United States: Intelligence Sharing

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that the UK independently gathers intelligence. The Five Eyes partners of the UK—Australia, Canada and New Zealand—are critical intelligence-gathering partners. The UK is better and more secure because of that arrangement.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the reassurance on the Five Eyes partnership, and I commend the Minister on his versatility and adaptability in taking on such a wide brief. We all know the feeling well. My specific question is about the meeting in Canada between the Foreign Secretary and the US Secretary of State. In light of the national security strategy that the United States issued only last week, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the relationship, particularly as we go forward, with more than 100 conflicts raging around the world?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord for my taking on a number of issues today. The US strategy, which I saw earlier this week, is a matter for the US Government, but, self-evidently, the United Kingdom wants to participate and support where there are common objectives. As the noble Lord will have seen, this week the Prime Minister met the German Chancellor, the Ukrainian President and others to look at the challenges we face in Europe. I believe very strongly that a strong European partnership, where we increase defence expenditure in Europe and, at the same time, work with our American partners on key issues, is the right way forward. It is for the Americans to determine their priorities. It is for us to determine ours.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in strong opposition to the Bill before us today, not only as a Member of your Lordships’ House but as a person, like all others—whatever side of the argument they are on, deeply committed to the values of compassion and dignity. I add to that the value and sanctity, both through faith and principle, of the preservation of human life.

I had the great honour to serve as the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Minister for many years. For me, the most fundamental of human rights that we must continue to protect is the right to life itself. The noble and learned Lord knows that I have immense respect for him, and I regret that I cannot lend support to his Bill. Of course, I acknowledge the deep pain and suffering that many individuals and their families face when confronted with terminal illness—we have heard many moving stories. We have all been there with parents, families and friends. No one should underestimate the emotional toll of witnessing a loved one enduring excruciating suffering or the anguish of being in a state of health where one’s life seems to offer no prospect of meaningful recovery. Yet it is precisely because of this shared humanity and compassion that we are rightly driven as a country and a community to seek solutions that alleviate suffering in ways that are aligned with our collective values of preserving life.

One of the central arguments in favour of the Bill is that it provides individuals the opportunity to exercise autonomy and control over their own deaths. I understand the appeal of that. In a world that increasingly celebrates individual rights, it is only natural that we would seek to extend such autonomy to the ultimate decision in one’s life: of how one departs from this world. However, we must ask the question: is it truly a sign of freedom when we open the door to a practice that could be used to expedite life’s end, rather than seeking, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said on the issues of palliative care, to preserve and enhance life, even in its final moments? I believe that we have a moral as well as a legal and legislative duty to preserve life and offer care in its most fragile stages, not merely through the provision of medical interventions but through dignity, compassion and kindness.

As has been mentioned, psychological and emotional pressures can often cloud one’s judgement. We must therefore also ask ourselves whether we as a society have done enough to support those who are facing such dire circumstances, not just through palliative care but through the emotional, psychological and social support that would empower them to live the remaining days of their lives with dignity and peace.

Let us be clear, the very essence of the Bill—that assisted dying should be available as an option—represents a major shift in the values we uphold as a society. If we as a nation say that it is acceptable to take life in certain circumstances, I fear that we risk opening a door to consequences that go way beyond the current scope of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord mentioned Canada in his opening speech, but after that Bill was introduced in 2016, changes were made in 2021, with the words “terminal illness” removed. One in 20 deaths in Canada are now through euthanasia.

The fundamental question we must ask is: are we truly offering compassion when we facilitate death? At a time when technology is advancing and pain management methods are improving, we must ask ourselves whether assisted dying is the right approach. The role of the state is to protect life. I have many concerns about the Bill, such as the lack of family involvement and engagement and that the actual reflection of our diverse communities is not included. Ultimately, when we offer choices towards the end of life, it is certainly my view that we as a society that cherishes lives should provide for the dignity of every individual, with not only the medical care but the emotional and social support and investment that are required. When people are seeking to end their lives, and for those who are at the end of their lives, we should help them to live with dignity so that they choose, and we choose, life over death.

Counter-Extremism Strategy

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as a former Minister for Countering Extremism at the Home Office and subsequently at the FCDO, I wrestled with the issue of co-ordination between those two departments on what I would term imported extremism. The clear message that needs to be sent internationally is to stop extremism at source. What measures will be included in the review to ensure that those seeking to come to our shores are prevented from doing so in the first place?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will take that as a representation on the outcome of the review, because I cannot comment on the review today. There are two aspects to extremism, the first of which is an external threat, so the Government have to be cognisant of individuals. That is why we have watch lists, security services and advice looking at potential threats from abroad. Equally, the strategy will be concerned with radicalisation at home—not just people from communities that relate to the faith of Islam, but people who might well be radicalised online by a range of sources, from outside the UK or from inside. Counter-extremism is about looking at the total envelope, at home and abroad, and the Government will focus on that when the review’s recommendations are brought forward.

Hate Crime

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boothroyd]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take to deal with the recent increase in hate crimes and community tensions reported by the National Police Chiefs Council.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, we have one of the strongest legislative frameworks in the world to tackle hate crime. We are also working across government and with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and, importantly, community partners to provide reassurance and to send out a very clear message to anyone: hate crime will not be tolerated and that we will take action against those who promote hatred.

[Baroness Boothroyd (CB)]

My Lords, this year is the 50th anniversary of the Race Relations Act and the Government are still talking about action plans to tackle what that Act failed to do then, and what we are still failing to do now. Will the Government’s proposed action plan curtail the widespread use of the internet to spread racial abuse and discord? Is the Minister aware that the current training for police officers has been judged to bear little resemblance to working on the front line? May I pass to the Minister evidence I have of a race-hate statement on the internet, coming from a named person in a named town in Lancashire? When my informant passed all the information to the Lancashire Constabulary, it said it could not deal with it until it had been reported to the Metropolitan Police. Presumably, the Met would then pass it back to Lancashire. Will the Government stamp out this bureaucratic and buck-passing behaviour by the police, when the crisis calls for resolute action?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On the final point, if the noble Baroness shares that evidence with me, we will of course follow it up. As I have already indicated, the hate crime action plan is imminent; it has cross-government approval and will be looking to tackle some of the very issues the noble Baroness has highlighted. I would also highlight a few of the steps the Government have already taken. From this Dispatch Box I have previously spoken about both race and religious hate crime, which we have seen increase over recent years. From 1 April this year, for example, every police force across the country is now required to record race and religious hate crime for what it is, by category. The important thing, which I know as someone who has been subjected to this crime both on the internet and elsewhere, is that we communicate. We need to have the confidence of communities, so that they know they can report hate crime. As the noble Baroness has highlighted, the most important area is follow-up action.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, why does the Minister believe there has been a recent increase in these crimes? Is it anything to do with the recent referendum, or is it for some other reason? What will the Government do now to address the problems that have been created over the last few months?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises an important point. We have seen even in recent history that, regrettably, there were some who used the referendum result to invoke and incite hatred against different communities. I myself visited the Polish centre in west London. Thankfully, these remain sporadic attacks. We have also seen a rise in attacks on particular communities; particular BME communities have been targeted. Recently I met religious faith leaders as well. We talked about reassurance and the importance of reporting religious hate crime, race hate crime or any kind of hate crime, and then following it up practically. This is an evolving area. It is unfortunate that there are many in society who suffer this from the few who seek to make an issue of race, religion or any other issue. We need to stamp it out and send a clear message in that respect.

[Lord Ouseley (CB)]

My Lords, it is easy enough to focus on the statistics that clearly show that race and other hate crimes have been on the increase over the past few years. What we are not focusing on is the increase in prejudice and the way we have been feeding it in recent years and even before that. If you analyse all the national newspaper coverage of political statements that are made almost every day, you will see what we have been feeding young people daily: a diet of xenophobic and anti-immigrant sentiments, which has created not only the responses we see on social media but what is happening on our streets. What are we doing to educate current and future generations so that we can create cohesive and peaceful communities? What encouragement will be given to politicians and leading influential figures in our society to stop using their cleverness to conceal the xenophobic and other nasty messages that are part of what they are saying?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord speaks from experience and I appreciate his expertise in this area. We have talked of education before, and it is important that that forms a central, core part of what we teach in our schools and colleges. At the same time, we need to recognise that co-operation between communities needs to be heightened. Finally—this applies not just to this subject—we still have to exert positive optimism about our country. We remain one of the most successful, multicultural, multifaith societies, in which people are proud of their identity, regardless of cultural, community or religious background. We must all stand up—politicians, the press, and anyone involved with this—to ensure that wherever we find xenophobic hate, we stamp it out.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, I concur absolutely with the noble Lord’s final statement; nevertheless, we have seen a 500% increase in reported hate and race crime, and many more incidents are not reported. What is being done, for example, in schools where people from eastern European, Muslim and Jewish backgrounds are being targeted? What support is being given to schools to make sure that this is reported and dealt with, so that schools get the support they need to tackle this terrible iniquity in our society?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness is right to raise the issue of reported hate crime, and we have all seen such incidents reported since the EU referendum. Thankfully, over the last week or two there has been a slight decrease compared to the initial response, but even so, she raises an important point. We are working with schools in partnership, and most recently we are exploring ways in which the police can base themselves in community centres to build reassurance that such crimes should be reported. The police are working hand in hand with schools and local communities to ensure that all hate crime is reported.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, much of what has happened in schools is of course not hate crime, because the children involved are under the age of criminal responsibility. A number of anecdotes have been relayed to me, largely from members of my family who are teachers, about increases in racial abuse among very young schoolchildren. Are the Government keeping a record so that we know statistically whether there has been an increase in racial abuse among children who are still of junior school age?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I will need to follow up that specific point with colleagues in the Department for Education, but I agree with the noble Baroness. I have three children of my own, and I know of the kinds of comments that are sometimes made. Children are far too innocent to know that comments are being made which may not be race hate crime—she is quite right on that—but which have undertones of racism or religious prejudice. On training and education, it is important that we consider not just the children, but that teachers are also well equipped to deal with such issues in schools.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2016

