Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I want to say quickly that we are taking questions, and I want to get as many noble Lords in as possible.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement and all noble Lords who have spoken. There is one important fact which I hope the noble Baroness can focus on. When the attack on Israel happened, there was a majority of Jews who were tragically killed by the abhorrent organisation that is Hamas—and now what we also see from Hezbollah. But let us be clear, as one Muslim leader said to me on my first visit to Israel after 7 October, that there were 26 young Muslim attendees at that very festival. Israel has a rich diversity; places such as Haifa and Jerusalem reflect the three great Abrahamic faiths.

My question is specific to the role of Qatar; I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, is sitting next to the noble Baroness. Qatar is investing a lot, and, as my noble friend Lord Howard has said, plays a crucial role in the release of hostages. Can the noble Baroness update us on the specifics of the peace agreements to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza? We were nearly there, just before the Lebanon escalation, and the United States was also very bullish in what are extremely challenging circumstances.

West Papua: UN Access

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 17th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is over a year since the UN special rapporteur’s allegations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and the forced displacement of thousands of indigenous Papuans. Have the Minister, his ministerial colleagues or our ambassador in Jakarta made representations to their Indonesian counterparts about the contents of the report?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we engage with them quite regularly. We recently had a visit from our team on the ground in Papua. We use our bilateral engagement, which is very strong with the Indonesian Government, to raise issues, including the situation in Papua and a broader range of human rights issues.

Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks about support and the terrific effort of all our staff on the ground. I believe that he visited Sudan. I am well aware of the challenges he faced in leaving. That is testament to and reflects the effort that our posts are making.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to the downscaling of posts. On that point, I assure noble Lords that, with the exception of four very small ones, all our posts continue to operate in any decision taken to return employees. That is done under strict guidelines, working with the PUS, to ensure that we put their concerns first—particularly those about their families and their own health vulnerabilities. I am sure that the noble Lord will not challenge that.

On working with African countries specifically, the short answer is that, yes, we were mindful of the challenges faced by many parts of the developing world in Africa and Asia. That is why we were pleased with the outcome of the G20 in terms of the decisions taken on debt repayments. For the medium term, they will prove beneficial to many parts of Africa and Asia.

On numbers, I have already alluded to the fact that we have returned a sizeable number of people. Looking at my own patch, I talked of 10,000 people in India. In the Statement, we talked about large-scale returns from Spain. That was reflective of keeping commercial routes in operation. It is not right suddenly to draw comparisons. Ministers from many countries have spoken privately to me and commended the UK’s efforts because this issue is posing challenges for them. We should not get into a competition over who has done what and where. The important thing is that we prioritise according to our needs. I would argue, with justification, that we faced a challenge in repatriating UK travellers from around the world: we estimate that there was a million of them. We continue to work on that number.

On estimating how many people remain abroad, as I said, the number runs into thousands. That is why we continue to operate chartered flights and, in parallel, keep commercial flights open. I believe that is the right approach, notwithstanding the challenges; I totally relate to the point that many people have faced immense challenges and unimaginable difficulties on the ground. I know what my family and friends, particularly those in south Asia, have had to face so I am totally at one with the noble Lord on that point, but the right way forward is ensuring that we get commercial flights operating as soon as possible. In the interim, we will continue to deploy chartered flights where we need to.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I first thank all the FCO and DfID staff, based here in the UK and abroad, for the great work they are doing to get British citizens back home. I also thank the Minister himself for the work he is doing to secure the safe return of British citizens. Many people have reason to be grateful to him for his work. I raised a case with the Minister a couple of weeks ago, and my noble kinsman Lady Kennedy and I are really appreciative of the work he did to get a couple of people we know back home to the UK, so I thank him very much for that. Where repatriation has proved to be more challenging, what work has been done to try to protect British citizens, who are in many cases desperate to come home, from falling victim to fraudsters and criminals who prey on people who are feeling vulnerable and worried, and just want to come home?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank the noble Lord and I am pleased that his friends were able to return. I appreciate the challenge faced by the most vulnerable in particular, and as he says, there are still many vulnerable people seeking to return. He raises, rightly, the challenge faced in some parts of the world. We have focused some of our work on the most vulnerable—vulnerable in terms of not just their health but the situations in which they find themselves within country. In certain parts of the world, that vulnerability is quite acute. The first and foremost message is: if they are concerned, they should immediately get in touch with our diplomats on the ground through the consulates, high commissions and embassies; they will seek to provide whatever support is needed. Whether it is immediate emotional support, pastoral support or financial support, our missions are very much ready to provide those people with whatever help they need. If they are concerned about their own security, again, where possible they should contact local law enforcement. However, please do get in touch with our embassies and consulates.

Hong Kong

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I first reassure the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House that the Government are taking the situation in Hong Kong very seriously. As I have alluded to, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have spoken to their respective counterparts—and, in the case of the Prime Minister, to other members of the G7. The permanent under-secretary has also summoned the Chinese ambassador to relay our deep concerns. On the wider issue of citizenship, current citizens of Hong Kong enjoy the BNO category, which was created, as the noble Baroness knows, in 1985 and gives certain rights. It remains our view that, within the agreement signed by the Chinese and British Governments, protections offered to those citizens should prevail. On the issue of the police acting with impunity, we impress on the Hong Kong authorities that they should ensure that those committing acts of violence—whichever side they may be on—are brought to justice and held accountable. That includes those enforcing the law.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, people are protesting on the streets of Hong Kong for their judicial independence, their human rights and their democratic freedoms—the three principles the 1984 agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the United Kingdom was designed to protect. Can the noble Lord tell the House when the Government will demand loudly and clearly that China respect this agreement?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Lord that we are doing just that. We have impressed on the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong authorities that they should ensure that the attributes and provisions of the agreement are upheld. The agreement was signed by both parties. It was also deposited and is registered within the United Nations. It is our view that all rights and principles in that agreement have to be respected, not just by Hong Kong but by the Chinese authorities as well.

Transport: Pedicabs

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 27th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Government explored various legislative vehicles, such as the opportunity for a sponsored Private Member’s Bill. As I said earlier, without pre-empting what may have happened or will happen in coming months, it is important to recognise that there were opportunities. Certain legislative vehicles in the current timetable could have been used to legislate in this respect. It remains the case—I have given a personal commitment and that of the current Government to this—that this is an important area to legislate in. We will continue to do so at the earliest opportunity if a Conservative Government are re-elected on 8 June.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, coming from a family of black cab drivers, I endorse every single word said by the noble Baroness, Lady Couttie. I press this Government or whichever Government are elected in a few weeks’ time that this should be top of the agenda for the new Transport Secretary to deal with on day one.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I intend to speak relatively briefly on this group of amendments. The Opposition have generally supported the overall aims of the Bill. We have welcomed it and see it as an important step towards increasing the number of bus journeys, particularly outside London where there has been a collapse in the number of journeys in recent years. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we would have liked the Bill to have gone further, but equally we accept that we have made welcome progress on it; as I say, we support its overall aims. Like other noble Lords, we generally accept the changes on data. The deletion of provisions in respect of emissions is regrettable. Air quality is now a very big issue in terms of people’s health. The number of deaths which can be attributed to poor air quality is something we should all be concerned about and I think that the Government have taken a retrograde step.

My noble friend Lord Whitty mentioned consultation of employees. That is very important and again it is a shame that the Government have largely deleted or watered down the provisions in that regard. Whether the Government like it or not, the bus industry is heavily unionised, which has generally been of benefit to it. The unions work well with the various bus companies and seek to provide a public service. I do not see any benefit in what the Government have done. As my noble friend suggested, I suspect that other forces in the Commons are at work here who do not quite see it that way. What the Government have done is a mistake. I will come on to other things I regret when we consider further amendments.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this short debate and for the broad support for the Bill. Indeed, that was quite clear during its passage through your Lordships’ House. Particularly on the issue of data sharing, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their evident welcome for data sharing, which we all believe is a positive step forward. On the issue of emissions, I suggest that this is not a low priority given that quite specific reference is made to it in the provisions in the Bill. Indeed, local authorities can specify this element in any proposals they make when procuring bus services.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked about me being cut down at the knees. When you stand at only about five feet six you are quite protective of your knees anyway so any further cutting down is not welcome. I assure the noble Lord that the sentiments of your Lordships’ House were fully expressed and I challenge the assumption that employee representatives are not being consulted. On the contrary, they will be. I suggest to the noble Lord that trade unions are an important employee representative. Of course, trade unions fall within the scope of what an employee representative body is, so in that sense I disagree with him. In saying all that, I again welcome the contributions that were made during the passage of the Bill and the broad support for the proposed Commons amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as this group of amendments refers to mayoral combined authorities I should probably remind the House of my declaration of interests. I am a locally elected councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Generally, these are wider issues in respect of local authorities and combined authorities but we have now brought them into the Bill. I accept that it is through another department, but there is an obsession in government with mayors and it needs to be dealt with. I have never yet had it explained to me clearly why, to get these powers, you have to have such a mayor. I still do not understand why, although we keep asking. I am sure we will get something today, but I am not sure whether the Government are clear why they have to have this: you may be a combined authority, but unless you have a mayor, you cannot have these franchising powers. We are still not clear on that, and they will have to deal with their obsession with mayors at some point.

This makes a wider point about the question of the devolution of local government in England, which is, to say the least, now very confused. I remember that in an earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is not in his place at the moment—I am sorry, he is in his place—explained that there would now be four tiers of local government in Cambridgeshire. That seems to me at least one or two tiers too many. I accept that that goes wider than the issue of mayors in these authorities today, but it will have to be dealt with.

Franchising is the way forward. It has been enormously successful in London. I am delighted that these authorities with mayors can get these franchising powers and I hope that other authorities, if they come together to apply for them, will be successful. But at some point the Government will have to look at the much wider issue of what bus services they want in England. I think they will have to go further down this route; equally, I accept that they have made a move in the right direction here.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I once again thank all noble Lords for their contributions during this brief debate. Perhaps I may briefly pick up on a few points.

First, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, raised the specific issue of congestion and said that the Bill perhaps still does not address this. I disagree with him. The new types of partnership and franchising powers give authorities new ways to work with operators to improve journeys for passengers.

On the issue of the independent auditor, I accept the fact that the Government’s position differs from when we introduced the Bill—that point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, among others. As a Minister, I feel that it is sometimes odd—I am sure I am not alone in this, whether among Ministers from a previous Administration or the current one—first, that Ministers are told that they do not listen. Then, having listened and reflected, if we make a change which perhaps reflects the feelings of Members, as it did on this occasion in your Lordships’ House, we are told that we are taking a contrary position to what we had originally after we have listened. I suppose there is a lesson for all in that. It is important that what is said, discussed and debated in your Lordships’ House is reflected in the discussions we have in government, and I am pleased to say that the very discussions and debates we had in your Lordships’ House are reflected in the amendments that the Government have made in respect of the independent auditor.

I understand the point my noble friend Lord Attlee makes about the need for the auditor to be independent. As ever, we will fully consider his helpful advice as part of the guidance. I thank noble Lords for their broad agreement on this issue.

My final point is addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. This is not an obsession with mayors or mayoral authorities. As I have said before during the passage of the Bill, the route to franchising is open to all authorities which can make a justifiable business case. We have previously detailed the criteria required, and that remains the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I very much agree that, as we have heard, the amendments in this group are just about party-political dogma, and it is a shame that the Government have reversed the decision we made in this House some time ago. I was disappointed but, again, maybe not surprised. There never was going to be a stampede of local authorities charging off to create municipal bus companies. It was never going to happen and I never really understood why the Government were so obsessed with this particular clause in what generally was, and is, a very good Bill—we welcome the Bill but I just never really understood that.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, I agree that there are some very good municipal bus companies, such as Nottingham City Transport, Ipswich Buses and many others, and I accept that this amendment will not affect them in any way whatever. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made the point about what a local authority maybe could do to deal with a problem, even if for a very short period of time, and it is disappointing that that will now not be possible. That is a great shame, particularly in rural areas. For that reason, I think the Government have made a terrible mistake here and I wish they were not going to do this, but clearly they will not listen on this occasion. It is most regrettable.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I again thank both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their contributions. I accept of course that there was great strength of feeling on this issue as it passed through your Lordships’ House, but clearly, when you have a Bill with wide application, there will be areas of disagreement between government and opposition parties. On this issue, as I have already stated, the Government have acknowledged and indeed accepted the important role that existing municipal bus companies play, and that will continue to be the case. However, this Bill is designed to enable bus operators and authorities to work constructively together to deliver better services for passengers, and it is the Government’s belief that the creation of further municipal bus companies would actually significantly stifle competition, particularly in terms of private sector investment in buses. Although we accept noble Lords’ sentiments on this, the Government maintain their position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I take this opportunity once again to thank all noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, alongside my noble friend Lord Younger for their support during the passage of the Bill. I thank other noble Lords too; while we may not have agreed on everything, I think we agree on the principle of the importance of getting the Bill through because it is important for improving bus services for passengers across the piece. I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 15 to 23.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, before we do, I would equally like to say that I have very much enjoyed working with the Minister on this Bill. Generally it is very good. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Younger, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the Bill team. Generally we are happy. As I say, I have enjoyed working with the Minister; he has been very courteous at all times during the passage of the Bill.

Transport Levying Bodies (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 9th March 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Adonis (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I strongly congratulate the Government on their move towards combined authorities and the development of the mayoral model, which will lead to the election of mayors in two months’ time. That will bring to fruition the extension of the very successful mayoral model in London to the other major conurbations. Just as it has led to a positive revolution in transport for London, I hope that it will bring about the same for the other conurbations. I know that the Minister has played a significant part in encouraging these developments.

There is, however, one issue on which I would like to hear more from the Minister: the relationship of this order, and the ability of the combined authority and mayors to raise money themselves, with the designated grant that the Government are giving to enhance spending on transport connections in some of the areas he mentioned. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced almost £400 million of funding for the Midlands engine. When I read the release, I was struck by how detailed and prescriptive the list of specific projects was that the Chancellor was seeking to fund—right down to specific sums of money for the Pershore relief road, smart ticketing technology and so on. Given that when he is elected in two months’ time the new mayor will come in with a big mandate and, one hopes, a significant plan for improving transport in the West Midlands, I wonder how far it will be open to him to decide his priorities and what he intends to do, or whether he is in fact bound by yesterday’s announcement by the Chancellor and the department to be simply the clerk who processes the list of projects. If he is not in a position to give me a specific answer, I would be very happy for the Minister to write to me on that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my usual interests as listed in the register: I am an elected councillor, although not in these areas, and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We are happy to support the regulations before us today. I do not have a huge amount to say and so do not intend to detain the Grand Committee. I am very happy to talk when I have something to say, but there is no point in doing so when I have only one or two points to make.

By way of background, I am conscious of where these regulations originated. Back in 2012, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority was able to issue levies to meet the cost of carrying out its transport functions. In 2015, a number of other integrated transport authorities were established and, again, they were able to issue levies through the measures in regulations. Therefore, we support these regulations for the new combined authorities of Tees Valley and the West Midlands. As we have heard, they will be electing their mayors in a matter of weeks. It is certainly correct that the authorities can levy their constituent councils to raise funds so that they can go ahead with their proposals. I understand that all the councils have been consulted and are very happy with what is before us today.

I am interested in the question my noble friend raised in respect of yesterday’s Budget announcement of what are very prescriptive projects in the West Midlands. What powers will the elected mayor have to vary those or do something different? Again, if the Minister cannot answer that today, I am happy to receive a letter in due course. With that, I am content to support the order before us.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Kennedy, for their support. In the general move towards devolution, I know that the model on transport, in particular, is close to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

We broadly agree that it is important for local areas to decide on priorities. To answer the noble Lord’s question generally, mayors come forward with their transport plans, and combined authority mayors will also be required to submit a draft budget to the combined authority for consideration. It is then for the combined authority to recommend any amendments to that budget. As he may be aware, specific criteria are set for each of the two authorities that I mentioned. In the West Midlands, for example, a majority of two-thirds is required, whereas three-fifths is required in Tees Valley. Combined authority mayors in both areas will also be able to set a precept to fund particular functions. The level of the precept is subject to the same combined authority challenge and amendment process as the mayor’s draft budget.

