Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Bradley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, especially as a trustee of the Centre for Mental Health and the Prison Reform Trust. I will comment today on just two issues relating to the Bill: community sentences and imprisonment for public protection.

To set this in context, I point out that I share the views, well expressed by the Prison Reform Trust, that, far from being the simplification of sentencing that is claimed, the Bill adds to the piecemeal and confusing history of sentencing legislation, of which the Government claim to be so critical. I believe that it does so without a coherent philosophy to underpin its approach, and it guarantees the continuation of general sentence inflation, which has played a large role in undermining the ability of both prison and probation services to deliver rehabilitation goals that the Government again claim to promote.

We should be considering how we effectively reduce, not increase, the prison population by the further development of robust community sentences for offenders who currently receive a sentence of perhaps up to 12 months. This should particularly be the case for the huge number of offenders who suffer from mental health problems. It is estimated by the Centre for Mental Health that nine out of 10 prisoners have at least one mental health problem and the majority have multiple and complex needs that are often exacerbated by complex imprisonment and the fact that custody itself undermines their well-being.

I believe, therefore, that the Bill should seize the opportunity again, as I recommended in my report to government in 2009, to boost alternatives to the use of prison for appropriate offences. The community sentence treatment requirement programme is of special importance here. Where a CSTR service operates, currently on 15 sites across the country, it gives magistrates and district judges a sentencing option whereby a community sentence including one, or a combination, of three treatment requirements—drug, alcohol and mental health—can be applied. Dealing with all these issues together has proved to provide far better outcomes, especially in respect of reoffending, than short prison sentences, where little can be done to tackle these issues, which often underpin offending behaviour. Will the Minister support the rollout of this programme nationally as soon as possible and make a commitment in her reply tonight?

Further, regarding women in the criminal justice system, the Government’s strategy for female offenders has a clear ambition significantly to reduce the prison population by better use of community sentences. Clearly, as a committed member of the Government’s advisory board for female offenders, I fully endorse this approach, but I believe, as do so many voluntary organisations working with women offenders, including Women in Prison, that the Bill is a huge missed opportunity to progress this agenda, with the continued use of short sentences, unnecessary remand and, appallingly, building an additional 500 prison places for women, with the result of tearing families apart, children being taken into care, loss of employment and loss of accommodation, at considerable social and economic cost.

However, where a community sentence is imposed there is real concern regarding Clauses 125 and 127. They would give probation officers the power to strip a person’s liberty in ways that go beyond the ways the courts have sanctioned by compelling attendance at additional appointments and increasing curfew periods. Given that the consequences of failing to abide by such additional restrictions could involve breach proceedings and even imprisonment, understanding the exact procedures by which these decisions can be made and appealed will be critical as we scrutinise the Bill. People with mental health problems or learning disabilities and women with caring responsibilities can find it especially difficult to comply with such measures.

Briefly, I add my voice to the huge concern relating to imprisonment for public protection sentences, which was so well articulated by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, in particular. I will not repeat the devastating statistics presented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, but I repeat that IPP was abolished 10 years ago and there are still 207 people in prison today, more than a decade after their tariff expired. It is quite unacceptable. This situation must now be addressed urgently. I hope that the Government recognise that and that the Minister will support amendments to the Bill finally to resolve these cases, recognising public protection but providing fair treatment for these individuals.

Women’s Suffrage Centenary Fund

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can certainly take that back but I cannot make any undertakings at the Dispatch Box. However, I totally take the point that the noble Baroness has made.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am well aware of the keen interest that the Minister takes in her home-based activities in Manchester. Will she commend the campaign of Councillor Andrew Simcock of Manchester City Council to erect a statue to Emmeline Pankhurst, the leader of the suffragette movement—the first statue for women in the city—and ensure that Manchester gets a fair share of the fund when the allocation is made, so that the activities around the centenary are properly celebrated in the north of England?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord has asked me a question about which I am very enthusiastic. Manchester was not only at the heart of but provided the turning point for women’s suffrage. Manchester provides the turning point for many things, as we know. Not only do I applaud the efforts of Manchester but I wish its people well in this process.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my name is on the amendments in this group. My noble friend mentioned the importance of ensuring parity between physical and mental health services, and we will continue to raise that until parity is achieved. She also mentioned stereotyped assumptions as to links between mental health and criminal offending and racial stigma in mental health matters.