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 11 July be approved.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the threat level in the United Kingdom, which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at severe. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning. We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism but we are determined to do all we can to minimise that threat both in the United Kingdom and in our interests abroad. Additionally, it is important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt terrorist activities.

The four groups we propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, are as follows: first, the Global Islamic Media Front, or GIMF, including GIMF Bangla Team; secondly, the Turkestan Islamic Party, or TIP; thirdly, the Mujahidin Indonesia Timur, or MIT; fourthly, the Jamaah Anshorut Daulah. These groups are particularly relevant to south and south-east Asia, but also to the ongoing conflict in Syria. Your Lordships’ House will be aware that Syria is the number one destination for jihadists anywhere in the world. The attacks earlier this month in Bangladesh demonstrate the high threat from terrorism in Asia. Proscription sends a strong message that terrorist activity is not tolerated, wherever it happens. We propose to add these groups to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 20th order under the Act.

Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence. However, I can provide a brief summary of each group’s activities. The first group this order proscribes is the Global Islamic Media Front, including GIMF Bangla Team, which is also known as Ansarullah Bangla Team, or ABT, and Ansar-al Islam. GIMF is an Islamist extremist propaganda organisation associated with al-Qaeda and other extremist groups around the world. Its activities include propagating a so-called jihadist ideology, producing and disseminating training manuals to guide terror attacks and publishing jihadi newscasts. GIMF releases products in a number of languages including Arabic, Urdu, Bengali, English, German and French.

On 31 December 2015 GIMF announced a merger with Ansarullah Bangla Team, or ABT, subsuming it into its ranks and renaming it GIMF Bangla Team. Noble Lords will be aware of the rise of sectarian violence in Bangladesh. Prior to this merger, using the names ABT and Ansar-al Islam, the group we are proposing be proscribed today claimed responsibility for the prominent murders of and attacks on a number of secular bloggers since 2013. The group has also been linked to the circulation of a number of hit lists of bloggers, writers and activists around the world, including nine individuals based in Britain, seven in Germany, two in America, one in Canada and one in Sweden, in 2015. On 7 January 2016 GIMF Bangla Team published an infographic chronicling attacks carried out against “blasphemers” in Bangladesh from January 2013 to October 2015. The graphic contained names and locations of 13 attacks, eight of which were celebrated as successful assassinations. Bangladesh banned ABT in May 2015.

The second group to be proscribed is the Turkestan Islamic Party, or TIP, also known as the East Turkestan Islamic Party, or ETIP, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, or ETIM, and the Hizb al-Islami al-Turkistani, or HAAT. TIP is an Islamist terrorist and separatist organisation founded in 1989 by Uighur militants in western China. It aims to establish an independent caliphate in the Uighur state of Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region of north-west China and to name it East Turkestan. TIP is based in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, and operates in China, central and south Asia and Syria. The group has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks in China, the latest of these being in April 2014. TIP has links to a number of terrorist groups including al-Qaeda. In November 2015, TIP released the 18th issue of its magazine Islamic Turkestan through the Global Islamic Media Front, detailing TIP’s so-called jihad against the Chinese authorities. Video footage from September 2015 shows TIP hosting training camps in areas controlled by the Pakistani Taliban in north Waziristan.

More recently, TIP has maintained an active and visible presence in the Syrian war and has published a number of video clips of its activities. Examples of this from March to April 2016 include: TIP claiming a joint attack with Jund al-Aqsa in Sahl al-Ghab and publishing a video of a suicide bomb attack in April 2016; a video published in March 2016 which promotes the victories of TIP in Syria and calls for Muslims to join jihad; and a video slideshow published in April 2016 which shows fighters and children in training. As noble Lords may be aware, TIP has been banned by the UN and is also sanctioned by the United States under the Terrorist Exclusion List.

The third group to be proscribed is Mujahidin Indonesia Timur—MIT—which is Indonesia’s most active terrorist group based in the mountainous jungle of Poso in Central Sulawesi. Its leader, Abu Wardah, also known as Santoso, is Indonesia’s most wanted terrorist. The group’s modus operandi is to attack the police and the army, which includes the use of explosives, including the use of IEDs, and shootings. MIT has been responsible for the deaths of more than a dozen police officers in Poso in the last three years. It has also used kidnappings and beheadings of Christian farmers in Poso to dissuade the local populace from assisting the police. MIT pledged its allegiance to Daesh in July 2014 and is assessed to have links to other Daesh-affiliated terrorist groups in the region.

MIT has also claimed responsibility for a number of recent attacks and has threatened attacks on targets across the country, including the capital—specifically, the Jakarta police headquarters and the presidential palace—in a video uploaded on 22 November 2015. In September 2015, MIT was banned as a terrorist group by the USA and the UN.

The last group to be proscribed is Jamaah Anshorut Daulah. It was established in March 2015, following the merger of several Indonesian extremist and terrorist groups aligned to Daesh. JAD, as it is known, has extensive links to Daesh and actively recruits fighters in Syria. This group is led by the imprisoned extremist cleric Aman Abdurrahman and has close ties to other terrorist groups, including Daesh. Its membership includes several former Jemaah Islamiyah members. JI was, of course, responsible for the 2002 and 2005 Bali attacks. JAD was responsible for the attack near Sarinah mall in Jakarta in January 2016, which was claimed by Daesh and resulted in the deaths of seven people, including the five attackers, and 20 people, including five police officers, being injured.

Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes a number of factors into account, including the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. Proscription in effect outlaws a listed organisation and makes it unable to operate in the United Kingdom. Proscription can also support other disruptive activity, such as the use of immigration powers, including exclusion, prosecutions for other offences and acts to support strong messaging to deter fundraising and recruitment. Additionally, assets of a proscribed group are liable to seizure as a terrorist asset.

The Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on an organisation. This includes open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-government Proscription Review Group supports the Home Secretary in this decision-making process. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, a decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of the particular case, and it is therefore appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, this is the 20th proscription order that your Lordships’ House has debated; I think that it is the 11th that I have responded to. I think it is fair that I say at that outset that we support the order and the proscription of these four organisations. The Minister will know—he acknowledged—that we brought in the legislation in 2000. It is clear in that legislation and from his comments today that any proscription order has to be backed by evidence. I am very grateful to him for providing the information that he has today because, as the Opposition, we do not have access to the kind of intelligence information that the Government have. There is always an element of trust when we look at these issues and we have to be confident that the Government would not have brought this order before us today unless they were confident that there was a case for proscribing the organisations. I think that he has made that case; we accept, on trust, that the intelligence information is available and we support these proscriptions.

Reading the speeches in the House of Commons yesterday and hearing the Minister’s comments today, I think that part of the evidence is in these organisations’ own words. They almost boast; they claim responsibility for their activities and they damn themselves by what they say. I have a couple of questions that would help me understand and clarify some aspects of this. When we proscribe organisations, we cannot act alone; we work with and support the international community. Our borders are not such that terrorism will not cross them. This sort of terrorism knows no boundaries, particularly with the kind of technology that we have these days, where it is very easy to move money and share information. We can really only be effective in the fight—not just against terrorism but against serious organised crime—if we work internationally.

I was pleased when the Minister, when referring to both TIP and MIT, said that both the UN and USA have banned such organisations, but can he say more about that and when that was? On a previous order, I was concerned that other countries had taken action two or three years before we had. If we are to be effective against terrorism, we need to share the information that we have and act together with other countries, so can he say what other countries, other than the USA—and the UN—have taken action against these organisations and when it was taken? In particular regarding the Global Islamic Media Front, most of its propaganda was translated into German; in fact, more is translated into German than into English. It would be useful to know if the German Government are also taking similar action against it.

