HL Deb 27 June 2000 vol 614 cc28-51GC

(".—(1) The relevant national authority may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—

  1. (a) the imposition by approved local authorities of penalty charges in respect of bus lane contraventions, and
  2. (b) the payment of such penalty charges.

(2) An authority is an approved local authority if—

  1. (a) an order designating the whole or any part of its area has been made under paragraph 1(1) or 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Act 1991 (permitted and special parking areas outside Greater London), and
  2. (b) the relevant national authority has made an order specifying it as an approved local authority for the purposes of this section.

(3) A bus lane contravention is a contravention of any such provision of—

  1. (a) a traffic regulation order,
  2. (b) an experimental traffic order, or
  3. (c) a temporary traffic restriction order,
as relates to the use of an area of road which is or forms part of a bus lane.

(4) And an area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may be used—

  1. (a) only by buses, or
  2. (b) only by buses and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic specified in the order.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) shall include provision—

  1. (a) for the setting of the rates of penalty charges (which may include provision for discounts or surcharges) by approved local authorities subject to the approval of the relevant national authority,
  2. (b) specifying the person by whom a penalty charge in respect of any contravention is to be paid (who may be the registered keeper of the motor vehicle involved in the contravention, its driver at the time of the contravention or any other appropriate person),
  3. (c) permitting the imposition of a penalty charge only on the basis of a record produced by an approved device,
  4. (d) securing that a penalty charge in respect of a contravention is not required to be paid, or is refunded, where the contravention is the subject of criminal proceedings or where a fixed penalty notice has been given in respect of the contravention, and
  5. (e) as to the application by approved local authorities of sums paid by way of penalty charges.

(6) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

  1. (a) specify exemptions from penalty charges, and
  2. (b) make provision about the keeping of accounts, and the preparation and publication of statements of account, relating to sums paid by way of penalty charges.

(7) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations about the notification, adjudication and enforcement of penalty charges.

(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may include—

  1. (a) provision creating criminal offences to be triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such lower amount as is prescribed by the regulations, and
  2. (b) provision for or in connection with permitting evidence of a fact to be given by the production of a record produced by an approved device with a certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced;
but may not confer power to stop motor vehicles.

(9) In this section—

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 67, which inserts a new clause dealing with bus lane enforcement, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 80, which is consequential.

London authorities have had powers under the London Local Authorities Acts 1996 to enforce, by camera, moving bus lane offences. Trials in several London boroughs have shown that these powers can be very effective, reducing the level of violations in bus lanes by up to 70 per cent. The purpose of this amendment is to provide local authorities outside London with similar powers. Those local authorities have been pressing for similar powers as they were concerned that their ability to persuade bus operators to enter into quality partnerships could be seriously jeopardised if they were unable to enforce bus lane priorities.

The amendment also fulfils an undertaking given in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction during Standing Committee consideration of the Bill on 17th February 2000, when he said that it was our intention to extend the enforcement of bus lane offences to local authorities outside London.

The amendment, which will apply in England and Wales, is an enabling one. There is no obligation for local authorities to apply for the new powers and, while the new clause sets out the framework, the detailed arrangements will be provided in regulations.

I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, if I misunderstood him in his interventions two amendments ago when I thought he was referring to local authorities. In subsection (1) I define the national authority which is the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales. They will make regulations for penalties and for the payment of penalties in connection with bus lane contraventions.

Subsection (2) provides that only local authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement powers may choose to apply for these enforcement powers. As with the parking powers, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly will make an order to make a local authority an "approved authority" for these purposes.

Subsections (3) and (4) define bus lane contraventions and what constitutes a bus lane for the purpose of this amendment.

Subsection (5) sets out further details of what the regulations may provide. Regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Subsection (5)(a) provides for the setting of rates of penalty charges.

Subsection (5)(b) makes provision for regulations to specify the person by whom a penalty charge is payable who may be the registered keeper of the vehicle, the driver at the time of the contravention or any other appropriate person. Initially, we would expect the regulations to specify the driver as the person by whom a penalty charge in respect of a contravention is to be paid. At present, moving offences are based on driver liability.

Subsection (5)(c) provides that the imposition of a penalty charge may only be made on the basis of a record produced by an appropriate device, which means an approved camera or similar apparatus.

Subsection (5)(d) ensures that there is no double jeopardy for the same contravention between the criminal proceedings of a fixed penalty and a bus lane contravention.

Subsection (5)(e) states that the regulations may provide for what purposes the revenues may be used. We understand that local authorities are likely to use them to offset their enforcement costs.

Subsection (6) provides that regulations may specify exemptions for penalty charges and make provision for the keeping and publication of accounts.

Subsection (7) provides that the Lord Chancellor may make regulations about the notification, adjudication and enforcement of penalty charges. Amendment No. 80 is consequential, reflecting the Lord Chancellor's regulation-making role.

Subsection (8)(a) provides that regulations made by the Lord Chancellor may make provision for creating criminal offences to be triable summarily with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. This provision is necessary to act as a deterrent to owners to claim falsely that someone else was the driver at the time of the contravention.

Subsection (8)(b) provides for regulations to be made about approved devices; in other words, authorised cameras and so on. It is important to note that subsection (8) also provides that regulations may not confer power to stop vehicles. The power to stop vehicles continues to be the preserve of the police and nothing in this clause alters that position.

