around £13,000) to the Director-General of Fair Trading. In most cases it would take a long time for the proceeds of a ticketing scheme to recoup that £13,000, and that does not include the costs of legal representation, in persuading the Director-General of Fair Trading that the scheme is anti-competitive. From this side we very much welcome this amendment and the extension to trams and trains. But a great deal more work needs to be done; not drafting work, but work behind the scenes between the department and the director-general, and between the department, the Strategic Rail Authority and ATOC before this highly desirable system can be made to work.We too welcome the principle of the three ticketing schemes. And I hope that the Minister has answered my question about why it should be compulsory for bus companies to provide tickets on different modes of transport but not compulsory for train companies to do the same. The Minister covered that point, but the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has just raised an extremely important point about the cost of the Competition Commission's inquiries. I hope the Minister can give a good answer to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the problems of buying tickets on the buses, and I would put in a plea which I have made before: why is it not possible to buy a one-day Travelcard on London buses, particularly conductor-operated ones? It is extremely irritating if one is starting the first leg of one's journey on a bus not to be able to do that, whereas it is possible if one starts at the tube station. Maybe the Minister would care to pass that on to London Transport.That is the most I can do because the Bill is not concerned with London. However, I certainly undertake to pass that on. It may be said that it is possible not just at tube stations, but also at newsagents and various other places.
Let me respond first of all to my noble friend Lord Berkeley who expresses concern as to whether ticketing will be physically possible; whether it will slow things down if tickets are issued on buses. The best answer I can give to him is that it is already happening. In over 130 towns one can buy a £1 bus add-on entitling the holder to use a local bus network at the end of a rail journey. The bus and rail industry is working together through a joint body called Journey Solutions, committed to having at least 200 schemes of this kind available by the end of this year. In Oxford a person can buy a ticket on the local bus which entitles him to travel by rail to London and then have the use of the London Underground, and in Manchester he can buy a Travelcard which gives him the freedom of the bus, rail and tram system or different combinations of them, including travel on buses operated by over 40 bus operators in the conurbation. That is already quite commonplace in a number of conurbations. There are other examples, like through-ticketing from London to Portsmouth, across on the ferry to the Isle of Wight and then for travel round the island. There are plenty of examples of how it can be made to happen, and it is important that we should be encouraging that. I use the word "encouraging" but I shall come on to that when I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. Those schemes are clearly beneficial to passengers and we want to see them extended.5 p.m.
I am a little concerned about the issue of rail fares. We all know that these are multifarious. If we go to certain stations we can obtain certain concessions but are often quoted different prices for a ticket. How are we going to standardise things, particularly now that this is going to be operated through buses as well?
Perhaps I may respond to that point before returning to my tack of trying to keep up with other Members of the Committee who have taken part.
Clause 124 is concerned with ticket types, not with prices of multi-modal tickets, to which we shall return in due course. The Office of Fair Trading will naturally have a view about price fixing against the public interest. This is clearly a matter for the Committee in the Chamber later on. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—I hope it will be clear from what I have said about what is happening now—that there is already plenty of consultation with the bus companies. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the specific point about the role of the Office of Fair Trading and charges to the bus operator. He mentioned the fee of £13,000 to the Office of Fair Trading for ruling on whether or not a competition test in Schedule 10 should be passed. We have not reached that yet but he is right that there is a power in that schedule for the Director-General of Fair Trading to charge a fee. However, it has not been decided what that fee shall be, nor even that there will be a fee. The £13,000 is the fee under the Competition Act, which is different legislation. I shall pass on the noble Lord's point to the Office of Fair Trading and perhaps it can be teased out in subsequent stages of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, rightly pointed out that the obligation in these amendments is on the bus operator. It is only fair to say, however, that the train companies already have an obligation on them in legislation. Tram companies tend to operate under private or local legislation so it would be difficult to impose an obligation on them without immense complication in the Bill. However, many tram operators have obligations on them in their concessions and there are many examples both of train and tram operators collaborating through ticketing arrangements. For example, Midland Metro is involved in joint ticketing with bus and rail as part of their concession agreement. In Sheffield, the Supertram is part of the PTE ticketing scheme. In Tyne and Wear, the PTE operates the Metro and there is fully integrated ticketing, as is also happening with Croydon Tramlink and the Docklands Light Railway, with London Transport's ticketing and travelcard arrangements. Considerable progress is being made, therefore, and the degree of compulsion which is proposed here is the correct degree.On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 124, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [ Making of scheme]:
moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:
Page 77, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) If the scheme applies to tickets within section 124(3A)(d), it may only be made with the agreement of the operators of the connecting rail or tram services concerned.").
Page 77, line 43, leave out from ("services") to ("and") in line 44 and insert ("or services for the carriage of passengers by railway or by tramway (or by both) who would, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, be affected by it,
( ) to the Strategic Rail Authority if it applies to tickets within section 124(3A)(d),").
Page 78, line 6, leave out from ("operation") to end of line 7.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 127 to 132 agreed to.
Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 132, insert the following new clause—
Civil Penalties For Bus Lane Contraventions
(".—(1) The relevant national authority may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—
(2) An authority is an approved local authority if—
(3) A bus lane contravention is a contravention of any such provision of—
as relates to the use of an area of road which is or forms part of a bus lane.
(4) And an area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may be used—
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) shall include provision—
(6) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
(7) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations about the notification, adjudication and enforcement of penalty charges.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may include—
but may not confer power to stop motor vehicles.
(9) In this section—
- "approved device" means a device of a description specified in an order made by the relevant national authority,
- "experimental traffic order" means an order under section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,
- "fixed penalty notice" has the same meaning as in Part III of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,
- "motor vehicle" has the meaning given in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. except that section 189 of that Act (exception for certain pedestrian controlled vehicles and electrically assisted pedal cycles) shall apply as it applies for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts,
- "registered keeper", in relation to a contravention involving a motor vehicle, means the person in whose name the motor vehicle was registered under the Vehicle Registration and Excise Act 1994 at the time of the contravention,
- "relevant national authority" means—
- (a) the Secretary of State as respects England outside Greater London, or
- (b) the National Assembly for Wales as respects Wales,
- "road" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,
- "temporary traffic restriction order" means an order under section 14 or 16A of that Act, and
- "traffic regulation order" means an order under section 1 of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 67, which inserts a new clause dealing with bus lane enforcement, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 80, which is consequential.
London authorities have had powers under the London Local Authorities Acts 1996 to enforce, by camera, moving bus lane offences. Trials in several London boroughs have shown that these powers can be very effective, reducing the level of violations in bus lanes by up to 70 per cent. The purpose of this amendment is to provide local authorities outside London with similar powers. Those local authorities have been pressing for similar powers as they were concerned that their ability to persuade bus operators to enter into quality partnerships could be seriously jeopardised if they were unable to enforce bus lane priorities.
The amendment also fulfils an undertaking given in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction during Standing Committee consideration of the Bill on 17th February 2000, when he said that it was our intention to extend the enforcement of bus lane offences to local authorities outside London.
The amendment, which will apply in England and Wales, is an enabling one. There is no obligation for local authorities to apply for the new powers and, while the new clause sets out the framework, the detailed arrangements will be provided in regulations.
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, if I misunderstood him in his interventions two amendments ago when I thought he was referring to local authorities. In subsection (1) I define the national authority which is the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales. They will make regulations for penalties and for the payment of penalties in connection with bus lane contraventions.
Subsection (2) provides that only local authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement powers may choose to apply for these enforcement powers. As with the parking powers, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly will make an order to make a local authority an "approved authority" for these purposes.
Subsections (3) and (4) define bus lane contraventions and what constitutes a bus lane for the purpose of this amendment.
Subsection (5) sets out further details of what the regulations may provide. Regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Subsection (5)(a) provides for the setting of rates of penalty charges.