Given that we are now negotiating for Brexit and we have a new Minister in charge of those negotiations, I am concerned about how such a move will impact on our negotiations, our discussions, our sharing of information and our co-operation with other European countries. Can the Minister take back the message today that the issue of the country’s security has to be at a very high level in any discussions and negotiations on Brexit? Having gone through the various debates that we had in your Lordships’ House about the police and criminal justice measures—which the previous coalition Government opted out of before opting back in to almost everything that was relevant, being used or was not extinct—it struck me how important that co-operation and work with the EU was. It would be helpful if the Minister can give his assurance that he will draw this to the attention of the new Minister and ensure that this is at the heart of our discussions and negotiations in Europe.

The orders are effective, I think, from the moment that we agree them. Is the Minister aware of the Twitter account—I checked today that it was still active—@Jihadology_Net? At least two of these organisations have their actions and their proclamations advertised on that Twitter account. It claims to be an academic website—it is academic only in the sense that it provides information. It actually promotes these two organisations and others that carry out atrocities. Do these organisations have to be proscribed before any action can be taken, or can that account be closed down sooner, because it promotes activities that most of us would regard as totally abhorrent? It may claim that it is merely reporting but, given its title and from looking at the content, I think that it goes beyond that. I would be very grateful if the Minister could look at that even if he cannot respond today.

I raised my next point when we considered previous proscription orders. In 2009 when I was in the other place, the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, made several references in the House of Commons to Hizb ut-Tahrir. He taunted his predecessor, Gordon Brown, by saying that the organisation must be banned immediately. It was a commitment in the Conservative manifesto that Hizb ut-Tahrir would be banned. That has not happened. What is the reason? I assume that the evidence is not there, but I also assume that a leader of the Opposition would not make such claims or put it in a party manifesto unless there was some evidence that the organisation should be banned. The impression was given that it would be banned immediately but it has not been. If it is merely a question of evidence not being available and it was incorrect to say it should be banned, it would be helpful to know. In the current climate, we need such reassurance.

That brings me to my final point. Can the Minister give an assurance that evidence is always kept under review? There has been one case when an organisation that had been proscribed applied to be deproscribed, if that is the correct word, and it took some time to resolve. We know that there are groups which should be proscribed in the future, but it is a question of gathering evidence. If the Minister can say something about the review process, that would be helpful.

These are merely matters of clarification, and we support the order.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support for this order and for her customary expertise. These issues are extremely sensitive and extremely important to tackle. The unity of purpose and action that is shown across both Houses and all Benches is extremely important when it comes to standing up to this global threat.

The noble Baroness mentioned the @jihadology.net Twitter account. I have made a note of it and will take it back to the Home Office. We are making great strides in working very closely and in partnership with internet service providers and social media companies. There is a great deal of collaboration taking place internationally as well, a point that the noble Baroness made. It is important that these websites, Twitter accounts and social media accounts are closed down as soon as possible. Their impact is immense; they can only be live for a few minutes and their reach is global. We successfully took action when we co-operated with social media on issues such as sexual violence against women. There is a great deal of work going on in this respect.

The noble Baroness spoke of our departure from the European Union. As I am sure she will know, the former Home Secretary, now our new Prime Minister, has been very particular in ensuring that issues of security are paramount in our discussions. We will continue to work very closely with partners on a global level. I am sure that that will be the case as we leave the European Union but continue to co-operate with our European neighbours because this is a global issue. Indeed, my current brief in the Home Office of countering extremism takes this issue further. We welcome the co-operation we have had from our European neighbours but also at a global level in fighting the challenge of extremism. We will continue to put the security and safety of our citizens at the forefront of all discussions.

The noble Baroness referred to the Global Islamic Media Front and when other countries may have proscribed it. I will write to her regarding which countries proscribed that organisation and when. I have already talked about the UN.

The noble Baroness referred to Hizb ut-Tahrir. I am sure that we all agree that, while not currently proscribed in the UK, the organisation has at its heart evil practice. It believes in dividing societies and communities. Under the current rules of proscription, as the noble Baroness will be well aware from her own time in government, a group has to fulfil the defined criteria. Of course, the Government have significant concerns. The noble Baroness asked about issues of review. I assure her that we continue to monitor all activities, not just of HUT but other organisations, on a regular basis. We will seek to ensure that HUT and other groups like it cannot operate without challenge in public spaces in this country. We will also ensure that civic society is made aware of HUT and groups like it.

Finally, there has been some discussion in the Home Office about organisations and individuals who operate within the parameters of the current law and stay legal—but only just. It is right that we work in a collaborative manner to see how we can starve individuals and organisations of oxygen. They may not be proscribed as terrorist groups or may not support terrorist groups but nevertheless they are focused on encouraging hate and division in society. We continue to work on how best we can bring forward measures to address those issues. I will reply specifically to the noble Baroness on the matter she raised about Germany and the GIMF. I commend the order to the House.

Motion agreed.

Rail Franchises

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy for determining when a rail franchise has failed to provide the service required and should therefore be terminated.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State for Transport has statutory powers under the Railways Act 1993 and contractual powers under the franchise agreement to penalise train operators for contravention of obligations. These powers are more fully set out in the Department for Transport’s published enforcement policy.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I wish to ask about Southern trains, which has failed to provide anything approaching the service stipulated in its franchise. Now it has cut services by 15%, and quite understandably the passengers are on strike today, yet the best the Government can muster is today’s long overdue but very limp statement by Claire Perry. Enough is enough. When will the Government finally step up to their responsibilities and take over this franchise? Will the Government consider devolving power over commuter services such as this one, in a structure similar to the successful London Overground?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, it does not surprise me that the noble Baroness has raised this issue, which has come up in this House recently and I have responded from the Dispatch Box. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness and other noble Lords: the current operation is unsatisfactory. As many noble Lords will know, the new timetable started operating this morning, reflecting a target of getting 85% of services running. As I said only last week, part of the issue is that the force majeure clause has been invoked, which does not mean that the franchise can be put on the premise that the noble Baroness suggests.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, last Wednesday, the Minister said that where Southern Rail,

“can provide evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action, it can claim force majeure”.

This is what it has done in respect of the current level of performance and the reduction in the number of services it operates. Does this definition of force majeure mean than long-suffering commuters can expect no compensation and the company can expect no penalties? The Minister also said last Wednesday that the Government were,

“in regular contact with the company”.—[Official Report, 6/7/16; col. 2011.]

How many times have the Government also met the organisations representing the employees, to find out what they have to say about the cause of the present poor service and cancellations, in order that the Government hear both sides of the story, at first hand, before coming to a conclusion on whether official or unofficial industrial action is the sole cause of the problem and whether responsibility for any such action rests solely at the door of one party?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I said previously, the Government’s position is very clear. We want both parties to come to the negotiating table and find a resolution for long-suffering commuters. It is very clear what has happened. I do not accept the noble Lord’s point about not meeting. We meet regularly with all people concerned, and we have implored them to take action to ensure that we get a more effective service. As to the way forward, I think it right that we allow the two parties to come together at the negotiating table. The Government will play their part in ensuring an effective service for Southern commuters who, as I have said, have suffered for far too long.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it ought, at least, to be the object of a rail franchise that the day-to-day experience of the travelling public should get better over the long term? What would he say about a franchisee which, from its first moment in possession of a railway, has set out to do the exact opposite? Is there no way to set it on a right course?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

There are various procedures open to the Government if the contract fails in its objectives. As I have already indicated, I take on board what my noble friend has said on the issue in respect of which the franchisee is claiming force majeure, which is part of the franchise. I assure him that the Government are looking at this very closely. There are various enforcement policy options available to the Secretary of State and we continue to monitor the position very carefully to ensure that we see an improvement in service. Prior to the early part of this year, we saw service levels rise to 83%. The noble Lord picked out the issue of industrial action and I talked about high levels of sickness leave. These have seen performance go from 83% to about 63% since May.