It occurs to me that the arrangements for using police stations as a “place of safety”—like others, I put that term in quotation marks—must be very difficult for police officers. They are not health professionals who can deal with physical health problems or mental health problems. We should not expect them to respond to a situation for which, however well intentioned, they are not qualified.

My noble friend also mentioned the question of funding. Inevitably, the reliance on increasingly stretched local authorities is an issue. Given that a place of safety includes residential accommodation provided by local social services, we need to recognise the importance of local authorities’ funding for new places of safety. The Government’s investment in that is a positive step. As with so many issues, this is not something that can be put in one pigeonhole and left there.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the crucial relationship between mental health and the criminal justice system. I make it clear at the outset that I support the objective of banning the use of police cells as a place of safety for adults. My comments are in the context of my own independent report published in 2009, which reviewed people with mental health problems and learning disabilities in the criminal justice system.

In the report I made over 80 recommendations for change, at least two of which are relevant to this debate. First, I recommended the establishment of multidisciplinary liaison and diversion teams composed of people with a variety of skills, including psychiatric nurses, learning disability nurses, drug and alcohol workers and many others, all working alongside the police in police stations to identify and assess vulnerable people and to support the custody staff at the first point of contact with the criminal justice system. This programme is being rolled out nationally. Currently, 55% of the country is covered. Additional money from the Treasury was allocated in July of this year to enable 75% of the country to be covered by 2018-19, with a view to 100% coverage by 2020-21.

Alongside this, and now properly integrated with liaison and diversion teams, is street triage. That is where the police and NHS staff work together in their local communities. It works best where there is a dedicated vehicle and they sit together, often with their separate laptops—we hope to link technology at some point—so that they can immediately assess the needs of vulnerable persons and stop them hitting against the criminal justice system. These are often the people who may be sectioned under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act, and this is where the second recommendation in my report is relevant today. I said then that, “All partner organisations”—by which I meant principally the police and the NHS,

“involved in the use of Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 2007 should work together to develop an agreed protocol on its use. Discussions should immediately commence to identify suitable local mental health facilities as the place of safety, ensuring that the police station is no longer used for this purpose”.

The recommendation was accepted by the then Labour Government and each subsequent Government—we are on to the fourth now—have committed to this objective.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 42 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I understand that the amendment may not be perfectly drafted—it may be more appropriate to have “of” rather than “and to”, but we can deal with that when the Minister gives me comfort that he accepts its basic direction of travel.

The amendment’s purpose is to look at the role of the auditor. It would ensure that that role is restricted to areas that are both within the auditor’s competence and entirely focused on the matters set out in proposed new Section 123D(2)(a) and (b), which states:

“The auditor’s report must state whether, in the opinion of the auditor … the information relied on by the authority or authorities in considering”,

whether the authority or authorities would be able to afford, make and operate the scheme and whether the proposed scheme would represent value for money, is of sufficient quality and that the analysis of the information is also of sufficient quality.

Without this amendment, proposed new Section 123D(2) could be interpreted as giving the auditor a wider remit, given that, as drafted, the auditor must give an opinion on whether the authority,

“had due regard to guidance under Section 123B”.

This guidance covers a much wider range of topics than those set out in proposed new Section 123D(2)(a) and (b), including the effects of the scheme, comparison of the proposed scheme to one or more courses of action and the scheme’s contribution to the implementation of wider plans and policies. As such, the current drafting risks giving the auditor a role which is beyond their professional expertise as well as creating conditions whereby a third party is second-guessing a locally accountable authority’s assessment. This in turn could introduce the kind of hurdle that led to the failure of the 2000 and 2008 Acts in creating a simpler route to franchising for those authorities that wish to pursue—I stress those that wish to pursue—this option.

