Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 67: 67: Clause 58, page 51, line 7, after ““subsidies,”” insert ““or where the vehicles concerned are let to a person who operates a vehicle or vehicles under a permit granted under section 19 of the Transport Act 1985,”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill proposes reinstating the PTE power to own vehicles and provide them to operators. The purpose of this amendment is to enhance that power to formally allow PTEs to provide vehicles to community transport operators. Unless I am very much mistaken, in Committee the Government did not specifically engage with what was intended as the main point of this amendment, which was to allow PTEs to provide vehicles not only for commercial operators, but for community transport schemes. Obviously, there are financial issues involved in such schemes and for those who run and organise them. This amendment would regulate the status of such support by the local transport authority. It would also be in line with one of the wider aims of the legislation, which is to support and promote the community transport sector. This group of amendments includes Amendment No. 70. If that amendment had been agreed in Committee, which it was not, it would give the PTE, as the operator of last resort, powers if a quality contract was terminated or services under that contract ceased. In Committee, the Government agreed to look at the operator of last resort powers again. The Minister has since indicated that the Government have decided not to move from the Bill as it stands on this particular issue. As far as the reasons that have been given are concerned, reference has been made to the position of an operator who, in effect, goes out of business, and to the powers of either an administrator or a receiver, among others, to address the situation that might arise. Within London, for example, these powers exist. Once again, there appears to be a discrepancy between what the Government view as appropriate in London, and what they view as appropriate outside. It is not only a question of companies that might become insolvent. There are, presumably, issues of franchise default or termination—although they will be very few and far between, and nobody would suggest otherwise—where the operator of last resort powers might, in some circumstances, be needed. I know that there is an argument about whether transport authorities are in a position to own their own fleet of vehicles, depots, and so on, but presumably they might be able to rent or lease vehicles. They might be in a situation where there has been a default or termination over a number of services in an area, rather than a situation where the local transport authority wishes to step in and provide vehicles for all services. There might be a need on certain routes. It might be part of a package of measures, involving other operators, put forward by the PTE to cover services. The local transport authority itself might need to be the operator of last resort. I have read the Government’s views on this in light of the representations we made in Committee, and have made some further points, which I hope my noble friend will be prepared to reflect further on. I beg to move.