Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group after my noble friend Lord Effingham spoke, but I am prompted to do so by an earlier intervention.

It is very important that, when you make a large change, as is proposed here—the Government will claim that this is a significant change, I think, and rightly so—you are clear about what you are trying to achieve. We might assume that everyone wants better buses and so ask why there is a need to say it, but you need to be clear about what you are trying to achieve. Of course everyone wants better buses, but what actually constitutes better buses? When the railways were nationalised, everybody wanted better railways. They did not necessarily imagine that, in the 1960s, that would involve slashing nearly all the branch lines in the country and making a dramatic change to the way in which the railways operated by cutting them back.

I am in some sense trying to help the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, with his question on the purpose of the amendment. There is also a further question: if you have an objective, who is to be held to account for that objective? This seeks to hold the Secretary of State firmly to account and put him at the centre of the chain of being responsible for this Bill.

It seems to me that there is nothing else in the text of the Bill that explicitly puts passengers, passenger needs and the quality of the service they receive at its heart. I think that there would be great benefit in doing so. We know that the Government and local transport authorities are responsible to multiple stakeholders—not only the users of their services but their workers, trade unions, local electors and so on. They have to balance the large number of needs and demands on them. The amendment says that the requirements of passengers come ahead of those others and that the Secretary of State would be held accountable if the Bill did not work out in improving passenger services. I find it difficult to see, first, why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has difficulty understanding that point and, secondly and perhaps more importantly, why the Minister, should he be moved to resist this amendment, would want to do so.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the first group of amendments relates to the Bill’s purpose. At Second Reading, I set out the need for this Bill and explained why the Government are taking action to transform bus services across England. The Bill provides new powers for local leaders, so that local communities in England have greater control over bus routes and schedules. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their amendment and the opportunity to revisit the Government’s objectives.

Amendment 1 would place a direct requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to improving the performance and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain—in fact, it would make this the statutory purpose of the Bill. I absolutely support the reasons why noble Lords have drafted this amendment: they, too, want to achieve a better bus network that is more reliable and performs well. That is a shared goal. The reason we are here debating this important legislation is to reform the industry.

I recognise the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, about the KPMG report, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, about the benefits of buses to individuals and communities, as well as the inadequacies of the current arrangements. However, I am bound to disagree with the assertion that there is no evidence for the Government’s approach. There is plenty of evidence, some of which we have already talked about, such as the improvements in Manchester and elsewhere, including Cornwall, which is not a large conurbation. I also disagree with the assertion that there is public good and private bad in here. This is a very large menu of choices for local transport authorities. It is certainly not one size fits all.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, observed, during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Gascoigne, tabled a very similar amendment. It sought to insert a purpose clause setting out improvement of passenger railway services as the purpose of that Act. At the time, I explained that the Secretary of State’s and the Government’s wider plans and objectives for the rail network included improving performance but noted that this was not the sole purpose. I offer the Committee the same rationale for this Bill. The amendment to the public ownership Bill was not carried.

Of course the objectives of this Bill include improving reliability and performance. They are important aims, but the Bill seeks to do more. It seeks to improve safety and accessibility, to provide local leaders with the powers to make the right decisions for their local areas, to support reaching net zero and to put passengers at the heart of the Government’s reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, was kind enough to suggest that I would not let ideology triumph over the right solutions. In this case, the Government are not doing that, either.

The Bill contains a range of solutions for local bus issues, which allow local choices for the best solutions and would recognise, in appropriate cases, both the adequate provision of bus services by their existing means, with commercial operators, and the range of solutions, including both large and small operators. To single out one objective would undermine the message that the Government are trying to convey to local authorities, passengers, operators and the wider industry. Thus, I do not support the proposal.

Extending this requirement across Great Britain also presents significant difficulties. The Committee will have noted that most of this Bill extends to England and Wales but applies only in England, with a limited number of clauses that extend and apply to Wales and/or Scotland. In tabling Amendment 1, noble Lords appear to be seeking to apply all the Bill’s measures across the whole of Great Britain. That would raise the potential of cutting across the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Governments to decide how to run their own bus networks and what is best for their local communities. That would not be the right approach. It would mean the UK Government interfering in policy areas where the devolved Administrations categorically do not want that. It also potentially undermines their reform agendas; as some noble Lords will be aware, the Welsh Government are due to introduce their own Bill into the Senedd in the coming months, as they seek to introduce bus franchising.

This amendment would also have significant ramifications on time and resources. Local transport is devolved, so legislative consent Motions would be required. That would potentially slow down the passage of the Bill and the pace of the Government’s reforms, which would be a bad outcome for passengers, who desperately need better bus services now, for the reasons set out by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness earlier. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not want this outcome and therefore hope that this amendment will be withdrawn.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, but I cannot hide the fact that we are disappointed. The former Secretary of State for Transport in the other place, Louise Haigh, stated:

“Reliable, affordable and regular buses are the difference between opportunity and isolation for millions of people across the country”.


She went on to pledge that a Labour Government would empower every community

“to take back control of their bus services, and … support local leaders to deliver better buses, faster”.

Action speaks louder than words and we must see follow- up. That is why we must ensure that the Bill lives up to the expectations of those who rely on bus services every single day.

Promises will do little to help the millions who depend on reliable transport. They need tangible improvements and accountability to be enshrined in this legislation. I believe that placing this explicit duty on the Secretary of State would provide a valuable guiding principle throughout the Bill’s implementation. It would ensure that every step taken under the Bill would be aligned with the objective of improving bus services for all those who rely on them.

I remind all noble Lords that paragraph 1 of the Government’s Explanatory Notes for this Bill states:

“The Bus Services … Bill brings forward primary legislative measures intended to support the government’s commitment to deliver better buses”.


Please may I ask: what better way is there to show commitment to passengers than by committing to this amendment? If the Government do not feel that this purpose clause is necessary for the Bill, can the Minister please explain how they will make clear their wholesale commitment to passengers across the board? On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this next group of amendments, as we have heard, relates to bus franchising. I will first turn to Amendment 8 in my name. This amends paragraph 9(3)(a) of the Bill’s Schedule, which sets out the procedure for varying a franchising scheme. It is minor and technical in nature. The amendment inserts the words

“which have one or more stopping places”

into this paragraph. This is the form of wording used elsewhere in the legislation, including elsewhere in the Schedule, to ensure that cross-boundary services are captured. This wording ensures that if a franchising authority reduces its franchising scheme’s area, it must consult all those operating cross-boundary services, as well as those operating local services wholly inside the area. This is an entirely appropriate requirement if a franchising authority is seeking to reduce a franchising area, and it is important that the language is updated to reflect that and to ensure consistency across the Bill.

I am not sure which amendment it would refer to, but I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his intervention about Cornwall. As a matter of fact, I was with the person he referred to, Nigel Blackler, the architect of the Cornwall bus scheme, this morning, and also Councillor Davis from Devon from the south-west. They are so keen on the Cornish experience that they are proposing, after the passage of this Bill, assuming it becomes law, to extend it to the whole of south-west England. This is a testimony to the broad level of support for these measures given, as no doubt noble Lords will know, the political composition of Devon County Council.

As to Mr Blackler’s experience, I think he has devised an extraordinarily good scheme for Cornwall, despite not having worked in either London or Manchester. The heart of that is the understanding of the local need for bus services, not necessarily the technical characteristics of a franchise. I commend him on the success of the scheme, as has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

Moving on to other amendments in this group, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for Amendment 2, which seeks to amend Clause 4. I understand that its intent is to test whether the Bill’s removal of the requirement that the mobilisation period be less than six months removes the requirement to have a mobilisation period at all. The mobilisation period is, of course, the time that expires between a franchising authority letting a contract for franchised services and those services coming into effect on the ground.

We want to give franchising authorities the flexibility to set the mobilisation period that suits their needs, so they are better placed to make the right decision for their communities, but I want to clarify that the Bill does not remove the requirement that a franchising authority sets out a minimum mobilisation period. While a franchising authority could make this period as short as it chooses to because of the Bill—for example, a minimum of one day—this determination will be based on the practicalities applying to individual franchising authorities on the ground. It is therefore best left to those authorities’ devolved decision-making. There is also, incidentally, no removal of the requirement for a minimum mobilisation period in the transitional provision in this clause. I hope that this clarification satisfies the noble Lord and allows him to consider withdrawing his amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has tabled Amendment 3 on service permits. He readily admits that this amendment, if it were included in the Bill, would largely wreck the franchising model. Of course, I respect his knowledge of the history of road services licensing from the 1930s, as well as the long and distinguished history of London Transport and its successors. As he is aware, service permits provide franchising authorities with a mechanism to allow bus operators to provide commercial services within franchising scheme areas, including important cross-boundary services. The measures in the Bill add further tests that franchising authorities can use when determining whether to grant a service permit.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that these new tests allow franchising authorities to consider a wide range of benefits that these commercial services could provide, therefore giving authorities more scope to grant service permits and harness the additionality that the market can provide. The amendment would remove not just the new tests proposed by the Bill but the existing test already in legislation. It would mean that franchising authorities would be required to grant all applications for service permits, including those which compete directly with franchised services, for example. Because this amendment would undermine franchising authorities’ ability to run coherent and affordable schemes, I ask the noble Lord to consider not pressing it, noting that it does allow, in appropriate cases, commercial services to be provided as a matter of additionality.