This clause provides the framework for extending bus lane enforcement outside London. We see it as supporting the setting-up of quality partnerships. It will enable local authorities to enforce bus lane priorities themselves and to devote more resources than the police have been able to with their more pressing commitments. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw

Again, I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty has said. This new clause is extremely welcome and many local authorities will be almost overjoyed that it has found its way into the Bill.

I have a simple question. Why is it restricted to only local authorities that have been designated as special partner authorities? It seems so far that there are relatively few authorities and some probably would not seek it but would still have bus lanes which they might wish to be supervised.

As the Minister has said, the police have virtually given up this job. They have so many other priorities that policing bus lanes does not figure anywhere in their list of priorities; and yet this must be done to enable the bus industry to provide the sort of service required and to make quality partnerships work.

But why is the amendment limited to bus lane enforcement, because it appears that the same cameras could be used to enforce banned right turns, restricted access into pedestrian areas, parking on zig-zag markings, yellow box markings, and no entry restrictions? I feel that we should take the opportunity presented by this Bill to allow that extension to take place. Even if Ministers do not choose to do it immediately, they should at least take the powers to do so at some future date. It requires primary legislation, but it would be sensible to keep those powers in the drawer, as it were, because it may be five years before we have another transport Bill.

I am no parliamentary draftsman, and perhaps if I were I could find employment somewhere, but it appears to me that this extension could be done by relatively simple amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1991. However I bow to the superior knowledge of such matters which rests in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Lord Swinfen

This is a relatively small point on subsection (5)(b). I can understand who the registered keeper is; I can understand who the driver is; but who does the Minister think, "any other appropriate person" would be who might have to pay the penalty?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I should like briefly to follow on what my noble friend Lord Swinfen said. I was encouraged when the Minister said in his opening remarks that in the first place it would be the driver who was responsible for this, as it is in relation to other moving traffic offences. Therefore I cannot see why anybody other than the driver should be responsible. It should be the same in this as it is for speeding offences or any other moving traffic offence. Therefore in what circumstance might it be someone other than the driver?

Secondly, on paragraph (e), which is to do with the sums paid by way of penalty charges, the noble Lord said that the highway authority would have to cover the costs of enforcement, and that certainly is fair enough. However, what happens to any profit beyond that? Does it go to a specific local transport plan, or can it go into any particular use that the local authority wishes? In our view it should go towards transport use.

Baroness Hamwee

My pager was not telling me what to say! I had a similar question about the "proceeds", as it were, although I am not sure it is quite right to think of them as "proceeds"; they are penalties. One does not seek to enforce bus lane restrictions simply as a money-maker. However, peraps I may follow on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, although it is perhaps no more than a rhetorical question. I hope that the Government will understand that there will be costs to local authorities in setting up systems for undertaking enforcement. I believe a degree of investment will be needed.

As regards subsection (2)(a) and (b), the Minister has explained that an authority is approved if it has been designated under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act which are mentioned. It is better to have special parking areas. As I understood it, it will be approved under subsection (2)(b) if it is within the provisions of subsection (2)(a). If that is so, what is the need for subsection (2)(b)? If there are additional criteria to be met under subsection (2)(b), what are they likely to be? I have expressed before some concern that subsection (2)(b) gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State in England, and for the National Assembly in Wales, to exercise what might be inappropriate discrimination between local authorities in giving or withholding approval under subsection (2)(b).

5.15 p.m.

Lord Berkeley

I support the amendment. It is a great addition to the Bill. I also support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who asked why it cannot be widened to take into account many other offences. My question to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty is: can the bus lane cameras that have already been installed, and those that are to be installed, on some buses, be used as evidence if the police choose to take action in criminal cases, including on endorsable offences?

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I have a brief point. As far as I am aware, the original provisions in the Bill do not refer to the Lord Chancellor at all but to the Secretary of State. One wonders whether his expertise—great as it is—covers these rather small points.

Lord Whitty

On that last point, the Lord Chancellor enters into this arena because he has the power to make the regulations about the notification and adjudication of the enforcement of penalty charges. That applies across the board as well as in this area. Therefore, it is not appropriate to simply give powers to the Secretary of State, which is why we have tabled Amendment No. 80. It will ensure that the Lord Chancellor fulfils that function.

As far as the remaining points are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked why only authorities with decriminalised parking regimes were likely to take up this option. That is principally because the authorities should be able to address parking as well as moving offences. It is clear that a very large number of authorities are now moving towards decriminalised parking; over 100 more are in the pipeline. Therefore, the provisions should cover the majority of highway authorities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a related point as to why subsection (2)(b) has been provided. On the face of it, it would allow an approval for an authority which was not an authority with a decriminalised parking regime. It is there primarily to ensure that schemes can be checked to ascertain whether appropriate regimes are in place to ensure that the schemes are operated fairly. I suppose that it might also allow a degree of flexibility in relation to decriminalised parking regimes as far as the national authorities are concerned.

In relation to new, additional offences—this point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—we are aware that it has also been suggested that other offences should be brought into the same category. The Government consider that we should gain experience first of how this regime works for bus lanes. They are the highest priority in terms of traffic management, and we should give them highest priority before extending the provision to other offences.