Turning to allocations, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned the Midlands engine and the Chancellor’s announcement today. Those are identified, existing priorities on specific transport functions. I will review the detail of the announcement and write to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as he suggested, and advise other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I thank noble Lords again for their broad support.

Rail Devolution: London

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer Members to my interests in the register; specifically, I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

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

My Lords, departments do not routinely publish internal policy advice and related analysis. However, our analysis highlighted a number of uncertainties in the business case, particularly around the operational risks associated with splitting the franchise and around the benefits being claimed. We have concluded that partnership is the best way to deliver benefits for all passengers, and that is what we have offered TfL and Kent County Council.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord was the Minister back in January, when he and his previous boss, Patrick McLoughlin, agreed to and signed off on the joint vision of the Department for Transport and Transport for London on rail devolution. This is supported by London Boroughs, by local authorities in the Home Counties and, I suggest, by the travelling public. What made him change his mind in the intervening months and since the election of a new Mayor of London?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord rightly points out, that was a prospectus published by the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right honourable Patrick McLoughlin, and the then mayor. The new Secretary of State subsequently—and rightly, I believe—asked for details of the business case from TfL. That was presented in October. It was analysed by DfT officials—we worked also with other industry experts—and it was felt that it was in the best interest of all passengers, both those on the suburban services as well as those outside, to go forward on the model that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has now put forward.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 1, as moved by the Minister, adds the Competition and Markets Authority as a statutory consultee when a combined authority has decided, after receiving the relevant reports, to proceed with a franchising scheme. The issue regarding the Competition and Markets Authority was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in Committee and we should all be grateful to him for his persistence in this matter. He has identified an important issue and concern. It would be most regrettable if, after passing the Bill into law, the bar had been set so high that no authority could ever meet the requirements and be able to establish a franchising scheme to improve services for their residents.

To be clear, in nominating the Competition and Markets Authority as a statutory consultee, the Minister is saying to us that he does not see a situation where a plan for a franchising scheme could run into difficulties with the CMA if it has been worked with and been made aware of the potential effects on competition, and if its concerns have been taken account of. If that is the case, I am very pleased. However, can the Minister confirm in his response one of two things? Is that the view of the Department for Transport alone, or has it spoken to the CMA so that when informing the House of the Government’s position in this respect, he does so with the knowledge and agreement of the CMA? I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for bringing his amendments forward. As I said earlier, he has identified a real problem and his intervention may well avoid all sorts of problems as authorities seek to make use of these powers. I am sure we are all very grateful to him.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Lords who have contributed to where we are on this issue. Let me briefly address the issue by assuring noble Lords that when it comes to the passage of the Bill, we will continue to discuss options with bus operators, local authorities and the CMA. We particularly intend in this respect to consult specifically on our proposals for secondary legislation later this year. I am sure that any issues which are still pending or need to be clarified will come up in those discussions. However, the Government have been clear that we have taken it on board that engaging with the CMA at an early stage should assist those local authorities which take forward franchising, to ensure that issues can be addressed at an early stage.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Is the Minister saying that he and his department have talked to the CMA and that it is clear on that as well?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the CMA wrote to us and we responded accordingly to the recommendations that it made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would insert a new clause into the Bill. We discussed this on Report and I am very pleased that it is back here today to be considered further at Third Reading.

As we have heard, the amendment is about safety. A scheme similar to what is proposed here operates in London and in the rail and aviation industries. Schemes for the confidential reporting of incidents are already up and running, contributing to the safety of everyone in those industries and the passengers who make use of those transport services. Therefore, in principle the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and his department should have no reason not to accept the amendment.

We have heard about the number of fatalities and serious injuries that have taken place in the past year in the bus industry, and anything that contributes to a reduction in those figures should be welcomed by everyone. Publishing the information and identifying bad or sloppy practices, or something that is an unintended consequence, means issues can be highlighted and action taken to deal with them, if we have the data necessary to identify the problem.

It is also a well-known fact that just having a system of confidential reporting can do much to improve the safety culture. Amendment 2 is a very positive amendment and I congratulate the noble Baroness for bringing it back again today. I very much hope that she will get a positive response from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, as she is seeking to bring forward a sensible and proportionate measure that is already operating in other transport industries and in the bus industry in London—and all the large bus operators that operate outside the capital also operate in the capital.

Doing everything we can to avoid death and serious injury in an industry that transports millions of people around every day, often on short local journeys, is something we should all want to support. The costs are not great for operators and, as we have seen in London, the system clearly can operate without any great burden to the industry.

In conclusion, the amendment as worded may not be what is needed, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, the Government can accept the principle and work with noble Lords in this House and with campaigners to get it right. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we need to enable people to have the ability and opportunity to warn of potential problems. I think that that is very important and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will move forward on that basis.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I first thank all noble Lords who have participated in this important debate, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for proposing an amendment that would prevent bus operators participating in any scheme unless they give a written undertaking to the relevant authority that they will subscribe to a confidential safety reporting system. Operators will also need to provide an undertaking that they will collect and monitor bus casualty data and then provide the relevant authorities with a monthly report.

Several noble Lords have made points about safety. Let me make it clear again that road safety is a matter of national importance—we are all agreed on that. The DVSA in particular plays an important role, with traffic commissioners, in seeking to ensure that drivers and vehicles are both licensed and safe. The department collects and publishes data on reported road accidents, which provide details of the type of vehicle involved and the consequent casualties. I am pleased, but far from complacent, that we saw a fall in the number of accidents involving buses and coaches in 2015 from the previous year. However, we must ensure that we continue to monitor this important area.

Let me turn to the amendment more specifically. As I said on Report, I agree with the sentiment behind this amendment; several noble Lords have also said that this afternoon. An efficient reporting system captures health, safety and security concerns raised by employees, which are then recorded, and this is the first step towards resolving any issues raised—indeed, it addresses the concerns so eloquently put by my noble friend Lord Deben.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for acknowledging some of the issues raised on Report and for omitting the specific reference to CIRAS. The Government believe that it would not be appropriate to include such a reference in primary legislation. I also thank the noble Baroness for the very productive meeting we had on this issue, together with Mr Kearney. That in itself served as a very informative meeting for the Government. That said, I am conscious that the proposed amendment has come quite late in the passage of the Bill through this House. As several noble Lords acknowledged, the issue was first raised only on Report. The Government, therefore, do not have sufficient time to consider the issue before the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House. I therefore cannot accept this amendment today.

That said, and for the reasons that I have explained to the noble Baroness already, we are keen to explore further the issues raised by the amendment. In the spirit of the sentiments expressed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Scott, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Deben, we wish to look at this amendment carefully, and it would be appropriate to do so in the other place. This approach would allow us to consider the objectives of the proposed amendment carefully and to explore what the best solution may be to resolve any specific issues.

Let me assure the House that I have listened very carefully to the debate this afternoon and understand the importance of making sure that bus travel is safe for all—we all share that view. I will not be able to accept the amendment today but I anticipate working with the noble Baroness on this matter as the Bill progresses in the other place. I can also assure her that I have already asked my honourable friend Andrew Jones, who is the Bill Minister, to continue the constructive discussions we have had thus far.

With the assurances and the explanation I have provided, I hope that the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as we are on the last amendment at Third Reading, I want to say that I genuinely believe that this is a good Bill. It leaves this House in a better shape than when it arrived. We wish it well as it goes through the Commons. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. He has been courteous, engaging, responsive and willing to listen. I know that I and all other noble Lords are grateful to him for that. I also thank the Bill team, who have been very kind to us, and helpful and supportive. We appreciate very much the work they have done all round the House.

We have made many positive changes to the Bill. I am glad that we said goodbye to Clause 21. I am pleased we have extended further franchising powers to non-mayoral authorities. I am pleased with the additions on audio-visual and environmental protections. I am well aware that the Bill will go to the other place and that one or two issues may come back to us at some point in the new year. We will certainly then want to state our case again and try to persuade the other place, if they are not persuaded already, of the soundness of our proposals.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, those I have agreed with and those I have not agreed with. There have been very positive debates here during the whole course of the Bill. We have generally done a very good job.

I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I knew her for many years before either of us was in this House and we have always worked very well together. I also pay tribute to Hannah Lazell, who works in the opposition office. As my noble friend Lord Watson said in the debate on the previous Bill, we have only a small number of staff and Hannah has worked particularly hard for us throughout the Bill.

This is a good Bill; we have improved it; we wish it well. If it comes back to us in an amended form, I am sure that we will defend our position at that point.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Although the amendment is somewhat technical, it has nevertheless served as a pretext for noble Lords to acknowledge the work that has been done in your Lordships’ House on this important Bill. I acknowledge the tribute paid by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes to bus drivers; I am sure that we all echo that. We should perhaps pause for a moment to reflect on the fact that while, unfortunately, a minority receive attention, the majority of bus drivers, as my noble friend so eloquently put it, serve their cause, fulfil their duties and demonstrate the courtesy required of them in ensuring that people reach their destination efficiently, safely and on time. I align myself totally with the remarks of my noble friend.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, has raised the issue relating to Manchester on repeated occasions. I assure him, as I have done before, that we are working closely with local authorities, including Transport for Greater Manchester, to achieve the objectives that he has outlined.

We have reached that time in the Bill when, in acknowledging the comments of other noble Lords, I too wish to thank those Members of your Lordships’ House who have contributed to debates. We have sometimes agreed and sometimes disagreed, and sometimes agreed to disagree, but those debates have been lively and always conducted courteously. I am grateful for the time that all noble Lords have given, particularly in meeting me directly on a bilateral basis—it was greatly appreciated. In particular, I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, with whom I have worked on various issues in the Bill. He and his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, have together led a very able charge from the Labour Benches in what have been robust but positive and proactive discussions. I am equally thankful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her contributions and for the exchanges that we have had. I also thank my noble friend Lord Younger for his support during the passage of the Bill. It would be remiss of me not to mention my very able Bill team, who have had to endure many long hours of review and many requests from me as the Minister. I thank through the Bill manager all the officials at the DfT and in my private office for their support.

On accessibility, I am grateful for the meetings that we have held with noble Lords, many conducted over the summer—sometimes, people perhaps forget that work continues and that was true in the case of this Bill. I am sure that we can all agree that the Bill is in a much stronger place for the inclusion of the accessible information requirement. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I shall continue to reflect on her contributions and acknowledge the constructive way in which she has engaged with the department. I thank her, too, for the comments that she made today. I assure her that my honourable friend Andrew Jones has committed to continuing the productive discussions that we have had thus far. I am equally grateful for the contributions on accessibility of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Low, who regrettably are not in their places today. Their contributions have also been valuable. I am sure that there will be further discussions on this important issue as the Bill progresses through the House of Commons.

It is fair to say that, for all of our shared belief that buses play a vital if at times underrated role in people’s lives, the passage of the Bill in this place has not been entirely easy. There has been much agreement on it, but there remain areas where this has not been the case. In particular, it remains important that the Bill reflects the Government’s original intent on who has access to franchising powers, for all of the reasons that I have explained—we have had robust debates in that regard. Nevertheless, throughout all stages of the Bill, there has been genuine co-operation and a willingness to work together across all Benches. I assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to work from a perspective of positive engagement, particularly on the issues that I have again highlighted today. We all seek to ensure that the Bill can fulfil its ultimate purpose of delivering improved services for bus passengers.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, we have had several groups of amendments this afternoon, and I am sure that the respective Whips feel like the Grand Old Duke: you march them up to the top of the hill and you march them down again. I fear from the debate thus far that this might not be the case as far as this amendment is concerned, and I acknowledge that many noble Lords have demonstrated a strength of feeling about the effects of Clause 21.

Let me at the outset answer a question that was asked of me. I have said this before and I will say it again: there are existing municipal bus companies, such as Reading Buses and Nottingham City Transport—which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned—that deliver a high standard of service. They can expect to continue to do so. Their ability to do that will not be affected by this clause; nor will it prevent local authorities working in partnership with a bus company. That is an underlying thread of the Bill.

The introduction of smartcards, the installation of wi-fi, the co-ordination of timetables, and the great strides that have been made in improving accessibility have all been delivered through local authorities working with private sector investment. These innovations benefit passengers and drive up patronage. I have been asked about this several times, and I thank my noble friend Lord Attlee for his intervention in once again emphasising the reasoning behind the Government’s position. As a principle, the commissioning and provision of bus services are generally kept separate, helping to ensure that we retain the strengths of the private sector in this important market. It is about striking a balance between local authority influence and the role that private sector bus companies can play. The Government’s proposal will help ensure that both are incentivised to deliver the best services for passengers.

We want to see local authorities and bus operators working together to improve local bus services for the benefit of bus passengers. I know that this is a sentiment that all noble Lords share. I am sure that many noble Lords also agree—particularly those who have participated in discussions and debates on this Bill—that the Bill as a whole will improve things for passengers. However, as I have said, we have reached that part of the afternoon—or early evening—where there are clearly points of disagreement on Clause 21, but I implore noble Lords to accept that, from the Government’s perspective, it needs to remain part of the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I do not accept the arguments from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that there is going to be a stampede of councils trying to set up municipal bus companies. I note that no one from local government—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I fully support Amendment 112. Ensuring the safety of passengers and the general public must be a paramount concern and this amendment places three obligations on operators and one on the relevant authorities.

The Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System is an independent reporting system that helps to bring high standards to industry and allows staff to report matters of concern confidentially, with the assurance that they will not have their identity revealed. Operators will be required to sign up to the scheme and confirm that they have advised their staff of the right to use the confidential reporting facility. Secondly, the operators agree to collect and monitor the bus casualty data in a manner set out by the authority. Thirdly, they agree to make this data available to the authority. The obligation placed on the authority is to publish the data collected on a quarterly basis on their website. This will ensure that safety data from operators are in the public domain and, where there are safety issues, actions can be seen to be taken to deal with it. I hope the Government will support the amendment.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment and the very informative meeting we had with regards to the background to this proposal. The amendment would require bus operators to subscribe to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System, known as CIRAS. The system would enable them to collect and monitor bus casualty data and make data available to the relevant authorities for publication.

Let me make it clear at the beginning that road safety is a matter of national importance. The DVSA in particular plays an important role, with traffic commissioners, in seeking to ensure that drivers and vehicles are licensed and safe. In that regard, I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that we have had quite a detailed discussion on the role of traffic commissioners and their importance in this particular piece of legislation. The department collects and publishes data on reported road accidents which provide detail on the type of vehicle involved and the consequent casualties. I am pleased, but far from complacent, that we have seen a fall in the number of accidents involving buses and coaches in 2015 compared to the previous year.