Amendment 5, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to include the data and criteria that can be used by an independent assessor when reviewing a franchising assessment. It must be for the local transport authority to decide which data it will use to carry out the franchising assessment and determine its affordability, not the independent assessor. The remit of the independent assessor is limited to ensuring a robust assessment of the information that the franchising authority has used. The local transport authority is best placed to understand the issues it faces, as it did in Cornwall, and how best to assess these from the available datasets. New datasets, fortunately, become available frequently as technology develops. This amendment is therefore unnecessary and I look to the noble Lord not to press it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, spoke to Amendment 6, brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. This proposes a change to Clause 9. As noble Lords know, as part of the Government’s commitment to improve bus services and hand more powers to local leaders, the Bill aims to accelerate and lower the cost of the franchising process. To that end, the Bill will remove the existing requirement that those conducting independent assurance of authorities’ assessments must be auditors. This requirement has significantly restricted the pool of people able to undertake these reports. Instead, qualifications and other experience enabling someone to undertake reports will be set out in secondary legislation.

The amendment seeks to

“inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the ‘approved persons’ role in the near future”.

Clause 9 will come into force by regulations at a time the department chooses. The intention is to bring it into force only when secondary legislation is ready. My officials are engaging with a range of stakeholders to identify appropriate qualifications and will work in a collaborative way to bring forward secondary legislation in due course.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also seeks to ensure that any secondary legislation is subject to the affirmative procedure. Because the qualifications that would enable a person to conduct assurance reports are likely to change over time, it is important that the secondary legislation remains agile and responsive to such change. These changes are technical in nature and therefore I do not believe that the affirmative procedure is proportionate.

I hope that reassures the noble Baronesses that the Government seek to work co-operatively with the House to ensure that appropriate secondary legislation is brought forward in a timely manner and that, therefore, the need for appropriate qualifications will be addressed. As a result, I hope they will feel able not to press their amendment.

Amendment 7, from my noble friend Lord Woodley, intends to remove the time limit of 112 days on the notice period for varying or cancelling the registration of an existing bus service in an area that is transitioning to franchising. The existing time limit is essential in ensuring that the franchising process moves forward within a reasonable and predictable timeframe. It serves to maintain momentum in the implementation of franchising schemes, which is essential for creating certainty in the market. The time limit also helps safeguard the interests of passengers by minimising disruption.

Without the time limit, there is a risk that the franchising implementation process could be drawn out unnecessarily, leading to prolonged uncertainty for both operators and passengers. Such delays could cause operational instability and undermine the benefits of a timely transition. I will, however, consider further the point raised by my noble friend Lord Woodley, about the early withdrawal of service. But for the moment, the amendment is unnecessary, so I ask my noble friend not to press it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for Amendment 12. I recognise the history of the determined effort of Manchester—including the efforts of the late, great Sir Howard Bernstein—to take control of its bus services. I am delighted not only with the success of what has been achieved but because a former colleague, Vernon Everitt, who has been mentioned and who is now the transport commissioner for Transport for Greater Manchester, has helped to deliver what is demonstrably a better bus service, with increasing passenger numbers, as the noble Lord observed.

Amendment 12 would require franchising authorities to publish an evaluation report no later than one year after franchised services are first delivered through a scheme and to set out the scheme’s costs and benefits. I point out to noble Lords that a key purpose of the Government’s franchising guidance is to provide authoritative best practice. For instance, the revision to the franchising guidance published in December 2024 includes new content based on feedback from Transport for Greater Manchester and other mayoral combined authorities seeking to adopt that approach. The department will continue to undertake this best practice-focused approach to developing further iterations of the guidance. I therefore hope the noble Lord will consider not moving his amendment and not placing an additional requirement on franchising authorities.

On Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I think this is the right place to directly challenge the noble Lord’s assertion that the permission of the Secretary of State should be needed for local transport authorities to go down this road. He is a distinguished local government politician, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, observed, who fiercely—in my time at least—fought undue central influence. I am astonished to now discover that he advocates such interference, not even up to a point. Mind you, he might have been subsequently converted by being a very distinguished deputy chair of Transport for London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

Will the Minister accept a challenge on that point? He will know that, in terms of the current role of local authorities in areas such as mine, if that happens, they will step in and provide a service where the private sector cannot do so. It is not as if there is a total vacuum and the local community is completely exposed to the decisions taken by the bus operator.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his interjection. In his case, it is true, but there are other cases where the market has shown a considerable inability to respond across the country.

To conclude on Amendment 14, it is for the reasons I gave that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not to press his amendment.

Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require a local transport authority to carry out a preliminary assessment if it was considering franchising its bus services. Much of what the noble Lord has proposed to be included in the preliminary assessment is already included in the current legislation and must be included in the local transport authority’s franchising assessment. An assessment may or may not conclude that franchising is the best option. The assessment would then be published if an independent assessment had been carried out and the decision was that franchising was the best option. This amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I would welcome the noble Lord not pressing it.

Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to impose a five-year moratorium on repeating franchising scheme assessments in the same area if the previous attempt was unsuccessful. The aim of the Bill is to simplify the process for authorities wishing to pursue franchising, ensuring that decisions are made at the appropriate level and in a timely manner. This amendment would introduce unnecessary constraints on local transport authorities by adopting an overly rigid approach. There are many factors that might lead an authority to decide against pursuing franchising initially, only to reconsider this later; indeed, the period of time suggested by the noble Lord would in some cases exceed the cycle of local authority elections, in which a different party that chooses to do something different might be elected. Imposing a blanket restriction limits authorities’ ability to respond flexibly to evolving conditions and opportunities. Assessments are costly and time-consuming so will not be undertaken lightly. This amendment is unnecessary; I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, on that point, the Minister has made in his response no reference whatever to the private sector. We are talking about circumstances in which buses are provided by the private sector in a particular area and the local transport authority, using powers to be created under this Bill, enters a franchising assessment model with a view to terminating the business of that bus operator—not terminating its activities but terminating it as a business and turning it into, simply, an agent of the local transport authority operating to instructions for a fee of some sort. That is one of the potential outcomes.

If you face that threat to your business, so to speak, and if the Government are equanimous in thinking that that is an appropriate threat to impose on the private sector, surely, if the decision at the end of that assessment is not to proceed, that private company deserves a degree of stability. Indeed, without that stability it is very unlikely to invest in any of the things we would like to see happen. Those might concern improved buses or better technology, but also better training for staff, proper recruitment, investment in the workforce and so on. An answer entirely focused on how the public sector might behave totally misses the point of what this amendment is trying to achieve.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Of course I respect the noble Lord’s view, but the needs of local communities as expressed through local transport authorities are continuous and there are many examples across the country, unfortunately, of private sector operators choosing, for legitimate commercial reasons, to significantly vary the bus network in their area with the minimum statutory notice. They are quite adept at changing their business in accordance with market circumstances, whereas I think it is quite right to afford local communities the chance—through their elected local transport authorities—to choose to take a view about whether the bus service they are being offered is good enough to continue in its present model, or whether to choose to do something different. If there is a degree of jeopardy attached to this, that jeopardy can be expressed by the continuous need for commercial operators in those circumstances to continue serving the local area well. That would therefore make it unnecessary for the local transport authority to pursue franchising, when there are already remedies in the Bill and a mixture of measures offered to local areas to achieve their aims.

The next four amendments are from my noble friend Lord Woodley, and Amendment 17 is the first of these. He has been joined by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who also spoke about this. It seeks to place a requirement to establish a joint forum between the franchising authority, bus operators and trade union representatives. However, current legislation states that franchised services must be provided under a local service contract between the bus operator and the franchising authority. It is then for an individual bus operator, as an employer, to discuss and determine staffing and employment standards within the bus company, in consultation with staff and their trade union representatives. It is also for the franchising authority to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services.

It should not be for the Government to dictate how a local transport authority should run its services. I know that noble Lords are concerned about driver welfare standards, and I am pleased to tell them that this issue is covered in the current franchising guidance. I will consider further what is said in the guidance about consultation with the workforce, and workforce planning, as a consequence of this discussion. For the moment, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary and I ask my noble friend not to press it.

