Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Bradley and Earl Attlee

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.