I turn to the amendment. An efficient reporting system captures health, safety and security concerns raised by employees and can also, I accept, help resolve any issues that have been raised. I also agree with the sentiment behind this amendment. However, the amendment as currently drafted raises a number of challenges. Bus operators may already have a well-established and efficient reporting system in place. Mandating a subscription to CIRAS, or any other independent reporting system, may therefore result in duplication and additional processes, which could be confusing for employees. Secondly, there is a further issue of naming a specific organisation such as CIRAS in primary legislation. That could raise issues of competition and procurement challenges, and might require frequent changes in future as technology changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That is very much for the noble Baroness to consider. As I said to her during the meeting we had on the discussions around the amendment, we must ensure that we have covered all the elements and implications of what this amendment would mean. My concern would be to allow sufficient time to ensure that we had looked at every element of it. The decision whether to bring it back at Third Reading is for the noble Baroness herself.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To clarify that point, is the Minister saying he is happy for the noble Baroness to come back with this at Third Reading?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am generally a very content person. I am saying that the decision is very much for the noble Baroness. I have made it quite clear where the Government stand. As I said, I accept that this is a principle we need to include. I have also said the way the amendment is currently drafted, by naming a particular organisation, has implications, and we wish to consider what the full implications of introducing such a measure would be. All the legal issues pertaining to such an amendment need to be considered carefully. The issue of whether something can be brought back at Third Reading is very much a matter for the House; it is not for me to dictate or suggest otherwise.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I know the Minister is trying to be very helpful here, and I am also trying to be helpful. This is indeed a matter for the House but the Minister has accepted that the noble Baroness has made a very valid point, albeit late in the day. If he was reasonably content for her to come back at Third Reading, it would help the House in deciding whether to get it back on the agenda.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I have indicated to the noble Baroness the timelines behind this. Let us not forget that the Bill is going through its first iteration, as it was introduced in the Lords. Looking at this from where I am standing, I think that it would be better to allow full consideration of this issue by allowing it to be considered in the other place. If that is so, then as we move this legislation through it may be something to consider in the other place as well. What I am trying to say is that, as this is an amendment from the noble Baroness, it is not for me to instruct or direct her as to what she wishes to do at the next stage of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, Clauses 22 and 23 give the Secretary of State the power to make, by way of regulations, consequential, transitional, transitory and saving provisions. Clause 22 provides that the power conferred by that section includes the power to amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify both primary and secondary legislation. The clause also specifies that regulations must be made by way of statutory instrument and any regulations that amend or repeal primary legislation must follow the affirmative procedure. Any other regulations under this clause which, for example, amend secondary legislation are subject to the negative procedure.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee referred to Clause 22 in its report about this Bill, but only in the context of the power to “otherwise modify” primary legislation by way of making regulations that are subject to the negative procedure. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Andrew Jones, explained in his letter of 1 July to the chair of the DPRRC, the Government’s starting point is that regulations which make textual changes to Acts should be subject to affirmative procedure. However, when non-textual modifications would be made by the regulations, the Government continue to believe that the negative procedure is appropriate. The DPRRC did not raise any issues with negative procedure being used for regulations that make consequential changes to secondary legislation, or indeed for regulations made under Clause 23.

Amendments 114A and 114B, which would require all regulations under Clauses 22 and 23 to follow the affirmative process, would introduce a disproportionately burdensome mechanism for changes of the sort which would be made by the regulations to be scrutinised. The Government take the view that it would not be an appropriate use of parliamentary time to require all regulations that make consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provisions to follow the affirmative procedure.

I shall give a quick example. Clause 23 provides that regulations may, in particular, make transitional provision about ticketing schemes under Section 135 of the Transport Act 2000 which exist before the Bill comes into force. Clause 7 contains provisions that introduce advanced ticketing schemes in England. Through our discussions in Committee and Report, these provisions received rigorous parliamentary scrutiny. Any provisions made under Clause 23 would only make provision about how existing ticketing schemes in England are dealt with when the new advanced ticketing schemes provisions come into force. To resolve this issue, regulations may provide that existing schemes can be treated as advanced ticketing schemes. The intention of Amendment 114B is that such regulations would be subject to affirmative procedure. As I said already, I believe that this would be disproportionate. The Government take the view that regulations dealing with such provisions are eminently suitable to the negative procedure. The Government will continue to argue that the current level of parliamentary scrutiny set out in Clauses 22 and 23 is appropriate. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord feels minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. In answer to the noble Earl, if the tables are turned and I am standing there one day at some point in the distant future and the noble Earl is standing here, I promise him that I shall accept his amendment if he moves something similar. He can quote me on that one.

I have heard the comments from the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution to Report today, I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests: I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The amendments in this group, all in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, with the exception of Amendment 70, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, concern TUPE protections for employees, and have our full support. They are important amendments, as they seek to provide protections for employees and to ensure that, where new employees are taken on, their terms and conditions will not be any worse than those afforded to employees covered by the TUPE protections.

Amendment 70 would add trade unions and employee groups to the list of organisations that must be consulted. We do not accept that new Section 138F(6)(g), which refers to,

“such other persons as the authority or authorities think fit”,

fits the bill. The amendments have our full support.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made some important points about protections for workers in the bus services industry. As he acknowledged, we have included the TUPE provisions in the Bill to protect those staff affected by the initial introduction of a franchising scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme in an area, recognising that the transition from the current market to a contract or a number of contracts could be difficult and uncertain for existing staff.

However, as I have said a number of times, the Bill is devolutionary. It gives considerable flexibility regarding the nature of the contracts to be awarded by those authorities taking forward franchising and, potentially, enhanced partnership schemes. As I have said in discussions with the noble Lord outside the Chamber, I agree entirely that people should be paid at a rate that reflects the hard work they are doing. I also note the noble Lord’s comments about the danger of a race to the bottom on terms and conditions and the perception of a two-tier workforce. Any authority contracting for services will need to consider a number of factors when assessing bids for contracts, and the Bill will require it to consult and engage with employee representatives at an early stage.

However, it would not be consistent with the rest of the Bill to mandate the basis on which contracts are procured by local transport authorities or the contents of those contracts, as Amendments 22 and 47 propose. Employees and their representative groups will have plenty of opportunity to raise such points during the consultation process for the respective schemes.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 12th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, these amendments concern mainly the consultation process and we support them. It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and his colleagues have listened to points raised by noble Lords at earlier stages of the Bill and we are grateful to them.

Amendments 9, 30, 40 and 68, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would improve on the Government’s proposal, in that they would put “bus users” into the Bill. The Minister said that he was not prepared to accept the amendments, but I do not agree with him. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, correctly talked about the need for consistency in the proposed consultation and for bus users to be at the heart of it. I am sure that the Minister will explain further why he is not prepared to accept the amendments, but it would be quite simple to consult people—you could have adverts on the tops of buses, inside the buses and on the website, asking them to get back to you. That is how you consult bus users in addition to statutory organisations, and it would not be that difficult. Having bus users explicitly involved in the consultation process would be very welcome. I hope the Minister will set out further why he cannot accept the noble Lords’ amendments.

Having said that, I do not intend to delay the House further. We are genuinely grateful for the other amendments the Government have brought forward today.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and in particular the noble Baroness for their amendments and contributions, and for their broad support for the government amendments. I assure noble Lords that the intent behind the government amendments, together with the guidance, is to put the customer, the passenger, at the heart of this Bill. We want that sentiment to be reflected in respect of all modes of transport. To provide perhaps further reassurance to noble Lords, I have made a note of the noble Baroness’s suggestions and will make sure that they are reflected in the further detailed guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke of good practice on the part of some local authorities whereas others are perhaps not quite up to the mark. I hope that the Bill and the strengthened guidance, taking on board the comments I have heard during today’s short debate, will together ensure that passengers are truly at the heart of local bus services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 3, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has considerable merit and we on these Benches will support him if he wishes to test the opinion of the House. As we have heard in this short debate, the amendment seeks to enable the Secretary of State by order to confer powers upon a transport authority to enforce traffic offences where it has applied for them. The powers will enable authorities to deal more effectively with moving traffic offences, which in turn will help with reliability and punctuality issues for buses, as we have heard. It is not an automatic right: a case will have to be made for why the powers would be desirable in a particular area.

The Government should not in any way be concerned by this proposal as the power to grant, or not to grant, rests with the Secretary of State. The Local Government Association also has indicated its support for the amendment, although, as it points out, the Government already have the power to enable local authorities to enforce moving traffic offences. Ministers could announce from the Dispatch Box today that they will enable that power, which was referred to earlier. I will not detain the House any further on this but, for the benefit of the House, I state clearly again that if the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will be with him in the Content Lobby.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on Amendment 3. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, reiterated that it would give all areas where an advanced quality partnership scheme is in place the powers to enforce moving traffic offences. I agree with him that congestion can have a major impact on local bus services, as other noble Lords have said, but I would also stress that local authorities have many options to address it, from infrastructure measures and technological solutions to the enforcement of moving traffic offences in bus lanes.

For instance, local authorities can designate bus lanes to provide dedicated road space for buses, enabling them to bypass traffic queues. Buses can also be exempted from restrictions such as no-entry signs. This can allow buses to benefit from a shorter, more convenient route than other traffic, sometimes by bypassing locations where there are known congestion issues. These are exactly the sorts of measures that local authorities can bring to an advanced quality partnership as their side of the bargain. I also confirm that English local authorities outside London that can enforce parking violations already have the powers to enforce bus lane contraventions, including moving traffic violations in bus lanes. This means that over 90% of the 293 English local authorities outside London can already enforce bus lanes.

I recognise that the noble Lord’s amendment would broaden these powers further and allow the enforcement of moving traffic contraventions, such as at yellow box junctions. There are already provisions available, as noble Lords know, in Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to permit enforcement of other moving traffic violations by English local authorities outside London. Although the Government have made no current decisions on whether to bring these powers forward, we discuss them regularly with the Local Government Association and other key organisations—as I am sure noble Lords recognise, since we have many a vice-chair of the LGA here. Given the existing powers available to local authorities and the existence of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act, additional legislation in this context, particularly where it relates solely to the narrowest type of partnership, is not necessary.

A question was asked about why only franchised areas or mayoral combined authorities can get this power. First, the devolution orders for mayoral combined authorities provide a legal mechanism to grant these powers to enforce moving traffic offences to those authorities. The mechanism does not exist for all types of authority. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to consider the case to grant these powers to all local authorities. However, for the time being, I cannot accept this amendment. I hope my explanation and the reassurance I have provided will allow the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

This group contains some very helpful government amendments following our deliberations in Committee and we are grateful to the Minister for putting them before us today. The Government have clearly listened to noble Lords on many of the points they made. I am particularly pleased with Amendments 11 and 36, where the Government responded to the eloquent points on national parks made by my noble friend Lord Judd in Committee. However, I support my noble friend Lord Whitty when he carefully set out the importance of a proper consultation with representative employees and trade unions and I am pleased that he has tabled his amendment today.

I was also pleased to see that the Passengers’ Council is included in the amendments before us. There are other important amendments here but when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, makes his contribution I would like him to explain how the government amendments cover the points made by my noble friend Lord Whitty in respect of his Amendment 35 and my Amendment 38 regarding consultation. I am, though, generally content with the thrust of the amendments that have come from the Government.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate thus far. As they have acknowledged, in our constructive debates in Committee I talked of the importance of going back to look at consultation as far as franchising and partnership proposals are concerned. Noble Lords have already alluded to the amendments in my name which add the Passengers’ Council, the national parks authorities—on which I know the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was particularly focused—and the Broads Authority as statutory consultees in relation to partnership plan schemes and franchising schemes. It is also appropriate that representatives of employees of operators of local services in the area, or areas, to which the proposals relate should be consulted by the local authority on its franchising proposals.

The Passengers’ Council, which is the legal entity better known as Transport Focus, as noble Lords have said, has a duty to keep local bus services under review and to investigate such services if referred by passengers, passenger representative bodies or the Secretary of State. Adding them as a statutory consultee in relation to franchising and partnership consultation provisions in the Bill provides further demonstration of the Government’s commitment to ensuring the importance of consultation with passenger groups. I hope these amendments also address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and that he will feel able not to press his Amendment 31.

On Second Reading and in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke passionately about the importance and value of our national parks. I appreciate the time that he took to come to see me with representatives to ensure that this important issue was also reflected in the amendments. I want to ensure that authorities that are considering implementing any of the new plans or schemes in the Bill will consult the relevant national park authority, or the Broads Authority, if they think that its area is to be affected. I also thank him for his Amendment 23, which would make national park authorities relevant authorities in proposed new Section 123B. This section deals with the business case and concerns primarily the authorities that will make a franchising scheme. As I said, although I take the role of the national parks seriously, I feel that it would not be appropriate to include them in this section. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, feels reassured by my earlier amendments and the amendments tabled by the Government and will not move his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 29. In response to the helpful words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in Committee, I recognised that franchising proposals could have a material impact on employees in changes to service patterns and, potentially, operators of services. This amendment seeks to ensure that employees who may be affected in this way are consulted appropriately. It is similar in many ways to Amendments 32 and 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and to part of Amendment 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I recognise that my approach perhaps does not go as far as Amendments 35 or 38 in defining exactly which employee groups an authority should consult—a point made by both noble Lords. I will tell them the reason why. We think that the franchising authority is best placed to determine precisely which organisations to consult, as is the case elsewhere in the Bill. I hope that that wider definition will allow them to reflect on this and that they will not press their amendments.

As we are debating consultation with employee representatives I should say that I see mandating this as a wholly appropriate measure under a franchising scenario that has significant impacts on employees. The Government do not believe that it is necessary when forming a partnership. I am therefore not in a position to support Amendments 9A and 10A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Only in a very particular set of circumstances will an enhanced partnership lead to changes for employees that are similar to those arising from franchising, so it does not seem appropriate to mandate consultation, as the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, would do.

Let me also briefly touch upon Amendments 57 and 59. They clarify which local authorities should be consulted when advanced ticketing schemes are made. At the same time, they add the national park authorities and the Broads Authority as statutory consultees. As I said earlier, consultation is important. As the Bill supports devolution principles, I believe that local authorities are best placed to set out how consultations should be conducted. They will know how long such a consultation should last to ensure that all those consulted have the ability to respond and what the best formats are for it in their area, addressing any specific needs which arise. Best practice guidance already exists for consultation and I encourage local authorities to take notice of it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will agree that Amendments 38 and 72 are therefore not necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendments 12 and 13 bring back to your Lordships’ House an important issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised in Committee. I recall her bringing to the attention of the Committee a statement made by the CMA in July. Concern was expressed that, after being consulted, the CMA could come back again and again, which would deter a local authority from seeking arrangements, partnerships or franchises since it would view the arrangements as impossible hurdles to overcome.

The two amendments seek to set out some parameters for a CMA investigation in less than two years, and they arrive at a series of complaints or an adverse effect on competition. I think that is sensible, and I hope the Minister can address the issues raised by the amendments as it is important that we get the balance right here, rather than again making little progress, despite the Bill’s good intentions, due to other factors such as those highlighted in this short debate.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions in this regard. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has proposed a number of amendments that aim to restrict the ability of the CMA to investigate franchising schemes for a period of two years unless it has received a complaint or it becomes aware of a significant adverse effect on competition. As noble Lords have already stated and will be aware, the CMA issued a letter on the Bill on 29 June that contained nine recommendations. Our response to those recommendations was issued on 10 October and is on the GOV.UK website. One of the recommendations was for the CMA to be listed as a statutory consultee in relation to consulting on franchising proposals. The Government have accepted that recommendation, so I am pleased to support Amendment 34.

I agreed that it would also be helpful for franchising authorities to work with the CMA as they develop their proposals. I am sure we are agreed that that should help to ensure that the CMA is made aware of the potential effects on competition and the benefits or impacts it could have on bus operators and local people. The CMA is responsible for conducting market studies and investigations in markets where there may be competition and consumer problems, and for investigating instances where there may be anti-competitive agreements or abuses of a dominant position. If an authority has consulted the CMA on its franchising proposals and taken account of any recommendations made by it, I do not believe that the CMA is likely to have further concerns.

I turn to a technical issue. Schedule 10 of the Transport Act 2000 does not give the CMA the power to investigate franchising schemes. If the authority had any concerns about the impact of the introduction of a franchising scheme, it would make its views known as part of the consultation and would have to consider whether it had any powers available to it under general competition law. Any restriction of powers available to the CMA would send the wrong message about the important role that it plays in protecting consumers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the issue of the Government’s acceptance of the CMA’s recommendations, particularly regarding whether the LTA should assess or test partnerships before moving to franchising. I shall provide further detail at this juncture, if I may. Under the new Clause 123B of the Transport Act 2000 inserted by the Bill, authorities are already required to compare a franchising scheme to other options. These other options are highly likely to include partnerships and a do-nothing scenario, whatever the CMA has recommended. We have been clear in our response to the CMA’s recommendation that there will be circumstances where partnerships or the deregulated market simply cannot achieve the outcomes that elected politicians are working towards. A single fare structure across a wide geographical area and transport modes, as in London, is a good example of such an outcome. So we are not creating an overly high or impossible hurdle for franchising authorities or setting a particularly high bar.

I hope the assurances I have given have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that the CMA has an important role to play, as we all accept, and that local authorities should work with it as proposals are developed to ensure that local bus passengers get the best possible service. With those assurances, I hope the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That is an important question. Parliamentary approval would be for the category, then it would subsequently be for the individual authority to apply to the Secretary of State and to ensure that it meets the criteria that I have illustrated. The noble Lord sought an important clarification and I trust that it is now clear.