[Lord Christopher (Lab)]

My Lords, as a passenger on this railway line, I believe that the Government are dissembling. The contract which has been drawn up is quite unique and provides an incentive to the railway company not to run trains if it can avoid it. Under the contract, you collect the money from the tickets and pay a substantial fee to Southern to provide the trains. I suspect that you are seeking to buy time in order that Transport for London can take this over in a year or two’s time.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. He may well be aware that DfT has effective enforcement procedures; indeed, an enforcement advisory panel was set up specifically to review possible contraventions of franchise agreements. Perhaps we have hope, in the sense that the official who leads that panel is a gentleman called Andy Murray.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain to the House what emphasis is placed on price in awarding the franchise, as opposed to the quality of the service and the ability to deliver on that service?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

With any contract awarded there is a specific procedure, and the issue of price is looked at along with the other factors that my noble friend has raised. Any franchise that is awarded has that central point—the ability to deliver. I have made it clear that the Government feel very strongly that the current unsatisfactory levels of service on that line have to be improved. There are other investments and some improvements such as new rolling stock, but that is not good enough: we need to see more improvements.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, is not one of the major problems of franchising that it is difficult to get long-term commitment to investment and training, particularly at the end of a franchise agreement? Do not the problems of the current Southern franchise derive from the exit from the previous franchise, when investment and training were lacking?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On the current franchise, the noble Lord is aware that there have been issues of training and staff turnover, and Southern and its parent company has recruited new drivers, for example. On the current dispute over the new, driver-operated trains, I assure all noble Lords that at no time has it been said that there will be any redundancies. At no time has any person been told that their job is under threat. The issue of training is part and parcel of the new offer with regard to the new driver-operated trains that are being introduced.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister did not answer the question of my noble friend Lord Rosser, which was how many meetings have there been between the Government and the trade unions, and when.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

If the noble Baroness reflects on Hansard, I made it clear that the Government’s job is as a facilitator. We made it clear to both parties that they should have arbitration between them and find a resolution. The franchise is awarded to them. It is for them to come together around the table and find a resolution to this long-standing dispute.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

With commuters losing their jobs as a result of this appalling dispute, has any assessment been made of the number of lost jobs?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I cannot answer my noble friend’s specific question but I am sure that he is aware of the issue of compensation, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear last week that there will be additional compensation, which the Government are looking at, made available to those long-suffering commuters.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Is the Minister not aware that the problem behind the situation with this franchise and others is the Government’s determination to bring about driver-only operation of trains? That, combined with the de-staffing of stations and of the railway industry in general, is not the proper way forward as far as passengers are concerned. If they were consulted, like the trade unions, that is exactly what they would tell him.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The issue of driver-operated trains has not meant, as I have said, any reduction in staff. The role of what were conductors in training supervisors means greater focus on delivering customer service. There is an issue with sickness that is contributing to the challenge and to the problems we have. The current sickness rates operating on that franchise are not just higher; they are much higher than average.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is the Minister saying that there is the possibility of compensation for those who have lost their jobs because of frequently arriving late at work or not arriving at all as a result of this dispute? Can he be specific on that point?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I can be specific. As I said, I do not know the number of people who have fallen victim in the way that the noble Baroness and indeed my noble friend have suggested. I did make the point that additional compensation is being looked at for those commuters who have suffered. Individual cases have been put forward and they will continue to be monitored, but my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has highlighted in his statements that we are looking at additional compensation. But to be clear, on the issue of loss of jobs et cetera vis-à-vis compensation, I do not know what the situation is. Obviously, every case will be looked at on its merits.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, if ultimately there is a requirement for the Government to directly operate this franchise, is there a shadow body within government ready and available to take that up?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The policy that I referred to in my original Answer includes details of how the department can take a step-by-step approach to ensure that any enforcement action is, in the first instance, proportionate to the contravention, and explains the enforcement tools and options available to the Secretary of State in any circumstances that may subsequently arise.

Southern Rail: Service Cuts

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decision to cut the number of services provided by Southern Rail.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, GTR is introducing an amended timetable so that passengers have much-needed certainty about getting to work and home reliably. Some 85% of services will run and more staff will be available during peak hours. This will be in place until train crew availability returns to normal. This is now a big test for RMT as to whether it continues this unjustified dispute that has been inflicting chaos on passengers’ lives or works with the operator to urgently resolve this matter.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, today’s headline, “Meltdown”, adequately sums up the daily chaos suffered by people on Southern Rail. Fewer, shorter, cancelled or no trains; passengers turfed out of trains; and a complete lack of information—such has been the daily reality in the lives of many people for months, and there is no end in sight. Does the Minister agree that the most ridiculous suggestion to emerge has been to cut up to 350 trains a day? Is it not time for him to call Thameslink management to his office and tell them that they are not fit and proper persons to run our railways and that the only thing that should be slashed is their franchise?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, I agree with the noble Lord that the situation at Southern is totally unacceptable. The point was well made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. In addition to that, this new timetable seeks to provide the reliability which is acutely needed right now. I accept that there is a reduction in services, but this is what the provider is saying it can provide reliably. On the issue of withdrawing such a franchise, let us not forget that part of that franchise concerns the modernisation of rolling stock as part of the modernisation of that whole network. Information for passengers on this new timetable is being provided through websites and through other sources of information on platforms and trains.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Is Southern Rail in breach of any of the terms of its Government-approved franchise agreement, either through its current level of performance or through its decision to reduce the number of services that it will operate? Have the Government given any assurances or hints to Southern Rail that the current unsatisfactory level of performance and the forthcoming reduction in the number of train services it runs will not result in any action being taken against the company? If so, why were such assurances or hints given?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Let me assure the noble Lord and your Lordships’ House that the Government are in regular contact with the company to ensure that the current situation can be remedied, but I call upon both the company and the unions to resolve their dispute. The noble Lord asked specifically about the franchise agreement. Under the franchise agreement, where GTR can provide evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action it can claim force majeure, which it has done on this occasion.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, reverting to my noble friend’s original Answer, what makes him believe that normal service will soon be renewed?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I say to my noble friend that I did not say that, and nor did I suggest it. I do not believe that the current situation is acceptable; indeed, the reduction of services is also unacceptable. The first issue is to provide at least some sense of reliability to those using this network as to when trains will be running. My noble friend will also be aware that services have also been suffering from a high degree of sickness, which has resulted in a reduction in service performance since May from 83% to 63%.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a passenger on Southern Rail. Is the Minister aware that in the whole of my very long life I have never had such dreadful service? How long is he going to give this company before the franchise is reviewed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as I have already said on the franchise, yes, the noble Baroness is quite right to say that the service is unacceptable. I agree with her about the current service levels. I know many people who use that service, I assure the noble Baroness, and find it unacceptable; we all know it is. This is about ensuring, first and foremost, that the operator gets together with the union to address the current dispute. The dispute can be resolved, but it requires both parties to get back to the table and negotiate a resolution.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the beleaguered passengers are being used as hostages in the power struggle between Govia and the RMT. Whatever the Government say at this point, the situation developed because Govia tried to run the franchise with an inadequate number of trained drivers from the start. Do the Government accept that they need to take a much more rigorous approach to franchise arrangements at an earlier stage in order to prevent crises such as this occurring in future?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

With any experience, everyone is there to learn, and Governments are no exception, but on the issue of driver shortages, I assure the noble Baroness that GTR is taking action. She may be aware that it has recruited 500 extra drivers, of whom 211 are already on the network—but clearly, as she says, more needs to be done.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussions. Several times in his contribution the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, referred to me—I am flattered by the suggestion—as the Secretary of State. I know that there are certain unpredictabilities in government as we move forward into what I said earlier today in answer to a PQ are unpredictable times, but perhaps he is party to something I am not.

I shall respond to a number of issues which noble Lords have raised. I thank the noble Baroness for laying down a series of amendments. As she illustrated, her amendment would enable all authorities listed at proposed new Section 123A(4), rather than just mayoral combined authorities, to access franchising powers without the need for regulations or for the Secretary of State’s consent to be given. Several noble Lords spoke in favour of this, but I also recognise that some voices were not in favour of the amendment. I know from previous meetings with noble Lords that queries have been raised regarding the Government’s stance on mayoral combined authorities and the policy that such authorities should be given automatic access to franchising powers while others would require regulations and the consent of the Secretary of State. It may be helpful if I say a bit more about the Government’s rationale for favouring the mayoral combined authority model, then I will answer some of the specific questions and issues that have been raised.

As I have said before, moving to a model of franchising is a big decision which is likely to have implications for passengers, bus operators and the local authority itself. Our view is that strong governance and accountability are key to making franchising a success, together with a commitment to improving transport and a coherent economic geography. Mayoral combined authorities, when established, will provide centralised decision-making for transport across a relatively wide local geography, be that city areas such as Greater Manchester and Sheffield or regions such as East Anglia. The mayor will be the individual responsible for deciding whether to implement franchising and can be held accountable for that decision. Those factors, together with the fact that transport will be considered at a strategic level, mean that the mayoral combined authority model is well suited to making franchising a success.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, noted at Second Reading, the Government do not want to preclude other types of authority becoming franchising authorities in future if there is a compelling case for doing so—I will come on to Cornwall in a moment. The Bill enables other authorities to access franchising powers if regulations so provide and the Secretary of State provides his consent.

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, rightly raised the impact on the bus industry. We are concerned about the impact of uncertainty on the bus industry and want to ensure that bus operators continue to invest and develop services to the benefit of passengers. There were some suggestions during the debate that by establishing the mayoral combined authority model as the preferred model and limiting access in the first instance—I stress that—somehow we are excluding all other authorities. We are not. By limiting access in the first instance to the category of authorities, the bus industry will have greater certainty as to the areas that will have access to franchising powers and will be able to take commercial decisions accordingly.