The Government have committed to introducing a practical and efficient method of introducing bus franchising and this amendment, as redrafted, looks to assist them in that process.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I should first declare my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. In principle, I am in favour of the right of local authorities to franchise bus services. However, I expressed concern at Second Reading that the audit and scrutiny of proposed franchises needed to be tightened up, and I remain of that view.

I also said at Second Reading that the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill required substantial amendment to improve the effectiveness of audit and scrutiny to ensure public confidence in the financial robustness of franchising arrangements. Now, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, has pointed out, on Friday the Public Accounts Committee in its sixth report of this Session expressed some serious concerns about the extent to which consideration by central government of the local scrutiny arrangements had been adequate.

I quote, in particular, from its summary, which states:

“There has been insufficient consideration by central government of local scrutiny arrangements, of accountability to the taxpayer and of the capacity and capability needs of local and central government as a result of devolution”.

I have absolutely no doubt that local government may have the required capacity and capability—certainly in a number of places with which I am familiar. That is not to say that it cannot gain the capacity and capability to undertake successful franchising. However, I subscribe to the view that there has been insufficient consideration of this issue by central government and it really does matter.

In consideration of previous amendments, I noted that the Minister said that mayoral combined authorities were appropriate for taking forward the policies in this Bill and would have the necessary checks and balances in place. These amendments improve the checks and balances that the Government seek. If the Government listen very carefully to what is being said across your Lordships’ House, it is much more likely that franchising will succeed, and I am very keen that it should do so.

There are three amendments in this group. The one to which my name is attached tries simply to make it clear that the auditor should be independent of a local authority or a combination of local authorities. The other two amendments are in the same area, but address issues around affordability, value for money and the role of traffic commissioners. There are various ways in which that could be progressed. The Minister may say that this can all be addressed in regulation. However that is done, I hope that the Minister will be able to come back on Report—if he is not able to do so now—to explain that there is an understanding of the issue that the auditors’ scrutiny function in this case must be robust and seen to be robust and how the Government plan to take this forward to ensure that the public can have confidence in franchising arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, late or not, one has to look at the potential and the value of the particular amendment. I am greatly cheered by this amendment. It seems to me that we are in danger of totally losing sight of the ideal of community and the rest. A well co-ordinated, integrated bus service can play a tremendous part in furthering community activity. We just compound the problem of our individualistic society in which community is breaking down because people resort to their cars, go and do their shopping, go back home and watch the television, put on their computer or whatever it is. The fact is that, if we are to have a life worth living, we have got to have community. The bus can potentially be central to that community. I applaud the amendment.

[Lord Bradley]

My Lords, very briefly, I also strongly support these amendments—late or not. We hear under the devolution deal a lot about the integration of health and social care and the integration of physical and mental health. Part of that is the integration of the transport system to enable people, particularly in the conurbations and city of Manchester—a poor and often elderly population who rely exclusively on public transport. We are developing a very effective integrated public transport system—buses, light rail, heavy rail—but we need to ensure that it benefits all the communities across Greater Manchester. This amendment enables that consideration effectively to be brought to the table to ensure that we have the best services possible to meet the real needs of local people.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, just to pick up on a couple of points, whenever you see something that can be improved, at whatever time, improve it. It is as simple as that, and better early than late, as long as time lines are met. We have heard about the inspiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the ingenuity of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Indeed, this issue came up during the previous discussion. I am not sure whether the noble Baronesses received my letter in that respect—

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to my Amendment 60. My two amendments would make a rather significant change to new Section 123I of the Transport Act 2000: they would prevent a franchising authority from revisiting a failed franchise proposal for a period of five years.

One of the things that any business dreads is uncertainty. Consider the current situation in the UK: it adversely affects investment plans, recruitment decisions and the conduct of everyday activities. Bus operators are understandably concerned that through the measures in the Bill they could find their businesses under threat and, in the worst-case scenario, eliminated.