I hope that in my detailed contribution, I have demonstrated to noble Lords that the Government’s approach to accessing franchising powers is sensible and practical, and that it ensures long-term investment decisions, putting passengers at the heart of those decisions and ensuring that they reflect the needs of passengers locally. It is, I believe, in the best interests of bus passengers, business, and employees in the sector.

I hope that noble Lords, including the noble Lord and noble Baroness who tabled these amendments, have been reassured by what I have outlined. I hope that what I promised in Committee about the criteria upon which the Secretary of State would make that decision and the sharing of that criteria has provided further reassurance.

I raise a final technicality: the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about grouping and treating these amendments as a package, but that is not how the Government view them. I hope, through the reassurances, clarity and extra information that I have provided between Committee stage and now—I am really pleased that the Bus Services Bill is attracting your Lordships’ interest and attention—that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has gone on for a bit longer than I envisaged as well. I have to say that I am disappointed with the noble Lord’s response. He has been very accommodating through the whole passage of this Bill up to now; he and I have worked very well together, but I am disappointed.

I agree with many of the comments made around the House, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Horam. With all the doom and gloom about franchising, you would think that if it were that bad, the Government would be seeking to end it. This is more about an obsession with mayors. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and that some other point will deal with it. It is certainly wise to give powers to a wider group of authorities and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in Committee today I draw the Committee’s attention to my being a member of a local authority and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am very supportive of Amendment 84A, moved by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which seeks to put in the Bill a requirement that an enhanced partnership scheme,

“must state the minimum standards of service to be provided”.

It seems sensible that we should state clearly what the expected minimum standards are for a scheme. My noble friend laid out clearly the reasons why. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, will give a positive response.

I am supportive of the other amendments in the group as well. Amendment 84B, again in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, would toughen up the clause by replacing “may” with “must”. All of us want to see the Bill become law and improve the bus services provided to people outside London. Where we can, being much clearer and certain on what is to be done is helpful. In this respect, removing “may” and inserting “must” is helpful. Amendments 85 and 86 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would place a requirement on enhanced partnership schemes to consider what are the other requirements or standards to be provided.

The final amendment in this group is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It seeks to add a further provision on the collection of qualitative performance measures, specifying that these could include matters of passenger satisfaction. The service that passengers receive in all respects should be measured and taken account of. If people are unhappy about the cleanliness of their bus or other matters when they travel, that should be taken account of by the authorities. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response to these amendments.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions during this short debate. When we discuss new tools the Bill provides for local authorities to improve their bus services, it is important to bear in mind how local bus services are currently planned and provided. As noble Lords know, bus companies are responsible for providing local bus services; they design and deliver these services. Local authorities do not necessarily play any part in this, but they can work with their local bus companies to influence and help shape the services provided. These services are not run under contract to the authority. Of course, local authorities can tender for socially necessary bus services to complement the commercial network. As noble Lords may be aware, only 17% of total bus mileage in England outside London is supported in this way by local authorities, with the remainder being provided on a commercial basis.

The enhanced partnership schemes are designed to cover a broader geographical area than the advanced quality partnership schemes we have already debated. Enhanced partnership schemes would enable local authorities to introduce a wide range of standards, including things such as vehicle standards, smart-ticketing requirements, types of tickets sold, and even the price of a multi-operator ticket, provided these receive majority support from local operators. Once agreed, all operators running, or wishing to run, services in the EPS area will have to comply with the specified standards.

New Sections 138C(3) and 138C(4), to be introduced by the Bill, set out the detailed requirements that may be imposed by local authorities as part of an enhanced partnership scheme. If included in a scheme, these become mandatory requirements for all services in the enhanced partnership area.

I turn to the amendments and first to Amendment 84A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Bill already stipulates in new Section 138H that any requirements imposed under the enhanced partnership scheme are to be included in the scheme. Once the scheme is made, these requirements will apply to all local bus services in the area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the first amendment in this group was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. It is not an amendment that I can support as it is not a pro-passenger amendment. It goes against the intention of the Bill, which is to improve bus services outside London and increase the number of passengers and journeys. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: I find the noble Earl’s amendment a bit puzzling. I was not persuaded by his remarks in moving it and if it would take potential benefits away from passengers, I cannot support it.

The remaining amendments in this group are all in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. In effect, Amendments 96, 98 and 109 provide that regulations may specify what constitutes unreasonable objections to a scheme and, where authorities believe that objections are unreasonable, for an appeals mechanism to the traffic commissioner. It is very important that any proposed scheme cannot be wrecked through objections intended simply to stop the scheme coming into effect. These amendments offer some protection to avoid such situations arising. Amendments 97, 99 and 110 provide that regulations may not be made unless a draft is laid before both Houses of Parliament, which is good practice. I am always strongly in favour of allowing Parliament to consider regulations which give the Secretary of State power to take action. The amendments would also provide a useful level of protection for the Secretary of State, and the Government would be wise to take that protection. The additional level of parliamentary scrutiny is always very welcome.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this group of amendments. An enhanced partnership scheme is designed to be developed collaboratively between bus operators and their local transport authority, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The scheme can, of course, be made only if the operators of local bus services in the area are generally on board with the proposal. Enhanced partnerships will be created in what remains a deregulated market. That is why bus operators affected by such a scheme will be able to voice their objections to the scheme at key points. The local authority can proceed with the proposals only if a sufficient number of operators do not object. “Sufficient number” will be defined in secondary legislation, but it is likely to be based on the number of operators and their market share. We provided further information on our thinking in the policy scoping notes which were made available to noble Lords last month.

Amendment 87 would require all bus operators eligible to object to an enhanced partnership scheme to agree to any proposals that included requirements about: purchasing tickets or paying fares; publicising bus services, fares or ticketing; and the price of multi-operator tickets. If unanimous agreement could be reached by operators in the area, there is nothing to prevent these measures being introduced currently, but such agreement often cannot be reached. That is why the Bill seeks to prevent a potentially small minority view blocking important improvements to bus services.

I turn to Amendments 96, 98 and 109. The local bus operators that cast their vote are all private commercial companies, and each must determine what the effect of the proposals would be on its business. This is important because it is those operators that will end up paying for most, if not all, of the reforms. The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness would undermine their commercial freedom by giving the traffic commissioner a say in determining, on appeal from a local authority, whether an objection is unreasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that I am in comforting mode, and I hope that I have reflected that in Committee.

On Amendment 91, the aim of any enhanced partnership scheme is to improve the bus offering to passengers. I therefore agree that proper consultation with groups representing passengers is very important. However, the Bill already includes such a requirement. Under new Section 138F(6)(b) of the Transport Act 2000, local authorities must consult organisations representing bus users as they think fit. The amendment would largely replicate this current provision. I am sure that noble Lords will come to this, so it is appropriate that I focus on it. The “as they think fit” element in the current provision is important, because the relevant local authority, or authorities, will be best placed to make a judgment about the right level of passenger engagement in a particular circumstance. For example, a scheme covering the whole of a city may have an already established, and possibly vocal, local bus passenger group that can provide feedback. However, smaller schemes may not have any relevant local user group or representatives. In that case, the authority may need to carry out other, bespoke arrangements, such as leaflets being handed out on the street, or notices in newspapers.

Turning to Amendment 93, in developing a partnership the local authority must strike a balance between the negative effects of potential restrictions to open competition and the wider benefits that the arrangement will bring. The Bill requires authorities to carry out an assessment of that balance when considering an enhanced partnership scheme. However, the Competition and Markets Authority retains powers to examine the authority’s assessment after the scheme is introduced if, for example, it receives a complaint from an operator. I believe it is right that the CMA should retain that power as there is no guarantee that local authorities will always get the balance right. Having said that, the CMA is a statutory consultee on enhanced partnership schemes and this gives it an opportunity to provide a steer to the local authority at that development phase.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of consulting the CMA. I assure the noble Lord that officials at the DfT had a number of meetings with the CMA and, as I have already said, the CMA has a statutory power to comment on Bills, which it cannot exercise before the Bill is published.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about the CMA letter. We have received it and are considering the CMA’s recommendations. We will respond to it. It is standard for a Minister to say “in due course,” but to pre-empt a question I shall explain that I have received further clarification and it will be before Report. We will share that with noble Lords. There are number of ways to take on board the points that the CMA raised. In considering them, we do not intend to see any impossible hurdles for local authorities.

It is also important to be clear that this legislation does not permit the CMA to impose financial penalties on bus operators which are simply complying with a partnership scheme in good faith, so there is nothing here for operators or local authorities to fear.

In Amendment 95, the noble Baroness raises an important issue about the need for consultations to be conducted in a manner, and over a time period, that is accessible to all. I agree entirely with her aims. I would expect local authorities, under current arrangements for consultations, to think carefully about their approach to ensure that as many people as possible are able to respond fully. Proposals about local bus services are likely to have a large impact on local communities, and I will give further consideration to how best to address the helpful points that have been raised.

Turning to Amendments 108 and 111, the Bill makes provision for an enhanced partnership plan—the high-level strategy document—and at least one scheme which details the changes to bus services on the ground. Once the plan, and at least one scheme, are in place, the Bill allows them to be varied or revoked. This is a sensible provision to deal with, for example, unforeseen circumstances. One of the details of these provisions is that no later than 14 days after the date on which the variation to the plan or scheme is made, the local authority making the variation must give notice of it. This includes, in new Section138M(6)(a), giving notice appropriate for bringing the proposals to the attention of persons in the local authority’s area. This wording exists for a particular purpose because the degree to which the notice must be publicised will vary depending on the size and scope of the plan and scheme. If the plan and scheme cover, say, a large city, the local authority may take the view that these persons include individual bus passengers or even all local residents. In smaller schemes, the local authority may consider it sufficient to give notice only to, say, a local bus users’ group or, in the case of a very limited scheme, those living along a particular bus route affected by the change. Bus users are also likely to be more interested in changes to the scheme—the services on the ground—than they are in the high-level strategic plan.

The amendment suggested by the noble Baroness requires that the local authority should always seek to give notice to bus users. This may not be relevant to minor changes—for example, ticketing retail requirements —and it may be interpreted by local authorities or indeed the courts to mean that all bus users in the area need to be informed of all changes. There may also be some issues with the interpretation of “bus users”. Are they current users, future users or potential users? The latter two categories could include just about everyone. So, while I agree with the principle being raised, on balance I feel that the Bill covers the issue appropriately.

I hope the explanations I have given will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I will reflect on the Minister’s comments and in particular I will read very carefully what he said about consultation appearing elsewhere in the Bill. This may be something that I will bring back on Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I support my noble friend Lord Berkeley in these two amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response. It is right that the traffic commissioner should have all the relevant information in front of him. Putting that into the Bill will ensure that when decisions are made they are robust and we do not get situations where there are needless complaints because people have not taken on board what they should have done. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I shall take Amendment 111A first. It would require the traffic commissioner to take account of relevant information provided by a local authority when deciding whether to accept an application to register a service in an enhanced partnership area.

First, I assure the noble Lord that local authorities have an opportunity to provide such information about every application to register or vary a local bus service, whether in an enhanced partnership or not. This is because the traffic commissioner is obliged, under existing legislation, to seek views from the relevant local authority about the proposed registrations of all local bus services.

In general, this is to ensure that important matters, such as whether the vehicles proposed to be used are suitable for the roads they will operate on, can be fully addressed. In the case of enhanced partnerships, this already affords the local authority an opportunity to determine whether the proposed registration meets any requirements imposed under an enhanced partnership scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Amendment 123A, moved by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, is one that I am delighted to support. As I have said, the Bill is about improving bus services for passengers. Ensuring that the voice of passengers is heard is central to that aim and that is why this amendment is so important. It requires the transport authority to set out how users will be involved in monitoring and evaluating the scheme, and it sets up a complaints process with a body named to review complaints.

Only by having a mechanism for effective passenger input to deal with complaints and other issues can the transport authority have the information that it needs to plan for better services, deal with unforeseen problems and make things better for the future. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, can give a positive response to this short debate, or we may return to the matter on Report.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as has been said by those noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, this is something that we have talked about in terms of the principle. The amendment would ensure that local transport authorities set out mechanisms through which passengers are involved in the monitoring and evaluation of any scheme that is implemented as a result of the Bill.

Turning first to the aspect of the amendment that relates to passenger representation, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, proposed a similar amendment which was discussed on the second day in Committee. As I said then, hearing from passengers helps authorities and operators to understand the needs of their local communities and to design schemes that can bring real benefits. I am also keen to ensure that any authority implementing either a franchising or partnership scheme thinks carefully about the outcomes it is looking to achieve, and how it will evaluate and monitor the performance of the scheme. I further agree that passengers should be involved in that process, as they will be the ones with the day-to-day experience of using the services.

I am therefore happy to consider how best to accommodate this. I will consider what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said about how the Government plan to outline this and whether we look to further guidance where we can better set out our wider expectations relating to how passengers should be involved throughout the process, both while schemes are being developed and once they have been implemented. I will provide, as the noble Lord requested, further clarification in advance of Report.

Turning to the second half of the amendment, which relates to complaints procedures, I agree that it is important that passengers’ voices are heard and that their complaints are dealt with effectively.

It is always good to be in advance of the Box note. I have just received one that says, “I would be pleased to write to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in that respect”. It shows that Ministers can think for themselves. That may be a startling revelation to the Box, but I am sure my officials are well versed in how I work.

There is a well-established procedure for handling complaints about bus services, whereby complaints are first made to the operator. If the passenger remains dissatisfied, they can be taken up by Bus Users UK and finally by the Bus Appeals Body. This procedure has been endorsed by Transport Focus, the statutory champion for bus passengers. I am keen to ensure that passengers who use services specified under a scheme of the kind set out in the Bill have access to a complaints procedure at least as good as the one currently in place.

I recognise that the authority may have a role to play in dealing with complaints, particularly where it has introduced franchising. I therefore agree entirely that complaints procedures should be clear to all passengers, and that any authority introducing a franchising scheme in particular should clarify its role in the process, working with Bus Users UK and others. I suggest that we have further discussions on these matters and hope that, with the reassurances I have given and the commitment to write to noble Lords in advance of Report, there is sufficient reassurance of the seriousness with which I intend to consider this proposal, and the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Certainly the discussions that we have had to date reflect exactly what the noble Lord has articulated. Having a single stakeholder in a service which has a much wider emphasis is of concern. I note that the noble Lord rightfully wants to put representative groups for bus users at the centre of what we are seeking to do here. I understand the issue that the noble Lord has raised.

I turn next to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, whereby the Secretary of State would have to ensure that any regulations under these provisions always make provision for the information to be freely available and for registration information to be provided to a traffic commissioner. I sympathise with the noble Baroness in wanting to ensure that the information is freely available. We want to encourage the development and use of apps and journey planners, a point we debated at Second Reading. However, there may be circumstances where it becomes necessary to limit access, and the obvious question is where that might be. There may be cases where the design of an app is such that it imposes a strain on the technical infrastructure which supports the release of the information or a poorly designed app that makes excessive demands for frequent information updates. Those are just a couple of the examples that come to mind.

It may also be appropriate to time-limit the disclosure of certain information—for instance, about fares—which is being shared in good faith but is often commercially confidential until the day of the fare change, a point made by my noble friend Lord Attlee in the debate at Second Reading. The disclosure of commercially confidential information was also raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I will consider again how best to address the committee’s concerns with the aim of bringing forward amendments on Report. Again, if I can provide further clarification in advance, I will certainly seek to update noble Lords.

I hope that with the explanation I have given, the noble Lord will feel minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response. The debate has covered a wide variety of issues and the response has been helpful. Indeed, the noble Lord has been helpful through all the stages of the Bill and we thank him for that. I am happy to withdraw the amendment and we look forward to seeing what he brings back on Report.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[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.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[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.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

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 the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment, which would require franchising authorities to consider, as part of the assessment of their proposed franchising scheme, the extent to which not-for-profit bus operators can be integrated into a franchising scheme to contribute to its sustainability. Let me say at the outset that I sympathise with the aims of his amendment. I recognise the good services that community bus service operators and other not-for-profit bus operators deliver to our communities across the country and know that they often provide flexible and bespoke services which act as a lifeline to many. The intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, underlined that element.

