Proceeding contribution from Paul Clark (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 27 October 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Transport Bill [Lords].
Local Transport Bill [Lords]
The role of the QCS boards is clearly laid out. They judge whether due process has been followed and whether a scheme meets the five public interest criteria. It is not their role to make a judgment about a local authority's overall transport policies. I hope that my hon. Friends and the Liberal Democrats will conclude that the Government amendments address their concerns and will therefore not seek to press them. Government amendments Nos. 124 to 128 deal with TUPE and pensions issues. There was a good debate in Committee about the ways in which a quality contracts scheme could affect bus workers in the area concerned. I agree wholeheartedly with those who argued in Committee that we need to ensure that appropriate protections are put in place to safeguard bus workers' interests. That is why the Government tabled amendments in the other place, so that the protections afforded by the TUPE regulations would apply where employees transfer to a new employer on the coming into force of a quality contract. Those amendments were a considerable advance on the Transport Act 2000 as it was originally enacted, which contained no provisions about TUPE. Nevertheless, we listened with great care to the points raised in Committee by several hon. Members, and especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer). In light of that debate, I am pleased to be speaking to Government amendments Nos. 124 to 128 today. These amendments will further enhance the protections that the Bill already provides. Government amendment No. 124 describes an additional situation that is to be treated as a ““relevant transfer”” for the purposes of the TUPE regulations—that is to say, an additional situation where the protections of TUPE will apply. When a local authority has awarded a quality contract to somebody other than the incumbent operator, there is a risk that the incumbent might decide to withdraw from the local bus market before the contract comes into force. That could lead to a short-term gap in bus service provision, which the local authority may well decide to fill by means of a subsidised service agreement with another operator. The amendment provides for such a situation to be treated as a ““relevant transfer”” for the purposes of the TUPE regulations, so that the incumbent operator's workers can benefit from the same protection as the Bill already provides in relation to services that transfer straight to the quality contract operator. Government amendments Nos. 125 and 126 are consequential on Government amendment No. 124.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 481 c580-1
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Staff Conditions of employment Contracts Devolved matters Appeals Councillors Bus services Fares Greater London Exemptions Humber bridge Local government Motor vehicles Protection Membership Public appointments Workplace pensions Public transport Railways Passengers Passenger transport executives Pension rights Standards Tribunals Wales Roads Transport Scotland Testing Road works Tolls Trams Traffic Commissioners Local transport plans Rail Passengers Council Transport Tribunal Statutory instruments
- Legislation
- Local Transport Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-06-29 08:41:59 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503196
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503196
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503196