Local Transport Bill [HL]

My Lords, as the noble Lord has explained, this is a slightly narrower version of an amendment that was examined in Committee. I appreciate that in the new amendment he is seeking to define more precisely the broadening and grant-making powers of the PTAs and other local transport authorities that he proposed previously. I recognise that he has identified services for older persons, those in full-time education and the unemployed as the new focus of his amendment. Taking the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw made, in so doing the amendment runs the risk that it might—as he seemed to suggest—adversely impact on the funding allocated for expenditure on transport for disabled persons. That is one of the reasons why I am less than happy with it. In general terms, it is hard not to sympathise with the proposition and the suggestion that there should be some flexibility. I understand the spirit within which the amendment has been moved and the desire to do all that we can to promote social inclusion. Having said all that, I am not sure that a convincing case has yet been made for the substantial changes in Section 106 which even the latest modified amendment brings forth. We should proceed with some caution in the area. I am not aware that local transport authorities in general have identified that the current scope of Section 106 is providing a serious block on what they wish to achieve. I have not had that said to me and I do not know that the evidence exists to make that case. That is not to say that we might not be willing to look carefully at any specific examples that might be brought to us. I know that in replying to the previous debate the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, drew attention to concerns that broadening the scope of Section 106(1) of the 1985 Act, which is specifically directed at the moment to grants for facilitating travel by members of the public who are disabled, risked, when money is tight—my earlier point—that a much lower priority would be given to the needs of those who are disabled. In view of our earlier discussions I am sure that noble Lords would regret that unfortunate consequence. I also suggest that the amendment, even in its narrower form, risks confusion and overlap with the existing powers available to both local transport authorities and education authorities. It is not clear, for example, that services used by unemployed persons are really a discrete category or that special vehicles, equipment or, for that matter, facilities are required to enable them to use such services. Do unemployed people—or, for that matter, those in full-time education—not just want to make use of good-quality local transport services like the rest of us? I am also concerned that the extension of the power to make capital grants in the amendment raises issues that need some further examination, not least, as was said in one of the earlier debates, in relation to the position under EU state aid rules. We have to be careful. Those reservations draw me to the conclusion that this is not a particularly attractive or helpful amendment. I appreciate the thinking behind it, but it could have some unintended and unfortunate consequences.