The Bill recognises the important role that community transport operators play in providing local public transport. Provisions have been included in the Bill to ensure that services operated under community bus permits will not be affected by the introduction of franchising or enhanced partnerships. This will enable them to continue to run their services unaffected by these schemes. I hope noble Lords will agree that these provisions are sensible and that they will help ensure that community bus providers can continue to deliver their valuable services to our local communities.

Even with these protective provisions in the Bill, I recognise the valid point the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raises, and agree that authorities looking to improve local bus services should consider how services provided by community transport operators can be best integrated to deliver a better overall network of services for passengers.

Let me assure noble Lords that the Bill does not preclude authorities, as they develop their franchising or enhanced partnership proposals, working with community transport and not-for-profit operators to determine how they can best be integrated into the wider network of services, but I agree with the noble Lord that this approach should be encouraged. I am, therefore, of the view that these issues are best covered through further guidance that will be published to complement the provisions of the Bill. I hope the assurances I have given in this contribution enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Will the Minister say a little more about why he thinks that this should be in guidance? He says that authorities can do this, and that is all well and good. Why then is it not going to be in the Bill? Why should it be in guidance? My worry is that guidance is not legislation. Guidance is forgotten over time, things get moved on and revised, and all of a sudden it is not there and gets forgotten about. Why is guidance better than the Bill?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I have already said that there are provisions within the Bill that protect that element of community transport and not-for-profit operators. While the noble Lord feels that the guidance is not sufficient, it forms part and parcel of the guidance in support of the Bill, on which these new proposals go forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am not sure the Minister answered the point I was making there. I am thinking of organisations such as Hackney Community Transport. If it wants want to provide services elsewhere in the country, like it currently does for TfL, why should that not be in the Bill, rather than in guidance?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I do not think I can add any more. If the noble Lord feels that the strength of what the Government are presenting does not meet what he is suggesting, I suggest we discuss this issue. At the moment, we are minded that existing provisions within the Bill, with the assurance of including such provisions in the guidance, provide the necessary safeguards alluded to by the noble Lord. I hope, with this assurance and the continuing discussions we are having on various aspects of the Bill, that he will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for that contribution. I will take up his kind offer to have a discussion outside the House. He has been very generous with his contribution today and with his time. I appreciate that very much. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I do not agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as I want to see the not-for-profit sector being able to provide bus services, as elsewhere. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Scott, for their support. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was spot on in speaking about the needs of rural areas and the widest range of schemes available to deliver those services. As she said, Hackney Community Transport delivers services for TfL, so why cannot it, or other providers in the not-for-profit sector, deliver bus routes elsewhere, in urban or rural areas? This Bill is about improving bus services and my amendment helps in that respect, improving the Bill further and giving further options for the provision of bus services. I will leave it there and look forward to talking it over outside the Chamber, but I may well bring the amendment back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Attlee for his amendment, which would require franchising authorities to consider as part of the assessment of their franchising scheme whether it will be,

“more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses would be wholly or partially expropriated by the scheme”.

I recognise my noble friend’s desire to ensure that impacts on bus operators are fully considered as franchising schemes are developed. The Bill already addresses many of his concerns, and it may be useful at this point to provide a fuller explanation of proposed new Section 123B, which requires franchising authorities to conduct an assessment of their proposed franchising scheme. I fully acknowledge that moving to a model of franchising is a big decision that will impact on bus operators in the area. That is why the Bill requires authorities that are considering franchising to conduct a thorough assessment of their proposed scheme, including comparing their proposals with other options, which could include partnership proposals and the status quo.

The Bill also requires franchising authorities to think about the effects of the proposed scheme and whether it represents value for money. This will include, of course, consideration of the impacts of the proposal on passengers and bus operators, together with any wider impacts. I hope my noble friend agrees that the provisions in the Bill will require authorities to think carefully about their franchising proposals, compare them to other options and then take a well-reasoned and well-evidenced decision.

I turn to the issue of compensation payable to bus operators that my noble friend referred to. I fully recognise the years of hard work that many bus operators have put into growing and operating their businesses and their concerns about the future. As I have said, the Bill requires authorities to consider both the benefits that franchising could bring for local people, as well as the potential impacts, including those on bus operators. If franchising authorities follow the processes set out in the Bill, local bus operators will have plenty of notice that a franchising scheme is being considered, will be aware of a decision to introduce franchising, and will have more than six months’ notice that services are to be provided under local service contracts. This will enable operators to take any action they think appropriate and to plan ahead in the light of the decision to make a franchising scheme. Incumbent operators will, of course, be able to bid for contracts in any area that decides to move to franchising, and I should reflect that those operators’ knowledge of the local area and local customers is likely to stand them in good stead. In addition, the Bill does not provide franchising authorities with the power to take over the property of any bus operator if a scheme is made—a point made in an earlier debate.

In summary, I am therefore of the view that the Bill already addresses many of my noble friend’s concerns regarding the assessment of the franchising scheme and the need to compare it with other options. He raised the issue of compensation being available to those who do not win contracts, and referred to other schemes, not just franchising. While he makes a valid point, I note that authorities have been able to introduce quality contracts since 2000. This potential risk and impact on bus operators has been around for a significant period. I hope that he has been assured and reassured by some of my comments on the existing provisions in the Bill. I disagree that consideration of compensation should form part of franchising assessments—a point made by other noble Lords—but I hope that this debate has assured him that the Bill includes a thorough and comprehensive assessment process, and that he can withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Can the Minister say more about something I find hard to understand about the amendment? I am a councillor in a London borough and services are tendered for all the time, whether in relation to road repairs, street lighting, refuse collection and so on. People bid for contracts, win them and lose them. If they lose them, the new company takes them on and we do not have debates about paying companies compensation because they have lost their contract. They bid for a price, the council assesses it and a number of factors and makes what it believes is the best decision. I do not see why we are having this dispute or debate. If a company loses a bus route, I do not see why it should be paid compensation. It must have tendered for that route but has lost out in the process to another company that has been deemed to offer better value for money. This is a strange debate.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend tabled an amendment and it is right that we have a discussion in Committee. I hope that through the provisions in the Bill that I have highlighted—for example, the requirement to give ample notice—his fears are allayed as regards compensating a business franchise that goes out of operation. The Bill contains proper provisions in relation to, for example, giving notice. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I are on the same page on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As long as it was lovely, that is the important point to bear in mind. I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for tabling their amendments, and acknowledge the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for bringing this issue to the fore. The amendments aim to ensure that authorities think about the wider social, economic and environmental benefits of establishing a franchising or enhanced partnership scheme and remind authorities of their obligations relating to educational and socially necessary bus services.

Amendments 58A and 99ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, refer to the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, mentioned in a previous Committee debate. As I have already indicated, and as the noble Baroness has acknowledged, I have written to her on this matter. My understanding is that the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 requires authorities which commission certain public services to think about matters relating to securing wider social, economic and environmental benefits in the context of procurement.

I believe that it would be useful to use the guidance that will accompany the Bus Services Bill to remind local authorities of the duty that the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 places on them in certain circumstances and to give some guidance on the approach to be taken in relation to procurement activities not covered by the Act. I assure noble Lords that, on the contribution of the noble Baroness, I immediately set the ball in motion. Work is in hand in the Department for Transport to consider how best we achieve this and it is getting some accolades. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not in his place, but it is becoming a fast favourite of the noble Lord.

I also agree that any authority looking to establish a franchising scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme should think carefully about the wider social, economic and environmental benefits that such a scheme could bring. The Bill includes requirements for authorities looking to establish a franchising scheme or an enhanced partnership to think about whether the proposed scheme would contribute to the achievement of relevant policies and to consider the impacts of such a scheme. I hope this has reassured noble Lords that the social, environmental and economic issues will be considered as schemes are developed and that references will be made quite specifically in the guidance that accompanies the Bill to ensure authorities are aware of their obligations under the Public Services (Social Values) Act 2012.

Amendments 58B and 99B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, relate to educational and socially necessary services. Authorities have certain duties to consider whether to provide socially necessary services, and they also have certain duties with respect to providing home-to-school transport. I agree entirely that authorities should consider these obligations as they develop franchising or enhanced partnership schemes as co-ordinated commissioning of public transport for the whole area can lead to real efficiencies. This is one of the core principles of total transport, and I support it wholeheartedly.

The obligations on local authorities with respect to socially necessary and home-to-school services remain in place regardless of whether franchising, enhanced partnerships, or any other model is employed and I do not think it is necessary to restate these requirements in the Bill. I do however recognise that we can continue to do more to ensure that authorities are reminded of their obligations through the guidance that I have mentioned already.

The other issue raised by the noble Lord’s amendment is that of an authority subsidising certain services which would not otherwise be provided. Authorities already have the ability to do this, and the Bill does not change that. I fully expect that authorities will subsidise certain services in a franchised model for example and confirm that this will be possible under any of the new models proposed through the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about ferries. There is nothing to stop local authorities working with local operators to integrate ferries locally. Merseytravel’s multi-operator ticket already does this. It is unlikely that including a reference to ferries and the 2012 Act in this Bill would fall within the permitted scope, but I will consider the point and will write to the noble Lord if I am not correct in this respect. I hope that the assurances I have given have gone some way to addressing the issues that noble Lords have raised and that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I know the Minister is trying to be very helpful today and we are very grateful to him for that. He has asked my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch to withdraw the amendment. Is he saying that he is going to go away and think about this? I am not clear whether he said that. The amendment that my noble friend moved is important. I am not quite clear what he is saying in asking her to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

In the interests of time, if the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, does not mind I shall share the letter I wrote to her with all noble Lords. That should have been done as a matter of course. It will perhaps highlight the Government’s position, but to be clear, the Government are considering the provisions raised in the amendment, but within the guidance which will be in support of the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I think I got the letter, but I am afraid I not have actually read it yet. It arrived this morning in my email inbox. I just wanted to be clear what the Minister meant.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Apparently I did not get the letter after all. I certainly got a letter from the Minister this morning, but it may not be the one that we are talking about.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I have reflected on before, while we are in the holy month of Ramadan, noble Lords should be thankful that they are not getting emails from me because they would be arriving at about 3 am. If I am writing them, I hope noble Lords are reading them. I will of course confirm when the guidance is due to be published, but I hope I have provided clarity and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first time to speak in Committee, I declare an interest as an elected councillor.

The amendments in this group are almost all proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, with support from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, with the exception of Amendment 5, in the names of my noble friends Lord Bradley and Lord Berkeley. They are all seeking to make improvements to the Bill, with important clarifications and additions on the face of the Bill, and we are generally supportive of them. I think it is important to give certainty in legislation and clear direction.

As I said at Second Reading, there is a lot in this Bill that we can support and we will play a constructive role in seeking to make improvements to what is before us to halt the decline in bus use outside London that is all too prevalent and has already been referred to today. Putting passengers at the heart of our discussions on buses must be a priority, as well as ensuring improvements for disabled travellers, advanced ticketing and other measures, which we will discuss in our deliberations over the next few weeks and months.

I very much concur with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in respect of the impact assessment and on the putting together of the Bill. It is interesting to note that, on the first day in Committee, we already have government amendments. This is a Lords-starter Bill—it has been nowhere near the House of Commons—and, as we have heard, we have been waiting for a very long time for this Bill to arrive, but straightaway we have got a series of government amendments. This is not as bad as the Housing and Planning Act—we have an impact assessment and other information from the Government—but generally the Government need to sharpen up their act when it comes to presenting legislation to Parliament. They often make things much worse for themselves because Members on all sides get very frustrated when they do not have the right bits of paper in the right order in good time, in proper sequence, which then gives them more difficulties. So the Government themselves should reflect carefully how they present legislation to Parliament, because they may find that they make things much easier for themselves if they get it right in the first place, so we do not have to catch up as we go through the discussions.

The first amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, changes the emphasis from saying that in making an advanced quality partnership scheme “one or more of” the outcomes will likely be achieved. The outcomes mentioned are,

“an improvement in the quality of local services that benefits persons using those services … a reduction or limitation of traffic congestion, noise or air pollution”,

and an increase in bus use or, at the very least, an end to the,

“decline in the use of local services”.

The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness is more ambitious in saying that we “will achieve” these outcomes, whereas the Government use the words, “are likely to”, which does not seem very ambitious for a new piece of legislation.

The next four amendments in the name of the noble Baroness give specific requirements for issues such as services in rural areas. I very much concur with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, in that respect. The amendments refer to “advanced ticketing” and a reduction in pollution, taking into account people with disabilities and other factors, along with geographical location, which should be part of whether a scheme should be made. We are very much supportive of them.

Amendment 5 in this group, proposed by my noble friends Lord Bradley and Lord Berkeley, adds an additional requirement to reduce,

“the deterioration of local services”,

and refers to,

“the maintenance of quality levels of those services”.

It is important to make provision to make sure that there will not be deterioration in services under any new scheme. I very much agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Bradley today, and in particular agree with him that the Bill needs to be an Act so that the devolution deal for Greater Manchester can be brought into effect—although, of course, given where we are now, I do not think that there will be any problem there whatever. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that when he makes his response.

[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 on this first group of amendments. On the general point raised by several noble Lords on the impact assessment and its publication and availability yesterday, I assure noble Lords that the intention was not to have a delay in publishing as such. It was reviewed to ensure that additional policies and full detail could be provided. I take the point that noble Lords have made: if a document is produced 24 hours before Committee, that is not the best timing to allow for detailed analysis. A point was made about rural impact, and whether that was considered. Rural-proofing is mentioned in the impact assessment, and some noble Lords have expressed their regret at the very limited assessment. However, open data offer particular opportunities to increase rural services.

On a few other administrative points before I come on to the amendments, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for not responding in full to her questions. I shall follow them up with immediate effect and ensure that she has a timely response. In fact, I am looking over to the Box with a rather hard stare, if not a glare, to ensure that that is done in advance of the next Committee sitting, which is next week. That is something that I shall follow up with officials.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

This Bill has a lot of support from around the House, and the Government are making life more difficult for themselves by not getting these things out in advance. We have been waiting for this Bill for well over a year. Why has this stuff arrived literally this morning when the department has had a very long time to get it all ready? The situation is of the Government’s own making. A bit more planning would make things much easier. Although this is not the worst example, it is incumbent on the Government to get things out to Members and to the wider public who are interested.

[Lord Bradshaw]

To add to what the noble Lord has just said, the Bill is full of econometric analysis, which is extraordinarily time consuming and also almost incomprehensible to anybody who has not had training in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

May I push the Minister a bit further on incidental matters—what does he mean by that? In my contribution I said that you might have one incidental matter but if you have two, three or four it can become quite a big issue. Maybe he cannot do it now, but it would be useful if he could clarify the word “incidental” and what he means by that.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I will of course do so and will write to other noble Lords in that respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 7 —again in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—seeks to put on the face of the Bill another measure that may be specified in the scheme. This one is a requirement to contribute to reducing congestion on bus routes. With increasing bus use and bus service improvements, there will be a reduction in congestion on our roads, particularly in our towns and cities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, that is a win-win measure for us all. It is a welcome prospect for everyone. It means we can breathe cleaner air, there are fewer emissions released which harm our atmosphere, and journey times can be reduced. More people will use buses and car journeys can be reduced, with all the benefits to health; generally this is better for everyone.

The amendment, as I said, puts this aim on the face of the Bill. It is a very good idea; it is one of the proposals that should be specified in the scheme. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, I hope the Government can accept this, or at least agree to reflect on it, before we move to Report. It would be remiss if we could not get something like this on the face of the Bill.

As I have said in previous debates, we need to improve our bus services outside London and reverse the decline we have seen in recent years. One of the challenges of the Bill is to reverse that decline and, by improving bus services, we will have cleaner air. Reducing congestion is one of the ways we can have more people on buses and out of their cars.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, talked in his opening remarks about how Ministers before and Ministers today might respond, in terms of what decisions to leave to local authorities, and that this was a matter for them. I did at one point think he had advance notice of part, if not all, of my speaking notes. But undoubtedly, one of the new powers under an advanced quality partnership regime is to allow local authorities to introduce a range of measures to improve bus services. The Bill does not define—

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seeks to put in the Bill a provision to provide drivers with continuous training in the standard of service that may be specified in an advanced quality partnership scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, set out very clearly the reasons why this amendment is necessary and welcome, and I agree with the points which the noble Lord and other noble Lords have made.