Subsection (5)(b) makes provision for regulations to specify the person by whom a penalty charge is payable who may be the registered keeper of the vehicle, the driver at the time of the contravention or any other appropriate person. Initially, we would expect the regulations to specify the driver as the person by whom a penalty charge in respect of a contravention is to be paid. At present, moving offences are based on driver liability.
Subsection (5)(c) provides that the imposition of a penalty charge may only be made on the basis of a record produced by an appropriate device, which means an approved camera or similar apparatus.
Subsection (5)(d) ensures that there is no double jeopardy for the same contravention between the criminal proceedings of a fixed penalty and a bus lane contravention.
Subsection (5)(e) states that the regulations may provide for what purposes the revenues may be used. We understand that local authorities are likely to use them to offset their enforcement costs.
Subsection (6) provides that regulations may specify exemptions for penalty charges and make provision for the keeping and publication of accounts.
Subsection (7) provides that the Lord Chancellor may make regulations about the notification, adjudication and enforcement of penalty charges. Amendment No. 80 is consequential, reflecting the Lord Chancellor's regulation-making role.
Subsection (8)(a) provides that regulations made by the Lord Chancellor may make provision for creating criminal offences to be triable summarily with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. This provision is necessary to act as a deterrent to owners to claim falsely that someone else was the driver at the time of the contravention.
Subsection (8)(b) provides for regulations to be made about approved devices; in other words, authorised cameras and so on. It is important to note that subsection (8) also provides that regulations may not confer power to stop vehicles. The power to stop vehicles continues to be the preserve of the police and nothing in this clause alters that position.
This clause provides the framework for extending bus lane enforcement outside London. We see it as supporting the setting-up of quality partnerships. It will enable local authorities to enforce bus lane priorities themselves and to devote more resources than the police have been able to with their more pressing commitments. I beg to move.
Again, I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty has said. This new clause is extremely welcome and many local authorities will be almost overjoyed that it has found its way into the Bill.
I have a simple question. Why is it restricted to only local authorities that have been designated as special partner authorities? It seems so far that there are relatively few authorities and some probably would not seek it but would still have bus lanes which they might wish to be supervised. As the Minister has said, the police have virtually given up this job. They have so many other priorities that policing bus lanes does not figure anywhere in their list of priorities; and yet this must be done to enable the bus industry to provide the sort of service required and to make quality partnerships work. But why is the amendment limited to bus lane enforcement, because it appears that the same cameras could be used to enforce banned right turns, restricted access into pedestrian areas, parking on zig-zag markings, yellow box markings, and no entry restrictions? I feel that we should take the opportunity presented by this Bill to allow that extension to take place. Even if Ministers do not choose to do it immediately, they should at least take the powers to do so at some future date. It requires primary legislation, but it would be sensible to keep those powers in the drawer, as it were, because it may be five years before we have another transport Bill. I am no parliamentary draftsman, and perhaps if I were I could find employment somewhere, but it appears to me that this extension could be done by relatively simple amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1991. However I bow to the superior knowledge of such matters which rests in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.This is a relatively small point on subsection (5)(b). I can understand who the registered keeper is; I can understand who the driver is; but who does the Minister think, "any other appropriate person" would be who might have to pay the penalty?
I should like briefly to follow on what my noble friend Lord Swinfen said. I was encouraged when the Minister said in his opening remarks that in the first place it would be the driver who was responsible for this, as it is in relation to other moving traffic offences. Therefore I cannot see why anybody other than the driver should be responsible. It should be the same in this as it is for speeding offences or any other moving traffic offence. Therefore in what circumstance might it be someone other than the driver?
Secondly, on paragraph (e), which is to do with the sums paid by way of penalty charges, the noble Lord said that the highway authority would have to cover the costs of enforcement, and that certainly is fair enough. However, what happens to any profit beyond that? Does it go to a specific local transport plan, or can it go into any particular use that the local authority wishes? In our view it should go towards transport use.My pager was not telling me what to say! I had a similar question about the "proceeds", as it were, although I am not sure it is quite right to think of them as "proceeds"; they are penalties. One does not seek to enforce bus lane restrictions simply as a money-maker. However, peraps I may follow on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, although it is perhaps no more than a rhetorical question. I hope that the Government will understand that there will be costs to local authorities in setting up systems for undertaking enforcement. I believe a degree of investment will be needed.
As regards subsection (2)(a) and (b), the Minister has explained that an authority is approved if it has been designated under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act which are mentioned. It is better to have special parking areas. As I understood it, it will be approved under subsection (2)(b) if it is within the provisions of subsection (2)(a). If that is so, what is the need for subsection (2)(b)? If there are additional criteria to be met under subsection (2)(b), what are they likely to be? I have expressed before some concern that subsection (2)(b) gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State in England, and for the National Assembly in Wales, to exercise what might be inappropriate discrimination between local authorities in giving or withholding approval under subsection (2)(b).5.15 p.m.
I support the amendment. It is a great addition to the Bill. I also support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who asked why it cannot be widened to take into account many other offences. My question to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty is: can the bus lane cameras that have already been installed, and those that are to be installed, on some buses, be used as evidence if the police choose to take action in criminal cases, including on endorsable offences?
I have a brief point. As far as I am aware, the original provisions in the Bill do not refer to the Lord Chancellor at all but to the Secretary of State. One wonders whether his expertise—great as it is—covers these rather small points.
On that last point, the Lord Chancellor enters into this arena because he has the power to make the regulations about the notification and adjudication of the enforcement of penalty charges. That applies across the board as well as in this area. Therefore, it is not appropriate to simply give powers to the Secretary of State, which is why we have tabled Amendment No. 80. It will ensure that the Lord Chancellor fulfils that function.
As far as the remaining points are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked why only authorities with decriminalised parking regimes were likely to take up this option. That is principally because the authorities should be able to address parking as well as moving offences. It is clear that a very large number of authorities are now moving towards decriminalised parking; over 100 more are in the pipeline. Therefore, the provisions should cover the majority of highway authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a related point as to why subsection (2)(b) has been provided. On the face of it, it would allow an approval for an authority which was not an authority with a decriminalised parking regime. It 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. I suppose that it might also allow a degree of flexibility in relation to decriminalised parking regimes as far as the national authorities are concerned. In relation to new, additional offences—this point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—we are aware that it has also been suggested that other offences should be brought into the same category. The Government consider that we should gain experience first of how this regime works for bus lanes. They are the highest priority in terms of traffic management, and we should give them highest priority before extending the provision to other offences.Before the noble Lord leaves that question, does the Bill contain a power enabling the Secretary of State to bring in the other offences that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested should be included?
No, this amendment does not provide for that.
Will the Government consider bringing forward their own amendment to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw? I understand the noble Lord wishing to gain some experience, but this is useful to all of us. It would be a pity to miss the opportunity that this Bill provides because, as the noble Lord will appreciate, being stuck trying to cross on to a clear road the other side of a yellow box, with a car at right angles, is nothing but a nuisance. It holds up a great many people and it happens very frequently.
The Government are not at present inclined to extend the provision to new offences. No doubt the noble Lord or others could raise this matter in the subsequent Committee stages, but the priority here is on bus lanes. A new provision is not necessary to allow those cameras to be used in connection with other offences. We decided to start with bus lanes because they are the highest priority. However, when cameras are not being used for bus lane enforcement, it would be possible to use them for other existing offences or indeed for traffic control or security surveillance. The powers being given to local authorities would not cover endorsable offences, which would remain a matter for the police—a further question for my noble friend, Lord Berkeley.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also referred to the issue of who would be the "other appropriate person". We have indicated that the initial regulations will aim for driver liability in this area, as with other moving offences. The occasion could arise however where we might need to change that because of various changes in the law which may be necessary in future. That again provides a certain flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen asked, "Who else?". We are not specifying who else in this context but we might again need some flexibility in that area. It will be driver liability in the initial regulations.If the noble Lord will forgive me: who could possibly be responsible apart from the driver of the vehicle and perhaps the keeper of the vehicle? Is the Minister proposing to charge the Prime Minister for allowing his driver, without his authority, to take him down a bus lane on, say, the M4?