I will avoid rehearsing the arguments against franchising. My amendments seek to ensure that if a franchise proposal fails, for whatever reason, or if the franchising authority decides not to progress its plans—again, for whatever reason—the franchising authority must wait for five years before revisiting the issue and seeking to bring forward a new scheme. I am not necessarily wedded to the five-year period but the point I am making is that there must be a sensible gap before the process can start again, and five years seemed as appropriate a period as any other, particularly when the kind of investment decisions and long-term planning that transport providers make is taken into account. Most authorities do not change their political complexion very regularly but, in those areas that do, it is important that bus operators’ commercial decisions are not adversely affected.

The amendments would give some certainty to bus operators, and would allow them to continue to develop and improve their services, invest in new technology, innovate and react to changing and growing passenger needs. While quality contracts have been possible for the best part of 16 years, the process for bringing forward a franchise will be less onerous, and we know that these powers could be used as soon as they are brought into operation. So the threat would be very real and would be a constant dark cloud hovering above operators’ heads, even if a proposal had just been found to be unviable.

It may also be that authorities in scope might secretly welcome the amendments. The burden on local authorities grows and they are under huge pressure to deliver an enormous range of local services, from bin collection to care for the elderly to keeping the street lights on, with ever-dwindling financial resources. Having spent considerable time, energy and money on a franchise scheme that in the end was not progressed, authorities may value a legal reason that they can offer for why they cannot revisit the issue despite pressure to do so. I beg to move.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 61A in my name and to Amendment 66 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. On Amendment 61A, although the franchising authority should seek to enforce breaches of registration requirements by reference to the traffic commissioner, there are circumstances where that will not provide a swift, effective remedy. The right to request a court to exercise its discretion to grant an injunction is a more appropriate and proportionate measure for use in urgent cases to prevent serious breaches of the registration requirements.

The amendment is based on a similar provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A reference to the traffic commissioner would result in an investigation, followed by the possible imposition of sanctions, including a financial penalty and compensation. However, the process might require weeks to complete, during which an operator could continue to run services in breach of the registration requirements. The ability to apply for injunctive relief would allow the franchising authority to safeguard the franchise scheme in critical circumstances. It is anticipated that it would be used only in rare and specific circumstances, but it would give the franchise extra protection.

The purpose of Amendment 66 is to ensure that the franchising authority should not be obliged to issue a service permit where it would have an adverse effect on the financial and economic viability of the wider bus franchising scheme. It should not have to provide one if, for example, it would adversely affect tram, light rail or heavy rail services within the area. The service permit regime in the Bill is the way in which, first, cross-boundary services can be provided—in other words, services that go in and out of a franchised area—and, secondly, services can be provided where no service has been provided for in the franchise contract. The franchising authority has to grant permission for such permits, but the Bill prevents operators using these provisions to cherry pick and, in doing so, to undermine the wider franchise by enabling the franchise authority to refuse a permit where it would have an adverse effect on any service provided in the franchise.

Amendment 66 would extend the safeguard explicitly to include consideration of any impacts on the wider economic and financial viability of the bus franchise scheme. It would also enable consideration of wider public transport services. There would otherwise be a loophole whereby an operator could undermine other forms of public transport by, for example, running a bus service in parallel with and in competition with a bus rapid transit system or a light rail system, both of which currently operate within the Greater Manchester footprint. This could undermine the wider integrated public transport network, of which the bus franchise forms a part, by undermining its economic position and its fully integrated nature. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these points.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 67 raises in relation to bus users the same issue of principle that was raised earlier. Before I briefly explain in detail, may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the assurances he gave earlier today? We are very grateful to him for the progress we have made on this issue.

In the case of franchising, before an authority publishes or withdraws a franchising notice, the Bill specifies that, quite reasonably, it has to consult

“persons operating local services in the area to which the scheme relates”.

According to the Bill, it also has to consult,

“other persons whom, in their opinion, it would be appropriate to consult”.