Amendments 18, 19 and 20 were also tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley. They raise the important issue of ensuring that employee rights are protected when a local authority bus company is established or during the transfer to franchising. This country already has robust legislation in place to safeguard employees. As noble Lords know, the transfer of undertakings regulations apply to employees of businesses in the United Kingdom. Should a local transport authority choose to establish a bus company, it would be necessary for it to consider the application of TUPE regulations, which are supported by additional guidance to help employers and employees understand their respective responsibilities.

Similar principles apply to franchising. Section 123X of the Transport Act 2000 already provides for the TUPE regulations to apply to staff transfers resulting from the introduction or transfer of a bus franchise, meaning that proposed Amendment 20 would add little or no value beyond what is already in place.

Furthermore, the franchising statutory guidance offers detailed advice on how to determine whether a member of staff is “principally connected” with a service. In line with existing regulations, this guidance advises franchising authorities to work collaboratively with local operators and employee representatives to agree on criteria for determining which staff are principally connected with affected services. For example, such criteria could include the amount of time that an employee spends working on franchised services or whether the employee is part of a specific group assigned to those services. TUPE would then apply to employees identified as being principally connected.

It is of course worth emphasising that, like some other public service employers, existing local authority bus companies often go beyond basic statutory requirements to support their employees. This is particularly true for individuals from protected groups, with many local authority bus companies offering attractive terms and conditions, such as higher rates of pay, flexible working arrangements, and generous holiday and maternity and paternity provisions. However, as I said in respect of the previous amendment, I will consider further what is said in guidance in this respect beyond what is already there. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press these amendments.

The final amendment in this group comes from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and I note and welcome his interest in safety on the bus network. He will be aware that some of the most important parts of the Bill for passengers are around disability and addressing crime and safety, which includes provisions on training for front-line and wider bus staff. However, this amendment specifically relates to training for officials from franchising authorities on IOSH, which is about providing managers with the tools to maintain a safe environment, and NEBOSH, which is a qualification in health, safety and environmental management— I refuse to say either of those as an acronym.

The effect of this amendment would be an increase in the cost and time it takes to franchise, if staff had to undertake this specific training before starting the franchising process. We all understand that safety is paramount for bus staff, passengers and the wider public but there are only a small proportion of franchising cases and those involved in franchising where having such qualifications would be relevant. It may also be that some of the training for holders of an operator’s licence, the Driver Certificate of Professional Competence, might be equally appropriate.

Part of the reform is to simplify and speed up franchising and drive down costs. This amendment would disproportionately impact authorities in considering franchising, including those in smaller towns and rural areas. This would disenfranchise local authorities, which goes against some of the core tenets of the Bill. Nevertheless, I will consider further what might be said in guidance about these important qualifications for those involved in this process who should hold them. As a result, I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move this amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, have any more to say, or does he wish to withdraw his amendment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, first, I want to speak to Amendment 33. It is one that Jenny Randerson had marked up in her paperwork for this Bill, so we felt that it was really important to table it for her.

Although there are many bus operators across the country—as of last October, there were some 367 in England—the reality is that around three-quarters of bus services are run by a handful of large companies. This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants, thereby helping to promote diversity in the sector. Some local, smaller operators may know the area and community far better than a large company; we felt that it was important to acknowledge this when looking at the grants that a transport authority may choose to award.

Such operators are also more likely to provide services in rural and less connected areas, including those that will be deemed socially necessary routes. For example, bus routes in Bishop’s Waltham in Hampshire are particularly poor. Despite it being a sizeable town, it lacks adequate bus connections to Winchester and the surrounding area. A small operator may be able to provide this service in a way in which the larger operators are clearly choosing not to do currently. Additionally, such grants may enable small operators to invest in cleaner, more modern vehicles, contributing to environmental goals and improving the overall quality of service. This amendment is designed to support a competitive and dynamic transport market that ultimately benefits passengers.

Amendment 52 would provide a duty on relevant local authorities to promote bus services in their area. With this new focus on improving bus services, it is right that they are properly supported and that their benefits to the local environment, as well as their wider social and economic benefits, are promoted locally. Promoting bus services will help reduce the number of private vehicles on the road, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality. Reducing congestion can help improve the local economy and ensure a more reliable bus service, thereby facilitating access to jobs, education and other services. Although this is a probing amendment, its aim is to ensure that there is wider thinking about what happens beyond this legislation if we are to have the step change in bus services across the country that all sides of the Committee, I am sure, would support.

With Amendment 4, my noble friend Lady Pinnock has raised the elephant in the room: the adequacy of central government funding to support local bus services. Although this legislation gives local transport authorities a choice of options in providing services, money is needed for that, and this is not just coming from local and regional government. One of the large operators, Stagecoach, has flagged with me that bus services can be successful only if they are properly funded, irrespective of the delivery model. Securing long-term clarity and certainty around funding for this sector will help enhance the benefits delivered to local communities—exactly the point that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has just made. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, also touches on funding allocation in his Amendment 31, on which he spoke in great detail.

The Bill also talks about net cost for contracts that are direct awards, which implies that the revenue risk sits with the operators. It is not clear how that sits with control of fares being within the remit of the local transport authorities. Perhaps the Minister can explain the thinking regarding these contracts and funding from government going forward. My noble friend Lady Pinnock has also touched on the enforceability of by-laws, the need for model by-laws and staff training if by-laws are going to work in practice. Operators are concerned about the requirements for training and whether additional funding will be provided to cover this new requirement. Again, we are back to the elephant in the room: funding.

My noble friend Lord Bradshaw has spoken with his extensive experience and knowledge about the need to improve the reliability of bus services and ways to incentivise this through conditions in any financial support.

A wide range of other amendments in this group pick up improving the passenger experience with what we would expect from a modern bus service, whether that is wifi, charging or accessibility improvements. We do not know what we will need in the future. Things will move along. At the moment, we think about plugging things in to charge them up. Technology moves at such pace. I am not sure whether these are needed in the legislation, but perhaps they should be in the guidance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that point.

I would like clarity from the Minister, on the record, about demand-responsive bus services. I raised this at Second Reading, and it was made clear in the Minister’s letter in response that this legislation enables demand-responsive bus services. They may well be the solution in some parts of the country, but I want assurance that this legislation enables that rather than prevents it. I look forward to hearing detailed responses from the Minister to these important points.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will now address the amendments relating to local authorities, specifically the Bill’s grant-making powers, functions and duties. Before I address the amendments tabled by your Lordships, I will talk to the government amendment in my name, Amendment 81. This makes a minor change to Clause 30, providing for the provisions under Clause 21, on local transport authority by-laws, to come into force by regulations. Clause 30 sets out the commencement details for each clause of the Bill. The majority of clauses will come into force on days appointed by the Secretary of State by regulations. The current exceptions are Clause 21, “Local transport authority byelaws”, which is due to come into force two months after Royal Assent, and Clause 23, “Safeguarding duty: drivers of school services”, which comes into force six months after Royal Assent.

Clause 21 empowers local transport authorities to make by-laws addressing anti-social behaviour on their bus networks. It also allows the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance about the exercise of enforcement functions in relation to local authority by-laws. Bringing Clause 21 into force by regulations, rather than two months after Royal Assent, is imperative to ensure that officials in my department have time to develop meaningful guidance to aid local transport authorities and their officers in undertaking enforcement functions. If the change cannot be made, local transport authorities may make by-laws before the guidance can be issued, or there may be insufficient time to develop comprehensive guidance that will be of the most use to local transport authorities and their enforcement officers. It is therefore an important change to make.

I move next to Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank her for her recognition that the Government’s recent settlements for local transport authorities are comprehensive for the moment. Her amendment seeks to include further consideration of funding requirements in the scheme assessment that authorities must undertake when developing a franchising scheme. I reassure her that consideration of the affordability of proposed franchising schemes, and therefore funding, is already a central part of the assessment. The existing legislation states that the assessment must include consideration of whether the proposed scheme would be affordable to set up and operate. As for a requirement for a specific analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve services for all communities, I stress that the legislation already requires the proposed franchising scheme to be properly costed and compared to another course of action, such as an enhanced partnership.

Finally, I note that both the franchising assessment and the independent assurance report must be published alongside the consultation. This ensures transparency around the local transport authority’s decision.

The Government have set out their ambitions to consolidate and simplify bus funding streams and to provide the long-term certainty that local transport authorities and bus operators have been calling for. The forthcoming multi-year spending review provides a real opportunity for the department to assess the sector’s funding needs so that bus services are adequately funded to support economic growth and, in particular, to overcome the barriers to the Government’s missions. Of course, any future spending decisions must be subject to the outcome of the spending review process. For all those reasons, and with that statement, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The Minister makes a very important point there. When the last grant was allocated—in round numbers, of £1 billion, £250 million went to bus operators and £750 million went to local authorities—a new methodology was introduced for allocating it. It was based on three factors; I cannot remember what they were but, in a way, that does not matter, because the important point that I raised was that there was no evidence underlying the choice of these three factors. Although it is true that the Minister answered my point in the Chamber, he offered no rationale or evidence for the choice of those three factors; they will come back to me the moment I sit down.