In addition, as noble Lords have noted, the Secretary of State will also need to provide his consent before any individual authority can access franchising powers. Franchising is a big step which will have implications for local passengers, bus operators and the authority itself, so we want to ensure that franchising is pursued only where it makes sense to do so.

I shall answer some of the specific questions and then come back to any other issues I wish to raise at this juncture.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

Before the Minister moves on, will he clarify something for me? I am struggling to understand why the question of certainty for the bus industry has been raised in this context. It seems to me that if we have the situation as pertains in this Bill there will be a raft of local authorities around the country which may at some point have access to these powers, but only if the Secretary of State says so. I am not sure how that adds to certainty. Would it not be more certain if all local authorities had the potential powers to bring this in?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It is not just about local authorities. I have already alluded to other factors. I state again that the geographical nature of the authority applying for franchising powers is important. The noble Baroness’s important point about the Secretary of State approving access to the powers was perhaps not covered in the debate. There would, of course, be instruments introduced in both Houses to allow for discussions on the particular models. I stress that this is an enabling Bill that allows all authorities to have access. It is the Government’s view—noble Lords have expressed views to the contrary—that mayoral authorities are best suited in terms of their governance models and their geography for franchising, which, as I have said, is a big step. At the same time, we have to balance that with the nature of the bus operators. That is the Government’s view. I am not saying that all noble Lords will immediately subscribe to it. That is why we are pursuing the mayoral combined authorities model, but not to the exclusion of others.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised the response to the Delegated Powers Committee. It is fresh off the press. I know my honourable friend in the other place has today written to the committee outlining the Government’s proposals and I will ensure that full details are made available to all noble Lords. To avoid prolonging this debate if there are specific questions on the letter, I will be pleased to answer either later in Committee or through correspondence, but I think that what I will say will deal with some of the issues and concerns that the DPRRC’s letter raised. The Government’s response from my honourable friend sets out the issues around access to franchising. It also goes further and mentions that the Government are looking to accept the proposals raised by the committee on open data. I am sure the detail is in the letter.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also mentioned the memo about mayoral combined authorities and said that they have expressed interest. She raised a very valid point about whether they actually exist. The noble Baroness and the Committee were right to pick this up, but I am sure that she will accept that we have been referring to areas which have agreed deals—I referred to Manchester and Liverpool as two examples. We have made it clear in response to previous questions raised by the noble Lord that the deals would be issued in time for those new governance procedures to come on board. Cornwall, where devolution deals are being discussed, illustrates the Government’s willingness to allow the devolution debate to take account of what we are looking to do in terms of bus services. In our discussions to date with Cornwall, franchising is something that it has indicated it would seek to pursue. That is why the Cornwall example has come to the fore, although it would still need to go through the same process that we have illustrated for non-mayoral authorities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to London. As several noble Lords acknowledged, London is very different, and the local government role has been defined for the past 30 years in terms of devolution of powers and financial and investment risks. These have been the major differences between London and other parts of the country.

The noble Baroness talked about the concerns raised by the LGA about the franchising model and whether it makes sense locally. As I have already said, we need to address the concerns. This is about providing access to all authorities, but we need to balance that against the need to provide certainty to the bus industry and to ensure continued investment. I stress again that the Bill provides the ability for other local authorities to access the powers if there is a strong case for doing so.

I have already said that we are in discussions with Cornwall on its devolution deal. The noble Lords, Lord Woolmer and Lord Berkeley, both raised issues pertaining to Cornwall. Cornwall is committed to improve local transport in the wider area, and it has made a strong case for having access to franchising powers. If Cornwall decides that it wishes to pursue franchising, the regulations will be brought forward for discussion via the affirmative procedure. As I have already said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, it is important to note that in laying out the intent behind the proposals in the Bill the Government have been very clear that they believe that mayoral combined authorities provide a model which is able to take forward the proposals around franchising. However, that does not preclude others doing so. By making the provisions subject to the affirmative procedure, with applications subsequently made to the Secretary of State, we are providing the locks, the vehicles and the necessary checks and balances to ensure that the best deal is done for all local authorities. I shall respond shortly to questions relating to specific procedures relating to the Secretary of State.

My noble friend Lord True asked why competent authorities cannot come together when they have franchising powers. I assure him that nothing in the Bill prevents this. They can make their case, and the Government will listen. Whether it is me or Ministers at a more senior level, we want to ensure that the competence powers needed are in place to make franchising accessible to whatever type of authority. I stress again that the economic geography of the authorities coming together is an important and attractive part of this. I assure noble Lords that we have no intention of excluding any particular local authority in this respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked what would happen to investment under franchising. I have already talked about the concerns of bus companies. When franchising is implemented, authorities will be able to specify things such as vehicle age, but they will need to ensure that a scheme remains affordable. The noble Lord also asked about the Competition and Markets Authority. We have received several recommendations from the CMA. We are considering them and will respond shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, asked about the regulations to allow certain categories of authority. I have answered this in part already. We want to make franchising powers available only where there is a real desire to use them. Regulations will be made only if at least one authority from that category makes its case to government. The Secretary of State will then need to give consent to individual authorities which want to use the powers.

We have talked, to some degree, about criteria, and I am conscious that in response, to the noble Baroness’s question, and I think, to the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, who also asked about this, I gave a commitment at Second Reading to publish the criteria which the Government and the Secretary of State will use. We will make the detailed criteria available before Report. At this juncture, I can share some of the headlines. There will be, in essence, four key factors that the Secretary of State will consider: first, the powers the authority has; secondly, the governance arrangements which are in place; thirdly, the economic geography of the area; and fourthly, the track record and ability of the area to deliver upon this. There is further detail to follow and, as I have said, I will seek to ensure that that is published before Report.

During this debate, I have talked about a number of factors, including the importance of powers of governance, the arrangements the authority has in place, the economic geography of the area and the track record which I have just alluded to. I hope that, in part, this has helped reassure noble Lords that the Government’s policy has been determined with the interests of passengers and the continued health of the bus industry in mind. It is about balancing and ensuring that local authorities that we believe have the governance arrangements in place and are able to take forward franchising are able to do so, but not to the exclusion of others. I believe that with the measures we have in place, the affirmative procedures of debate in this House about other authorities that seek to apply and the criteria that the Secretary of State will apply in decisions, I have been able to reassure some noble Lords that the Government’s policy has been determined with the interests of passengers in mind. With those reassurances, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am, of course, grateful for what my noble friend has said about competent authorities. I know that he has a great knowledge of, and esteem for, local government. My problem remains, although I have studied carefully what he said. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that I have no vested interest in this, because my council is a London area council and we come within the London arrangements, although I will have some points to make on Clause 21. In his opening remarks, my noble friend talked about the advantage of mayoral arrangements; there is a centralised decision-making element—I think that probably came in guidance or advice he had received. This is the problem, because, as I said in my previous intervention, this is a small part of a wider policy; there are certain people inside government who wish to create centralising models. It is an idea of managing the country by larger functions, which are responsible to, and look upwards to the Treasury and the Government for guidance—we see it in education, with the emergence of regional schools commissioners. That is not the philosophy I believe in, as a Conservative; I believe, as I said earlier, that we need more dispersed authority.

My noble friend is right that it is clearly open to any sort of authority to go ahead; however, there are more obstacles put it in the way of other authorities, whereas the mayoral authority can leap forward. My noble friend Lord Horam must be right: the Government cannot keep taking on these functions to take all these decisions. I do not want to stray into education, I know we are in Committee, but can the Government and their institutions make every decision for every school or group of academies around the country? We do not have enough civil servants to do that. We do not have enough civil servants with the competence to take decisions about transport in different counties all over the country. Devolution is a marvellous idea, which I strongly support, but what creeps into legislation time and again is not devolution but control masquerading as devolution. So when I hear talk of centralised decision-making, I believe that I am looking at the tip of the iceberg of a philosophy of government which is not one I share.

Although I am extremely grateful for what are in many ways the reassuring and typically courteous remarks of my noble friend, I would still find it very difficult to support any legislation that gives an advantage to a putative mayoral authority, not just an existing one, above any other form of authority. It would mean that someone in a department somewhere can say, “Look, you guys. You can have what you want if you do what we say”. Power should come from the people through local government and through local authorities coming together. I give notice to my noble friend that I am still uneasy about these proposals.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Of course I will reflect on the thoughtful remarks made by my noble friend, but let me reassure him that from my perspective and indeed of those within the Department for Transport, the view is very much based on all authorities having access if they have not only the governance models but, as I said, the other criteria on geographical coverage as well to ensure that they can make franchising a success. Ultimately the Government’s intent behind this enabling Bill is to ensure that bus services work for local people.