What is wrong with saying that it is right to consult bus users? It is obviously right to consult bus operators and it is clearly right to consult bus users. Greater prominence and guarantees simply must be given to the views of bus users, whether they choose to make their views known either locally, through small and informal groups, or nationally—for example, through Transport Focus. I urge the Minister to encompass this amendment with the other amendments which relate to bus users.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bradley]

69: Clause 4, page 30, line 18, after “time” insert “and within such timescales”

[Lord Bradley]

My Lords, I shall be brief on this amendment, which pertains to new Section 123X, which is headed:

“Local service contracts: application of TUPE”.

The explanation for the amendment is that it should be possible to ensure that responses to requests for information under this section are provided within a specified timeframe. To ensure that the overall process is achievable in a timely way, the amendment would ensure that an authority could set a timeframe for the provision of such information. It would also reduce the scope for gaming or playing for time to frustrate the development of a franchising scheme. Information under this section of the Bill is essential for the effective introduction of franchising. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on the timescale appropriate for the provision of this essential information on TUPE arrangements. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Bradley]

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

Amendment 69 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 72A, 72B, 73 and 73A. I do not think I need to detain the Committee very long on this because it is the same issue of timescale that my noble friend Lord Bradley spoke to on Amendment 69. It would be good to hear some comfort from the Minister that all these issues could be addressed and responded to in a suitable timescale, and it would be good to see some of these amendments, if not all of them, in the Bill.

My only other comment is on Amendment 70, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Information about environmental impact and air quality data is essential, not only linking them to vehicle emissions but also to the surrounding air quality, which we have spoken about in Committee before, as well as to the safety records of bus operators. That is an essential part of providing the evidence that they are of quality and intend to maintain that quality, if and when they run the franchise. I beg to move.

[Lord Bradley]

I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 73. I will not repeat the arguments I made for the previous amendment, but this amendment suggests an upper limit of 30 days, which is reasonable and justifiable in the context of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s further comments on that proposal.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

To sum up, this is a detailed list of amendments to start with, but the general principle is clear. We want a range of issues to be taken into account regularly by local authorities, whether they are seeking partnerships—of either sort—or franchising, because we believe that that package of issues is essential to improving bus services and attracting new users.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to my Amendment 5 and to others in the group. I preface my remarks in Committee by reminding the Minister what I said at Second Reading: it is essential that the Bill reaches the statute book to comply with the devolution deal for Greater Manchester and for the elected mayor. I live in Manchester and am obviously grateful to Transport for Greater Manchester for its support for the Bill. Does the Minister envisage any circumstances where this legislation will not reach the statute book and yet fulfil the requirements of the devolution deal?

The purpose of Amendment 5 is, very simply, to add another condition and extend the criteria for an advanced quality partnership scheme, so that a scheme can be introduced to protect the current quality of services for passengers. A transport authority may wish to introduce an advanced quality partnership scheme in order to lock in the quality of services already being provided rather than to prevent decline or increase patronage. This could be used to deter attempts to reduce the current standard of service, for example through an operator using lower-quality vehicles than are currently provided or through it taking other measures that would reduce service quality. This amendment would lock that provision in, and I hope the Government will support this addition.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 5A, which is in this group. When I reread the Second Reading debate and reflected on the amendments which have been tabled, it struck me very forcefully that a huge number of them relate in some way or other to the question of accessibility, whether that is accessibility of ticketing and information or in terms of proper provision for people with disabilities, in rural areas or of different age groups. That led me further to think that perhaps the fact that so many amendments are being tabled about accessibility suggests that there is something fundamentally missing in the ambition of the Bill. I have tabled this amendment because it is important sometimes to have aspiration and to say right up-front that this is not just about stopping the decline, as my noble friend said earlier, but about something more than that and about actually improving the standards of services. That is why I have tabled this amendment. Otherwise, there is a danger that it becomes primarily a sort of regulatory and financial Bill that is not underpinned with aspiration.