Perhaps I may help the Minister. How about the situation where the registered keeper is a person who hires a vehicle and the hirer actually created the infringement?
I am not sure. Hire companies are in an entirely different position and the same provisions do not apply in relation to hired vehicles as apply in other circumstances. It is possible to envisage circumstances where it might be more appropriate to address this to the owner rather than the keeper, if we move to that kind of regime. At present, it is the registered keeper who picks up, for example, most driving offences if the driver is not identified. In that context, we may want to change the keeper liability to an owner liability.
But that is all very much in the future. The immediate position and the regulations we are likely to introduce at the moment will relate to driver liability for moving offences, as they do more generally. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to the proceeds and the profit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated, it is not sensible to refer to profit in this area; it is not a profit-making activity.Perhaps I should not say "profit"; I may better have said, "Excess of income over expenditure".
What we used to call the "social surplus"! In those circumstances, the regulations would clearly specify that it could go to the administration of this scheme, as Members of the Committee have said. There will be a cost to local authorities for the introduction of this scheme. It will be some time before those costs are retrieved and the administration will need to be costed. I suspect that the regulations may well provide for its use on other transport activities. However that is a matter for regulations and not a matter for the amendment which is now before the Committee. It would allow the Secretary of State in regulations to make any provisions as to the use of those moneys.
Before the Minister sits down, I must say that I am very disappointed by that reply. Experience of bus lane cameras has existed in London for a very long time, and I cannot believe that the enforcement problems in other large cities are in any way different from those experienced in London. We must not miss this extremely important opportunity to equip the Government so that they can move forward at the appropriate time. I am not saying that the Government should move forward on everything at the same time, but they should be equipped so to do.
Perhaps I may ask one question, to which the answer may not yet be available, although it is very closely associated with this issue. In the consultation on the bus industry which was published about a year ago, the issue of 24-hour bus stop clearways was raised. I wonder whether at Committee stage we might return to the subject of whether the Government have now reached a conclusion as to whether this is something which should be introduced at the same time. As the Committee will know, low-floor buses, or buses equipped for the disabled, are of no use whatever unless the bus can reliably pull into the kerb.I take that point. It is clearly one of the reasons that we wish to keep clear bus stops as well as the bus lanes. No doubt we shall return in Committee to both matters raised by the noble Lord. As regards consultation, we shall be dealing with that very shortly.
I understand the need and the effectiveness of these amendments. But can the Minister say what, fundamentally, in terms of effectiveness, is the difference between a fine imposed by the court and a civil penalty?
In terms of effectiveness?
Legally.
I would probably require legal advice to answer that question in legal terms. But in terms of the effectiveness of administration, then clearly a civil penalty can be more effective than going through the court procedures. Therefore, there would be a civil rather than a criminal penalty. I hope that clarifies the issue sufficiently for the noble Earl.
I shall look forward to receiving the Minister's letter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [ Mandatory concessions outside Greater London]:
moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 80. line 25. after ("person") insert ("or disabled person").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with concessionary fares. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 to 76, 81, 82 and 85, and 137. This group of amendments is about concessionary fares. It deals with the statutory minimum local authority scheme which is provided under this Bill. The amendment is set to fulfil an undertaking which was made during the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House to extend the eligibility of the statutory minimum to people with disabilities. I hope that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that we have fulfilled that undertaking, and I commend these amendments to your Lordships.
The statutory minimum entitles eligible people to a concessionary bus fare scheme which is at least as generous as half fares, with a free bus pass within their district or council or passenger transport authority area. In the Bill as it stands, that entitlement is provided only for elderly people. These amendments extend the entitlement to people with disabilities. In providing this entitlement we deliberately adopted a comprehensive definition of eligibility, extending it to all groups of disabled people who are potentially eligible under the present legislation. I am sure that noble Lords will see that as the correct approach. Thus the entitlement will cover people who are blind or partially sighted; people who are deaf or without speech; people whose ability to walk is seriously impaired, people who are without the use of both arms; people who have a learning disability; or people who would not qualify for a driving licence on grounds of physical fitness.
This new, wide eligibility will apply to all local authorities in England and Wales. That will include London. I should say that the eligibility criteria for concessionary fares for disabled people, which is already covered by the London scheme, have hitherto been more narrowly drawn in London than that. We felt it only right to bring the two into line by extending the London criteria and the amendments do that. In London there is a statutory reserve scheme and it will apply to that. That scheme will only be triggered if the London boroughs fail to agree on a London-wide scheme and the reserve scheme will be extended in scope as a result of these amendments.
We have calculated that for England 1.5 million people will benefit from these amendments. We estimate that the cost to local government would be £8 million and that amount will be added to the Revenue Support Grant for the year in which it comes into effect, which we intend to be 2001/02.
I acknowledge that some local authorities already provide concessionary fares which are more generous than the statutory minimum and, of course, such schemes can continue. It does not alter the position with regard to more generous arrangements. However, other local authorities do not currently provide schemes which meet the statutory minimum, or they provide no scheme at all, at least for some groups of disabled people. It is in those cases that people with disabilities will see a real benefit from these new provisions, and it is in that spirit of social inclusiveness that I beg to move these amendments.
5.30 p m.
I welcome these amendments but I have one query for the Minister. What provision is there for minimum concessions for those who are so disabled or so frail that they cannot use public transport and need to use door-to-door transport? Has the Minister any proposals to bring forward anything of that kind in the Bill?
On Second Reading I raised the issue of the cost of this scheme and the Local Government Association remains concerned that it will not be fully funded. I seek the Minister's assurance that there will be money to fund that, although I accept that at the moment it is difficult to give an accurate global figure. Perhaps in retrospect it may be possible to fund that.
I have a brief point to make about the definition. It seems to be very full and wide-ranging, but has this definition been looked at by the Disability Rights Commission and will it be used as a model for other legislation?
I support the categories which the Minister has mentioned but I have been concerned about the times of implementation of the scheme as laid down in Clauses 133 to 139. I understand that pensioners' organisations in particular are concerned about this issue.
With regard to concessionary fares, Clause 134 at lines 20 to 26 states:I had better interrupt the proceedings as there is a Division in the Chamber. We shall return to this matter in 10 minutes.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.34 p.m. to 5.44 p.m.]In relation to the difficulties that pensioners are going to experience as a result of the different times of operations—for example nine o'clock in London and half past nine according to the provision in Clause 134—I should have thought that the Bill was the opportunity to bring some rationality into the whole procedure. The operating time, as I say, for London is nine o'clock in the morning. But schemes that are operating in the rest of the country vary. I understand that Essex operates a scheme which commences at nine o'clock, the same as London, though it is nothing like as generous.
As I understand it, Clause 139 is a fall-back option. Under the present system, if the London boroughs and London Transport fail to agree, a decision is taken on this matter each year. London Transport also has a reserve scheme which again provides for free travel from nine o'clock in the morning. So I strongly urge the Minister to think again about the timing of the operation of this concession. As I say, it is an opportunity to bring some rationality into the system and I would have thought that the commencing time should be nine o'clock in the morning.I was going to speak about that particular subject in Grand Committee and have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, said. I was going to raise the matter on behalf of disabled people at a later stage in the Bill, though concessionary fares are probably unnecessary for those who work unusual hours.
Has the department had any contact with the Scottish Executive about this? Clearly this measure does not extend to Scotland, and I am a little distressed, when looking at the Transport (Scotland) Bill introduced recently in the Scottish Parliament, that there is no mention of such a scheme. Devolution certainly does not require Scotland to do anything like the same, but I hope that the Scottish Executive will, after some consultation, come up with approximately the same scheme.