Lord Swinfen

Before the noble Lord leaves that question, does the Bill contain a power enabling the Secretary of State to bring in the other offences that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested should be included?

Lord Whitty

No, this amendment does not provide for that.

Lord Swinfen

Will the Government consider bringing forward their own amendment to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw? I understand the noble Lord wishing to gain some experience, but this is useful to all of us. It would be a pity to miss the opportunity that this Bill provides because, as the noble Lord will appreciate, being stuck trying to cross on to a clear road the other side of a yellow box, with a car at right angles, is nothing but a nuisance. It holds up a great many people and it happens very frequently.

Lord Whitty

The Government are not at present inclined to extend the provision to new offences. No doubt the noble Lord or others could raise this matter in the subsequent Committee stages, but the priority here is on bus lanes. A new provision is not necessary to allow those cameras to be used in connection with other offences. We decided to start with bus lanes because they are the highest priority. However, when cameras are not being used for bus lane enforcement, it would be possible to use them for other existing offences or indeed for traffic control or security surveillance. The powers being given to local authorities would not cover endorsable offences, which would remain a matter for the police—a further question for my noble friend, Lord Berkeley.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also referred to the issue of who would be the "other appropriate person". We have indicated that the initial regulations will aim for driver liability in this area, as with other moving offences. The occasion could arise however where we might need to change that because of various changes in the law which may be necessary in future. That again provides a certain flexibility.

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen asked, "Who else?". We are not specifying who else in this context but we might again need some flexibility in that area. It will be driver liability in the initial regulations.

Lord Swinfen

If the noble Lord will forgive me: who could possibly be responsible apart from the driver of the vehicle and perhaps the keeper of the vehicle? Is the Minister proposing to charge the Prime Minister for allowing his driver, without his authority, to take him down a bus lane on, say, the M4?

Earl Attlee

Perhaps I may help the Minister. How about the situation where the registered keeper is a person who hires a vehicle and the hirer actually created the infringement?

Lord Whitty

I am not sure. Hire companies are in an entirely different position and the same provisions do not apply in relation to hired vehicles as apply in other circumstances. It is possible to envisage circumstances where it might be more appropriate to address this to the owner rather than the keeper, if we move to that kind of regime. At present, it is the registered keeper who picks up, for example, most driving offences if the driver is not identified. In that context, we may want to change the keeper liability to an owner liability.

But that is all very much in the future. The immediate position and the regulations we are likely to introduce at the moment will relate to driver liability for moving offences, as they do more generally.

The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to the proceeds and the profit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated, it is not sensible to refer to profit in this area; it is not a profit-making activity.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Perhaps I should not say "profit"; I may better have said, "Excess of income over expenditure".

Lord Whitty

What we used to call the "social surplus"! In those circumstances, the regulations would clearly specify that it could go to the administration of this scheme, as Members of the Committee have said. There will be a cost to local authorities for the introduction of this scheme. It will be some time before those costs are retrieved and the administration will need to be costed. I suspect that the regulations may well provide for its use on other transport activities. However that is a matter for regulations and not a matter for the amendment which is now before the Committee. It would allow the Secretary of State in regulations to make any provisions as to the use of those moneys.

Lord Bradshaw

Before the Minister sits down, I must say that I am very disappointed by that reply. Experience of bus lane cameras has existed in London for a very long time, and I cannot believe that the enforcement problems in other large cities are in any way different from those experienced in London. We must not miss this extremely important opportunity to equip the Government so that they can move forward at the appropriate time. I am not saying that the Government should move forward on everything at the same time, but they should be equipped so to do.

Perhaps I may ask one question, to which the answer may not yet be available, although it is very closely associated with this issue. In the consultation on the bus industry which was published about a year ago, the issue of 24-hour bus stop clearways was raised. I wonder whether at Committee stage we might return to the subject of whether the Government have now reached a conclusion as to whether this is something which should be introduced at the same time. As the Committee will know, low-floor buses, or buses equipped for the disabled, are of no use whatever unless the bus can reliably pull into the kerb.

Lord Whitty

I take that point. It is clearly one of the reasons that we wish to keep clear bus stops as well as the bus lanes. No doubt we shall return in Committee to both matters raised by the noble Lord. As regards consultation, we shall be dealing with that very shortly.

Earl Attlee

I understand the need and the effectiveness of these amendments. But can the Minister say what, fundamentally, in terms of effectiveness, is the difference between a fine imposed by the court and a civil penalty?

Lord Whitty

In terms of effectiveness?

Earl Attlee

Legally.

Lord Whitty

I would probably require legal advice to answer that question in legal terms. But in terms of the effectiveness of administration, then clearly a civil penalty can be more effective than going through the court procedures. Therefore, there would be a civil rather than a criminal penalty. I hope that clarifies the issue sufficiently for the noble Earl.

Earl Attlee

I shall look forward to receiving the Minister's letter.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 133 [Mandatory concessions outside Greater London]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 68: Page 80. line 25. after ("person") insert ("or disabled person").

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with concessionary fares. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 to 76, 81, 82 and 85, and 137. This group of amendments is about concessionary fares. It deals with the statutory minimum local authority scheme which is provided under this Bill. The amendment is set to fulfil an undertaking which was made during the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House to extend the eligibility of the statutory minimum to people with disabilities. I hope that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that we have fulfilled that undertaking, and I commend these amendments to your Lordships.