I am particularly concerned about rural bus provision—coming from a rural area, I guess that that is inevitable. As I said at Second Reading, I can understand why tiny villages like mine no longer have bus services, but we are now in the position where quite sizeable communities no longer have bus services after, say, 6 pm, or at all on Sundays. Some quite large villages now have no bus services at all. The community transport network has, to a large extent, stepped in to meet that provision, but in Suffolk and other local authorities that is under threat, too. I am disappointed not to have received a written response from the Minister’s department to the points I raised at Second Reading, specifically to one which has emerged in Suffolk, where the retendering of community transport in the Mid Suffolk area, where I live, has resulted in passengers no longer being able to use their concessionary bus passes. The noble Lord is an imaginative man, and I am sure he can understand how much distress this has caused people locally. I would like to review this issue in the regulations which say that a nine-seater vehicle cannot be eligible for the use of bus passes. I did raise this, and I would like him to respond—not today probably, but in writing.

My understanding was that we would also have something about rural proofing in time for this stage, and we have not received that either, unless it is in the impact assessment, which I have not had time to read in detail. I have had a look through and have not spotted very much—my noble friend is now indicating there is very little. I think that means there may be some rural issues that we will have to return to on Report, as we clearly cannot deal with them now.

This franchising approach can really deliver for rural areas if we get it right, so I am very positive about the general provision. I have been in contact with people in Jersey, where they brought in a franchising system. They have 80 buses serving a population of 100,000; yet, in that very small pool, they have had an increase of 32% in passenger numbers in the last three years, and, significantly, they have saved £1 million in public subsidies. This shows that this is not just about scale—you can have a win-win situation of saving money and improving accessibility. I do think that, if we get this Bill right, we can deliver that for our rural areas.

I asked the Minister at Second Reading about links with home-to-school transport, which is again significant in rural areas. It is not just about access to education—although, goodness knows, that is the most important reason for the provision of transport to young people—because there is a close relationship between the provision of education bus services and the normal services. However, it goes deeper than that, because local authorities spend a significant amount of money on public transport for pupils, particularly those with special education needs. Young people and children with special educational needs are encouraged to use public transport as a way of preparing them for leading full lives later. Indeed, the Children and Families Act 2014 specifically encourages the giving of bus passes to young people with SEND. Yet in rural areas there are increasingly no buses on which to use the bus passes. For example, Surrey currently spends £25.5 million a year on SEND transport. If we can find a way of bringing some of this together, we can get much better value and improve the services. But there is a fear among community transport and smaller operators that the Bill as drafted is just there for larger companies, and will not help them.

Finally, there is one way I think this might be dealt with. It came to me rather late, and I apologise for that—otherwise, I might have tabled a separate amendment. We do have the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which includes transport services. I wonder whether the Minister could undertake to include reference to this in the guidance to remind local authorities that, using the social value Act, they can take a broader view of the services they provide in terms of placing a value on social as well as financial outcomes.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to make a short contribution to this Second Reading debate. In the light of the excellent contributions we have already had, I think I will be even shorter.

The Bill is incredibly important for Greater Manchester. I live in Greater Manchester, so I will restrict my comments to the issues in the Bill that relate to that area. I shall give noble Lords some background on Greater Manchester and buses. Buses are vital to Greater Manchester’s economy and society. More than 210 million journeys were made by bus in 2015. Bus journeys accounted for 79% of all public transport journeys; 12% were by tram—despite the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, I am still a strong advocate of trams—and 9% by rail. Crucially, 31% of households in Greater Manchester do not have access to a car. I am not arguing that we should increase car use, but we must have a decent transport system to ensure that everyone can benefit from the local economy.