On that last point, that is entirely a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament and not for us. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to disabled people who are unable to use normal public transport. That is a different issue; it is not dealt with in this context. This provision deals with access to scheduled services provided by public transport. It does not deal with the issue of door-to-door transport; that is usually provided directly by the local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked about the cost. I indicated our estimate of the cost and that the intention is that it would indeed be fully funded through the revenue support grant settlement. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether this definition of the disabled would apply in other legislation. I assume that he meant that very widely. It is, of course, based on the existing legislation in this area which deals with what it is already open to local authorities to do on a discretionary basis. It turns that into a legal requirement and applies it to London. The question of whether the same definition should apply to other legislation is probably beyond the scope of this Committee. I take the noble Lord's point about consistency, however.Has the Disability Rights Commission looked at this and taken it as a model? If we can work in to one model in this area, life would become a lot simpler when talking about regulations covering, for instance, new vehicles.
I take the noble Lord's point, but it is slightly beyond the scope of this Bill. It may well be appropriate for the commission to look at more consistency of definition. In the first instance, however, it is a matter for the commission and not for this particular legislation, although we note the point.
My noble friend Lord Islwyn raised—to use what I have recently been advised is the technical term—the "twirly" problem; namely, those pensioners who turn up at 8.59 or 9.28 a.m., depending on the time at which the concession can commence, and are told that they are too early. Pensioners being what they are, they tend to get up a little earlier than the rest of us, who are usually rushing for our buses!. However, I agree that this is a serious problem. Pensioners have made representations about whether the minimum scheme should provide for a time earlier than 9.30 a.m. Probably, in relation to the extension to the disabled, the issue arises even more acutely, especially for those disabled people who are in work. We shall have to consider this. No doubt we shall return to it in Committee. In any event, it is of course open to individual local authorities to go further than this basic minimum. We are providing here a basic minimum scheme which local authorities can already improve upon. I commend the amendment as it stands, but I suspect that we shall hear more on this issue.On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 [ Mandatory concessions: supplementary]:
Amendment No. 69:
Page 81, line 4, at end insert—
(""disabled person" means a person who—(a) is blind, that is, so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which sight is essential, (b) is partially sighted, that is, with sight impaired to such an extent that he cannot reasonably accurately estimate the size and speed of movement of vehicular traffic, (c) is deaf, (d) is without speech, (e) has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which seriously impairs his ability to walk, (f) is without the use of both arms (whether by reason of the absence of those limbs or for any other reason), (g) has a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or (h) would, if he applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his application refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 135 [ Variation of mandatory concessions]:
moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 81, line 46, at end insert ("and any disabled person)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 136 to 138 agreed to.
Clause 139 [ Mandatory concessions in Greater London]:
moved Amendments Nos. 71 to 76:
Page 84, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("( ) Section 240 (travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London) is amended as follows.
( ) In subsections (1) and (2), for "any persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection (5) below" substitute "such of the persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection (5) below as are specified in the arrangements".
( ) In subsection (5), for paragraph (c) substitute—"(c) who are partially sighted, that is, whose sight is impaired to such an extent that they cannot reasonably accurately estimate the size and speed of movement of vehicular traffic; (d) who are deaf; (e) who are without speech; (f) who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which seriously impairs their ability to walk; (g) who are without the use of both arms (whether by reason of the absence of those limbs or for any other reason); (h) who have a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; or (i) who, if they applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their applications refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness).
( ) In section 241(1) (reserve free travel scheme), after "provided for" insert "all".").
Page 84, line 19, leave out from ("to") to ("specified") in line 20 and insert ("them to include the concession").
Page 84, line 26, leave out ("After subsection (7)") and insert ("In subsection (7), for "the categories of such residents mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)" substitute "a category specified in any one of the paragraphs".
( ) After that subsection").
Page 84, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 28 and insert ("The travel concession which must be included is").
Page 84, leave out lines 42 to 44.
Page 85, line 6, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 9 and insert ("an eligible London resident of a travel concession permit relating to the travel concession specified in section 242(8) above.'").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 140 and 141 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [ Competition test for exercise of bus functions]:
moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 202, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) The Director may at any time decide not to consider, or further consider, an application made under paragraph 3 if—(a) he is of the opinion that he has not been provided with sufficient information to do so by the person or persons by whom the application was made, or (b) sub-paragraph (1) or (2) has not been complied with.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 77, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. These amendments make minor changes to the provisions in Schedule 10 which provide for a special competition test for the exercise by local authorities of their functions in respect of quality partnership and ticketing schemes and in relation to bus subsidy. The schedule is in the Bill to reflect the anxieties of operating companies and local authorities that competition rules could undermine their approach to establishing quality partnerships.
These are minor amendments. Amendment No. 77 provides for circumstances where the Director-General of Fair Trading may decline to consider, or to consider further, an application made to him for a decision as to whether the competition test has been met. The circumstances are where he is of the opinion that he has not been provided by the applicant with sufficient information, or that the notification requirements have not been complied with. The purpose is to provide that the director-general, who would otherwise be formally obliged to determine an application, is not obliged to do so if it is frivolous, vexatious or based on insufficient information.
The aim is to enable the director-general to concentrate on cases which clearly are important and where there seems to be a possibility that the competition test is not met. It seems right that the director-general should be able to concentrate on cases where people would be most keen to gain a response from him.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 replace the "disclosure of information" provisions in paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 with an almost identical provision in a new paragraph before paragraph 14 with a new heading "Information". We believe it is entirely appropriate that the restrictions on disclosure of information without consent should apply to any information obtained by the director-general under Schedule 10 and not be limited to information provided under paragraph 6 as is currently the case. I beg to move.
I am not trying to be frivolous or vexatious but I must remind noble Lords that, during the period following the Transport Act 1985, for a period of about 10 years, half the cases relating to competition which were considered by the Director-General of Fair Trading concerned the bus industry. That was because in drafting the 1985 Bill and subsequent Act, insufficient attention was given to the competition issues which arise in the bus industry.
We saw battles fought out between bus companies where users were—I would use the word—"abused" by the bus companies. We also saw very little in the way of sanctions. The new Competition Act has certainly put sanctions in place but I am by no means sure that the proper definitions of what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour are clear. The director-general has circulated a draft block exemption relating mainly to fares. The purpose of this intervention is to say that in Committee, but certainly by Report stage, we should like to be very clear that the differences of opinion, if they exist, between the department and the competition authorities have been ironed out and that very clear guidelines are available to those people in the industry to local authorities so that we do not, yet again, have 100 cases being referred to the competition authorities within the space of a year. The reason for those cases was because the legislation was not clear.The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right that a large number of cases went to the Office of Fair Trading and its predecessors following deregulation of the industry. It was in part dealing with a real anti-competitive situation in that instead of leading to competition, deregulation led to a lot of cartels and quasi monopolies. So the competition authorities had a legitimate interest in that area.
Schedule 10 provides for squaring the competition test with the requirement for quality partnerships and other measures for delivering better services. The key paragraph in Schedule 10 is paragraph 2, which sets out the competition test. This is about whether one of the functions has a significantly adverse effect on competition. But that test is met even if there is a significant adverse effect on competition if the action can be justified on the grounds that the function is being exercised to achieve various public benefits—it is a public interest override. Those benefits may consist of better vehicles or facilities, other improvements in local services, substantial benefits to users. Those may be benefits in terms of reducing congestion, noise or pollution which reflect other clauses in the bus provisions in this Bill. If the adverse effect on competition is proportionate to the achievement of those purposes, so the public interest test is clearly built in there, and the observance of that will limit the number of unnecessary, and occasionally damaging, references to the Office of Fair Trading that there have been in the past.On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
moved Amendments Nos. 78 and 79:
Page 203, line 38, leave out paragraph 9.
Page 205, line 7, at end insert—
('' Information
.—(1) No information which—
is to be disclosed during the lifetime of that individual or while that business continues to be carried on, unless the condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied.
(2) The condition is that consent to the disclosure has been obtained from—
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to a disclosure of information—
(4) If information is disclosed to the public in circumstances in which the disclosure does not contravene sub-paragraph (1), that sub-paragraph does not prevent its further disclosure by any person.