Anyone in a professional job, particularly one in which there is responsibility for people’s safety, should be given continuous training to ensure that they are delivering their job to the required standard, are aware of particular issues, problems, ideas and practice that have come into play and know how to resolve disputes and issues in a proper manner when they are doing their job. I agree that being a bus driver is not only a responsible job but a very difficult one. I have seen it myself. You get on to the bus and you see the way some people abuse bus drivers. It is dreadful. I come from a family of cab drivers. All my family, other than me, have driven black taxis in London, so I know the problem of dealing with people. Bus driving is a very difficult job, and bus drivers deserve our support.

The amendment could apply to all sorts of things, not only to professional driving standards but to how to deal with difficult and abusive people and how to deal with the prams and wheelchairs issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, there is a court case pending. It is a very difficult and sensitive issue. How do you deal with disability issues in general, people travelling home late at night sometimes a bit the worse for wear, young people with no money and other issues? If there are no procedures or training, problems can often occur that can damage the reputation of the company and cause problems for individuals in positions where they are responsible for public safety. All sorts of things come into play. It is important that we have proper professional training for our bus drivers.

This amendment raises a number of important issues, and I hope the Minister will give a full response. If he cannot accept the amendment today, I hope he will agree that this is an important issue that should be looked at and reflected upon. It raises an important issue that we should be sure we deal with properly.

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

My Lords, I once again thank all noble Lords for their participation in this short debate, although I am mindful that the next time I get into a black cab having just finished a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I will be glowing in the remarks I make.

We will, of course, return to the issue of accessibility, which the noble Lord also touched on, at a later stage in our proceedings. I have met various noble Lords on this issue, and I assure the noble Lord, and all noble Lords participating in the debate, that the Government take it very seriously.

One of the new powers under an advanced quality partnership regime allows local authorities to specify the standards of service that operators must meet in order to run local bus services on routes covered by the scheme. These standards are set out in new Section 113E(4) and (5) of the Transport Act 2000, as set out in Clause 1 of the Bill. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord would add to this list of standards of service.

Amendment 10 would allow a local authority to specify the training regime for bus drivers on local services on the routes included in the scheme. Driver training is in two parts. The first is the mandatory training that all bus drivers must undertake in order to hold and retain the appropriate licence to drive buses. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about achievement, but I think many bus drivers would say that they do achieve a particular standard. These mandatory training requirements are set out elsewhere in legislation.

The second area, which noble Lords also mentioned in various contributions, is customer training. Such training is generally a matter for the employer. In this case, the driver is often the sole customer face of the bus company, and how they deal with passengers can have a big impact on how that bus service, and the bus operator more generally, is perceived. Noble Lords have referred to dealing with those with disabilities, and dealing with wheelchairs and pushchairs. Of course, as has been mentioned, there is a court case pending on that subject—so noble Lords will appreciate that there is little I can say at this time. How bus drivers are perceived, in terms of the service customers get from the driver, is often how the operator is also then perceived. Good customer training ultimately benefits the bus operators, and by providing a better service they increase the number of passengers.

In presenting this amendment, the noble Lord may also have had disability awareness training in mind. The mandatory disability awareness training provisions of EU Regulation 181/2011, due to come into force in 2018, would have required all bus drivers to undergo disability awareness training. But I am mindful of the situation that we now find ourselves in. Let me assure noble Lords that we are considering how to take forward the issue of such training in the longer term in the light of the referendum result. This important issue cannot be considered piecemeal, so the Bill is perhaps not the appropriate place to start that process. As I have already said, we are looking into how we can ensure that those mandatory requirements are met.

However, in practice, as noble Lords will know, most bus drivers already undertake this training as part of their certificate of professional competence, for which they must complete 35 hours of training in every five-year period. This is another obligation under a European law which we will need to consider over the coming months. We are also developing guidance on disability awareness training to provide consistency across the industry.

In view of this, I believe that, other than with the mandatory requirements, it should be for the bus company, as the employer, to decide what further training is most appropriate, taking into account the type of service, where it runs, and the range of passengers using the service. I hope that with that explanation, and with the assurance that we are looking at certain requirements in the light of the result of the referendum vote last week, the noble Lord will feel minded to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group of amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, seeks to provide free bus travel to homeless families placed in accommodation outside the local authority they normally reside in, with free bus travel under the various schemes referred to in the Bill. These amendments raise an important point, which is that homelessness and the housing crisis is resulting in people and families being housed in temporary accommodation, many miles away from where they normally reside.

As the noble Earl said, this then brings a whole raft of problems—about living in isolation; about being part of the community and then being taken away from that community; and about having to change schools or make a very long journey to get to school or work, or to see family and friends. Bus fares then become prohibitively expensive. The noble Earl raises a valid point in his amendments, but I think that the situation is much worse, particularly for homeless families in London. These families can find themselves sent to Birmingham, Derby, Nottingham and other cities in England and Wales, hundreds of miles away from the place they normally reside, way beyond the distance of a reasonable bus journey.

This is no way to treat people. We have to deal with the housing crisis so that people can have stability in their lives and live in homes they can either rent or buy, be that in the public or private sector. These homes need to be warm, safe, dry and affordable. We all know the rents charged in London can be truly shocking. Our society needs to create a situation where people can live together side by side, in homes where they can be part of the community.

My view is that these amendments raise an important issue due to the crisis we face. I am not sure they solve the practical problem, but I do think the noble Earl is right to highlight this issue. The reality is that people’s other problems are compounded by their being placed so far away. That is the difficulty. I do not know whether assisting with bus travel will deal with these matters. As the noble Earl said at the end of his remarks, the issue of cost comes into this too, as implementing the proposal could be prohibitively expensive.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in thanking the noble Earl for bringing this important issue to the fore. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has said, the amendments in front of us require operators of services delivered under franchising or enhanced partnerships, or advanced quality partnerships, to provide free bus travel for the homeless families placed outside of their local authority area. Like the noble Lord, I am sympathetic to the broad aims of the amendment and know that buses provide a lifeline for many in our local communities. However, having listened very carefully to the noble Earl, I think there may be more appropriate ways to address the issue, and I will of course pass on the issues he has raised to my noble friend Lord Freud.

As I have said before, this Bill will enable devolution. Reflecting on the noble Earl’s contribution, I would say that it will give local areas more control over their bus services. The issue highlighted may be another of the issues that particular authorities are looking to address. If so, they will be able to explore the options open to them through the tools provided in the Bill. I remain concerned that, as drafted, the amendment will perhaps unnecessarily tie the hands of authorities looking to implement franchising, advanced quality partnerships or enhanced partnerships. I fully accept that that is not the intention of the noble Earl’s amendment in requiring authorities to provide free travel where the benefit is not available in other parts of the country. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I believe it is an important point to raise.

I hope our discussion today and my comments have indicated to the noble Earl that we are sympathetic to the broad aims of the amendment. However, I maintain that there are more effective ways of tackling the problem that he has raised. I hope this has assured him to the extent that he feels able to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 18, 57 and 58, relating to Clauses 1 and 4.

Amendment 57 amends new Section 123H to make it clear that a franchising scheme cannot co-exist in an area where an enhanced partnership or advanced quality partnership scheme is in operation. The amendment is intended to tidy up the Bill rather than change the policy outcome.

Advanced partnership schemes and enhanced partnership schemes operate in a deregulated market. In such a market, operators can plan bus routes and charge their own fares. Both schemes require local services to comply with certain standards but do not allow the authority to dictate what services should be provided and at what price.

Under a franchising scheme, the deregulated bus market is suspended and services can operate in the franchised area only if they are run under contract or a permit or are an interim service. In practice, therefore, the partnership arrangements would cease to have effect when a franchising scheme came into force in the same area. The amendment provides for an enhanced partnership plan, enhanced partnership scheme or advanced quality partnership scheme to be revoked or varied so that it ceases to relate to the area in which the franchising scheme is being introduced.

Amendment 58 amends new Section 123H to provide that the authority or authorities to whose area or combined area the varied plan or scheme continues to relate may vary the remainder plan or scheme as they consider appropriate. The amendment stipulates that authorities varying an enhanced partnership plan or scheme in these circumstances do not have to satisfy all the tests described in the section that deals with variation of an enhanced partnership plan or scheme. For example, they will no longer have to have regard to the desirability of varying a plan so as to include in the area to which the plan relates any part of another authority’s area. However, the authority would still need to seek the support of operators and could vary the plan or scheme only if a sufficient number of operators did not object.

Amendments 14 and 18 make consequential amendments to new Sections 113F(4) and 113M(6) respectively. The reference to “section 123H(6)” has been deleted as a consequence of Section 123H(6) being removed by Amendment 57.

The letter explaining these government amendments was sent to noble Lords on, I believe, 16 June. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am not against the amendments as such. I made the point in earlier contributions that this is a Lords starter Bill, and here we are on the first day in Committee and the noble Lord comes to the Dispatch Box with some tidying-up amendments. It would be useful if he could explain to the Committee how the Bill got here. I assume that there is a meeting in the department in which things are looked at and signed off, with people saying at some point, “We think the Bill is all ready to go”. However, it has been in this House for three weeks and we have a raft of these tidying-up amendments. That says to me that there is surely something wrong with the signing-off process in the department. The Government have already uncovered issues and problems that should perhaps have been discovered before the Bill was brought to the House. So it would be helpful if the noble Lord could explain who signed off the Bill and how it got here. Maybe that needs to be looked at, because clearly something has gone amiss.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, Bills are drafted and consultations and further discussions are held. If any piece of legislation can be improved, no matter at what stage—this applies to any Government and any piece of legislation—I think that Governments are duty bound to introduce amendments that provide clarification or stipulate changes. This is not unprecedented. It is not the first, and will not be the last, time that changes are effected by the Government at different stages. We would be living in a rather perfect world if the first draft of any Bill went through unamended without any government amendments, consequential or administrative. I take on board his comment that we are on the first day in Committee and that there is a series of amendments, but it is better to do it early rather than late.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Of course no Bill is perfect. I accept that entirely. If it can be improved then we want to improve it. My point was more about the procedures in getting here. Most Bills that come here start in the other place. They have had a pretty good going over there and we give them a good going over here. Your Lordships’ debates highlight issues that the departments then reflect on. Here there has not been not much reflection but clearly, between the moment you published the Bill and coming here today, you found that there are some issues. I am glad that you have spotted them, but that says to me that maybe the procedures are not as good as they should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Amendments 16 and 46, in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, and Amendment 92, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would require consultation on an advanced quality partnership or franchising scheme to include recognised trade unions or other representatives elected or appointed by employees affected by the proposals.

Both Section 113G(3), on page 5, and Section 123E(4), on page 17, list who should be consulted. It is both surprising and disappointing that the recognised representatives of the employees are not included in this list. These amendments seek to correct that, and I hope that the Government will give their full support to this, since why would we not want to hear from the employees? They have an absolute wealth of knowledge and experience that would be very valuable to the company in putting these schemes together, and it seems obvious that we would want to include them. I am in full agreement with the comments of all my noble friends who have spoken in this short debate and I look forward to what I hope will be a positive response.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would add further requirements to the consultation provisions relating to franchising and the partnership proposals. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. I sympathise with their aims and I accept that this is an important point to raise. I agree that it is important that employee groups are consulted appropriately on proposals to improve local bus services. I agree particularly that significant changes to local bus services could well impact local bus industry employees, so it is only fair that they are given the opportunity for input in such circumstances.

In that regard, I encourage any authorities thinking of using any of the new tools in the Bill to engage with all the interested parties as proposals are developed. The likely impact on employees will, however, be materially different in the context of franchising, where it is more likely that service patterns, and potentially the operators of those services, will change than under partnerships schemes. So I agree that employee groups and others affected by the proposals should always be consulted formally on franchising schemes and I will consider how best to ensure that the Bill achieves the objectives of Amendment 46, as proposed by the noble Lord.

There are a number of ways in which this might be achieved. These range from the use of statutory guidance to an amendment to the Bill along the lines that the noble Lord proposes. I will take the comments from this short debate back, reflect on them and, I hope, work with the noble Lord to come back with something that represents what has been expressed. To pick up briefly the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the need for passenger representatives to be consulted on schemes, this is already included within the advanced quality partnership clauses, the franchising clauses and the enhanced partnership schemes in Clause 9. Coming back to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I hope I have demonstrated that, as Committee progresses, the listening goes beyond acceptance and sympathy to due consideration of some of the valid concerns and issues that noble Lords have raised. I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this next group of amendments, which are proposed by my noble friend Lord Judd and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Lady, Baroness Scott of Needham Market, concern national parks authorities in England and how they need to be involved in any proposals for advanced quality partnership or franchising models.

This whole issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Judd and others at Second Reading of this Bill on 8 June. My noble friend told the House then, and again today, that it was puzzling and not right that transport authorities had a duty to consult relevant local authorities but that did not include national park authorities. Many national parks have seen bus services decline, and that brings problems of people wanting to visit these wonderful, natural and beautiful places by other means of transport. I lived in Nottingham many years ago, not far from the Peak District National Park, and traffic congestion in the summer months was, and still is, a huge problem around the towns of Matlock, Matlock Bath, Ashbourne and Bakewell and many other beautiful places there. I think the bus service in the Peak District could be better. It would add to people’s enjoyment and reduce car use, which is a huge problem, particularly in the summer months, and causes problems for all sorts of people.

To make all that happen, we have to have these authorities properly involved and consulted on what is proposed and how they can work with the authorities to deliver real benefits for the area. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, all public bodies have a statutory duty to take account of the potential effects of their decisions and activities on national parks. Of course, that is not always monitored and enforced effectively, and the greater risk here is that these large and combined transport authorities will not get involved in that and that it will not happen. These amendments, by putting that into the Bill and not into guidance or any other sort of regulation will ensure that there is proper consultation. I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, will give a positive response tonight and that we can get these amendments into the Bill.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lord Attlee and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their contributions. The noble Lord proposes a number of amendments to the Bill, reflecting the importance of local bus services in promoting opportunities for public enjoyment of our national parks. I thank the noble Lord for tabling these amendments and share his enthusiasm for our country’s national parks. I recognise the negative impact that traffic and congestion can have on the tranquillity and the natural environment of some of our national parks, and I agree that good bus services can help address the problem and increase the number of people who can access the parks in a more sustainable way.

Further, I acknowledge the noble Lord’s stance on this matter and am keen to consider how we can ensure that national park authorities are fully consulted as new approaches to delivering local bus services are developed. I further agree that national park authorities’ views should also be obtained by any authority consulting on a proposal in relation to an area that lies near or within a national park, as the quality of bus services available in the area will have a huge impact on people’s ability to visit their natural environment.

I therefore may cause further surprise to my noble friend by saying that I will now consider how best to ensure that the Bill achieves the objectives outlined by the noble Lord. I hope that with the assurances I have given that I will consider what he has proposed and how we can incorporate the very sentiments he has raised in the Bill, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Legislative Reform (Community Governance Reviews) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 23rd March 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the order before us today will make amendments to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. The changes will make it easier to create new town and parish councils by improving the community governance review procedure.

Town and parish councils are a valuable part of our democracy and an important component of our vision for localism. Parish councils provide communities with a democratically accountable voice and a structure for taking community action. The Localism Act 2011 gives parish councils a range of powers, including neighbourhood planning, and we want to see parish councils take on a greater service delivery role for their local communities.

Many local communities clearly have a passion for placing power at a more localised level. However, the prospect of embarking on a lengthy process to realise that goal has discouraged many communities which wish to live in a parished area from exploring this opportunity. We are committed to working with local communities, councils at all levels, and representative bodies across the sector to explore measures to remove the obstacles that stifle the potential which exists for creating more new town and parish councils.

The legislation governing the community governance review procedure requires that every principal council conducts a review as it gives consideration to whether to create a new town or parish council. The proposals which I set out today will improve the experience for local communities, which will be better placed to achieve their vision of local governance at the grassroots level.

