Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 27A: 27A: Clause 24, page 23, line 23, leave out ““who was consulted by the authority or authorities”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was considered in Committee, but the response given by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, was somewhat unsatisfactory. We have had a great deal of discussion and received a lot of information on the timeframe and process of implementing a quality contract. Our view remains that the partnership approach is ultimately preferable and, as I said before, gives more flexibility to all parties in the arrangements. Of course, when pursuing a quality contract scheme, we have been reassured by the Minister that authorities would be expected to consult widely. One of the amendments we tabled in Committee concerned the need to consult neighbouring authorities; we have also discussed that today, and I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’s response. Therefore the list of consultation requirements set out in Section 125 of the Transport Act 2000 remains unmodified. However, our view remains that consultation should be paramount when setting up something as contentious as a quality contract scheme. It should be the case at all stages of the elaborate process. I am concerned that the right of appeal is reserved only to those persons originally consulted at the consultation stage of the proposal. If a group was not thought appropriate to consult in the first instance, it would never get an opportunity to voice its objections. I suppose that there might be recourse to judicial review, but as several noble Lords have said, it would be most unsatisfactory. In her response to the amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, seemed to focus solely on the question of consulting neighbouring authorities. It is true that we used that as an example to illustrate that an authority could be neglected during consultation and thus lose its right to appeal, but the implications of restricting appeals could be greater than that. There is a lot in the Transport Act consultation requirements that hinges on what an authority ““thinks fit””, and one can imagine that this could be manipulated. The noble Baroness also mentioned that accepting the amendment may risk allowing the appeals process to get out of control and that that should be reason enough to withdraw it. However, I suggest that if people are appealing in such numbers, there is probably something fundamentally wrong. My view remains that quality contracts will provide nothing more over quality partnerships than a great deal of controversy. I beg to move.