(5) A person who contravenes this paragraph is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 142 to 147 agreed to.
Clause 148 [ Part II: regulations and orders]:
moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 88, line 36, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("a Minister of the Crown").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 148, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 149 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [ Minor and consequential amendments about local transport]:
moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82:
Page 208, line 15, at end insert—
(". In section 93(7) (persons eligible to receive travel concessions under local scheme), for paragraph (e) substitute—"(e) partially sighted persons, that is, persons whose sight is impaired to such an extent that they cannot reasonably accurately estimate the size and speed of movement of vehicular traffic; (ea) persons who are deaf; (eb) persons who are without speech; (ec) persons who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which seriously impairs their ability to walk; (ed) persons who are without the use of both arms (whether by reason of the absence of those limbs or for any other reason); (ee) persons who have a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; (ef) persons who, if they applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their applications refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness);".").
Page 209, leave out line 13.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 150 [ Interpretation of Part II]:
moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 86:
Page 89, line 5, leave out ("or a quality contracts scheme.") and insert (", a quality contracts scheme or a ticketing scheme,").
Page 89, line 15, at end insert—
(""connecting rail or tram service" has the meaning given by section 124(3B).").
Page 89, line 15, at end insert—
(""disabled person" has the meaning given in section 134(1),").
Page 89, line 27, at end insert—
(""railway" and "tramway" have the meanings given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 150, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 151 to 161 agreed to.
Clause 162 [ Examination, entry, search and seizure]:
moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 96, line 43, leave out ("unlawfully interfered with") and insert ("interfered with with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge").
The noble Lord said: I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 88 to 95. This group of amendments contains minor technical and drafting changes to the road user charging and workplace parking levy provisions of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 87 and 91 improve the drafting of Clause 162 and the equivalent provision in Schedule 13. Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 162 provides important powers to ensure that road user charging schemes can be effectively and fairly enforced.
Subsection (1) of Clause 162 deals with the right to examine a vehicle to see, among other things, whether equipment has been "unlawfully interfered with". Subsection (2) deals with the right to enter a vehicle where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that equipment,
"has been interfered with with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge imposed by the charging scheme".
The word "unlawfully" in the first subsection is intended to have the same meaning as the longer formulation in the second subsection. Therefore, Amendment No. 87 standardises the wording in subsection (1) with the longer and more explicit wording of subsection (2). Amendment No. 91 to Schedule 13 makes the equivalent change to the GLA Act 1999. These amendments make the drafting of these provisions clear and consistent.
The remainder of the amendments in this group correct minor drafting errors and omissions in Schedule 13. They became apparent when we were preparing an informal consolidated version of the charging provisions in these schedules with the provisions in Schedules 23 and 24 of the GLA Act, as amended by Schedule 13 of this Bill.
This will ensure that the provisions in the Bill are consistent with the GLA Act. For the benefit of the Committee, I have already taken the opportunity to place an informed and consolidated version of the schedules in the GLA Act in the Library of the House. However, the majority of these provisions are relatively tiny technical amendments for consistency's sake in the main provisions, and this relates to the consistency on the definition of "unlawful". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 162, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 163 to 179 agreed to.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clauses 180 to 187 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [ Amendments of Schedules 23 and 24 to Greater London Authority Act]
moved Amendments Nos. 88 to 95:
Page 214, line 18, after ("of") insert ("a").
Page 215, line 40, leave out first (""each"") and insert (""year, each"").
Page 215, line 42, leave out ("that sub-paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph (4)").
Page 216, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) In sub-paragraph (1)(b)(iii), for "unlawfully" substitute "with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge".").
Page 218, line 15, leave out from first ("and") to ("in") in line 16 and insert ("paragraph 4 above (apart from sub-paragraphs (3)(f) and (6)) applies").
Page 220, line 2, leave out first (""each"") and insert (""year, each"").
Page 220, line 4, leave out ("that sub-paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph (4)").
Page 221, line 4, leave out from first ("and") to ("in") in line 5 and insert ("paragraph 7 above applies").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended agreed to.
Clauses 188 to 192 agreed to.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clauses 193 to 199 agreed to.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clauses 200 to 203 agreed to.
Schedule 16 [ Transfer to SRA of' Franchising Director's functions]:
moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 238, line 9, leave out ("Central Committee") and insert ("Rail Passengers' Council").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments deals with the jurisdiction of the Rail Passengers' Council and committees, and with various minor changes such as repeals and changes of name.
Amendments Nos. 96, 104, 105, 106 and 107 update references to the old rail users' committees to reflect their change of names.
There are some cases where Parliament has provided special jurisdiction for the Rail Passengers' Council and committees based on Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 rather than Sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act. Typically such a regime enables the council and committees to make recommendations regarding anything to which consideration might be given. Such special regimes are applied, for example, to Eurostar services under the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and to Heathrow Express services under the Heathrow Express Act 1991. They are also applied to certain light rail schemes, such as the Manchester Metrolink and the Tyne and Wear Metro, through orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
It is not our intention to alter any special jurisdiction which was agreed by Parliament or the Secretary of State in the relevant Act or Order authorising these projects. The effect of Amendments Nos. 128, 135 and 149 is to ensure the continuation of the special regimes which currently apply to the Heathrow Express and Eurostar Services, and to the Manchester Metrolink and Tyne and Wear Metro.
The Railways Act jurisdiction of the council and committees will apply to all other "open-access" train operators and not just to franchised operators, as provided for currently in Sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act.
Amendments Nos. 149 and 151 repeal references to the British Railways Board in the Channel Tunnel Act and the Heathrow Express Act.
Amendment No. 157 extends the repeal of Section 78 of the Railways Act 1993, which disapplied the procedures for committees' investigations under the Transport Act 1962, from services provided by BR or franchisees. Section 78(1) is no longer needed because of the savings provided by Amendment No. 135. Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 repeal references to paragraph 3 of Schedules 2 and 3 to the Railways Act 1993, because those paragraphs—relating to allowances for committee members other than chairmen—are repealed under Schedule 30. Remuneration and allowances for all members are now dealt with in the amended paragraph 2 of Schedules 2 and 3 to the 1993 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 239, line 27, leave out (", apart from subsection (5)(b)").
The noble Lord said: This is a group of minor technical and drafting amendments. Part IV of this Bill affects many other enactments. In particular, we have double-checked all statutory references to the franchising director and the British Railways Board to make sure that the appropriate amendments have been made to reflect their prospective demise and the transfer of their functions to the SRA, where appropriate.
This group of amendments is the result of an extensive technical exercise to ensure that the amending provisions in Part IV of the Bill sit neatly in the amended statutes and make appropriate references to the SRA and successors to the British Railways Board. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 239, leave out line 42 and insert—
("38.—(1) Section 58 (power to require information etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—(a) for "officer" (in both places) substitute "authority", and (b) for "his" substitute "its".
(3) In subsection (2) (in each place) and in subsection (6), for "officer"").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 204 agreed to.
Schedule 17 [ Transfers to SRA front Rail Regulator]:
moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 249, line 43, leave out ("In section 55(10) (orders for securing compliance)") and insert ("(1) Section 55 (orders for securing compliance) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
"(5ZA) The Authority shall not make a final order, or make or confirm a provisional order, in relation to a licence holder or person under closure restrictions unless—(a) it has given notice to the Regulator specifying a period within which he may give notice to it if he considers that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998; (b) that period has expired; and (c) the Regulator has not given notice to the Authority within that period that he so considers (or, if he has, he has withdrawn it)."
(3) In subsection (10),").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to prevent a case of what is known as "double jeopardy", which could arise where action by a train operator or a facility owner could lead to enforcement under both the Competition Act 1998 and the Railways Act 1993.
The regulator cannot take enforcement action against a licensed operator under the Railways Act 1993, where he considers it more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act 1998. We are transferring responsibility for enforcing licence obligations, so far as they relate to consumer protection, to the authority. However, any enforcement under the Competition Act would still have priority and that remains the responsibility of the regulator.