However, that is not my main point. My main point is not to drag over the coals of what was discussed in the debate we had on that Statement but, rather, to point out that the Minister now appears to be saying that the same unevidenced methodology, with no rationale to explain it—a third this, a third that, a third the other—will be applied when the department comes to distribute whatever funding it has available for buses as a result of the upcoming spending review. That is a very important point, if he is making it. Does he want to confirm that that is what he meant? Or did he, perfectly understandably, fall into a momentary lapse that he would want to withdraw? We really need to know.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention; my response to him will probably be very similar to what I said at the time. First, the allocation methodology was far more transparent than the previous Government’s allocation methodology: it allocated money to all local transport authorities in England for bus services when, previously, there had been occasions when money was competed for via a long and tedious process not necessarily winding up in success. I, too, am struggling to recall all three of the criteria, only because my mind is currently full of these amendments, but two of them were population and bus mileage, which are self-evidently the sorts of indexes that you would use for this process.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

One was deprivation.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I thank him for his further intervention; we got there between us, even though neither of us could remember to start with.

Those are pretty central ways of allocating that funding. I will not necessarily commit the department precisely to that methodology in future because, obviously, we have the right to consider the matter further. Equally, we would of course be open to any other proposed indices to consider against population, deprivation and place need, but, in my view, those seem to be pretty good ones; I cannot see that they are obviously wrong. In conclusion to this little excursion into this matter, it is certainly better than partial allocations and competing for money without local transport authorities being certain of success—I am certain of that.

It is important to note that much of the funding to local authorities and local transport authorities is consolidated. That funding is not hypothecated by central government, thus it is for the local transport authority to determine how to apportion its funding. For example, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provides local authorities with funding through the local government funding settlement. Money from that can currently be used to support bus services, for example by tendering. In future, it is possible that a local transport authority could choose to put some of that funding towards a bus grant using the powers proposed by Clause 16. The same is true for funding provided through the Department for Transport’s bus service improvement plans. Local transport authorities can decide how to allocate that funding towards a variety of bus initiatives.

Local authorities also have access to other sources of funding, including council tax money and retained business rates. Some of this money could be used to establish a local bus grant without recourse to funding provided by central government. The Government do not wish to tie the hands of local transport authorities by specifying the total funding to be used to carry out the functions under this section. It is for them to work out how much they wish to spend on such grants from within their wider allocations.

The powers proposed under Clause 16 are optional and would be available to local transport authorities if they chose to use them. It is thus hard to see how the statutory guidance—which may be published but its publication is not mandatory—could contain the information that would be required by the noble Lord’s amendment.

Lastly, I fear that the amendment does not fully recognise that the statutory guidance provided for by Clause 16(6) is intended to set out factors that a local transport authority should consider when choosing to design and pay a grant to bus operators. The local transport authorities will be very aware of their financial situation when doing so. The amendment is therefore not needed and I ask the noble Lord not to press it.

Turning to Amendment 32, it is good to see that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, recognises the important role that demand responsive transport can play in contributing to local public transport provision. The amendment takes a belt-and-braces approach—both proposed subsections would have the same effect by ultimately requiring local transport authorities to think about flexible bus services, a form of demand responsive transport, if they chose to use the powers that would be granted by Clause 16 to design and pay grants to bus operators. I contend that neither the belt nor the braces are needed. There is nothing in Clause 16 to prevent a local transport authority choosing to use the powers therein to have regard to, and to support flexible bus services, to the extent that they meet the definition of “service” in Clause 16(2). I am happy to have that on the record, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, requested.

Other types of demand responsive transport—for instance, that provided using private hire vehicles—are not likely to fall within the definition of “service” in this measure. Indeed, in our drafting of Clause 16 we have deliberately made it possible for local transport authorities to support a wider range of bus service types than the Government can through the existing powers available to the Secretary of State under Section 154 of the Transport Act 2000. This is because we want local transport authorities, in line with the devolution agenda, to be able to design grants that best support the outcomes that they see as important. That is key to help ensure that local bus services are able to contribute to economic growth and to breaking down barriers to opportunity.

Noble Lords will also be aware that Clause 16(6) gives the Secretary of State the option to publish the statutory guidance. If we feel that the guidance is needed, we will publish it.

Local transport authorities will be best placed to determine whether demand responsive transport is a viable option for their areas. The Bill and other aspects of our devolution agenda—including building on the devolution deals introduced by the previous Government —are aimed at giving local authorities more freedom and flexibility. However, given that flexible bus services are a key part of the bus offering in some areas, and will continue to be an important option for local authorities when considering the appropriate mix of services, it would seem strange for the statutory guidance, if it were published, not to contain references to flexible bus services. I hope I have demonstrated that the amendment is not needed and I therefore request the noble Lord not to press it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 33. I note with sadness that the late Lady Randerson is not here to be able to debate it herself. It is a terrible shame. As noble Lords will all be aware, economic growth is one of the core missions of this Government, and the amendment rightly highlights the important role small and medium-sized enterprises have to play in delivering growth. The Bill supports the economic growth mission by giving local transport authorities greater freedom in deciding how they support their local bus services to boost economic growth and remove barriers to opportunity.

The amendment is intended to ensure that local transport authorities that choose to use the new powers to design and pay grants to bus operators think about the needs of small bus operators when designing those grants. However, the amendment is not needed because under the grant-making powers given to them by the Bill, there is nothing preventing local transport authorities designing grants that prioritise and support smaller operators of bus services, subject to other competition and subsidy controls. Because most local transport authorities are in enhanced partnerships, they will be best placed to understand the needs of small operators. They will certainly know those in their areas and whether such grants would be appropriate.

As public authorities disbursing funding, local transport authorities will, however, need to ensure that any grants they design, using the powers that would be granted by the Bill, comply with relevant subsidy controls to ensure that they are not distorting their local market or the national market. I hope that assurance allows the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, not to press her amendment.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

If I may intervene on my noble friend on that point, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, painted a picture of small local authorities taking on routes that the major operators do not, to paraphrase her, and filling in gaps that they have left. If that were the case, why did they not do it after the 1986 Act? That Act said that anybody could run a bus service anywhere they liked, provided that it was registered with a traffic commissioner.

The reality was, of course, that these smaller operators used clapped-out vehicles and non-union staff, while providing none of the facilities that the major operators did. One well-known case in the West Midlands, which ended in front of a traffic commissioner, was about one of these smaller operators whose idea of a break for the driver was for him to get out of his cab at the end of the journey and urinate against the front wheel. We had to put up with that sort of smaller operator in the area where I was involved in a bus company, the West Midlands. Can my noble friend point out to the noble Baroness that, sincere though she might be, the reality of life was somewhat different? What would my noble friend put in the legislation to ensure that these smaller operators abide by the normal regulations, treat their staff properly and recognise trade unions?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention. The real security in this—at least for passengers, and indeed for local transport authorities—is actually with the traffic commissioners. We will no doubt come to this later on in another of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. In fact, the process that my noble friend referred to is an elegant example of where the activities of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, if followed up with the traffic commissioners, place a burden on operators to behave properly—to treat their staff properly and offer an adequate and safe service to the public. That mechanism of inspection by the DVSA and subsequent action by the traffic commissioners, should it be necessary, is a very elegant method of regulation. It is, incidentally, also strongly supported by the industry at large.

Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would require local transport authorities to publish a review when proposing to create new by-laws under the provisions in Clause 21. The purpose of this clause is to address a current inconsistency that means only some authorities have powers to make bus by-laws. The requirement for a review before exercising these powers would place additional burdens on local transport authorities, increasing costs and slowing down the implementation of by-laws, and that is not desirable. The inclusion of this clause comes from the Government’s engagement with local authorities and an understanding of the tools that they need to best operate safe and inclusive bus networks for their local communities. It is also not necessary because similar powers to those proposed by the Bill are available to some local transport authorities and railway operators in operating their rail and light rail networks, so there is some experience of this.

I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the engagement with local authorities and existing by-laws in answering her question about whether these by-laws would work. The procedure in Clause 21 draws on and is analogous to that found in existing legislation, including the Railways Act 2005 and the Local Government Act 1972. Neither Act imposes requirements on local transport authorities or operators to undertake a similar review. I undertake to go away and consider with colleagues whether there are, or should be, model by-laws available. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press Amendment 34.