The statutory minimum entitles eligible people to a concessionary bus fare scheme which is at least as generous as half fares, with a free bus pass within their district or council or passenger transport authority area. In the Bill as it stands, that entitlement is provided only for elderly people. These amendments extend the entitlement to people with disabilities. In providing this entitlement we deliberately adopted a comprehensive definition of eligibility, extending it to all groups of disabled people who are potentially eligible under the present legislation. I am sure that noble Lords will see that as the correct approach. Thus the entitlement will cover people who are blind or partially sighted; people who are deaf or without speech; people whose ability to walk is seriously impaired, people who are without the use of both arms; people who have a learning disability; or people who would not qualify for a driving licence on grounds of physical fitness.

This new, wide eligibility will apply to all local authorities in England and Wales. That will include London. I should say that the eligibility criteria for concessionary fares for disabled people, which is already covered by the London scheme, have hitherto been more narrowly drawn in London than that. We felt it only right to bring the two into line by extending the London criteria and the amendments do that. In London there is a statutory reserve scheme and it will apply to that. That scheme will only be triggered if the London boroughs fail to agree on a London-wide scheme and the reserve scheme will be extended in scope as a result of these amendments.

We have calculated that for England 1.5 million people will benefit from these amendments. We estimate that the cost to local government would be £8 million and that amount will be added to the Revenue Support Grant for the year in which it comes into effect, which we intend to be 2001/02.

I acknowledge that some local authorities already provide concessionary fares which are more generous than the statutory minimum and, of course, such schemes can continue. It does not alter the position with regard to more generous arrangements. However, other local authorities do not currently provide schemes which meet the statutory minimum, or they provide no scheme at all, at least for some groups of disabled people. It is in those cases that people with disabilities will see a real benefit from these new provisions, and it is in that spirit of social inclusiveness that I beg to move these amendments.

5.30 p m.

Lord Swinfen

I welcome these amendments but I have one query for the Minister. What provision is there for minimum concessions for those who are so disabled or so frail that they cannot use public transport and need to use door-to-door transport? Has the Minister any proposals to bring forward anything of that kind in the Bill?

Baroness Hanham

On Second Reading I raised the issue of the cost of this scheme and the Local Government Association remains concerned that it will not be fully funded. I seek the Minister's assurance that there will be money to fund that, although I accept that at the moment it is difficult to give an accurate global figure. Perhaps in retrospect it may be possible to fund that.

Lord Addington

I have a brief point to make about the definition. It seems to be very full and wide-ranging, but has this definition been looked at by the Disability Rights Commission and will it be used as a model for other legislation?

Lord Islwyn

I support the categories which the Minister has mentioned but I have been concerned about the times of implementation of the scheme as laid down in Clauses 133 to 139. I understand that pensioners' organisations in particular are concerned about this issue.

With regard to concessionary fares, Clause 134 at lines 20 to 26 states:

  1. "(a) any time on a Saturday or Sunday or on any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, or
  2. (b) a time during the period from 9.30 a.m. to 11 p.m. on any other day".
Pensioners are particularly concerned about hospital appointments and that could pose problems for the NHS if the time was—

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale)

I had better interrupt the proceedings as there is a Division in the Chamber. We shall return to this matter in 10 minutes.

[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.34 p.m. to 5.44 p.m.]

Lord Islwyn

In relation to the difficulties that pensioners are going to experience as a result of the different times of operations—for example nine o'clock in London and half past nine according to the provision in Clause 134—I should have thought that the Bill was the opportunity to bring some rationality into the whole procedure. The operating time, as I say, for London is nine o'clock in the morning. But schemes that are operating in the rest of the country vary. I understand that Essex operates a scheme which commences at nine o'clock, the same as London, though it is nothing like as generous.

As I understand it, Clause 139 is a fall-back option. Under the present system, if the London boroughs and London Transport fail to agree, a decision is taken on this matter each year. London Transport also has a reserve scheme which again provides for free travel from nine o'clock in the morning. So I strongly urge the Minister to think again about the timing of the operation of this concession. As I say, it is an opportunity to bring some rationality into the system and I would have thought that the commencing time should be nine o'clock in the morning.

Lord Swinfen

I was going to speak about that particular subject in Grand Committee and have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, said. I was going to raise the matter on behalf of disabled people at a later stage in the Bill, though concessionary fares are probably unnecessary for those who work unusual hours.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

Has the department had any contact with the Scottish Executive about this? Clearly this measure does not extend to Scotland, and I am a little distressed, when looking at the Transport (Scotland) Bill introduced recently in the Scottish Parliament, that there is no mention of such a scheme. Devolution certainly does not require Scotland to do anything like the same, but I hope that the Scottish Executive will, after some consultation, come up with approximately the same scheme.

Lord Whitty

On that last point, that is entirely a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament and not for us. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to disabled people who are unable to use normal public transport. That is a different issue; it is not dealt with in this context. This provision deals with access to scheduled services provided by public transport. It does not deal with the issue of door-to-door transport; that is usually provided directly by the local authorities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked about the cost. I indicated our estimate of the cost and that the intention is that it would indeed be fully funded through the revenue support grant settlement.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether this definition of the disabled would apply in other legislation. I assume that he meant that very widely. It is, of course, based on the existing legislation in this area which deals with what it is already open to local authorities to do on a discretionary basis. It turns that into a legal requirement and applies it to London. The question of whether the same definition should apply to other legislation is probably beyond the scope of this Committee. I take the noble Lord's point about consistency, however.