Accordingly, these amendments prevent the authority from making an enforcement order for the breach of an obligation, when the regulator considers that the best way of proceeding is under the Competition Act. The amendments provide for the authority to notify the regulator of any action which it proposes to take and allow the regulator to decide whether there is an overriding Competition Act consideration and to notify the authority. The regulator can withdraw this notice if, having given the matter further consideration, he considers that the Competition Act enforcement action is not appropriate after all. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101:
Page 249, line 48, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (11), for "(5A)" substitute "(5ZA)".").
Page 251, line 22, after ("(6)") insert (", (6A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 205 agreed to.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clause 206 agreed to.
Schedule 19 agreed to.
Clause 207 agreed to.
Schedule 20 agreed to.
Clause 208 agreed to.
Schedule 21 agreed to.
Clauses 209 to 212 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 213 [ Penalties]:
moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 131, line 10, leave out ("included a reference to anything which is likely to be done") and insert ("or omitted to be done included a reference to anything which is likely to be done or omitted to be done").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 213, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 214 [ Orders for securing compliance]:
moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 135, line 8, leave out ("subsection (5), (5A) or (5B)(a) or (b)") and insert ("any provision contained in any of subsections (5) to (5B)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 214, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 215 agreed to.
Schedule 22 [ Renaming of rail users' consultative committees]:
moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 107:
Page 266, line 8, leave out ("subsections (6),") and insert ("subsection (6) —(a) for "consultative committee" substitute "Rail Passengers' Committee", and (b) for "the committee" substitute "the Rail Passengers' Committee".
( ) In subsections").
Page 269, line 35, after (""committee"") insert ("(in each place)").
Page 271, line 10, at end insert—
(" Channel Tunnel Act 1987 (c.53)
In section 41(1) of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 (consultative committees), for the words from "Central" to "Users Consultative" substitute "Rail Passengers' Council and each of the Rail Passengers' ".").
Page 271, line 21, at end insert—
(" In paragraph 11(3) of Schedule 18 (minutes of London Transport Users' Committee meetings), for "Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee" substitute "Rail Passengers' Council".").
The noble Lord said: I spoke Amendments Nos. 104 to 107 with Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 216 and 217 agreed to.
Schedule 23 agreed to.
Clauses 218 and 219 agreed to.
Schedule 24 [ Review of access charges by Regulator]:
moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 280, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 109. These amendments are a refinement to the provisions which apply following a reference to the Competition Commission of matters relating to the modification of a railway operator's licence or an access charge review. A competition report would follow a reference where the regulator or the authority proposes modifying a company's licence and the company does not agree, or where Railtrack or another railway facility owner objects to access charges proposed by the regulator.
Under the Railways Act 1993, if the Competition Commission considers that a matter referred to it operates against the public interest, the rail regulator or the authority, where something relates to consumer protection, may propose changes to a licence to an access agreement if the referred matter relates to an access charge review. Under the provisions of Clause 229—I am speaking now to Amendment No. 109—the Competition Commission may veto the proposed changes if it does not consider that those changes meet its concerns. It may then substitute its own amendments.
As currently drafted, the Competition Commission does not have to substitute its own amendments following a veto, but failure to act would result in a stalemate. These amendments prevent such a stalemate by requiring the Competition Commission to follow a veto with its own amendments. Similar amendments have been made to Part I of this Bill and to the Utilities Bill. I beg to move.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, a question for clarification. Am I right in thinking that if an objection is made by Railtrack or a facility owner to access charges, the right to make that objection does not extend to people defined as "beneficiaries" in the Bill; namely, bodies like Freightliner, as an example?
I can give the noble Lord the assurance that it does not extend in that way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 220 to 227 agreed to.
Schedule 25 agreed to.
Clause 228 agreed to.
Clause 229 [ Licence modifications following Competition Commission report]:
moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 145, line 45, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 229, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 230 to 234 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 110:
After Clause 234, insert the following new clause—
Substitute Services To Be Suitable For Disabled Passengers
(".—(1) This section applies where—
(2) In doing so the person or Authority shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the substitute road services allow disabled passengers to undertake their journeys safely and in reasonable comfort
(3) In the event of any failure by the person or Authority to comply with subsection (2), he or it shall be liable to pay damages in respect of any expenditure reasonably incurred, or other loss sustained, by a disabled passenger in consequence of the failure.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order grant exemption from subsection (2) to—
(5) Before making an order under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult—
(6) An order under subsection (4) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) In this section "substitute road services" means services for the carriage of passengers by road which are provided where railway services have been temporarily interrupted or discontinued.
(8) For the purposes of this section a passenger is disabled if he has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which seriously impairs his ability to walk.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause is designed to ensure that where substitute road services are provided in place of rail services, the substitutes will be suitable for passengers with mobility problems. This meets an undertaking given in Committee in another place, and at Second Reading in this House. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has welcomed stronger requirements on train operators and has been consulted on the drafting of the new clause.
The definition of disability covers both a person with a permanent disability and a person with a short-term mobility problem such as a broken leg which affects the ability of the passenger to walk. The emphasis is on impaired mobility so it is understandable that the definition does match entirely that used for other purposes such as concessionary fares. But it is consistent in key respects.
This new clause is concerned with those passengers who are unable to access in safety and reasonable comfort the substitute services which have been secured. Other disabled people, for example sensory-impaired people and people with learning disabilities, are generally physically able to use the services. We would fully expect, however, that the train operators and the SRA would instruct the operators of substitute services to provide reasonable assistance to those passengers to ensure that they are able to complete their journey with confidence.
The new clause is not prescriptive about what type of substitute vehicle is required. The duty is simply to provide transport that is sufficient to allow the passenger to complete the journey safely and in reasonable comfort. This approach reflects the fact that it will be some time before fully accessible road vehicles are generally available. If we insisted that road vehicles must be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act regulations in the strict sense, it would be all too easy for train operators to claim that it was not reasonably practicable to procure accessible vehicles.
The clause will cover train operators, including the SRA when it secures the provision of substitute services. There is a power to exempt from the requirements but it is likely that this power will be used only in a limited range of cases, for example, heritage railways. The new clause provides for statutory consultation on exemptions with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The passenger will be entitled to claim damages through the courts. It is expected, however, that the more normal route by which any failings will be addressed in respect of train operating companies will be through the franchise agreements or licensing. However, a passenger who was unable to complete a journey and incurred expenses, such as hotel expenses or the hire of other transport, would be able to claim for his or her loss.
If disabled passengers are to have the same service as that offered to others, it is important that they can travel in confidence knowing that if substitute services are used they will be able to finish their journey safely and in reasonable comfort. I beg to move.
This is a welcome new clause. However, I am rather concerned about subsection (4) which provides that,
the provisions to—"The Secretary of State may by order grant exemption from"—
"any class or description of persons who provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway, or
(b) any particular person who provides such services,
Those are very wide powers indeed, and I am concerned that their use by some future Secretary of State could negate the welcome advance, despite having to refer the regulations to the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. Can the Minister tell me exactly what classes of person and what classes of service he had in mind to exempt?in respect of all substitute road services or any class or description of such services".
In this respect, I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It hardly seems necessary. The authority or the person who provides a service has to do so only in so far as it is reasonable and practical. I suppose that covers the situation where the service is not set up for a period of months or there has been an accident or some special unpredictable event that has happened during the course of a journey. We have enough flexibility there for people to do their best, and my experience is that in those situations railway operators do their best.