On Amendment 50, it is a real pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his place this afternoon. I understand the point that he is making about his proposal to place a statutory duty on local highway authorities or other authorities to take, create, implement and report on a traffic reduction strategy with the aim of improving bus journey times—I should have said that he is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. Improving the reliability and frequency of local bus services is a key part of the Government’s plans for buses, and the Bill helps give local transport authorities the right tools and levers to do that.

However, I do not believe that this amendment is the right way to do that. For example, local transport authorities are already obliged under the network management duty, established by Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, to consider the reduction of congestion and improving traffic flow in how they manage their roads, so this new duty would in effect replicate that. It would also go against the principles of devolution—giving more freedom and fewer obligations —that we have committed to with the Bill. Local transport authorities are already able to effect positive changes in bus reliability through enhanced partnerships with operators of bus services in their areas.

The recent experience in Manchester of franchising has served to illustrate, at least to me, that the power of franchising has very quickly drawn to the attention of the authority—in that case, Transport for Greater Manchester—those elements of the management of the local road network that need to be improved in order to drive a safe and reliable service.

The noble Lord’s amendment links the production of this traffic reduction strategy to any financial support issued by the Government,

“for the provision of bus services”.

This brings a range of funding streams into scope beyond just grants that are intended either to support bus services themselves, such as the bus service operators grant, or to improve infrastructure, such as bus priority schemes that could improve bus journey times through the bus service improvement plans. Some government funding—for example, grants to make buses more accessible—may be caught under the broad wording of this new measure. There is, of course, no obvious link between this kind of grant and traffic reduction, and it would be inappropriate in such cases to produce a corresponding traffic reduction plan. However, I understand the noble Lord’s point, and I will consider further how and in what way we might address the very valuable point that he is making. On that basis, I ask him not to press his amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has brought forward Amendment 52 to place a duty on authorities to promote bus services and publish regular reports detailing progress towards achieving that objective. I firmly believe that all authorities and operators are interested in promoting their bus services in their local areas and that it is not necessary to bring forward an amendment that places a direct requirement on authorities to do so and to report on how they have met their objectives.

The Transport Act 2000 already places a duty on the local transport authority to develop and implement policies which promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport in their area. Buses form part of that duty, and we know through bus service improvement plans that local transport authorities are already doing this. A local transport authority also needs to have wider monitoring and evaluation plans in place to assess the outcome of its policies. It also has to answer to its communities.

The Bill is all about providing choices to local transport authorities and ensuring that decisions are made at the right level ultimately to improve the bus network for their communities. It should therefore be for the local transport authority to decide how it will measure its successes. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

I turn lastly to Amendment 69, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for bringing forward. The amendment would require local authorities to promote the adoption of customer-facing technology. The Government remain committed to ensuring services are continuously improved for passengers. I agree with noble Lords that it is important that passengers experience good access to technology, such as free wi-fi and charging facilities. As noble Lords have noted, many operators already seize these opportunities. We would be keen to encourage further adoption, albeit that we can have little control, given that operators would need to assess its cost impacts.

From a passenger-information perspective, the Government are committed to delivering better bus services, and part of this work is working closely with bus operators and local transport authorities to improve the information available to passengers about their bus services. The Bus Open Data Service was launched in 2020 and requires all bus operators of local services in England to provide passengers with high-quality, accurate and up-to-date passenger information including timetables, fares, tickets and vehicle location information. As part of this work, the Government understand the importance of having real-time information widely accessible in a range of spaces that passengers use and are conscious of the need to continually consider new ways to improve access to real-time information, while staying in line with wider government digital and data strategies. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, says about the continuing progress of technology and the difficulty of specifying now what it might deliver in the future.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, will understand that I do not wish to cut across the work which is currently underway. On that basis, I would ask them not to press Amendment 69.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and the clarity of his answers to all our amendments. I remind the Committee that my Amendment 4 seeks to encourage the Government to respond positively to the need for funding, such as TfL has enjoyed. I note that Amendment 30 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is using funding to discourage enfranchising. There is quite a world of difference between us.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

8: The Schedule, page 37, line 7, leave out “in the area” and insert “which have one or more stopping places in the area or areas”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment brings paragraph 9(3)(a) of new Schedule 9A to the Transport Act 2000 into line with paragraph 5(4)(a) of that Schedule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Woodley and Lord Moylan, show both ends of the spectrum in this area—one wanting to make it easier for a local authority bus company to be directly awarded a service, and the other wanting the Secretary of State to be involved and lots of bureaucracy to make it even harder. But I absolutely agree that these amendments throw up some real questions around direct awards, and I hope the Minister can provide some clarity.

Direct awards can be made to existing operators where the post award services are deemed “substantially similar” in the context of direct awards. What criteria will be used to determine that? What is the precise definition of “substantially similar” services? How will the requirement for operators to take on real operational risk be defined and enforced under a direct award? As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just rightly stated, in situations where multiple operators currently run services, what are the criteria for selecting an operator to receive a direct award? Will all existing operators be awarded a direct award? What guidance is going to be provided to local authorities regarding the structure of direct award contracts? What flexibility will they have in negotiating terms?

The bus industry welcomes this legislation but it will want some certainty. I hope the Minister can provide that in his response to this group of amendments.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will first address Amendments 9 and 10 from my noble friend Lord Woodley. The option of a direct award is designed to support the transition to bus franchising, bringing forward some of the benefits of franchising while delivering service continuity to passengers. Expanding the scope of direct awards to include local authority bus companies under all circumstances would not meet these objectives, which are limited and designed to deliver continuity and would, in the case of his amendments, prevent fair competition with private operators. With respect to my noble friend, these amendments are unnecessary and I would ask him to withdraw Amendment 9 and not press Amendment 10.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for tabling Amendment 13. It is up to local leaders to determine how to run their bus services best and to assess the effectiveness of the delivery of their franchising contracts. Franchising authorities using direct awards are subject to comprehensive reporting requirements and the Bill does not change this. The additional requirement would create unnecessary additional burdens.

Noble Lords asked whether the clause complies with the Procurement Act 2023. As I said in my letter to all noble Lords, Clause 11 is limited to the direct award of net cost contracts, also called concession contracts, where the operator provides franchise services in return for the fare revenues. These contracts are exempt from the Procurement Act 2023—see paragraphs 21 and 37 of Schedule 2 to that legislation—and instead fall under the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023, which the Bill is amending. Therefore, this clause does not impact on the Procurement Act 2023.

On the questions raised about there being more than one operator, this is a transition arrangement in order that the passengers involved, the customers of bus routes, and the operators get more certainty in the transition than might otherwise be the case. Clearly, the provision of direct award can be useful to authorities seeking to move to a franchising model both now and in the future. It also provides flexibility to stagger the full implementation of franchising, for example, tendering competitive franchise contracts at different times. It can be used only for the first franchise contract in an area to support the transition. Direct award contracts will have a maximum duration of five years, and in many cases a shorter duration will be appropriate. Long-term franchising contracts will be competitively tendered in the usual way. For clarity, in areas where there is more than one operator, only the incumbent operator can receive a direct award contract for the same or substantially similar services. It is uniquely placed to provide service continuity to passengers during this transition.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, would create unnecessary additional burdens on local and central government to complete the assessment. I therefore ask them not to press their amendment.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Avanti West Coast