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds]

Let me give a specific example. If West Yorkshire Combined Authority agreed tomorrow to have a mayoral structure, presumably that would immediately parachute it from one part of this Bill into another. I agree with the noble Lord in his remarks that that is bizarre. It would be very welcome, but as I say it is bizarre. That is not transport policy, it is a political policy on mayoral authorities.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Perhaps I may respond to that. As I am sure the noble Lord appreciates, every devolution deal involves detailed discussions between the Government and those proposing the deal. No doubt if a particular area, wherever it may be, wishes to go down that route, it would be subject to discussions around the devolution deal.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I thank the Minister for his response and I thank noble Lords around the Chamber for their support, particularly that of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Horam, which I welcome. The noble Lord, Lord True, has done half of my summing up of the debate for me which I would otherwise have done. I want to look carefully at the Hansard report of this debate because I am still not clear about what is so special about mayors. I was really hoping that the Minister would explain what is so unique about that particular model. My noble friend Lord Woolmer made the point that you could have two adjoining authorities with the same geography, the same population and income, but one of them would have a fast track to automatic franchising purely because of the fact that it has a mayoral system rather than another one while the other would have to go through a very convoluted process.

I do not understand what it is about the mayoral model that is so important. It is not just about the geography and economics or even the strategic role, as the Minister has suggested; there is something much more singular about a particular local government structure. The fact is that we trust local authorities with making very serious decisions already. We entrust social services issues to them where they make life-or-death decisions about child protection. We trust them to take serious decisions in the commissioning of all sorts of services. It is not as if they do not already commission services and of course they have the expertise to do so. Running a bus service does not require particularly special skills which authorities do not already have. Some might not choose a franchising model, which is perfectly understandable, while others may want to have it. I do not quite understand what is so special about having a mayor in charge that would qualify them in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I will be brief. I have listened carefully to the contribution of my noble friend. As he indicated, he is making these proposals in the context of being against franchising. On that basis, we are not convinced that these amendments are necessary.

As it stands, the Bill requires those considering a franchise scheme to prepare an assessment that considers the merits of franchising weighed against other options. My noble friend is suggesting that they would just steam ahead regardless, but the checks and balances in the Bill make that unlikely and, indeed, impossible. We would expect there to be a detailed, thoughtful piece of work by the local authority that genuinely balances the different options in the context of what is in the best interest of the local community.

As it stands, the Bill requires the assessment to consider affordability, value for money and how it would apply to wider authority policies. We believe that that is the right tone to adopt when making an assessment. My noble friend’s proposals would go further than that and require greater certainty that all the conditions are met at that stage. We believe that that would go too far and discourage authorities from going through that appraisal and assessment process before making any decisions, which is the important point.

Therefore, we believe that the checks and balances in the Bill are the right way to go forward. There are many stages in the assessment process that would allow the proposal to be fully scrutinised, including a full audit, which we are going to talk about later. We want authorities to consider all that in an open and thoughtful way and go through what is in the best interests of the locality, taking into account all the factors and complexities of moving to a franchise situation, which my noble friend has identified—but it must be done in a balanced way. We believe that the provisions in the Bill should be supported.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling his amendment. He proposes a series of amendments that would change the nature of the assessment that franchising authorities must prepare for their proposed franchising scheme before determining whether to introduce franchising.

In thanking the noble Lord, let me assure him that we recognise the importance of ensuring that decisions to move to a model of franchising are taken on the back of a robust assessment. In developing the Bill we have been keen to move away from the processes set out in the Transport Act 2000 that must be followed before a quality contract scheme can be established. That legislation required authorities to be satisfied that a number of tests had been met before introducing such a scheme. As was touched on at Second Reading, only one authority ever attempted to use the quality contract scheme legislation to introduce a quality contract scheme. In part I think this was because the “must pass” tests proved to be too restrictive.

I agree entirely with the noble Lord that authorities looking to franchise must consider whether the scheme is affordable, represents value for money and contributes to the implementation of relevant policies. But I think that devolved decision-making must be respected, with the mayor or authority considering the issues listed in Section 123B and any other relevant issues when assessing their scheme, and then taking reasonable decisions with their eyes wide open. I do not want to repeat the failings of the quality contract scheme legislation, and I want to ensure that franchising is a realistic option where it makes sense locally. I am concerned that the amendments as proposed would unnecessarily restrict mayors and authorities by requiring them to be satisfied about a number of issues, rather than requiring them to set out their thinking and rationale. I agree entirely, though, that I would expect authorities to proceed with franchising only where there is a strong case to do so. However, I do not want to rule out, for example, an authority proceeding with franchising where a scheme contributes hugely to its transport policies but not necessarily to its other published policies affecting local services.

The noble Lord raised a specific issue about operators having assets such as bus garages being taken away or awarded to winning bidders. It is important to note that the Bill does not give authorities powers to acquire bus operators’ assets. Authorities could potentially come to agreements with operators or lease new depots or garages to those winning businesses.

I trust that this short debate has helped to assure the noble Lord that the Bill as drafted will ensure that authorities consider a number of specific factors in their assessment of whether to move to a franchising model and allow decisions to be taken in the light of local circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured to the extent that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Snape]

Of course, I listened with care to what both Front Benches said but was not entirely surprised at the contribution from either side. I can envisage a situation where a company based in a city loses a franchise. The Minister said that there is no power for the local authority to commandeer a particular garage or vehicles. However, they are not much use based in the middle of Birmingham if, for example, there is no franchise to operate in the middle of Birmingham. Presumably, we could build another tower block in the centre of Birmingham and move the buses elsewhere. Again, that rather places a darker cloud on the somewhat optimistic view from my own Front Bench that all these matters can be agreed by civilised discourse between two people, and that everything in the garden can be rosy, if I may mix my metaphors.

However, having listened to what the Minister had to say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for moving Amendment 33. My noble friend Lord Attlee behind me referred to summary sheets that may or may not exist on the Front Bench. I am becoming increasingly conscious that telepathy is at work.

Moving on to the amendments, as I have said before—and I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate—improving bus services for passengers is one of the key aims of the Bill. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, relates to increasing passenger representation through the life of franchising and enhanced partnership schemes. I sympathise with his aims and agree that one of the issues that authorities and bus operators should be considering is how passenger representation can be increased. Hearing from passengers helps authorities and operators understand the needs of their local communities and encourages meaningful engagement in the future.

Many noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in particular—spoke about passenger representation at Second Reading and in earlier Committee debates, particularly the need for passenger groups and representatives to be fully consulted on any proposed changes to bus services in their area. I too would like greater passenger representation across the board—I share the intent behind the amendment—particularly in areas where partnerships are established or where the status quo remains, as well as where franchising is implemented. I encourage bus operators and authorities to work with local people and community groups to design services that are attractive to users.

However, the amendment as drafted—and I am sure this was not the intent of the noble Lord when he tabled it—may not fully address those aims in particular circumstances. It addresses the issue of considering passenger representation in the context of franchising and enhanced partnerships, rather than where other partnership proposals are put in place or where the status quo is felt to be the most sensible way to deliver local bus services. It also refers to operators increasing passenger representation during the life of the franchise or the enhanced partnership plan, rather than the authority involved engaging with passenger groups directly as the schemes and plans are developed.

I assure noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that the Government are committed to ensuring that passengers have a say as plans for bus services are developed, and we welcome further debate and thought on this matter as we consider how we can best deliver this through the Bill.

[Baroness Randerson]

Is the Minister willing to give a commitment that the Government will consider bringing forward amendments that actually place the phrases “bus users” or “passenger groups” within the Bill, to counteract the balance of power whereby it mentions operators and local authorities but not passengers?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I have already said that I am open to discussing how we move this matter forward. I hope that I am indicating that I believe we should proceed in a collaborative way on the passage of the Bill through Committee and Report. I am happy to discuss with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, how we can develop this amendment to reflect the intent behind it, which I share and which I am sure she shares, and also incorporate the issues raised by the noble Baroness. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful response. When we tabled the amendments we should have included the advanced partnerships and the current arrangement, as the noble Lord mentioned, but is he saying that, through the discussions that will take place over the coming days and weeks, we will seek to agree an amendment that will deal with the issues raised here?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

It is certainly my intention to discuss with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness how best to take this forward. Yes, if it needs to be in the Bill, that is something we can discuss. I am sure we can overcome the drafting issues and it is important to reflect the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in any amendment that comes forward.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is very helpful. I am very happy to get involved in discussions on an amendment that we are all happy with and can work with, and which delivers the aim expressed across the Committee today of making sure that passengers are properly involved. However, what I do not want to see at the end of those discussions is a note in guidance, because, importantly, that does not have the same strength as something in the Bill.