Lord Addington

Has the Disability Rights Commission looked at this and taken it as a model? If we can work in to one model in this area, life would become a lot simpler when talking about regulations covering, for instance, new vehicles.

Lord Whitty

I take the noble Lord's point, but it is slightly beyond the scope of this Bill. It may well be appropriate for the commission to look at more consistency of definition. In the first instance, however, it is a matter for the commission and not for this particular legislation, although we note the point.

My noble friend Lord Islwyn raised—to use what I have recently been advised is the technical term—the "twirly" problem; namely, those pensioners who turn up at 8.59 or 9.28 a.m., depending on the time at which the concession can commence, and are told that they are too early. Pensioners being what they are, they tend to get up a little earlier than the rest of us, who are usually rushing for our buses!. However, I agree that this is a serious problem. Pensioners have made representations about whether the minimum scheme should provide for a time earlier than 9.30 a.m. Probably, in relation to the extension to the disabled, the issue arises even more acutely, especially for those disabled people who are in work.

We shall have to consider this. No doubt we shall return to it in Committee. In any event, it is of course open to individual local authorities to go further than this basic minimum. We are providing here a basic minimum scheme which local authorities can already improve upon. I commend the amendment as it stands, but I suspect that we shall hear more on this issue.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 134 [Mandatory concessions: supplementary]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 69: Page 81, line 4, at end insert— (""disabled person" means a person who—

  1. (a) is blind, that is, so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which sight is essential,
  2. (b) is partially sighted, that is, with sight impaired to such an extent that he cannot reasonably accurately estimate the size and speed of movement of vehicular traffic,
  3. (c) is deaf,
  4. (d) is without speech,
  5. (e) has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which seriously impairs his ability to walk,
  6. (f) is without the use of both arms (whether by reason of the absence of those limbs or for any other reason),
  7. (g) has a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or
  8. (h) would, if he applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his application refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness),").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 135 [Variation of mandatory concessions]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 70: Page 81, line 46, at end insert ("and any disabled person)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 136 to 138 agreed to.

Clause 139 [Mandatory concessions in Greater London]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 71 to 76: Page 84, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("( ) Section 240 (travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London) is amended as follows. ( ) In subsections (1) and (2), for "any persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection (5) below" substitute "such of the persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection (5) below as are specified in the arrangements". ( ) In subsection (5), for paragraph (c) substitute—

  1. "(c) who are partially sighted, that is, whose sight is impaired to such an extent that they cannot reasonably accurately estimate the size and speed of movement of vehicular traffic;
  2. (d) who are deaf;
  3. (e) who are without speech;
  4. (f) who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which seriously impairs their ability to walk;
  5. (g) who are without the use of both arms (whether by reason of the absence of those limbs or for any other reason);
  6. (h) who have a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; or
  7. (i) who, if they applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their applications refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness).
( ) In section 241(1) (reserve free travel scheme), after "provided for" insert "all"."). Page 84, line 19, leave out from ("to") to ("specified") in line 20 and insert ("them to include the concession"). Page 84, line 26, leave out ("After subsection (7)") and insert ("In subsection (7), for "the categories of such residents mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)" substitute "a category specified in any one of the paragraphs". ( ) After that subsection"). Page 84, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 28 and insert ("The travel concession which must be included is"). Page 84, leave out lines 42 to 44. Page 85, line 6, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 9 and insert ("an eligible London resident of a travel concession permit relating to the travel concession specified in section 242(8) above.'").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 140 and 141 agreed to.

Schedule 10 [Competition test for exercise of bus functions]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 77: Page 202, line 42, at end insert— ("( ) The Director may at any time decide not to consider, or further consider, an application made under paragraph 3 if—

  1. (a) he is of the opinion that he has not been provided with sufficient information to do so by the person or persons by whom the application was made, or
  2. (b) sub-paragraph (1) or (2) has not been complied with.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 77, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. These amendments make minor changes to the provisions in Schedule 10 which provide for a special competition test for the exercise by local authorities of their functions in respect of quality partnership and ticketing schemes and in relation to bus subsidy. The schedule is in the Bill to reflect the anxieties of operating companies and local authorities that competition rules could undermine their approach to establishing quality partnerships.

These are minor amendments. Amendment No. 77 provides for circumstances where the Director-General of Fair Trading may decline to consider, or to consider further, an application made to him for a decision as to whether the competition test has been met. The circumstances are where he is of the opinion that he has not been provided by the applicant with sufficient information, or that the notification requirements have not been complied with. The purpose is to provide that the director-general, who would otherwise be formally obliged to determine an application, is not obliged to do so if it is frivolous, vexatious or based on insufficient information.

The aim is to enable the director-general to concentrate on cases which clearly are important and where there seems to be a possibility that the competition test is not met. It seems right that the director-general should be able to concentrate on cases where people would be most keen to gain a response from him.

Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 replace the "disclosure of information" provisions in paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 with an almost identical provision in a new paragraph before paragraph 14 with a new heading "Information". We believe it is entirely appropriate that the restrictions on disclosure of information without consent should apply to any information obtained by the director-general under Schedule 10 and not be limited to information provided under paragraph 6 as is currently the case. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw

I am not trying to be frivolous or vexatious but I must remind noble Lords that, during the period following the Transport Act 1985, for a period of about 10 years, half the cases relating to competition which were considered by the Director-General of Fair Trading concerned the bus industry. That was because in drafting the 1985 Bill and subsequent Act, insufficient attention was given to the competition issues which arise in the bus industry.

We saw battles fought out between bus companies where users were—I would use the word—"abused" by the bus companies. We also saw very little in the way of sanctions.

The new Competition Act has certainly put sanctions in place but I am by no means sure that the proper definitions of what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour are clear. The director-general has circulated a draft block exemption relating mainly to fares. The purpose of this intervention is to say that in Committee, but certainly by Report stage, we should like to be very clear that the differences of opinion, if they exist, between the department and the competition authorities have been ironed out and that very clear guidelines are available to those people in the industry to local authorities so that we do not, yet again, have 100 cases being referred to the competition authorities within the space of a year. The reason for those cases was because the legislation was not clear.

Lord Whitty

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right that a large number of cases went to the Office of Fair Trading and its predecessors following deregulation of the industry. It was in part dealing with a real anti-competitive situation in that instead of leading to competition, deregulation led to a lot of cartels and quasi monopolies. So the competition authorities had a legitimate interest in that area.

Schedule 10 provides for squaring the competition test with the requirement for quality partnerships and other measures for delivering better services. The key paragraph in Schedule 10 is paragraph 2, which sets out the competition test. This is about whether one of the functions has a significantly adverse effect on competition. But that test is met even if there is a significant adverse effect on competition if the action can be justified on the grounds that the function is being exercised to achieve various public benefits—it is a public interest override. Those benefits may consist of better vehicles or facilities, other improvements in local services, substantial benefits to users. Those may be benefits in terms of reducing congestion, noise or pollution which reflect other clauses in the bus provisions in this Bill. If the adverse effect on competition is proportionate to the achievement of those purposes, so the public interest test is clearly built in there, and the observance of that will limit the number of unnecessary, and occasionally damaging, references to the Office of Fair Trading that there have been in the past.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6 p.m.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 78 and 79: Page 203, line 38, leave out paragraph 9. Page 205, line 7, at end insert—

(''Information

.—(1) No information which—

  1. (a) has been obtained by the Director in connection with his functions under this Schedule, and
  2. (b) relates to the affairs of any individual or to any particular business,
is to be disclosed during the lifetime of that individual or while that business continues to be carried on, unless the condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied.

(2) The condition is that consent to the disclosure has been obtained from—

  1. (a) the person from whom the information was obtained, and
  2. (b) if different, the individual to whose affairs the information relates or the person for the time being carrying on the business to which the information relates.

(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to a disclosure of information—

  1. (a) made for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function of the Director, a traffic commissioner or the Rail Regulator,
    2. CWH44
  2. (b) made for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function of the European Commission in respect of Community law about competition,
  3. (c) made for the purpose of criminal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom or in connection with the investigation of a criminal offence triable in any part of the United Kingdom, or
  4. (d) made in compliance with the order of a court or tribunal.

(4) If information is disclosed to the public in circumstances in which the disclosure does not contravene sub-paragraph (1), that sub-paragraph does not prevent its further disclosure by any person.

(5) A person who contravenes this paragraph is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 142 to 147 agreed to.

Clause 148 [Part II: regulations and orders]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 80: Page 88, line 36, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("a Minister of the Crown").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 148, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 149 agreed to.

Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments about local transport]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82: Page 208, line 15, at end insert— (". In section 93(7) (persons eligible to receive travel concessions under local scheme), for paragraph (e) substitute—

  1. "(e) partially sighted persons, that is, persons whose sight is impaired to such an extent that they cannot reasonably accurately estimate the size and speed of movement of vehicular traffic;
  2. (ea) persons who are deaf;
  3. (eb) persons who are without speech;
  4. (ec) persons who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which seriously impairs their ability to walk;
  5. (ed) persons who are without the use of both arms (whether by reason of the absence of those limbs or for any other reason);
  6. (ee) persons who have a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning;
  7. (ef) persons who, if they applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their applications refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness);".").

Page 209, leave out line 13.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 150 [Interpretation of Part II]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 86: Page 89, line 5, leave out ("or a quality contracts scheme.") and insert (", a quality contracts scheme or a ticketing scheme,"). Page 89, line 15, at end insert— (""connecting rail or tram service" has the meaning given by section 124(3B)."). Page 89, line 15, at end insert— (""disabled person" has the meaning given in section 134(1),"). Page 89, line 27, at end insert— (""railway" and "tramway" have the meanings given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992,").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 150, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 151 to 161 agreed to.

Clause 162 [Examination, entry, search and seizure]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 87: Page 96, line 43, leave out ("unlawfully interfered with") and insert ("interfered with with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge").