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the service provided by Avanti West Coast between Manchester and London.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My department is clear that the performance of Avanti West Coast has not been good enough. Officials routinely meet Avanti and Network Rail as part of a relentless focus on improving railway performance, bringing together track and train far more than previously and holding both sides accountable. The Secretary of State met the managing director in January to understand Avanti’s plans to address industrial action. I will meet him, together with the Network Rail route director, on Friday, to further discuss performance.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply and note my interest as a weekly user of Avanti trains and praise the many excellent staff on these trains and the brilliant services provided by Stockport booking office. However, the performance during November and December 2024, as the Minister has mentioned, was utterly woeful and frustrating. Journey after journey was subject to huge delays, with numerous cancellations and subsequent declassification throughout the trains, standing room only or people sitting on the floor of the carriages, and no refreshments, not even the smallest bottle of water, throughout the train. On behalf of Avanti’s long-suffering passengers, will the Minister carefully study again the contract at his meeting with management later in the week, to end this misery and ensure that customers and taxpayers get the value for money that they so deserve?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I strongly sympathise with my noble friend on his experiences in his weekly travelling. My postbag, email and every other means of communication is full of criticism of Avanti West Coast. It was given a contract for three years in October 2023. I assure noble Lords that as hard as we look at the contract, the company has not yet failed to meet the performance target standards that the previous Government set it.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to Macclesfield station staff for their excellent work. I have an idea for how we can monitor the number of delays. There is something called Delay Repay. Does the Minister know much how is paid out by Avanti to passengers? If not, perhaps he could let us know. It may be a good thing for him to keep his eye on, for key performance indicators in terms of staffing and getting staff to work—particularly at weekends.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will have to write to the noble Lord about the amount of Delay Repay. I have statistics here about the number of trains on time and the number of trains cancelled. Although the number of trains being cancelled has been reducing, it is still far too high. Passengers dislike cancelled trains even more than they dislike them being later than in the timetable. I will write to him and put a copy of that letter in the Library. However, I think that the evidence of Delay Repay is the same as the evidence of the performance statistics—that the performance is just not good enough.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, Avanti has a simple objective in life: to supply three hours of train from Manchester to London. It is not complicated. It is a straight line. I will give a snapshot of this weekend. On Friday morning, the 8.43, a peak-time train, was cancelled with 20 minutes’ notice. On Saturday, five trains were cancelled due to a lack of staff or extra maintenance being required on trains. This morning, the 8.43, a peak-time train, was again cancelled. Five more trains back to Manchester were cancelled this afternoon. It is utterly unacceptable. I feel for the staff, who try to give us a good service every day on the up and down journey, but the management is lamentable. If you gave Avanti a local pub in London with a 24-hour licence, free beer and free food, it would still not make a profit. It is astonishing. I am lost for words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I am rarely lost for words. Seriously, the customers are at the heart of this, day in, day out, with children, having the service that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, has described. It is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of what is going on. This is nothing to do with the weather, strikes or lines. This is incompetent management.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is clearly not lost for words. However, it is not within my gift to award free tenancies of public houses in London—probably wisely. A lot of what he says is right, and I will reflect on that with the Avanti management on Friday. My only cautionary note is that the effect of the storms on Friday and Saturday has led to significant disruption to most of the railway in northern England and certainly in Scotland. I have some sympathy with train operators in those circumstances, because there are occasions on which their staff cannot get to work simply because of the effects of the wind and associated damage. One should therefore be a bit careful. As a former operator of public transport, I know that it is sometimes difficult to get the right staff in the right place at the right time, when those circumstances happen. When they do not happen, however, you would expect train operators such as Avanti to have sufficient staff to be able to resource the service and have some reserve of resilience to keep it going in difficult circumstances. I sympathise entirely with what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak as another regular Avanti user. Has my noble friend noticed that, increasingly, the company seems to regard the northern point of its franchise as Preston, without running trains on to Carlisle and Glasgow, which has very damaging effects for tourism in the Lake District and the Borders? Is this not a breach of its franchise obligations? I notice that Avanti is now telling us that, because of Network Rail improvements, the railway will be closed at certain points in the next two or three years. Is it not the case that it must be deprived of its franchise? It is just not doing its job.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Indeed, I have discussed with him and others the rather too frequent regularity of cancellations north of Preston. I will not reiterate what I have just said about the effects of the storms last week. There have been other occasions when the railway infrastructure has not been up to withstanding the weather and storms. However, I agree with my noble friend, as I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that one expectation of those who run railway services for the department is that there should be sufficient resilience in what they do to cater for the exigencies of normal operation. It is this that I will be discussing in some detail with Avanti and Network Rail on Friday.

In respect of the future renewal and upgrade of the west coat main line north of Preston, the news that was in the papers in the past few days is premature because it was Network Rail’s proposition to renew the overhead wires between Preston and the Scottish border. The arrangements are not yet agreed, and the release of that information to the public—I think by one of the train operators—was premature. That was industry’s consultation, and there will be more to be said about it at a future date.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I would simply like to ask the Minister exactly the same question that many of his own noble friends felt it was fair and reasonable to ask us when we were working hard to solve the Avanti issue. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked:

“What will it take for the Government to do their job and relieve Avanti of any responsibility for being involved in our railway system?”.—[Official Report, 26/10/22; col. 1527.]


The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked:

“Why have the Government not acted, as a decisive Government would, and withdrawn the franchise from these disastrous operators?”.—[Official Report, 1/12/22; col. 1947.]


Finally, the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked

“why the Government are not doing something immediately to end this shambles and outrage on one of our country’s major lines?”.—[Official Report, 7/9/22; col. 261.]

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The answer to those questions is that the contract that these people have been given does not allow the withdrawal of the franchise for performance that many people in this House think is lamentable. Of course, the other action that the previous Government took was to allow Avanti to offer an extraordinary amount of money—£600 to drivers working rest days—which has been the subject of much criticism ever since, particularly recently, but is rarely attributed to the previous Government’s action in allowing Avanti to pay it.

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 December 2024 be approved.

Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 January.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, am I permitted to ask a question?

Railway Electrification

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my railway interests as listed in the register.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

Updated plans are currently being developed by Network Rail for where and when electrification is required to deliver a fully decarbonised railway over the next 25 years. Those plans will consider the integration of both track and train through Great British Railways and the significant recent progress in battery technology. All investment decisions will be subject to current and future spending reviews and will be for the first time integrated with rolling stock decisions.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, at the railway industry reception in the House of Commons last week, my noble friend said—I think I am quoting him correctly—that in the context of Railway 200:

“We’ve got … to celebrate all of the history. But we’ve also got a chance to celebrate the future”.


Does he agree that his Answer to me just now is a way of celebrating that future, provided we can embark on a programme of investment in electrification, battery power and new technologies which allows the railway to grow and the freight business and the passenger business to take on new markets with new traffic? Does he further agree that that is the only way that we can meet the net-zero emission targets and make the railway completely carbon free?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Of course, I strongly agree with my noble friend that whatever I said last time was the right thing to say.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

More seriously, I agree with my noble friend that the point at which we celebrate 200 years of the first public passenger railway in the world is a very good moment both to contemplate the fact that the railway is already uniquely green and to look forward to full decarbonisation. The most exciting prospect has emerged since the last traction decarbonisation strategy of 2020: the significant development of battery technology, the significant introduction of bi-mode trains across Britain and very recently, by one of the most forward-looking freight companies, the introduction of a tri-mode freight locomotive, all of which enables electrification to be far more finely tuned to both cost and value for money yet produce at the end of it a fully decarbonised railway.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, shortly before the last election, the Conservative Party in its death throes gave a commitment to electrification of the line from Crewe to Holyhead. Do the present Government stand by that commitment?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

That commitment was one of many in a hurriedly put together document entitled Network North, which incidentally went as far south as Tavistock and went to Holyhead. The characteristic of that shoddy document is that virtually nothing in it was funded, nor indeed was much of it thought through. The last serious work on electrification of the north Wales main line was done by Network Rail in 2010 and that commitment—if it was a commitment—was put in that document with absolutely no reference to any business case nor current set of costs for delivering it.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, some years before their death throes, the last Conservative Government made a firm pledge to electrify the line between Swansea and Cardiff and then, because it was presumably unfunded, like hospitals, they shamefully abandoned it. Can my noble friend confirm that this line is at least now being considered and may well be back on track?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My reference earlier to integrating the electrification programme with rolling stock decisions reflects the fact that many trains on the British railway network are now capable of operating in either electric or diesel mode. That is a consequence of rolling stock purchases over the past 10 years. It enables some more choices to be made about the very expensive infrastructure cost of electrification versus electrification where it makes a real difference in both time and volume of rail traffic, and where trains that will run on electricity—when the electricity is there—will also serve parts of the network where it is not.

Some of the decisions which have been taken in rolling stock will last 35 years, like the rolling stock itself. That is true of the Great Western main line electrification, where those trains happily run on the wires as far as Cardiff and then travel by diesel not only to Swansea but further west to Carmarthen and to the south-west as well. A similar situation is true on the Midland main line, where bi-mode trains will be in operation. There is no point in investing in very expensive infrastructure if we can find another way of creating electrification for the vast majority of the network. The study being done by Network Rail, which will be completed and feed in to the department’s overall review of capital projects, will point out where that valuable public money ought to be best spent.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the electrification of the north Wales main line, that the Conservative party committed itself to in its manifesto, was to be funded from the savings made from HS2 and the Minister should not say that it was an unfunded commitment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