[Earl Attlee]

Will the Minister take great care to make sure that everyone who has an interest in the Bill is included in these discussions? Sometimes it is possible for people to fall out of the loop and not be fully involved.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I give my noble friend that assurance. I will go further and say that I never forget my noble friend when it comes to such discussions. He has made a very valid contribution throughout this debate and I am sure he will continue to do so in debates going forward. Any noble Lord has an open invitation to meetings, as I have said, as we look to strengthen the provisions of the Bill and the services it provides.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord for those very helpful responses. I am very pleased to have received support from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. It is beneficial that local transport authorities and operators seek the views of their passengers, who are, in fact, their customers. Being sensitive to the needs of your customers is usually good practice for any business or public service and benefits everybody concerned, particularly the providers of the service. A role for bus passengers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, is important and needs to be in the Bill. I am very pleased with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and look forward to our discussions. I hope that we can agree an amendment we can all be happy with during Report.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Before the noble Lord sits down, let me assure him that that is the Government’s intention with all the provisions we have discussed. Putting passengers at the heart of what we seek to do is a key part of delivering either the franchising model or the partnership model. Importantly, as I said, the current amendment does not incorporate, for example, the issues around the status quo.

I know the noble Lord is working with me to ensure that that is what we do. That is certainly the intention—one that is resonating around the Chamber. Given that assurance and the positive nature of the debate, I think the noble Lord is moving towards formally withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord again for his very helpful comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Immigration Officers

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, while there are no formal qualification requirements, the recruitment and selection of staff to these roles follows a standard process based on the Civil Service core competency framework. A comprehensive training and mentoring programme is in place for all staff recruited to these roles.

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

I thank the Minister. Given the serious shortage of expertise in academe and in the health and care sectors, will the Minister consider revising the provisions that prevent graduates in this country who are from abroad working in these sectors to help out? Even if such graduates offer their work free of charge, they are limited to a number of hours of service, which deprives communities of freely available and badly needed help. Will the Government reconsider this provision?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is referring to the issue of students working here. The main purpose of the tier 4 visa, the arrangements under which she refers to, is that students should be able to maintain themselves for the duration of their course without resorting to employment in the UK. However, as noble Lords will know, students are permitted to supplement their income and can work for up to 20 hours a week.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, whatever the outcome of the EU negotiations on immigration referred to earlier, does my noble friend agree that it is the skills of migrants, from Commonwealth countries particularly, on which we heavily depend and that these should be encouraged rather than penalised in the new situation which we are moving into? Does he further agree that, if the 183,000 students who are classified as migrants were looked at slightly differently from the overall migrant figures, it might clarify and ease what is otherwise a very misunderstood situation?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend raises two important points. On the first, the UK is committed as a member of the European Union until the decision is taken formally to invoke the appropriate articles, but in our future negotiations with our European partners and with the world in general it will be important that we look at the skills requirements of the nation to ensure that we fulfil them. On my noble friend’s second question, it would be remiss of me at this point to start changing immigration policy, but, as I always do, I have listened to him with interest and will take back his comments.

[Baroness Sharples (Con)]

Can my noble friend say what help can be given to British citizens living in Europe? I have a daughter and two grandchildren living in Spain; they have been there 22 years.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The advice is very clear. We remain members of the European Union and nothing changes. I know that this issue has come up in your Lordships’ House previously and I shall repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question on it later today. It is important to remember in the new world that we find ourselves in that Britain always has been, and will remain, a nation which is compassionate in welcoming people from around the world. Certainly, that will be the basis of any discussions with European partners and nations beyond Europe.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Is either the number of applications seeking leave to remain in the UK from non-EU citizens or the percentage of such applications that are accepted projected to increase or decrease between 2015 and 2020? If so, to what extent are they projected to increase or decrease?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am not going to speculate on what will happen over the next five years. The important thing to remember, when it comes to immigration and applications for leave to remain, is that we look at the best interests of our country, but also at the best interests in regard to what we are on the global stage. We are a welcoming nation to people from all around the globe, and long may that remain so, to ensure that Britain continues to prosper and grow on the global stage.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, while I would like to encourage the noble Lord to change immigration policy from the Dispatch Box, I will restrain myself. With regard to the officials who are the subject of this Question, I understand that there is a difficulty with retention. Is that correct, and if it is, are the Government aware why there is a problem with retaining the officers?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We currently have 1,280 full-time equivalent staff who are undertaking this casework. The noble Baroness talks about retention; there is normal turnover of staff. We are also enhancing some of the requirements, particularly on English language, for such staff, which will come into play in this area, and across the public sector, from October 2016. It is important in any role undertaken within government and the public sector that career paths are pointed out to people—the mentoring scheme we deploy for such staff is a valuable asset in this regard.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I have several friends from different parts of the EU who have indefinite leave to remain and have lived in this country for many years. They are now asking me whether they are safe to stay here in the future. Will the Minister make it clear, through the Government, that those people will be able to remain, regardless of what the details regarding the EU are?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As we have previously heard from this Dispatch Box, the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister as well as others, the position of EU nationals within the United Kingdom who have indefinite leave to remain does not change. In any future discussions we have with our European partners, the important thing is the need to reflect that fact and also—as my noble friend raised in an earlier question—the needs and requirements of those UK citizens who have made their home in the member states of the European Union.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that what he has just said is significantly at odds with what his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said today on the “Today” programme? Could he clarify, between the two of them, who is right?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I do not think there is an inconsistency. The important thing in this issue, which the Government have made clear, is that first and foremost we remain members of the European Union. The position of those citizens of the European Union who are residing in the UK does not change until such time as negotiations begin. I say that because it is important to have a factual reality check as to what the situation is. However, I would add that the position of European Union nationals here who have indefinite leave to remain, much akin to those from other parts of the world who have indefinite leave to remain, remains a vital part of the discussions we will have with our European Union partners. Prevailing within that is the importance of recognising that this is about providing stability and security to all citizens who chose to make the UK their home.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, I know my noble friend will be ashamed at the racist and ethnic bullying that has resulted from the referendum vote. Should we not also be ashamed that nobody in government seems to be able to reassure those victims in the way that they require? People who are already settled here, legally and responsibly, are our friends and neighbours and should not be used as bargaining chips in the Brexit negotiations. Will the Minister please make sure to remember that any Government who come back from Brexit negotiations with a result saying these people will have to be forcibly removed from this country would very soon be out of time and out of a majority?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend has made a valid point very well. Let me assure him that no Government moving forward in the unprecedented circumstances we find ourselves in would in any sense be looking at any citizen in the way that has been suggested by some. The important thing is to provide reassurances at this juncture because there is uncertainty and to ensure that to deal with the attacks we have seen up and down the country being perpetrated by those who are using this opportunity to divide us, we send a simple and straightforward message: those who incite hatred against any community or person for whatever reason will be dealt with using the force of the law.

Let me provide once again some comfort to my noble friend because this is an important point. As we move forward in what as I have said is an unprecedented situation, we must ensure that the rights, security and safety of all citizens who have made Britain their home are fully protected. They make Britain what it is and I am sure that they will be at the forefront of the mind of whoever emerges as the Prime Minister and the new Government of our great country as they lead on the negotiations.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first speak to Amendments 59 and 60 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which specify that any decision to postpone or cancel a franchising scheme cannot be revisited for five years.

There are many legitimate reasons why these decisions are postponed, and we believe that there is a danger that this amendment would have the converse effect of forcing imperfect schemes to proceed, to avoid the five-year moratorium. On the other hand, we believe that there are enough checks and balances in the Bill to allow decision-makers to reflect and rethink their proposals, so a ban for five years on revisiting the option is unnecessary and we would not support it.

Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bradley seems to provide a safety net for franchise providers to ensure that service permits which are issued do not undermine the viability of franchise schemes as a whole. This seems sensible, so we support the amendment.

Finally, we support the concept in Amendment 67 that any franchise service permit issued should first be subject to consultation, not only with the service providers but with the service users. This theme has run through a number of our amendments and we support it in this context. I therefore hope the noble Lord will agree with the sense of that amendment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will take each amendment in turn, beginning with Amendments 59 and 60.

Amendment 59 would enable franchising authorities to cancel the date on which local service contracts may first be entered into for a franchising area or sub-area. I admit to being unclear as to the purpose of this amendment and would welcome further clarification from my noble friend. The amendment that my noble friend proposes is to the section in the Bill which enables franchising authorities to postpone the date on which local service contracts can first be entered into, for example to deal with a situation in which the procurement exercise takes longer than anticipated.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

61: Clause 4, page 20, line 46, at end insert—
“(7) The effective time, in relation to a local service contract, is the beginning of the day on which a local service may first be provided under the contract (see sections 123K(4) and 123L).”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

62: Clause 4, page 21, line 16, leave out from “until” to end and insert “—
(a) the expiry of the period that, under the scheme, must expire between the making of the contract and the provision of the local service under the contract (see section 123H(2)(d) and (3)(c)), or(b) such later time as may be specified in the contract.( ) Subsection (4) is subject to section 123L.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief in saying that we fully support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Bradley. As he said, it aims to ensure that responses are received in a specified time and to reduce the scope to drag things out to play for time. He has the full support of these Benches.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for tabling his amendment, and I appreciate his intentions in bringing it forward. It is important that information on employees is provided in a timely way, so that informed decisions can be taken by the franchising authority.