Despite a growing population and increased demand on the transport network, overall bus use in Greater Manchester has flatlined over the past 10 years. Across the whole of Great Britain, it has fallen by a third, if we take out London. In comparison, bus patronage in London has increased by 99% since 1986. In Greater Manchester, 80% of bus services are run by different commercial companies. They set their own ticket prices, timetables, routes and quality standards. Transport for Greater Manchester currently has no powers to oversee these services, so the popular routes are chaotic and uncontrolled. On the route I use—the Wilmslow Road corridor running south out of Manchester—you can walk to the end of the road and get a bus of variable quality practically every five minutes. However, as my noble friend Lord Whitty pointed out, there is no connectivity between north and south Manchester, and it is even worse east and west across the conurbation because of deregulation.

The deregulated bus system limits the degree to which bus services can be fully joined up and co-ordinated with each other and with other public transport modes. Confusing fares, routes and timetables can put many off using buses. Greater Manchester’s population and economy are growing, with an expected population of over 3 million residents by 2040. Having an integrated transport system is essential to support the city region’s ambitious plans for growth and to meet the real needs of local people—and, as we have heard in some excellent contributions, that means the real needs of all local people, including those with disabilities.

Against that backdrop, I shall touch on franchising. As the Minister will know, it was a condition of the devolution deal and the requirement for an elected mayor that the powers over buses and wider transport issues were transferred to Greater Manchester, enabling it to take back its determination to improve bus services and connectivity across the local area and to provide better standards on those services. Operators will be able to bid for the services under franchising, but with clear and consistent conditions for Greater Manchester.

Through bus franchising, which I welcome, Greater Manchester will have the ability to decide the routes, frequency, fares and quality standards for all buses in the city region. We believe that the franchising model provides the simplest, most effective mechanism for enabling a fares model that is multimodal and facilitates fare-capping systems, as found in most international cities. It will also enable Transport for Greater Manchester to deliver better value for money across the area in terms of both revenue and capital support, as opposed to what we currently have in the deregulated system.

As has already been said, that raises the question: if I am praising franchising, why is it not allowed outside an elected mayor area, particularly in local rural areas that are connected to the elected mayor areas—as in Greater Manchester—that form part of the travel-to-work area? We need co-ordination and consistency to enable those people to benefit from economic developments within urban areas. I am sure we will pursue this as the Bill goes through its stages; it is a very important consideration.

On ticketing, one of the biggest frustrations in Greater Manchester is the inability to have an advanced through-ticketing system that is multimodal. The way London operates such a system is the envy of people in Manchester, who want to see the same opportunities to move around Greater Manchester on different forms of transport. The ability, through the open data provisions in the Bill, to facilitate new products to market—new technologies and new payment systems—is crucial to gain the maximum benefit from the Bill and, through the use of technology, to improve the passenger experience. Again, as we have heard eloquently expressed, it is important to ensure that those best bus technologies are used to the benefit of all, including, crucially, disabled people. Those technologies should be developed fast and implemented in franchise areas at the earliest opportunity to maximise the benefits of the Bill.

I acknowledge, as the Minister said in his remarks, that the enactment of the Bill is a condition of an elected mayor for Greater Manchester. We therefore need some clarity and certainty that that will happen in time for the mayoral elections in 2017. As my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch said in her opening remarks, a large number of clauses in the Bill include provisions which would allow the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation and guidance. The Government have confirmed that at the same time as the Bill progresses through Parliament there will be consultation and finalisation of regulations and guidance. This will be absolutely crucial in the House. Too many times recently we have had enabling Bills without that full scrutiny alongside the primary legislation which enables us to be certain about the consequences of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister would not want that to happen in this case and will want to ensure that there is readiness for the mayoral elections in Greater Manchester.

Can the Minister therefore clarify what steps he is taking to ensure that all stakeholders are actively engaged in the process of developing draft regulations and guidance? Can he also give an assurance that the draft regulations and guidance will be completed in a timeframe that will comply with the devolution deal in Greater Manchester? I hope that he will give us a timetable and some assurance on the transparency of that process when he winds up tonight.

In conclusion, there is clearly a broad welcome for the Bill. Franchising will allow for the introduction of better bus services across Greater Manchester as part of a fully integrated and high-quality transport network, with through-ticketing at its heart, for the benefit—I stress again—of all local people in Greater Manchester.