There is a report out today from Rail Partners which says that the costs of rail freight have been rising three times faster than the costs of carrying freight by road. Part of this is due to the rising cost of electricity. Has the Minister discussed with his colleagues in other departments the effect on the economic case for electrification of their pursuing policies that are giving us the highest cost and the most expensive electricity in Europe?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will continue to claim that the Network North plan was unfunded, because it depended on money that had never been properly allocated in the future to HS2 phase 2. When this Government took office, there was no evidence of any financial plans to deliver virtually any part of that agenda. In respect of the cost of electricity, of course, it is dependent on the relative price of electricity compared with other forms of propulsion for rail, but in terms of electrification of the railway and its use for freight, other considerations are far stronger than the cost of electricity and where it is generated. I shall concentrate in answering this Question on the electrification of the railway, because that is the Question that was asked.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, rail services in the south-west are just not fit for purpose. A report last week recommended battery power for parts of the route on existing trains, recharging at new electric islands, to help transform the Exeter line for both passengers and freight. As the Government are about to take ownership of South Western Railway, will the Minister consider those proposals?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The future of the service from Salisbury to Exeter on South Western Railway, which she refers to, is dependent on the fairly imminent life expiry of the existing rolling stock. We will consider, as part of the future of the publicly owned railway, what we do to replace it, bearing in mind that what is now available to replace that rolling stock is far more amenable to discontinuous electrification and battery or other forms of recharging.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, on the topic of celebration and timescale, does the Minister agree that in Oxford there is no celebration and no timescale? Oxford has been devastated and cut in half. When the Minister comes to Oxford on Friday to see the devastation, why will he not meet the people of Oxford rather than confine his meeting to a few selected, invited people?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Baroness refers to the Botley Road bridge in Oxford, which has taken far longer to replace than it should and is a complex story. I am going to Oxford on Friday. The logistics of meeting people in Oxford are such that it necessarily has to be limited by the time available to do it, but I am very mindful of the case that she has made both this afternoon and earlier about the disruption caused by this bridge, which is partially caused by the development of East West Rail in Oxford. Together with the chief executive of Network Rail, we have some things to say to the population which I hope will be useful for them to hear.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister recollect that more than 40 years ago, Sir Peter Parker, the then chairman of British Rail, recommended a rolling programme of railway electrification on the grounds that it would assist to keep together those responsible for doing the work and, perhaps more importantly, be far cheaper in the long run than the piecemeal approach that we have adopted over the years since? As we have a long-term plan for road building and repairs, why cannot we have the same for the railway?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a very good point. The intention of both the Secretary of State and me in respect of the review of capital projects in the department is to produce a list of projects which are the best for economic growth, jobs and housing, and then that can go into the Government’s 10-year infrastructure plan. It is important that the supply industry that develops electrification has a strong domestic market, because there is also a strong export market which it can fully serve only if domestic demand is relatively constant.

Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 December 2024 and will be made under powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, also known as the REUL Act. They are an example of the UK making use of the freedom gained from the UK’s departure from the European Union.

This legislation amends Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, which sets out the rules for allocation of airport slots. In taking these amendments forward, we are moving ahead before the European Union. Slot allocation rules apply only at what are known as co-ordinated airports, where capacity at the airport is unable to meet demand for slots at those airports. Nine airports are now covered by these rules, including the main London airports of City, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted, as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and Leeds Bradford.

The regulations will update the definition of a new entrant air carrier—or airline, as most of us would refer to it—for slot allocation purposes. This will allow air carriers with a small presence at a co-ordinated airport the opportunity to benefit from greater priority in the allocation of airport slots from the slot pool, prior to the start of the summer or winter scheduling seasons. This change not only aligns UK regulations with international guidelines but has the potential to provide more choice for consumers in terms of routes, destinations and the carriers they can fly with.

In addition, the regulations will amend assimilated EU law to enable the UK to respond in the event of a pandemic, epidemic or other outbreak of disease, such as was experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic. It will remove the need for emergency legislation to provide alleviation from slot usage rules, as was the case during the Covid-19 pandemic, in order to protect consumers, the environment and the aviation sector.

Noble Lords will be aware that co-ordinated airports are the UK’s busiest airports and that gaining a slot at them can be a challenge. It is not uncommon for air carriers to have to spend several years on the waiting list before being allocated a slot. Added to this, the current new entrant definition restricts new entrant carriers from being able to obtain enough slots for the number of daily rotations necessary to make a route commercially viable. Pursuing the necessary number of slots results in them losing their new entrant status and the benefits that come with it.

This hampers competition, which is why my department wants to update the definition of a new entrant. This seemingly small change is the difference between a new entrant air carrier being able to successfully establish and maintain a service and having to give up after a few years. The revised definition of a new entrant also brings the UK’s legislation in line with the Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines, which provide the air transport industry worldwide with a single set of standards for the management of airport slots at co-ordinated airports.

Regulation 95/93 sets out that air carriers must operate their airport slots 80% of the time in order to retain the right to those same slots the following year. This is known as the 80:20, or the “use it or lose it”, rule. Under normal circumstances, the 80:20 rule helps encourage the efficient use of airport capacity while allowing air carriers a degree of flexibility in their operations. However, throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, the 80:20 rule was waived to avoid environmentally damaging and financially costly flights with few or no passengers—so-called ghost flights. Using powers afforded to the Government in the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021—known as the ATMUA Act—a full waiver from the 80:20 rule was initially provided. However, as the industry recovered from the pandemic, usage ratios and other measures set out in that Act were amended, allowing a managed return to business-as-usual operations as demand for aviation recovered.

Due to the unpredictability of the Covid-19 pandemic, the powers granted under the ATMUA Act were necessarily time-limited; they expired in the summer of 2024. However, the experience of Covid-19 has shown that a permanent provision for slot alleviation relating to a pandemic, epidemic or other outbreak of disease is needed. This is to provide a means by which a collapse in aviation demand because of an event of a similar magnitude to Covid-19 can be managed as part of normal operations by the UK’s airport slot co-ordinator. Without this provision, if a health crisis similar to Covid-19 were to occur, the Government would need to bring forward further primary legislation, as was done through the ATMUA Act, in order to enable alleviation from the 80:20 rule.

Turning to the content of the statutory instrument, this draft instrument will amend Regulation 95/93 to change the definition of a new entrant carrier. The purpose of the new entrant rule is to stimulate competition. New entrant carriers are given priority in the allocation of slots, as the regulation requires that 50% of slots shall first be allocated to new entrants unless the requests made by new entrants are less than 50%. Currently, an air carrier is a new entrant if it has fewer than five slots at an airport on a given day. Under this instrument, a new entrant is defined as a carrier that holds fewer than seven slots at an airport. The update to the new entrant rule is designed to enhance the presence of new entrant carriers at slot co-ordinated airports.

As I said, the instrument will also build on previous regulations that provided carriers with slot alleviation during the Covid-19 pandemic by introducing a permanent provision for carriers in order to obtain slot alleviation where there are government-imposed measures relating to a pandemic, epidemic or other outbreak of disease, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. This will put in place a much simpler process by which an event such as Covid-19 can be managed for slot co-ordination purposes.

In conclusion, in this instrument, the Government have recognised the need to update the definition of a new entrant and to provide additional reasons for allowing alleviation from slot usage rules in order to protect the aviation sector from the potential impact of another pandemic occurring, however remote that possibility might or might not appear. The provisions in the instrument were subject to consultation with the aviation sector in 2023 and received strong support from across industry. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee flagged these regulations as an instrument of interest but did not make any adverse comments. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not report this instrument. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a shortish contribution. First, in general, I welcome these proposals. I declare my interest as a former director of Newcastle Airport, which is of course not on the list of co-ordinated airports because of the lack of congestion—I think that is the term used. I am also a private pilot so I have a particular interest in the way in which this interesting phenomenon of slots has developed over the years.

It seems to me that, in terms of their balance sheets, quite a lot of airlines would not be able to operate unless they had slots as part of the asset base, which isa little unreal and unacceptable. In my opinion, that also puts pressure on obtaining slots out of the pool—or, indeed, in any other way possible. Airport Coordination Limited, which is the organisation that decides on the allocation of slots, therefore has a difficult job, particularly in areas where the return of slots from airlines is quite a difficult situation. Obviously, there are far too few slots relating to all the airports on the list of co-ordinated airports.

Interestingly, although Leeds Bradford Airport is now included as a co-ordinated airport, it certainly does not appear in much of the evidence that I have read in relation to ghost flights, and so on. Will the Minister let me know whether Leeds Bradford Airport has been a late entrant on this list? I would be interested to know.

--- Later in debate ---

However, the introduction of permanent alleviation raises concerns, particularly in terms of its long-term impact. The Government must ensure that these alleviation measures are applied only in cases of significant and severe disruption. With the broad discretion given to co-ordinators in determining eligibility, there is a real need for clarity and oversight, so we must ask the Minister this: how the Government will monitor and assess the effectiveness of these alleviation measures to ensure that they are applied judiciously, fairly and consistently without inadvertently limiting competition or disadvantaging smaller carriers?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. I will attempt to respond to as many of the specific points raised as I can.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, asked about Leeds Bradford Airport. It is a late entrant, entered in 2024, and is subject to slot allocations only in the summer months. The noble Lord also asked how the 80:20 rule is administered. The answer is that, if under 80% of flights over the entire season are not used, they are lost. For desperate circumstances other than Covid, the regulations already have some alleviation, but this statutory instrument adds to them in respect of Covid. I will come back to the change from five to seven slots in answering some other points.