The exemption under subsections (4)(5) and (6) are a different matter altogether. That is obviously intended to be a permanent exemption because it can be annulled only by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It relates to something that will be set up over a much longer period and applies to all sorts of people falling into a certain class. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that it does open the possibility for people to mistreat this piece of legislation in order to avoid the responsibilities that we are all grateful to see. In other words, it seems rather contradictory.While accepting, to some extent, what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, have said, there is another side to the matter. I welcome the fact that this clause is flexible, but again I worry as to the way in which it may be interpreted. Any noble Lord who, on a hot day, has been on a train that has developed problems—last week I was stuck on a train without air-conditioning for two-and-a-half hours—would accept being taken away by horse and cart. He or she would be less concerned with whether or not the bus provided for their journey was easily accessible. Those with mobility problems would be happy to have a rather uncomfortable lift into the coach rather than having to sit around for any length of time.
My concern is that somebody will say that there should be a park of accessible buses all the way round the country waiting for an accident to happen. Somebody in a train operating company's legal department will interpret the matter in that way. That would be an enormous extra cost, and I hope that there will be flexibility in its implementation in both directions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said. When there is an accident you want the first available transport that can take you home in whatever discomfort; it is better than staying out all night.6.30 p.m.
I too welcome this clause in principle, though I would in a way like to leave out the word "disabled" where it occurs. I do not see why all passengers, not just those who are disabled, should not be able to undertake their journeys safely and in reasonable comfort if there is a rail substitution service. However, perhaps that would be taking the matter a little too far.
Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, I assume that not all vehicles used for a substitute service will have to be wheelchair-accessible; for example, if a fleet of half a dozen buses is required they will not all have to be wheelchair-accessible. It will perhaps be possible for wheelchair passengers to go in a licensed taxi; after all, they will shortly all have to be wheelchair-accessible. Would that be sufficient to comply with the regulations? I wish also to mention the point raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in relation to the exemptions under subsection (4). I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in answer to the point made on that particular aspect. However, in general terms we welcome this amendment.Part IV of the Bill relates to Scotland, but I am a wee bit concerned that we are talking about substitute road services at a time when road transport is almost wholly devolved. I wonder whether we will have a different form of accident— that is, a turf war with the Scottish Parliament—if we try to make this kind of road transport legislation. It is more the prerogative of the Scottish Parliament. It is important that we do not have any unnecessary clashes with the Scottish Parliament; they will happen, but I do not want any extra ones. I therefore ask what is fast becoming a characteristic question from me about this as a devolution issue.
To answer the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, while roads in Scotland obviously are a devolved matter, there will be no turf war here on the duties of rail companies, because the rail companies' duties are not devolved.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, went to the nub of the matter, and in a sense echoed what had been said earlier in the discussion by some of the contributors who welcomed the amendment. It was tabled in a spirit of trying to find the appropriate compromise in what can be an expensive area for train operating companies, and yet clearly a dismaying experience for disabled people when provision is not made for them. We have tried to reach a happy medium and to ensure that we consult widely on any exemptions. I mentioned the heritage railways as a specific example. But Members of the Committee can be assured that the exemptions will be limited and could be revoked. I stress again that the new clause provides for statutory consultation on exemptions with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. I feel it highly unlikely that any Secretary of State in future would attempt to behave in a callous way by disregarding such consultation and causing distress to disabled people. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, my understanding would be that those passengers who find themselves stranded will have help available to them. The concern is that too often that help would not be suitable for disabled people. We want to try to ensure that there is a suitable substitute vehicle available to transport disabled people home in an appropriate manner. I hope that that covers most of the issues that have been raised. I end as I began, by echoing the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the need for flexibility in both directions. We are introducing a potentially onerous and expensive duty, although I hope not a harsh one. Trying to ensure that a suitable alternative is available for the individual is a very honourable advance for us all to make.On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 235 and 236 agreed to.
Schedule 26 [ Transfers: tax]:
moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 285, line 16, leave out ("be") and insert ("have been").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 111 and speak to Amendments Nos. 112 to 124 to Schedule 26 and Amendment No. 133 to Schedule 27. The amendments to Schedule 26 are minor, clarificatory amendments to the tax provisions of the Bill which ensure tax neutrality on transfers to the authority and the Secretary of State from the British Railways Board. As well as tidying up some drafting, they ensure that transfers of loan relationships and trading activities are tax neutral and that transfers of assets held on lease and similar transactions do not change the tax position.
Amendment No. 133 is a consequential amendment to the Finance Act 1994. It deals with transfers under the Railways Act 1993 and ensures that it takes account of the establishment of the authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 124:
Page 285, line 17, after ("Acts") insert ("(had the transferor incurred expenditure qualifying for allowances under Part II of the 1990 Act on the provision of the property)").
Page 286, line 14, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the relevant transfer takes effect and any later time").
Page 286, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the transferor (and accordingly the transferee) is to be taken to have accounted for the loan relationship in accordance with an authorised accounting method corresponding to that in accordance with which the transferee accounts for the loan relationship in the accounting period in which the transfer takes effect.").
Page 290, line 9, after ("is") insert ("or forms part of").
Page 290, line 17, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the relevant transfer takes effect and any later time").
Page 290, line 31, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the transfer takes effect and any later time").
Page 291, line 37, leave out ("a disposal of machinery or plant") and insert ("machinery or plant which is treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of").
Page 292, line 35, after ("is") insert ("or forms part of").
Page 294, line 23, leave out ("a disposal of machinery or plant") and insert ("machinery or plant which is treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of").
Page 295, line 20, after ("is") insert ("or forms part of").
Page 295, line 28, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the relevant transfer takes effect and any later time").
Page 297, line 24, leave out ("disposal") and insert ("acquisition of the relevant interest by the transferee").
Page 297, line 27, leave out ("a disposal of machinery or plant") and insert ("machinery or plant which is treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 237 and 238 agreed to.
Schedule 27 [ Minor and consequential amendments about railways]:
moved Amendments Nos. 125 to 128:
Page 300, line 36, at end insert—
("British Railways Act 1969 (c.xliii)
In section 22 of the British Railways Act 1969 (misuse of telephones at level crossings)—
Page 300, line 42, at end insert—
("British Railways Act 1977 (c.xvii)
.—(1) Section 13 of the British Railways Act 1977 (fines and penalties) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for "the Board, to any railway of the Board" substitute "a successor of the Board, to any railway of a successor of the Board".
(3) After that subsection insert—
"(1A) In subsection (1) of this section "successor of the Board" has the same meaning as "successor of the British Railways Board" has in the Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No.2) Order 1999."").
Page 301, line 20, leave out (""by the Strategic Rail Authority (under section 201") and insert (""Strategic Rail Authority (under section 202").
Page 301, line 26, at end insert—
("Heathrow Express Railway Act 1991 (c.vii)
In section 41(1) of the Heathrow Express Railway Act 1991 (provisions which do not apply to services and facilities provided on Heathrow Express lines or at Heathrow Express stations), after "1968" insert "and sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act 1993".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 301, line 40, at end insert—
(". In section 17 (directions requiring facility owners to enter into contracts for use of their railway facilities), after subsection (7) insert—
"(7A) Any reference in this section to obtaining permission to use a railway facility includes, where the facility is track, permission to connect other track to it."
In section 18(9) (access contracts requiring approval of Regulator), after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) subsection (7A),".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is tabled simply for clarification. We wish to be sure that if, for example, a train operator agreed to build a new station facility as a condition of a replacement franchise, he would be able to connect his new station through its associated track to the wider network without being held to ransom over access charges. This has been achieved by putting beyond doubt the types of access contracts over which the Rail Regulator has powers of direction, or for which parties require the regulator's approval. These include connections to the network. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 134:
Page 302, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1), for "(5)" substitute "(5B)".
( ) In subsections (2) and (4), for "subsection (5)" substitute "subsections (5) to (5B)".").
Page 302, line 42, leave out (""section 5 above" substitute "section") and insert (""or, as the case may be, section 5 above" substitute "above or, as the case may be, section").
Page 305, line 16, leave out ("10(15)(b)") and insert ("10(15)").
Page 305, line 20, at end insert—
("Finance Act 1994 (c.9)
.—(1) Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 15(11) (trading losses), after paragraph (b) insert—
"(ba) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Strategic Rail Authority;".