The noble Lord said: I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 88 to 95. This group of amendments contains minor technical and drafting changes to the road user charging and workplace parking levy provisions of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 87 and 91 improve the drafting of Clause 162 and the equivalent provision in Schedule 13. Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 162 provides important powers to ensure that road user charging schemes can be effectively and fairly enforced.

Subsection (1) of Clause 162 deals with the right to examine a vehicle to see, among other things, whether equipment has been "unlawfully interfered with". Subsection (2) deals with the right to enter a vehicle where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that equipment, has been interfered with with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge imposed by the charging scheme".

The word "unlawfully" in the first subsection is intended to have the same meaning as the longer formulation in the second subsection. Therefore, Amendment No. 87 standardises the wording in subsection (1) with the longer and more explicit wording of subsection (2). Amendment No. 91 to Schedule 13 makes the equivalent change to the GLA Act 1999. These amendments make the drafting of these provisions clear and consistent.

The remainder of the amendments in this group correct minor drafting errors and omissions in Schedule 13. They became apparent when we were preparing an informal consolidated version of the charging provisions in these schedules with the provisions in Schedules 23 and 24 of the GLA Act, as amended by Schedule 13 of this Bill.

This will ensure that the provisions in the Bill are consistent with the GLA Act. For the benefit of the Committee, I have already taken the opportunity to place an informed and consolidated version of the schedules in the GLA Act in the Library of the House. However, the majority of these provisions are relatively tiny technical amendments for consistency's sake in the main provisions, and this relates to the consistency on the definition of "unlawful". I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 162, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 163 to 179 agreed to.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clauses 180 to 187 agreed to.

Schedule 13 [Amendments of Schedules 23 and 24 to Greater London Authority Act]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 88 to 95: Page 214, line 18, after ("of") insert ("a"). Page 215, line 40, leave out first (""each"") and insert (""year, each""). Page 215, line 42, leave out ("that sub-paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph (4)"). Page 216, line 25, at end insert— ("( ) In sub-paragraph (1)(b)(iii), for "unlawfully" substitute "with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge"."). Page 218, line 15, leave out from first ("and") to ("in") in line 16 and insert ("paragraph 4 above (apart from sub-paragraphs (3)(f) and (6)) applies"). Page 220, line 2, leave out first (""each"") and insert (""year, each""). Page 220, line 4, leave out ("that sub-paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph (4)"). Page 221, line 4, leave out from first ("and") to ("in") in line 5 and insert ("paragraph 7 above applies").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 13, as amended agreed to.

Clauses 188 to 192 agreed to.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clauses 193 to 199 agreed to.

Schedule 15 agreed to.

Clauses 200 to 203 agreed to.

Schedule 16 [Transfer to SRA of' Franchising Director's functions]:

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 96: Page 238, line 9, leave out ("Central Committee") and insert ("Rail Passengers' Council").

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments deals with the jurisdiction of the Rail Passengers' Council and committees, and with various minor changes such as repeals and changes of name.

Amendments Nos. 96, 104, 105, 106 and 107 update references to the old rail users' committees to reflect their change of names.

There are some cases where Parliament has provided special jurisdiction for the Rail Passengers' Council and committees based on Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 rather than Sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act. Typically such a regime enables the council and committees to make recommendations regarding anything to which consideration might be given. Such special regimes are applied, for example, to Eurostar services under the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and to Heathrow Express services under the Heathrow Express Act 1991. They are also applied to certain light rail schemes, such as the Manchester Metrolink and the Tyne and Wear Metro, through orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

It is not our intention to alter any special jurisdiction which was agreed by Parliament or the Secretary of State in the relevant Act or Order authorising these projects. The effect of Amendments Nos. 128, 135 and 149 is to ensure the continuation of the special regimes which currently apply to the Heathrow Express and Eurostar Services, and to the Manchester Metrolink and Tyne and Wear Metro.

The Railways Act jurisdiction of the council and committees will apply to all other "open-access" train operators and not just to franchised operators, as provided for currently in Sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act.

Amendments Nos. 149 and 151 repeal references to the British Railways Board in the Channel Tunnel Act and the Heathrow Express Act.

Amendment No. 157 extends the repeal of Section 78 of the Railways Act 1993, which disapplied the procedures for committees' investigations under the Transport Act 1962, from services provided by BR or franchisees. Section 78(1) is no longer needed because of the savings provided by Amendment No. 135. Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 repeal references to paragraph 3 of Schedules 2 and 3 to the Railways Act 1993, because those paragraphs—relating to allowances for committee members other than chairmen—are repealed under Schedule 30. Remuneration and allowances for all members are now dealt with in the amended paragraph 2 of Schedules 2 and 3 to the 1993 Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 97: Page 239, line 27, leave out (", apart from subsection (5)(b)").

The noble Lord said: This is a group of minor technical and drafting amendments. Part IV of this Bill affects many other enactments. In particular, we have double-checked all statutory references to the franchising director and the British Railways Board to make sure that the appropriate amendments have been made to reflect their prospective demise and the transfer of their functions to the SRA, where appropriate.

This group of amendments is the result of an extensive technical exercise to ensure that the amending provisions in Part IV of the Bill sit neatly in the amended statutes and make appropriate references to the SRA and successors to the British Railways Board. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 98: Page 239, leave out line 42 and insert— ("38.—(1) Section 58 (power to require information etc.) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)—

  1. (a) for "officer" (in both places) substitute "authority", and
  2. (b) for "his" substitute "its".
(3) In subsection (2) (in each place) and in subsection (6), for "officer"").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 204 agreed to.