However, I am not sure whether there is a need for this amendment because subsection (7) sets out the provisions that may be made by regulations made by the Secretary of State. Clause 123X(7)(c), into which this text would be inserted, already makes it clear that the regulations may prescribe the time at which information is to be provided. This would, in effect, set out the timescale within which information must be provided.

Noble Lords will be aware of the policy scoping notes that I circulated on 16 June. These notes summarise our intentions for the use of the regulation-making powers in the Bill. Let me assure noble Lords that on page 22 of that document we confirm our intention that the regulations to which this amendment would apply,

“will also set out the time periods within which operators must comply”,

with the requests made for employee information. Therefore, while appreciating the intent behind this amendment, I trust that with the clarification and reassurance that I have provided to the noble Lord that this matter is already addressed in the Bill and in our plans for secondary legislation, he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bradley]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I will look carefully at the sections he has identified to reaffirm the assurances he has given. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 70, which requires bus operators to publish data. A number of noble Lords have commented on this already. Data on the environmental impact of operators’ fleets, including the impact on air quality, the level of CO₂ emissions and their safety record, should be available to local authorities and passenger organisations alike. It would be our intention that this information could be independently verified. These amendments build on our earlier debates on the need for buses to play their part in making our towns and cities healthier places to live and work. We believe that the bus operators have an obligation to deliver higher environmental standards and meet the requirements of low-emission buses. To be held to account for these commitments, the data have to be available to those who can best judge operators’ performance. The same arguments apply to safety standards, so that all passengers can be assured that their provider is working towards zero tolerance on safety failures.

I, too, disagree with Amendments 71 and 72 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Amendment 71 aims to restrict the information provided to a franchising authority. We accept that some information needs to be identified as commercially sensitive but we do not accept that most of the information listed falls into that category. We need to be clear what is commercially sensitive and what is not. However, in most other comparable public services, the sorts of information we are talking about would be made public and shared. It would go beyond just giving it on a private basis to the local authority, and would be made more public. That is what we would expect in this instance.

Meanwhile, Amendment 72 requires bus companies to be paid for providing that core service information which, of course, would be crucial to a franchising bid, such as journeys taken, passenger numbers and fares. The point has already been made that operators will already have this information, so there is no additional cost involved. We contend that local authorities should have the right to this information and it would be standard practice to provide this service information in other contract bids.

We also believe that there should be more open sharing of data so that passengers and communities can have a greater input into the types of services they would like, and can have that input on an informed basis. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the principles of openness set out in our amendment and oppose those attempts to have a more closed and secretive regime.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, there are a number of amendments in this group—I will take them in turn—which relate to enabling franchising authorities to request information from local bus operators in connection with their franchising functions.

My noble friend Lord Attlee made some important points on Amendment 71 in relation to the purpose for which authorities may use information. The powers given to franchising authorities in this clause are designed to ensure that they can obtain the information they need to take informed decisions about franchising schemes. We want the elected mayors and local transport authorities who take these decisions to have an appropriate understanding of the local bus market and robust information to inform their views of potential benefits, costs and risks.

Franchising authorities are able to request relevant information in connection with their functions only in relation to franchising schemes. They are not able to request the information for any other purpose under this section and would not be able to use this section to require information in the context of developing an enhanced or advanced partnership or an advanced ticketing scheme.

I can see that the industry might have concerns if this power were used regularly by authorities which were repeatedly contemplating high-level options—perhaps even without the agreement of elected members, or if the information, once obtained, was used for a different purpose. I also recognise that there are some potentially significant commercial risks for operators in providing this information.

It may be helpful if I clarify that the Bill ensures that franchising authorities are not obliged to publish information if they could refuse to disclose such information under freedom of information or environmental information legislation. There is nothing to prevent a bus operator informing a franchising authority of any concerns it may have about the impact of releasing certain information on its commercial interests. Let me assure the House that I expect all franchising authorities to consider such concerns before deciding how to use the information provided. I hope that reassures my noble friend that I have sympathy with the spirit of his amendment. I do, however, have some concerns about how the change he proposes would work in practice.

First, the amendment would prevent the use of information in a franchising context after a scheme has been developed or made, such as at the procurement stage, which could have a material impact on the ability to implement a franchising scheme in practice. Secondly, the amendment could prevent appropriate information being included in the published consultation document or provided to third parties, such as the auditor of the scheme, who has an integral role in the process. I would therefore like to reflect on the helpful contribution from my noble friend on this issue and take time to consider how his points could best be addressed.

Amendment 72 in my noble friend’s name would require franchising authorities to pay a fee to local bus service operators from which they have required information in connection with their franchising functions. I know that my noble friend spoke very eloquently on this subject at Second Reading, and I understand that he is concerned about the commercially sensitive nature of the data, and value of those data. I also know that bus operators across the country have put years of hard work into developing their businesses, and have built up strong reputations and good will with customers and local people. I sympathise with the concerns that my noble friend expresses on behalf of the bus industry, but I need to balance those concerns against a desire to see well-informed decisions being made.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

75: Schedule 2, page 79, line 3, leave out “123K(5)” and insert “123J(7)”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I shall be even briefer. I fully support Amendment 77. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is absolutely right. We have talked about ticketing before and the word “shall” should go in there. It is an excellent amendment.

Amendment 78 would require the ticketing system to be extended to demand-responsive transport and flexible bus services, assuming that the operators agree. I am sure they will but, as the noble Baroness said, if we do not put something like this in, they could argue that it should never be and we will be left for the next 30 years without a flexible bus ticket that you can interchange. That is why I tabled this amendment.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. As noble Lords have heard me say many times, this is an enabling Bill. It will make powers available that local authorities may adopt to improve bus services in their area. Noble Lords will know that this Bill also forms part of our approach to devolution, giving local authorities the tools for local decision-making on these important issues. I believe and, indeed, expect that local authorities will give full consideration to these new powers and adopt them where they can show that they will make a clear improvement to bus services.

Based on these contributions, I do not think it is necessary to amend the Bill as proposed. As it stands, the Bill provides the carrot in the form of practical powers while local interests provide the stick. I would argue that this is the right balance for local decision-making. I am also confident that local authorities will implement advanced ticketing schemes where they conclude that such schemes would both be in the interests of the public and contribute to the implementation of their local transport policies. I assure all noble Lords that we have taken ticketing seriously across the whole of the Bill, not just by making changes to the existing ticketing provisions but also through the powers available under two new types of partnership and franchising schemes. I fully expect to see some significant developments across the country in the next few years, in part enabled by this Bill.

Ultimately, however, I believe that decisions about new local ticketing arrangements should be taken locally. On that basis, and given the undertaking I have given, I hope the noble Baroness is minded to withdraw her amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling Amendment 78. I know he has a close personal connection to Cornwall, where community transport delivered under Section 22 of the Transport Act has done much to improve connectivity for rural communities. I understand that the aim of this amendment is to extend the proposed powers to make advanced ticketing schemes, so that such schemes may also cover tickets for journeys on services operated by educational and other bodies, and on vehicles used under a community bus permit, where operators of such services agree to be part of such a scheme. This is an issue I would like to consider further. I can see some merit in bringing community bus services operated under Section 22 of the Transport Act 1985 into advanced ticketing schemes. It could generate additional income for operators of such services and help integrate community transport into the wider network. Noble Lords will note, however, that services operated under Sections 19 and 22 of the Transport Act are not classified as local services and, as such, are exempt from the franchising and partnership provisions of the Bill. It is right that these services remain outside the scope of franchises and partnerships, as they are particularly focused on the needs of the local community.

Services operated under Section 19 of the Transport Act 1985 are those operated by bodies concerned with education, religion, social welfare and other activities of benefit to the community. Therefore, apart from the issue of extending the scope of ticketing schemes, the noble Lord’s amendment would require a change to existing legislation, given that vehicles used under a Section 19 permit cannot carry members of the general public. Any change to the way services are provided under Section 19 would require consultation and careful consideration.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has some merit in enabling community transport to be part of a ticketing scheme; it raises important issues regarding services operated by educational and other bodies; and edges towards the area of total transport, in which the Government have a growing interest. As such I would like to consider it further.

I turn briefly to government Amendments 79 to 82 and Clause 7. These amendments concern the procedures for varying or revoking an advanced ticketing scheme, so that the consultation requirements for variation and revocation mirror those for making a scheme. This corrects the drafting of the Bill—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy will not suddenly rush to his feet and ask me to give way at this late hour—but I assure the noble Lord that it does not change the policy intention. It was always the Government’s intention that variation and revocation of an advanced ticketing scheme should be subject to these procedures, and as such I beg to move the amendments in my name.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, as ever, I appreciate the understanding of the Minister, but I hope that he will give serious consideration to a more even approach towards advanced ticketing throughout the Bill. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

79: Clause 7, page 34, line 38, after “make” insert “or vary”