Local Transport Bill [HL]

My Lords, there are two separate answers to that. Of course, bus usage has gone up in London because there are a lot more buses in London than in most other parts of the country. In seeking to make this point, my noble friend will agree that the subsidies for buses in London are approximately—I do not have the exact figures in front of me—six times those in the rest of the country put together. It would be surprising and a bit difficult for Mr Ken Livingstone to fight the mayoral battle if, with all that money thrown at those extra buses, he had to report that the use of bus services had declined in this city. My noble friend makes a valid point, but he must take on board that, in the biggest ever survey of bus passengers carried out last year by the department, outside London, no less than 83 per cent of bus passengers were reasonably satisfied with the bus service provision. I remind him that this is in a deregulated world. In London, this Valhalla of bus services which is always prayed in aid by those who want to turn the clock back, only 78 per cent of bus passengers were satisfied with their bus services. Neither of those facts is particularly conclusive and I am sure that they will not convince my noble friend, but they indicate that in London there is a considerable way to go before bus passengers are as convinced of the wondrous nature of what they have in this city as is my noble friend—and, no doubt, the Mayor of London. Perhaps we can agree to disagree and leave it at that. However, I hope that my noble friend will agree that, for various reasons, the number of bus-passenger carryings has declined right across the country, except in London. The other point is that London has the congestion charge, which very few other cities have or propose to have. If there were a deterrent to motorists, it would be possible to argue anywhere in the country that the result would be a greater number of bus-passenger carryings. I return specifically to the amendment. This is another case, perhaps with a bit more legitimacy so far as concerns quality contracts, of local authorities seeking to be judge and jury. They do not wish anyone else to be involved. To paraphrase what my noble friend Lord Rosser said, they are democratically elected, so they should be able to lay down the law on quality contracts. Not surprisingly, the bus industry takes a different view and does not like the idea of local authorities telling it what to do with its assets. I understand, although I do not think that it is in the Minister’s brief, that the PTEs have already taken counsel’s advice on whether simply allowing the operators to appeal to the courts, rather than allowing an initial process via the approvals board and the Transport Tribunal, would still protect bus operators’ rights under the European convention, and they have been advised that it would. I can well believe that that is exactly the view that the PTEG has sought. After all, it is not its money, so there is no problem in appealing to counsel about any aspect of the implementation of future laws. I do not think that that is a particularly satisfactory way to conduct bus business in future. In my view, if bus operators disagree with the provisions of a statutory quality contract, it is not sensible to say that the only alternative for them is to go to court. It might well enrich the lawyers—I am aware that in your Lordships’ House the legal profession does not go unrepresented—but I do not think that it is necessarily a sensible way to run bus services, and there must be a better alternative. The alternative that the Government have come up with—that there should be a Transport Tribunal and that the traffic commissioners should be involved—is a very sensible compromise. It cannot be acceptable for a PTA or a local transport authority under the Bill to be judge and jury over sensitive and controversial matters, such as quality contracts, involving the commercial interests of bus operators. Again, it may not seem usual for the commercial interests of bus operators to be put forward from these Benches but I think that it is perfectly legitimate for me to do so. These days, bus services are run on a commercial basis, although some of my colleagues may not agree with that. Indeed, given the earlier comments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, some in the Conservative Party—although precious few of them are present during this debate—may not agree with it, but that is a fact of life. I think that those commercial responsibilities should be recognised under this legislation. Surely the involvement of the traffic commissioners and the approvals board would make the whole issue more balanced than would be the case if either side in these disputes immediately ran off to engage in expensive court proceedings. That would be the effect of the amendment if Her Majesty’s Government were unwise enough to accept it. The local transport authority example referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—that other local authority decisions are capable of being challenged in the courts—is right but not particularly relevant. After all, few other local authority decisions would impact as directly on the business as this piece of legislation. This amendment would undermine, if not destroy, the profitability of many bus operators up and down the country, and they are understandably exercised about that. I repeat that it is not satisfactory for the PTEG and anyone who uses its brief to say, ““Just go to court””. It is not sensible, it is too time-consuming and it is extremely expensive. I am not in favour of relaxing the very relevant controls on quality contracts that were included in the Transport Act 2000. This amendment would weaken those provisions. We have reached this stage after eight years because many passenger transport executives have declined to co-operate with private bus operators. It has not all been one-sided. I have some bitter experience myself. I am glad to say that the situation in the West Midlands has changed considerably thanks to a change at the top as far as the chief executive is concerned. As I indicated on an earlier group of amendments, there is proper co-operation in the West Midlands. I am afraid there rarely was in my time and not—in case the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, thinks so—because of the personality of the person chairing the bus company at that time. I went continuously to the passenger transport executive and said, ““Tell me what we are doing wrong””. He used to make speeches at fringe meetings at all the political party conferences saying, ““They are making all this money and yet they do not co-operate with us””, and I would go to him and say, ““Just sit round a table and tell us what you want us to do””. He never could, of course, because he and many of his colleagues in the PTEG thought that if they protested loudly and long enough over a number of years and entertained various Members of your Lordships’ House as well as Members of the other place at expensive restaurants the length and breadth of the country, eventually their voice would be heard. I urge the Minister to resist their voice. This amendment would quickly destroy a remarkably successful bus industry, from the point of view of the number of passengers carried. The stabilisation of those figures and their improvement in many parts of the country where the co-operation that I have outlined takes place would be directly threatened if he were unwise enough to accept it. After seven years, the PTEG ought to start barking up another tree. It has spent enough public money barking up this one.