Schedule 17 [Transfers to SRA front Rail Regulator]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 99: Page 249, line 43, leave out ("In section 55(10) (orders for securing compliance)") and insert ("(1) Section 55 (orders for securing compliance) is amended as follows. (2) After subsection (5) insert— (5ZA) The Authority shall not make a final order, or make or confirm a provisional order, in relation to a licence holder or person under closure restrictions unless—

  1. (a) it has given notice to the Regulator specifying a period within which he may give notice to it if he considers that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998;
  2. (b) that period has expired; and
  3. (c) the Regulator has not given notice to the Authority within that period that he so considers (or, if he has, he has withdrawn it)."
(3) In subsection (10),").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to prevent a case of what is known as "double jeopardy", which could arise where action by a train operator or a facility owner could lead to enforcement under both the Competition Act 1998 and the Railways Act 1993.

The regulator cannot take enforcement action against a licensed operator under the Railways Act 1993, where he considers it more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act 1998. We are transferring responsibility for enforcing licence obligations, so far as they relate to consumer protection, to the authority. However, any enforcement under the Competition Act would still have priority and that remains the responsibility of the regulator.

Accordingly, these amendments prevent the authority from making an enforcement order for the breach of an obligation, when the regulator considers that the best way of proceeding is under the Competition Act. The amendments provide for the authority to notify the regulator of any action which it proposes to take and allow the regulator to decide whether there is an overriding Competition Act consideration and to notify the authority. The regulator can withdraw this notice if, having given the matter further consideration, he considers that the Competition Act enforcement action is not appropriate after all. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101: Page 249, line 48, at end insert— ("( ) In subsection (11), for "(5A)" substitute "(5ZA)"."). Page 251, line 22, after ("(6)") insert (", (6A)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 205 agreed to.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clause 206 agreed to.

Schedule 19 agreed to.

Clause 207 agreed to.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

Clause 208 agreed to.

Schedule 21 agreed to.

Clauses 209 to 212 agreed to.

6.15 p.m.

Clause 213 [Penalties]:

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 102: Page 131, line 10, leave out ("included a reference to anything which is likely to be done") and insert ("or omitted to be done included a reference to anything which is likely to be done or omitted to be done").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 213, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 214 [Orders for securing compliance]:

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 103: Page 135, line 8, leave out ("subsection (5), (5A) or (5B)(a) or (b)") and insert ("any provision contained in any of subsections (5) to (5B)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 214, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 215 agreed to.

Schedule 22 [Renaming of rail users' consultative committees]:

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 107: Page 266, line 8, leave out ("subsections (6),") and insert ("subsection (6) —

  1. (a) for "consultative committee" substitute "Rail Passengers' Committee", and
  2. (b) for "the committee" substitute "the Rail Passengers' Committee".
( ) In subsections"). Page 269, line 35, after (""committee"") insert ("(in each place)"). Page 271, line 10, at end insert—

("Channel Tunnel Act 1987 (c.53)

In section 41(1) of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 (consultative committees), for the words from "Central" to "Users Consultative" substitute "Rail Passengers' Council and each of the Rail Passengers' ".").

Page 271, line 21, at end insert—

(" In paragraph 11(3) of Schedule 18 (minutes of London Transport Users' Committee meetings), for "Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee" substitute "Rail Passengers' Council".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke Amendments Nos. 104 to 107 with Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 216 and 217 agreed to.

Schedule 23 agreed to.

Clauses 218 and 219 agreed to.

Schedule 24 [Review of access charges by Regulator]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 108: Page 280, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 109. These amendments are a refinement to the provisions which apply following a reference to the Competition Commission of matters relating to the modification of a railway operator's licence or an access charge review. A competition report would follow a reference where the regulator or the authority proposes modifying a company's licence and the company does not agree, or where Railtrack or another railway facility owner objects to access charges proposed by the regulator.

Under the Railways Act 1993, if the Competition Commission considers that a matter referred to it operates against the public interest, the rail regulator or the authority, where something relates to consumer protection, may propose changes to a licence to an access agreement if the referred matter relates to an access charge review. Under the provisions of Clause 229—I am speaking now to Amendment No. 109—the Competition Commission may veto the proposed changes if it does not consider that those changes meet its concerns. It may then substitute its own amendments.

As currently drafted, the Competition Commission does not have to substitute its own amendments following a veto, but failure to act would result in a stalemate. These amendments prevent such a stalemate by requiring the Competition Commission to follow a veto with its own amendments. Similar amendments have been made to Part I of this Bill and to the Utilities Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, a question for clarification. Am I right in thinking that if an objection is made by Railtrack or a facility owner to access charges, the right to make that objection does not extend to people defined as "beneficiaries" in the Bill; namely, bodies like Freightliner, as an example?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I can give the noble Lord the assurance that it does not extend in that way.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 220 to 227 agreed to.

Schedule 25 agreed to.

Clause 228 agreed to.

Clause 229 [Licence modifications following Competition Commission report]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 109: Page 145, line 45, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 229, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 230 to 234 agreed to.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 110: After Clause 234, insert the following new clause—