Draft Enhanced Partnership Plans And Schemes (Objections) Regulations 2018

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 General Committees

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. Labour is broadly supportive and welcomes these new regulations. Statutory instruments are an important part of our legislative process. It is also important that we review and discuss these concessions. As such, I will raise a few points of contention.

I would like to start by pointing out that Labour’s 2017 manifesto stated a commitment to

“introduce regulations to designate and protect routes of critical community value, including those that serve local schools, hospitals and isolated settlements in rural areas.”

We believe that the regulations meet that standard and the standard set by the Government in their own explanatory memorandum, which also states a commitment

“to ensure that the arrangements are mutually acceptable to the parties to a scheme and to balance the right of local transport authorities to bring forward proposals for enhanced partnership plans and schemes against the right for operators to object to what is being proposed.”

With over 80% of respondents to the Government’s consultation on the draft regulations welcoming the proposals, including those on tours and excursions, and because no threshold was agreed upon, we have decided to go ahead with the Government’s proposals as drafted. However, I would like to know what methodology was used for asking respondents about an alternative. Were they given a set of alternatives or just asked to post a number? If it was the latter, it is hardly surprising that they were unable to come to a consensus. Indeed, I worry that the threshold might have been set at the wrong level.

Is any information available on what proportion of those who disagreed thought the thresholds were too high, versus those who thought they were too low? If that ratio is not roughly equal, there might be a case for saying that the thresholds are not optimal or equitable. However, given that the regulations might be subject to post-legislative scrutiny of the 2017 Act, I am happy to concur with their introduction.