The draft legislative reform order was laid before Parliament on 11 December 2014 under the affirmative resolution procedure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee scrutinised the order on 21 January 2015 and raised it to the super-affirmative procedure. The chair of the committee, my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, invited the Department for Communities and Local Government to submit further information. I am pleased that following the submission of further details, the committee confirmed its satisfaction that the order now meets the tests set out in the 2006 Act. I am grateful to the committee for its hard work in scrutinising this order.

Before getting into the details of the amendments to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, I will briefly explain the background to these measures. In 2011, the Open Public Services White Paper set out the policy objective of making it easier to set up new town and parish councils. This reflected the growing belief among local campaigners and the local government sector that under the current legislation, the process is too burdensome and bureaucratic for local citizens.

We undertook two government public consultations to consider these proposals. The first consultation was conducted from October 2012 until January 2013 and sought views on a wide range of measures to improve the governance review procedure, including the three specific measures set out in the proposals today. It has been particularly insightful to listen to the views of bodies such as the National Association of Local Councils, the Society of Local Council Clerks and the Local Government Association and to learn from the first-hand experiences of new and established town and parish councils which have gone through the review process. Respondents to the consultation were broadly in support of the three measures proposed. As a result, the Department for Communities and Local Government decided to proceed with plans to introduce the three key legislative measures.

In the second public consultation, conducted between March 2014 and May 2014, we gave specific consideration to the use of a legislative reform order as the mechanism for introducing the proposals. All those who responded to the consultation fully supported the specific use of the LRO. Today, I am asking noble Lords to support the introduction of measures that will help to deliver on the commitment first made in 2011. Introducing these changes will benefit local communities by giving them a greater say in how their local neighbourhood should be governed.

In summary, the new measures will, first, reduce the percentage of local government electors required to sign a community governance petition that will trigger a community governance review from 10% to 7.5%. This change will enable local campaigners to obtain the required number of the local electorates’ support more quickly, allowing for the voice of communities to be heard and for the review to be triggered within a shorter timeframe. Secondly, it will reduce the period allowed for the relevant local authority to conclude a community governance review from 12 months from the date the review begins to 12 months from the date of receipt of the petition or application. Introducing a clearly defined timeline will significantly reduce the financial and administrative burden currently being placed on local communities. It will also help local communities to campaign more effectively by reducing the costs associated with delivering local campaigns, including the cost of producing leaflets, circulating campaign material and hosting meetings.

Thirdly, it will allow those neighbourhood forums which have a neighbourhood development plan that has passed a referendum to trigger a community governance review without the need for a petition. This significant change recognises the important role that neighbourhood forums play in our local communities. The membership of forums reflects the different people who live in a local area. Allowing forums which have already received support for their plans through a referendum to trigger a review will avoid duplication and acknowledge the extensive work that they undertake to engage the wider community in the discussions about forming a new council. These three measures will foster collaborative working between local authorities and campaigners, and lead to greater local democracy.

In summing up, I emphasise that the proposed amendments to the legislation will be invaluable for local communities. The changes unlock the barriers within the current legislation, which will enable local citizens to realise the benefits to be gained from living in an area represented by a town or parish council. We are seeking to complete the process of parliamentary scrutiny and to bring these changes into force as soon as possible. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, outlined, this legislative reform order makes it easier to set up new town and parish councils. At present, a local authority or local campaigners petition the local authority to create a new town or parish council. A petition must meet the threshold of signatures to instigate a review. The local authority must then set the terms of reference, including the geographical area the review will cover. The review is completed within 12 months, and the final decision rests with the principal council.

A number of changes are proposed in this order, and it would be useful if the Minister will comment further on them, including the decision to reduce the proportion of people signing the petition to 7.5% and the consequent reductions in the other thresholds. Did the department consider the practicalities of having a percentage figure and a small, fixed figure for smaller authorities rather than the current scale?

In respect of reducing the 12-month period from when the review begins to when the petition is received, how much of a difference is there in reality? Will the Minister give the Grand Committee more evidence for the assertion that where a neighbourhood forum has been set up it can trigger a review? I am not sure how many neighbourhood forums have been set up in England. Can the Minister tell the Committee anything on that?

I am a local councillor in Lewisham in south London. I represent the ward of Crofton Park. We have just started the process of setting up a neighbourhood forum. If the forum gets off the ground, I am not clear whether we want to go the further stage and consider setting up a parish council. Setting up the forum is quite a challenge for local people.

I am aware that a new parish council in London—Queen’s Park, Westminster— was elected last May. Does the Minister have any assessment of how it is working? Particularly for London to get a parish council—the first one in 50 years—is interesting. If he has any comments on it, that would be helpful.

Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Powers of Entry: Safeguards) (England) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 23rd March 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the order was laid before this House on 27 February and I beg to move that it be approved. The Government are committed to protecting individuals and businesses from unnecessary intrusion into their homes and business premises by public bodies. It is essential that powers of entry, as with any enforcement power, achieve the right balance between the need to enforce the law and ensure public protection and the need to provide sufficient safeguards and rights to individuals. That is why I am delighted to inform the Committee that the Government have clamped down on the overuse and abuse of snooping, with more than 300 powers of entry already being abolished. We have also stopped spy cars and bin snoopers. However, some powers of entry are important and reasonable, such as the need for council tax and business rate inspectors to enter a property to value it. We now propose to introduce three additional safeguards for individuals and businesses through the draft order.

The main change is that the draft order, using powers under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, would change the law so that officials from the Valuation Office Agency, an agency of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, should no longer have an automatic power of entry into homes and businesses to value them for council tax and business rates. We are proposing to amend the Valuation Office Agency’s powers of entry so that where consent to enter is not given, listing and valuation officers will have to seek the authority of the First-tier Tribunal before they can exercise their statutory entry power. The vast majority of inspections will continue to happen with consent. However, where consent is not given, it will be for the First-tier Tribunal to judge whether the inspection is needed.

Secondly, when listing or valuation officers exercise their power, if the property’s occupier obstructs them the occupier can be prosecuted and fined. We propose, through this draft order, that the fine level for council tax be reduced and aligned with business rates to level 1 of the standard scale. This is currently £200. The third and final change is that the period for written notices sent by listing officers and valuation officers in advance of inspecting a business property to business ratepayers following First-tier Tribunal authorisation is increased and aligned with that for council tax, to three working days.

These changes, if they are approved, will ensure that private and family life is respected at all times. They will ensure that the privacy of citizens’ homes and businesses is protected, while allowing the Valuation Office Agency to meet its statutory functions and enabling listing officers and valuation officers to fulfil their statutory valuation duties.

In drawing up our proposals, we listened to representations from a range of sectors. We had a total of 23 responses from local authorities, the Valuation Tribunal for England, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, Big Brother Watch, a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Rating Surveyors Association, and from members of the public. The majority agreed that the proposals set out in the consultation document sufficiently protect the privacy and rights of homeowners and businesses. There was no significant disagreement with the principle of requiring that listing and valuation officers should be made to seek the authority of the tribunal before exercising their power of entry. There were mixed views on whether to reduce the fine level for council tax and align it with business rates, to level 1 of the standard scale. The majority agreed with aligning the period for written notices sent by listing officers and valuation officers in advance of a visit to council tax payers and business ratepayers to three working days. Based on the details of the order, I commend it to the committee.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have too many comments to make in respect of this order. When I looked at the order, I noticed the reference to the Protection of Freedoms Act. This Government seem to like some grand titles for Acts. I think also of the SARAH Bill, which my noble friend Lord Beecham did for the Opposition.

There is a lot of florid language in this order. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, outlined, it ensures that when officials want to get entry to a property, if they have not been allowed it they have to seek the permission of the First-tier Tribunal. I have no particular issue with that. However, I saw that no impact assessment was done on this provision. Who will bear the costs of these actions? I hope that it will not be the taxpayer or the council tax payer. Why was no impact assessment done? Is it because in reality there will be a relatively small number of cases? That would be very useful.

Will the Minister also comment a bit more on the consultation? I read it and thought it was a bit more mixed than the Minister may have outlined. Also, who were consulted? I saw that Big Brother Watch is mentioned here, but what other groups were consulted? It would be quite nice to have a list of the organisations. I assume that local authorities were included. What concern did Big Brother Watch have? It stuck out on the list. I would appreciate some answers to those questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their questions, comments and general support for what the Government are proposing. I first thank my noble friend Lord True for his very kind remarks and, as a general point, I take on board what he said about powers of competence. From this Government’s perspective, the whole essence has been an increased focus on localism. He raises his points well and I am sure that both my party and others will listen to his comments with great interest as we move forward, post 7 May.

Turning to the specific questions from other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised the issue of the impact assessment for this change. The proposed policy changes do not actually fall within the scope of the reducing regulation committee, and so they do not need an impact assessment for this purpose. We do not anticipate any impact on the private or voluntary sector in this regard. A question was also raised about the costs associated with the order. As my noble friend Lord True pointed out, with most inspections there is an allowance of three working days and they will still happen by consent. There will be no significant increase in costs, as new costs for First-tier Tribunals will be paid by DCLG.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about consultation and whom we consulted. I listed a number of organisations and all the consultation details are available on the government website, GOV.UK. This includes all the statutory consultees I mentioned earlier.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Would it be possible to send me a list of the organisations consulted other than the obvious ones such as local authorities? It would be helpful to me if he could do that.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am quite happy to send the noble Lord the list of the statutory consultees, although the whole idea of putting it on the website is to open it up to whoever wishes to comment. However, if the noble Lord is asking specifically about the statutory consultees, I am quite happy to send him the list.

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the spare room subsidy by its correct name. Just by way of clarification, that is not assessed by the Valuation Office Agency and, as such, this order will not apply. I believe that I have answered the questions that were raised.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I just want to say that obviously we have great respect for the noble Lord. I think that all Members here have served on local authorities in the past. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord True, leads a council; my noble friend Lord Beecham has led a council; and I was deputy leader of a council many years ago and went back on to Lewisham council last year. Of course, I hope that we get back in May and that the position will be reversed. However, whatever happens, I have great respect for the noble Lord.

[Lord Beecham]

I hasten to add my agreement to that. However, with respect, the noble Lord has not answered a couple of the questions that I put to him. What will be the cost of the use of the valuation service and who will bear that cost? Will it be the local authority or the householder, or, to put it another way, the occupier of the property? In that event, would the cost apply only if he objected and the objection was overruled?

Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Friday 13th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. We do not have prayers at our council meetings. When looking at these amendments today it is worth reminding ourselves of the aim of the Bill—as has been made very clear by a number of noble Lords in their contributions today and in the Second Reading debate.

This is a passive Bill, which requires no one to do anything. It is permissive; it merely gives permission for councillors on parish and town councils and some combined authorities to do what they believed they were able to do in the first place. It brings them into line with the position on higher tiers of local government, namely districts, metropolitan councils, unitary councils, London boroughs and county councils. The Bill is needed because, although the Secretary of State was able, under his powers, to enable these higher tiers of local government to make the decision themselves, his powers did not extend to the lower levels of local government.

I have the greatest respect for all the noble Lords who have put their names to the amendments in this group. On many occasions in your Lordships’ House we have taken the same positions and been in the same Lobby. However, I contend that these amendments are not necessary.

Amendment 1 would remove the whole of the proposed new Section 138A and would effectively remove from the Bill the whole purpose of it being here in the first place. Amendments 2 and 5 would require there to be a two-thirds majority in favour of these proposals and for the decision to be reaffirmed every year at a meeting of the council. In my opinion, that goes too far and is not necessary. If the parish or other council concerned wants to avail itself of these powers, it would have to get agreement. A simple majority is perfectly acceptable in that regard. I agree entirely with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in that respect.

Amendment 3 seeks to restrict what is allowed to only silent prayers. Silent prayers may be what the authority wants to do, which is perfectly acceptable—or some other act of worship or philosophical belief. But to restrict that would again undermine the permissive nature of the Bill, in that you can do what you want to do: it is your choice. The Bill is not prescriptive in any respect whatever.

Amendment 4, again, is not necessary. Look at the example here in your Lordships’ House: every day one of the right reverend Prelates—today it was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester—starts our proceeding with Prayers. No one is forced to attend and it is the choice of individual Members whether they do. Those who choose not to attend wait outside until they are told by the doorkeepers that Prayers are over, at which point they come in and take their seats. No business is transacted whatever until Members have taken their seats. Do we really believe that that would not happen at meetings of local authorities? I do not accept that, by not participating in prayers, you would not be seen as a full member of the authority, as suggested by some noble Lords. Again, the amendment is not necessary as the Bill is drafted in such a way as to take account of what people themselves want to do. There is no pressure on anyone to do anything at all.

In conclusion, although I would not be affected by this particular group of amendments, I lived and worked for many years in the east Midlands and I attended the remembrance service that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester referred to. It is a very moving and respectful event for people of no faith and many faiths.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss both the broad intentions of the Bill—to give authorities the freedom to determine for themselves whether they wish to hold town hall prayers as part of official business—and some of its details, and, in those details, explain why we consider it a gentle and necessary measure.

This morning I woke up, as we all did—that is always an important part of the day. After doing that, I rather hoped that I might have had a bit of a lie-in, which means that I leave the house at about 8 am, rather than 6.30 am or 7 am. Being a father of three, with two children under the age of three—I know that those who are parents will share this experience—I was awoken at 5 am. One milk bottle followed another, after which, what did I do? I prayed, in my own Muslim way, in a moment of prayer and reflection.

I then travelled to the House, as all noble Lords did today, and arrived to be confronted by barriers and what have you. Sadly, there was an incident outside your Lordships’ House this morning. Nevertheless, I then came into your Lordships’ Chamber and prayed. I am grateful, as we all are, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for leading Prayers this morning. We started, as usual, with reflections on our duties, on what our country is about and on why we are here.

Community Right to Challenge (Business Improvement Districts) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has spoken glowingly about the progress the Government have made on the high street, but I put to him a recent report from PWC and the Local Data Company which, while recognising that the pace of retailers shutting shops reduced over the first half of 2014, shows that the gulf between openings and closures has nearly doubled. That survey covered the three months from July 2014 to 30 September 2014, and analysis shows that the net decline for the year to date has risen to 964 closures. That is quite a staggering number and belies, in effect, the fundamental point the Minister has made. Will he respond to that?

I have a specific question about what he referred to as the targeted discount for retailers—the £1,000, going up to £1,500—and the impact of EU state-aid provisions. As I understand it, it is subject to state-aid consequences. Is the discount per hereditament as long as the rateable value is not more than £50,000? Is the state aid de minimis similarly per hereditament or per business? I wonder how those two things are dealt with. In relation to the £1,000, if it is per hereditament, does that mean that the likes of Starbucks, with its renowned corporate social responsibility approach, would be eligible for the discount on each of its relevant outlets?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this regulation adds an additional type of body, the business improvement district, as a body able to deliver services locally. It can make an expression of interest in delivering a service under the community right to challenge provisions of the Localism Act. It enables certain bodies to provide services. In principle, that is fine, but it would be useful if the Minister could answer a number of points raised by my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. Could he also say a little more about the community right to challenge in itself, and what has been the benefit of the proposals so far? I have not heard a huge amount about them since they were put on the statute book. As for business improvement districts, and their work to improve town centres, have those in his department thought a bit more about the sort of service that they would see these districts actually deliver? Does he see any risk of fragmentation of services, for example by focusing on a particular high street or area, and perhaps even additional costs to business or residents?

I do not know whether the Minister was in the House yesterday, but his noble friend Lord Naseby asked a very pertinent Question about the crisis on our high streets. When she answered the Question, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, placed a lot of emphasis on “click and collect”. I notice that the Minister did not mention that once in his presentation here today, and I must say that I am a bit sceptical that click and collect is going to be the solution to the problems on our high streets. You have only to walk or drive around in London or elsewhere to see that there is a real problem in our high streets now. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, also made a very interesting point about how much tax is paid by booming internet-based companies, which again causes problems for shops that are trying to compete.

