My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having taken on board so fully the point that I made in Committee. I was indeed concerned that the Government should take some steps to disability-proof the Bill, as I put it. I am grateful for the extent to which the Minister took me at my word by moving this amendment.
In Committee, I was concerned that operators would be able to use admissible objections to veto requirements in quality partnership schemes covering frequency, timing and maximum fares. The Minister said that he had not anticipated that the admissible objections process would be used or abused in that way, but he undertook to look at the matter further. The result of those considerations is the amendment that he has just put before us, which is indeed very welcome.
The Minister may see why it was relevant to reiterate that point on admissible objections, which he might think was more properly the subject of our next debate, when I ask this question: does Amendment No. 3 mean that a local authority, when it is modifying a quality partnership scheme in response to an admissible objection, will have to have regard to the needs of disabled persons? If the Minister could reassure us on that point, I feel sure that it will facilitate considerably our discussion of the next amendment.
Local Transport Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Low of Dalston
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 16 January 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Transport Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c1310 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:06:34 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435059
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435059
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_435059