(3) In paragraph 19(5) (leased assets: special cases), after paragraph (b) insert—
"(ba) the Strategic Rail Authority,
(bb) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Strategic Rail Authority,".").
Page 306, line 34, at end insert—
("Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No.2)0rder 1999 (S.I 1999/1998)
In article 3(1) of the Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No.2) Order 1999 (amendment of British Transport Commission Act 1949), for "include" substitute "have effect as".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 239 agreed to.
Schedule 28 [ Transitionals and savings about railways]:
moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 308, line 33, at end insert—
("Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962
Where provision is made for subsections (4) to (6) of section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 (functions of Rail Passengers' Council and Rail Passengers' Committees) to apply in relation to any services or any facilities connected with any services—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 240 to 242 agreed to.
Schedule 29 agreed to.
Clauses 243 and 244 agreed to.
Clause 245 [ School crossing patrols]:
moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 153, line 42, leave out subsection (2) and insert——
("(2) In section 26 (arrangements for patrolling places where children cross roads during certain periods)—(a) in subsection (1), omit "during periods between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon when children are so on their way,", and (b) after that subsection insert—
"(1A) Arrangements under subsection (1) above may be made for patrolling places at such times as the authority thinks fit."
(3) In section 28 (power to stop vehicles at school crossings)—
(a) in subsection (1)—(i) omit "between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon", and (ii) for "children on their way to or from school, or from one part of a school to another, are" substitute "a person is",
(b) in subsection (2)—(i) for "children are" substitute "person is", and (ii) for "their" substitute "his", and
(c) in subsection (5)—(i) insert "and" at the end of paragraph (a), and (ii) omit paragraph (c) and the word "and" before it.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 137, 166 and 167. These amendments concern the school crossing patrols who do a tremendous job in relation to child safety. An amendment to the Bill was moved in another place by my honourable friend Michael Foster, the purpose of which was to allow patrols to help children of any age and to help adults across the road. Therefore, to remove those restrictions was consistent with the policy that we had set out in our integrated transport White Paper and the Government accepted that amendment. However, it did not go far enough.
The amendments which we now propose are to remove the restrictions on hours of operation in relation to patrols and to clarify the Commons amendment so that, for example, there can be no doubt that a disabled person in a wheelchair can be aided by a school crossing patrol. They deliver the commitments we made in the integrated transport White Paper. We have also referred to it more recently in the Road Safety Strategy issued a couple of months ago. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 245, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 246 and 247 agreed to.
Schedule 30 [ Repeals and revocations]:
moved Amendment No. 137:
| Page 317, line 37, at end insert — | ||
| ("S.I. 1986/1385. | Transport Act 1985 (Extension of Eligibility for Travel Concessions) Order 1986. | In article 1, the definitions of "mental handicap" and "severe mental handicap". Article 3. |
| S.I. 1989/2293. | Transport Act 1985 (Extension of Eligibility for Travel Concessions) (Amendment) Order 1989. | Article 4. |
| 1999 c. 29. | Greater London Authority Act 1999. | In section 240(5), the words ", or any description of persons,". In Schedule 16 —in paragraph 2(1), the words "(persons who have attained pensionable age or whose ability to walk is seriously impaired)", and paragraph 7.") |
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendments Nos. 138 to 148:
Page 318, leave out lines 32 and 33.
Page 319, line 42, column 3, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(b)").
Page 319, line 44, column 3, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(b)").
Page 320, line 10, column 3, leave out ("47(1),") and insert ("57(1),").
Page 320, line 55, column 3, leave out from (""each",") to ("or,") in line 6 on page 321 and insert ("paragraph (a), in paragraph (b), the words "in the case of the Waterways Board", the words "will be so connected by rail or so situated in relation to a railway line or, as the case may be," and the words "the rail services of the Railways Board can be directly used").
Page 321, line 10, column 3, leave out (""the Railways Board,",") and insert (""Railways Board, and",").
| Page 321, line 24, at end insert— | ||
| ("1969 c. 48 | Post Office Act 1969. | In section 20(1)(c), the words "the British Railways Board and" and the word "other".") |
| Page 321, line 54, column 3, at beginning insert (""the"). | ||
| Page 322, line 3, at end insert— | ||
| ("1980 c. 34. | Transport Act 1980. | In Schedule 6, paragraph 10.") |
| Page 322, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert— | ||
| ("In Schedule 3, in paragraph 31(4), the words "the British Railways Board,".") | ||
| Page 322, line 12, column 3, at beginning insert | ||
| ("Section 22.") | ||
On Question, amendments agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 149:
| Page 322, column 3, leave out line 14 and insert— | ||
| ("In section 41— in subsection (1), the words from "as it applies" to the end, in subsection (2), the words "or the Railways Board", and subsection (4).") | ||
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
I would like to seek clarification from my noble friend about Amendment No. 149, which removes a part of Clause 41 of the Channel Tunnel Act. The part it removes relates to the application of the Central Transport Consultative Committee as it applies in relation to services and specifically as provided by the Railways Board or any subsidiary. I wonder if my noble friend would be able to tell me—or if he cannot today perhaps he could write and tell me—what are the obligations under this Bill for Eurostar services or rail freight services through the Channel Tunnel? If they were stopped tomorrow, is there any obligation on the board or its successor to keep the Eurostar services going? If there is no obligation, what would happen to the rolling stock concerned? Would it be scrapped or is there a requirement to return it to the Government?
I shall accept the invitation of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and write to him on that matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.moved Amendments Nos. 150 to 166:
| Page 322, line 15, column 3, at end insert | ||
| ("In Schedule 6, in paragraph 6, the words "or the Railways Board".") | ||
| Page 322, line 17, at end insert— | ||
| ("1991 c. vii | Heathrow Express the Railway Act 1991. | In section 41(2), words "or the Board" and the words "and the Board".") |
| Page 322, column 3, leave out line 37. | ||
| Page 323, line 30, column 3, at end insert— | ||
| ("in subsection (1), the words "as eligible for provision under a franchise agreement",") | ||
| Page 323, line 52, column 3, at end insert— | ||
| ("In section 35(1), the words "as eligible for provision under a franchise agreement".") | ||
| Page 324.line 53, column 3, at end insert— | ||
| ("in subsection (5A), the words "in relation to a licence holder or person under closure restrictions",") | ||
| Page 325, line 14, column 3, leave out ("73(8)") and insert ("73(2)(c) and (8)"). | ||
| Page 325, column 3, leave out lines 32 to 38 and insert— | ||
| ("Section 78(1) to (4), (6) and (7).") | ||
| Page 326, line 34, column 3, at end insert— | ||
| ("Section 152(2).") | ||
| Page 326, line 41, column 3, at end insert ("including the heading),"). | ||
| Page 326, line 43, column 3, after (''2(1),") insert ("the word "each" and") | ||
| Page 326, line 51, column 3, at end insert— | ||
| ("in paragraph 4, the word "each",") | ||
| Page 327, line 3, column 3, after ("6,") insert ("the word "each" and"). | ||
| Page 327, line 18, column 3, after ("Regulator",") insert— | ||
| ("in paragraph 8(1), the word ", 3",") | ||
| Page 327, line 29, column 3, after ("Regulator",") insert— | ||
| ("in paragraph 8(1), the word ", 3,") | ||
| Page 328, line 5, column 3, at end insert— | ||
| ("Schedule 13.") | ||
| Page 329, line 22, at end insert— | ||
| ("1984c. 27. | Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. | In section 26(1), the words "during periods between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon when children arc so on their way,"'. |
| In section 28— | ||
| in subsection (1), the words "between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon", and | ||
| in subsection (5), paragraph (c) and the word "and" before it.") | ||
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 248 to 251 agreed to.
Clause 252 [ Extent]:
moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 155, line 32, after ("245") insert (", and the repeals relating to Part V,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 252, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 253 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Committee adjourned at eight minutes before seven o'clock.