Could the Minister also talk about the whole question of infrastructure and transport, while he has his noble friend Lady Kramer here? For high streets and shops to work, good transport links are needed. That is an important point as well. If he could deal with that today, it would be helpful. If he cannot, perhaps he could write to me on that point. I am not against these orders, but they go much wider than some of the points raised yesterday in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their questions. As I said in an earlier debate, when we look at our local markets and high streets, it is important that we focus on these areas in a localised way. It is important to put on record that a business improvement district is a defined area in which a levy is charged on all business rate payers in addition to the business rate bill. The levy is used to develop projects from which those businesses in the local area will benefit.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised the PWC report. In my opening statement, I cited the improvements that we have seen in the high streets. We are giving local communities power to save shops through the community right to bid, and neighbourhood plans are also allowing local businesses to set out changes to local planning. I take on board the concerns that he raised about local high streets and the concerns about closures that have happened in certain areas. It is important that local authorities also take greater responsibility.

I remember from my own experience in a local authority when I was the cabinet member responsible that we ensured, for example, a simple solution on parking, which is now used extensively across London and other areas—20 minutes’ free parking to bolster the local shop network. That perhaps also alludes to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised about transport and supporting transport infrastructure. We need to ease the burden on shops and local businesses by helping them to facilitate foot flow and shopper flow into them. In many areas, local authorities do a very good job in ensuring that they can ease parking restrictions, for example.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, always asks very technical questions when I am in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I am minded of the fact that he researches these issues quite thoroughly. On the impact of state aid and the two questions that he asked, I seek his indulgence and will write to him specifically on those issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to the risk of fragmentation of services. I do not share that concern about BIDs because we are seeking to widen the scope of organisations that can deliver services more effectively. As I said in my opening remarks, when local authorities are looking to procure services, accountability remains with them. They are the democratically elected bodies that electors will hold to account. The idea is not to break up or fragment services but to widen their scope and to identify the bodies that can deliver services most effectively. Certainly there has been a demand to see how local businesses working in an area can take greater responsibility for local services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, it has struck me that we have not mentioned anything about the planning process. I am a councillor in Lewisham and the Brockley Road, which is in the area I represent, is a wonderful high street. It is vibrant and has many different types of shops there—there is a Co-op, a Budgens and other smaller shops—and the variety works. Lordship Lane, which is near to where I live, also has a great deal of variety.

However, there are other places which have problems and where there are not-so-good shops that are all very similar. This legislation may be part of the solution, but is there not an issue about the powers that authorities have in being able to use the planning process to ensure that they get a better variety of shops to serve their communities? You can find very good and very poor high streets close to each other, and the variety of shops, the kind of people who use them and the transport links can vary locally as well.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On some of the specific issues and more generally, the Government have sought to again look at the planning process to see how that may be improved. The concept of the changes we have seen—for example, in neighbourhood planning—allows local business areas and local people to set out what their planning priorities are. The move has been towards ensuring greater responsibility at a local level. However, we all share the noble Lord’s concerns. Local high streets are the lifeblood of what defines Britain today. The Love Your Local Market and Love Your High Street campaigns are not divided on political lines because we all support the incentive. Across the country, many local authorities of all political colours are currently looking towards their high streets and delivering and procuring good services from a variety of different providers. We need to recognise and applaud that—but, of course, there is always more work to do.

Local Government (Transparency) (Descriptions of Information) (England) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 12 January 2015. It is about transparency and accountability in smaller authorities. I welcome noble Lords’ support for local authority transparency in previous debates. The order adds to the categories of information about which the Secretary of State may require authorities to publish information more frequently than annually.

On 17 December, under Section 2 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the Secretary of State issued a code of recommended practice on the publication of information by smaller authorities—the Transparency Code for Smaller Authorities. This applies to bodies including parish councils, internal drainage boards, charter trustees and port health authorities with an annual turnover not exceeding £25,000.

It is the Government’s intention to make it a legal requirement for smaller authorities to comply with the code. This will include a requirement to publish certain information relating to all formal meetings. However, the Secretary of State may require authorities to publish information more frequently than once a year only if it falls within a description of information to which Section 3(4) of the 1980 Act applies. In short, legislation needs to set out which categories of information the Secretary of State can require to be published more frequently than annually. This order adds to those descriptions of information, information relating to the meetings of a relevant authority, including the agendas, minutes and any other information concerning matters discussed at meetings. This will enable us to require the publication of meeting papers, agendas and minutes more frequently than annually.

The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 introduces a new local audit framework for public bodies, under which smaller authorities with an annual turnover not exceeding £25,000 will no longer be subject to routine external audit on an automatic annual basis, although they will still have an auditor nominated to field any complaints from local electors. This is a more proportionate approach to the country’s smallest public bodies and the amount of public money they handle. In place of an external audit, these authorities will be subject to the requirements set out in the Transparency Code for Smaller Authorities. Since the requirements of the code will represent a substitute for external audit under the new regime, the Government believe that requiring compliance through regulations is necessary. This will ensure that accountability is maintained and will increase the ability of local taxpayers to see how their hard-earned money is being spent and their services delivered.

Central to local people holding their local authority to account is having timely access to information about how the authority spends its money and the goods and services it buys and provides. It is clear that once-yearly publication of minutes and papers would limit proper local accountability. Local people would be made aware of decisions only long after they had been made and the opportunity to participate or influence the process had passed. The publication of meeting agendas and papers three days in advance of meetings and of meeting minutes no later than a month after the meeting will give the local electorate a clear picture of the activities of these bodies and enable local people to participate properly in the local democratic process. Alongside the other publication requirements in the code, this represents real accountability and transparency to the communities these bodies serve.

Local agencies and people want the publication of key financial and governance data to be mandatory, as was clear from the broad support shown in consultation responses for the Government’s intention to increase transparency. To questions about making the code mandatory, 76% and 88% of respondents explicitly supported our proposals. Nevertheless, we are keen to support these authorities to meet the code’s requirements. We intend to deliver a programme of funding through the sector to assist these bodies in getting online and publishing the relevant information. This is currently being developed with the sector.

To conclude, the code is crucial to ensure that accountability and transparency under the new audit regime is not just maintained but increased. Now that we have reduced the audit burden, these authorities need to make sure that they are transparent to those who matter most: the local people they seek to serve. The publication of meeting minutes, agendas and papers is crucial for local people to see how the council is being run and how their taxes are being spent. Limiting the access to this information to just once a year would severely restrict local accountability. I am sure that most of us can relate to the conviction that greater transparency helps secure better services and greater accountability. Consultation responses have demonstrated broad support for increased transparency and for making the code mandatory. We should listen to these messages—and, based on them, I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, explained, the purpose of this order is to expand the description of information that the Secretary of State may require authorities to publish more frequently than annually. It affects a number of smaller public bodies, of which 5,300 have a turnover of less than £25,000 per annum. They will be exempt from routine external audit but will instead be required to publish information as specified for the benefit of local residents and others to see what has been spent, by whom and to what effect.

I agree that it is important to make this code mandatory. It is a substitute for external audit, and there will be benefits for the authorities concerned, because a considerable amount of information that they would be required to provide under FOI requests will be published routinely. That is welcome. It is also important that people are able to get access to information about what their authority is doing and to get that information in a timely manner; the point about the production of papers such as minutes and so on is therefore very welcome.

I have only a couple of points for the noble Lord. Can he confirm what the complaint process will be after expenditure details are published? If a resident has a complaint, what will that process be? Will it be, in effect, the same system that we have at present, or will it be something different? Can he outline that for the benefit of the Grand Committee? Can he also outline the process if an external audit is thought necessary? In such cases, how would it actually be triggered? With that, I am content with the order.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, on the first point, certainly nothing changes in terms of looking into complaints and raising those issues. The matters here are ones of transparency; if anything, the existing procedures and processes will be used more readily because of the fact that more information is available more readily.

The noble Lord raised an important and valid point on replacing the audit requirement with a requirement of greater transparency. If I may, I will write to him; we need to ensure that we provide a detailed answer because it will be relevant to local authorities. I look to my officials on this, and will ensure that that forms part of the code in terms of any exceptions that might arise. With those assurances, I commend the order.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Perhaps I may add that that is important in relation to the odd case among these very small authorities. I know from my time in local government that every now and again one does get problems that need to be dealt with. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would come back to me on that point.

Localism Act 2011

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 29th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, I pay tribute to my noble friend for her sterling work in negotiating the Localism Bill through your Lordships’ House. With her experience, she is well placed to talk about community rights. I can inform my noble friend that there are now 900 neighbourhood planning areas in place. Twenty-eight referenda were held; all voted yes. Some 1,200 community assets have now been listed for community bids, including football grounds, pubs, allotments, piers and village halls. Eight assets have now been bought and the Government have allocated a further £25 million to the community shares issue.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Lewisham Council. I am delighted that early this month the ward I represent established the first neighbourhood planning forum in the borough—that was great news. Will the noble Lord agree to bring to the attention of the Mayor of London the Localism Act and what it underpins? In Lewisham we have seen that he pushed out local people, pushed out the local community, pushed out the local council and took over the determination of the Convoys Wharf development, which is the site of Henry VIII’s Royal Dockyard. The only “local” there was the anger of local people, who were excluded from the development.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The description of my friend, the Mayor of London, is not one that I relate to—certainly not the description given by the noble Lord. The important thing here is the Government’s commitment to localism. I have already alluded to some of the steps we are taking. It is notable that many schemes are taking place locally, where local communities, the voluntary sector, the private sector and, indeed, the local council are active. I know this from my own life. In Wimbledon Park, one of my old stamping grounds, Wimbledon Park Hall, which I was delighted to open recently, is a great example of a developer, a local authority and the residents’ association working together to deliver a lasting community asset for local people.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as I said on the previous group of amendments, we support this clause and the intention to oppose its standing part of the Bill is just a device to enable a debate to take place.

These amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would remove the power of a police officer to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances under which an individual can be cautioned, and would also remove the power of the Secretary of State to change the period of time from the current two years which can be taken into account and counted as a previous conviction. It is important to provide a police officer with the ability to make this determination. I was pleased to hear the comment about a senior police officer being involved. The proposal to remove a power of the Secretary of State in this regard is not one that we are persuaded to support. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will explain the intention behind these powers and the government process for determining whether they should be used. What parliamentary process will be used? It is important that there is adequate opportunity for robust challenge and scrutiny of what the Government are doing. I have no other remarks to add on cautions other than to say that there is concern about their use for indictable offences. We support the intention behind the clause.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling the amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his general support in principle for the intention behind Clause 15.

Clause 15 places restrictions on the use of simple cautions by a constable. Simple cautions provide a means for a constable to deal with a person aged 18 or over who has admitted to committing an offence in England and Wales. A caution is primarily designed for dealing with low-level, mainly first-time, offending. While the use of cautions has been falling, it is clear that there are problems with how they are being used in certain circumstances.

The Government are clear that serious offences should always be brought to court. The Ministry of Justice publishes non-statutory guidance on how a simple caution should be used and the circumstances when a caution would not be considered appropriate. These provisions stem from the simple cautions review, which was itself prompted by public concern about the apparent misuse of simple cautions by the police for seemingly serious offending behaviour. The review set out to examine the way in which simple cautions were being used and consider the need for any changes to ensure that there continues to be public confidence in the use of simple cautions.

The outcomes of the review were published in November last year and concluded that simple cautions should not be used for indictable-only offences and certain serious either-way offences. These include possession of a knife, offensive weapon or firearm in a public place, offences involving child sex abuse or child pornography, and supplying Class A drugs. The MoJ guidance on the use of simple cautions was updated as a result and provides that a simple caution should be given for these offences only where a senior police officer believes that there are exceptional circumstances. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said about further discussions on this. I am sure that we will have further detailed discussions on definitions.

The guidance also makes it clear that for all other offences a simple caution should not be given where a person has been convicted or cautioned for a similar offence in the past two years. The Government have now decided to put these restrictions on the use of simple cautions on a statutory footing. This clause therefore provides that a simple caution may not be given for indictable-only offences, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be determined by a senior police officer, and the Crown Prosecution Service also needs to consent.

This clause also provides that a simple caution may not be given for certain serious either-way offences unless there are exceptional circumstances to be determined by a senior police officer. The list of serious either-way offences subject to this restriction will be set out in secondary legislation. Furthermore, for the remainder of either-way offences and all summary-only offences, the clause provides that a simple caution may not be given where the offender has been convicted or cautioned for a similar offence within the previous two years, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The clause provides for the minimum rank of a senior police officer who determines whether there are exceptional circumstances and whether the previous offence was similar to be specified in secondary legislation. The two-year period between current and previous offending behaviour may also be amended by secondary legislation.

Our priority is to stop the cycle of reoffending and ensure that serious offences are dealt with by the most appropriate method. Criminals should not get caution after caution for committing the same offence time and time again, often for serious offences. The public needs confidence that cautions are being used appropriately. This clause helps ensure that this happens and will provide clarity for front-line practitioners. In developing these proposals we have worked carefully with the police and prosecuting agencies to ensure that simple cautions are used effectively and appropriately. The clause should therefore stand part of the Bill. I give this explanation in order to highlight some of the detailed reasons for the Government’s thinking behind Clause 15.

Amendments 25, 26 and 27 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to specify, by way of order, the minimum rank of police officer who will take certain decisions. The amendments also remove the Secretary of State’s power to change the two-year period when considering previous offending history in relation to non-specified either-way offences and summary-only offences. By tabling Amendment 25, my noble friends Lord Marks, Lord Dholakia and Lady Hamwee would remove the power to specify by order the minimum rank of police officer who may determine exceptional circumstances—for example, when giving a simple caution for an indictable-only offence or a specified either-way offence, and when giving a simple caution for a non-specified either-way offence or summary-only offence where the offender has been convicted or cautioned for a similar offence in the past two years. This means that there would be no restriction as to the rank of officer that would be able to make these decisions under Clause 15(2)(a), 15(3) and 15(4). This would mean, in effect, that the most difficult decisions as to whether to administer a caution for the most serious offences, and for repeated offences, could be taken by the most junior constable. This plainly cannot be right.

The simple cautions review made specific recommendations on the rank of officer that ought to take certain decisions. These recommendations were taken forward in the revised guidance on simple cautions, published by the MoJ on 14 November last year. It is anticipated that the order-making power, exercisable by the Secretary of State in relation to determining the rank of officer who can make such decisions, will replicate the provisions of the guidance. Namely, a superintendent or rank above will need to make the decision that exceptional circumstances exist so as to give a simple caution for an indictable-only offence. In addition, an inspector or rank above will need to decide that there are exceptional circumstances that justify giving a simple caution for a specified either-way offence or for a non-specified either-way offence or summary offence where the person has been convicted or cautioned for a similar offence in the past two years. It is important that we are clear on who can make these decisions and that there are restrictions on it.

Amendments 26 and 27 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to amend the two-year period within which repeat cautions should not normally be given in relation to non-specified either-way and summary-only offences. This is a necessary provision. We are basing the two-year period on the same period set out in the guidance published by the MoJ that currently determines how simple cautions for such offences should be given. There may in the future be reasons to extend or, indeed, shorten the time period. The Government may wish to determine that repeat simple cautions should not ordinarily be given unless there are exceptional circumstances within a five-year period or, conversely, within a one-year period. This is the first time that we are placing statutory restrictions around the use of simple cautions, and there needs to be flexibility in order to ensure that the restrictions work properly. It is also worth noting that any such order made by the Secretary of State amending the time period must be made by the affirmative resolution procedure, and so Parliament will have a say in any change proposed.

I know that I have given a rather detailed explanation of the Government’s position but, in doing so, I hope that I have given enough reassurance and detail that my noble friend will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

Park Homes: County Court Judgments

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 18th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank my noble friend for his question, which raises a very important issue. Again, this comes down to the site owners, who are responsible for the provision of utilities on the sites. The Government are considering more effective enforcement and looking to work with local authorities to ensure that utility provision is effective and, as my noble friend has highlighted, specifically that the health and safety of people who often may be unable to fend for themselves is protected against unscrupulous site owners.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, why do the Government not monitor county court judgments? It would give them valuable information that they could use in policy development.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I have already observed that we have to strike a balance. The other side of the coin is that various options are open to people in pursuing county court judgments, which are decisions of civil courts. It remains primarily the responsibility of creditors to achieve a resolution. A range of measures is available, including warrants of execution, attachments of earnings, third-party debt owners and orders for sale, all of which can help in getting a resolution on outstanding issues relating to the obtainment of payment.