Local Transport Bill [HL]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the debate on the amendment, which originates from the Passenger Transport Executive Group; this debate pretty much follows our debate in Committee. I am astonished that the Conservative Front Bench support this amendment. After all, the original legislation was the 1986 Act, which was introduced by the Conservative Government. They had quite a number of years following 1986 when, if they had wanted what the amendment seeks, they could have had it. I realise that there is not a great deal of support behind what the noble Earl has just said, but the fact that the Conservative Party feels that the legislation needs changing in this way is significant and a little unexpected. Before I discuss the amendment further, I declare my interest as a consultant to FirstGroup PLC and a former chair of the National Express Group’s major bus subsidiary. Some of the fears of the PTEs, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, are unfounded. If we are to discuss partnerships, bus operators, who have a considerable investment in these matters, are surely entitled to have their voice heard. Partnership must be just that; it cannot be an ultimatum laid down by one side in the supposed partnership. To suggest that operators should not have the right to make admissible objections to a statutory quality partnership is unfair. It allows one side in a debate to make a final decision and to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, put it, ““the right of veto”” over the views of the other side in a supposed partnership. The Minister said consistently throughout Committee that operators must be able to protect their legitimate interests. I suggest that, without an admissible objection power, such ability would be put at serious risk. Let us switch the argument around. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, could give us a guarantee that local transport authorities and PTEs will not seek to impose unreasonable terms on fares, frequencies and timings. These are the three matters about which they are most exercised and are subject of later amendments. I repeat that if one side of a supposed partnership wishes to insist that its view should prevail regardless of the other, we should be given proper reasons. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that local authorities are democratically elected. I accept that point, but I hope that he in turn would accept that partnerships, statutory or otherwise, have worked well in various parts of the country where proper goodwill has been behind them. The Minister will be aware that, as recently as Monday this week, his right honourable friend the Transport Minister was in Birmingham. Her visit was noted in an article in the Birmingham Post, under the headline ““Bus firm tries to lure passengers with luxury fleet””, a copy of which I have in front of me. Describing an example of a partnership that will work well under the existing legislation, it states: "““A fleet of luxury buses complete with air-conditioning, leather seats and tinted windows designed to get people back on ""public transport has been launched in Birmingham. The 18 vehicles, dubbed the ‘most luxurious buses ever seen in the West Midlands’, will be cleaned several times a day to ensure they remain in mint condition and include digital CCTV security””." This is not an investment lightly made by the company which I used to chair—although I had no input into that decision. The article continues: "““The £1.4 million investment by bus operator Travel West Midlands aims to turn round a negative image held by many of bus travel… Geoff Inskip, chief executive of Centro, which is responsible for promoting public transport in the region, said: ‘What I would say to people is those who can get on the 997, 993 and 934””—" they are the three routes to which the article refers— "““give them a try and let us have your feed back… We believe the high standards of service can persuade them””—" that is, would-be passengers— "““to take the bus on a regular basis, helping to reduce congestion and carbon emissions””." I have one more brief extract from this article to illustrate how well the existing legislation can work. Referring to TWM and the Passenger Transport Authority, Mr Phil Tonks of Bus Users UK said: "““They are taking away the stereotype most people have of buses as dirty, smelly and never on time. This kind of thing will make a difference but we need the city council to invest in the idea of more bus priority””." My noble friend Lord Rosser advocates on behalf of the Passenger Transport Executive Group a world in which, to hear him, elected members at the local level are passionately concerned to bring better public transport to their area. I do not wish to repeat too many times in your Lordships’ House that that is not the case in many parts of the country—I notice the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, nodding in agreement—and certainly not in Birmingham. The Conservative-Liberal alliance there shows no signs of wishing to give buses the priority that those of us who speak regularly on these matters wish to see. I hope that the Minister will resist the amendment. I hope that he will bear in mind that he himself has said, as have his colleagues in the department, that the operators must be able to protect their legitimate interests. They will not be able to do so if this amendment is accepted, and from that point of view I hope that it will be resisted.