The noble Lord made a serious point about consumer interest in consultation. The Competition and Markets Authority was consulted and supported all the changes. The Civil Aviation Authority was also consulted because it has consumer protection obligations; it, too, fully supported this measure.

The noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Rogan, mentioned the provision of adequate services to Northern Ireland from Great Britain. From some previous work that I did on the union connectivity review, I know that this is a subject of much concern—and, occasionally, criticism—in Northern Ireland. Recently, I answered a Question in your Lordships’ House about the cancellation of an early flight from Belfast to London; that cancellation seems to have been astonishingly ill advised from the point of view of the airline operator, judging by the number of noble Lords and Members of the other place who were inconvenienced by it. So I understand the noble Lords’ points and the previous proposals for Bills in this direction.

The noble Lord suggested a more fundamental review of slot allocation system; such a wider reform would need primary legislation. The previous Government consulted on this from December 2023 to March 2024, and the current Government are now considering the need for wider slot reform; I am sure that the specific availability of slots from Northern Ireland will be part of that consideration.

I draw to the attention of both noble Lords the fact that, as I noted in the union connectivity review, the Government have a public service obligation and support flights from Derry/Londonderry to London precisely to make sure that there is connectivity from Northern Ireland to London.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made two points about the extent to which the European Union is in advance of or behind these changes. In both cases, we are making these changes in advance of the EU making similar changes in respect of both Covid and the minimum slot allocation. On her point about moving from five to seven slots, that move is certainly helpful to consumers because, as other noble Lords have noted, increasing the number gives an opportunity for new services to support themselves in viability and, therefore, to be more permanent. So the answer to that question is that it will help. On whether the number is the right one, there was certainly consensus that the number should be increased but little consensus about what it should be, so bringing ourselves in line with international legislation seems, frankly, a pretty sensible thing to do.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked whether new entrants can be protected in some way. Of course, I raised in my original speech that new entrant carriers are given priority in the allocation of slots, as the regulation requires that 50% of the slots shall first be allocated to new entrants unless the requests from them are less than 50%. That seems a sensible provision to allow new entrants a first opportunity here.

Lastly, the noble Earl asked how the Government will ensure that the provisions for severe disruption are used only in exceptional circumstances. In respect of something like a pandemic, it is pretty clear that the provisions have to be drastic. There are other provisions in existing regulations for alleviation, which will continue to apply.

I hope that I have covered all the points made by noble Lords on this proposed statutory instrument. I conclude by saying that it will make two permanent changes to Regulation 95/93, reducing barriers to entry at UK airports and making the slot allocation system more resilient. This instrument is putting the UK on the front foot; as I said, we are now in advance of the European Union on both of this measure’s substantial subject matters. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Driving Tests: Secondary Market

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to ban the secondary market in driving tests.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has announced measures to review the driving test booking system. It launched a call for evidence on 18 December seeking views on the current rules to book tests. This will lead to consultation on improving processes with potential future legislative changes. On 6 January, the same organisation also introduced tougher terms and conditions for driving instructors booking and managing car driving tests for their pupils.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful for that Answer, but I think the answer to my Question is no—although it was very skilfully camouflaged. This is a racket. Middlemen are hoovering up slots on the DVSA website and then charging learner drivers a premium to access them. I googled this morning “Book your driving test earlier”. I got eight hits on the first page, with lots of inducements: “You can receive a test a month earlier than you would usually find on the DVSA website” and “Get your driving licence faster with early test bookings”. Another one said, “Book a driving test quicker with our booking system”. Trustpilot reveals that some of those are scams, with people paying £90 and not getting a test. Last month, the previous Secretary of State said:

“we will review and improve the rules around booking tests, including”,

as the Minister has just said,

measures to ban the resale of driving test appointments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/24; col. 52WS.]

Why do the Government not just get on with it and ban this racket?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his research. He is right that there are some people making money out of this and they should not do it. My Answer was not just no; one of the considerations in working through what needs to be done is that we do not inadvertently make it more difficult for legitimate people looking for tests to book them. Less than one-quarter of total test bookings in September last year had been swapped from one licence to another, which means that swapping affects only a minority of tests.

The real answer is to reduce the length of time it takes to get a test. Currently in England, it is nearly 21 weeks. The Government have a target to reduce that to seven weeks by the end of December this year. For this purpose, we are recruiting 450 extra driving examiners on top of the 1,456 full-time equivalents there already are. That will make a very substantial difference, with the aim of obviating any activity as he describes and getting people tests when they can take them.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, given the disparities in driving test availability that the Minister has just mentioned, will he consider incentivising local authorities to help address these shortages by supporting additional mobile driving-test centres in areas with high demand or limited access?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The issue with the availability of tests is very substantially related to the availability of driving examiners, rather than the locations in which they are conducted. As I said, the additional 33% increase on top of the current number of full-time equivalent driving examiners is the thing that will make a real difference.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, the current situation is grossly unsatisfactory for learner drivers. The noble Lord who asked the Question referred to a cost of £99; I have knowledge of someone who paid £400 simply to get a local, quick driving test. Many people are suffering because they need that. Can the Minister tell us, as well as recruitment, what his department is doing to ensure that industrial relations are better between driving examiners and the department, in order to get us back to the situation—which we have never got back to—as it was pre-Covid?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

One consideration in improving the relationship between driving examiners and the DVSA is to have enough of them to conduct tests on a basis where people do not feel excluded or significantly delayed. It is not the only action the Government are taking: my honourable friend the Future of Roads Minister made a Statement in the other place on 18 December with a seven-point plan, all of which is designed both to help people get tests when they need them and to reduce the amount of time it takes between applying for a test and actually taking one.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend who, after a lifetime of bicycling, offers greater advocacy for learner drivers than the Government appear interested in doing—possibly he is looking for a driving test himself at this late stage. During the previous Government, in the last 18 months, the DVSA issued 283 warnings and 746 suspensions, and closed 689 alleged businesses all over this scam. None of this enforcement activity has been mentioned by the Minister. Has it been dropped? Has the DVSA gone slack under a Labour Administration, while they are focusing on consultations and reworkings of processes?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

As a matter of fact, the statistics I can quote back to him are that 344 warnings and 791 suspensions have been issued, and 811 business accounts have been closed since the new Government took office. I think that comprehensively demonstrates that there has been no such slackening off and that the DVSA is on top of this. The real answer, however, is to reduce the amount of time it takes to get the test in the first place so that people do not feel very early in their learning journey that they have to book a test long in advance of it taking place. The Government’s aim is to get that down to seven weeks by recruiting a large quantity of driving examiners, to whom I previously referred.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that there was a civil servant who drove all the way to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight for driving? Can the Minister take time out from his very busy schedule to advise Mr Dominic Cummings that he should stick to driving and improving his driving, rather than trying to undermine the elected Government of this country in association with Elon Musk?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have no need to do that; my noble friend has just done it for me.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has just said that 25% of tests appear to go through some of these third-party sites. My noble friend has also said that some of these sites are genuine scams. Why is it that any driving test can be booked anywhere except on the official DVSA website? Why can he not just sort that?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

One of my colleagues said, sotto voce, “For the same reason that you did not”, which is perhaps not an unreasonable point.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

This system has to allow people to book tests at the time that they need them. I did not say that 25% had been through one of these websites; I said that a quarter of total test bookings had been swapped from one licence to another. Of course, the reason why you would go to a driving instructor who has a number of pupils is that a driving instructor can apply for a test for one pupil and then transfer it to another if the second pupil is making faster progress than the first. That is how it should be. The number of people going through these agencies is clearly more than zero and, since it is, we should do something about it. But we have to do that in a way that does not prevent driving instructors from running decent businesses and also allows people to change their bookings when they need to. That is what takes time and care, and that is what the DVSA is working on.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, would it not be possible just to allow driving instructors to book on behalf of someone else and make it illegal for anyone else to do it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. Many tests are booked by the applicants themselves, and there cannot be any reason why you could not be able to do that, as a potential holder of a driving licence. Equally, driving instructors have to be able to run a business, and one of the benefits of going to a registered driving instructor is that they have some flexibility in tests for their pupils.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, secondary markets almost always develop as a consequence of state failure, and this is no exception. We all know people affected—I have two children who have been. The state failure, and the explosion in these websites, began with lockdown. Is not the ultimate answer to get these and indeed other government employees to come back to the office?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The one thing that driving examiners cannot do is work in an office.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

That must be self-evident. The real answer to this whole issue is to reduce the amount of time it takes from an application to the test occurring. If, as we expect, we can reduce that with the recruitment of 450 driving examiners, the first of which are about to start doing driving tests—and if we can reduce it from the current 21 weeks in England to seven weeks by December—we will have obviated the problem.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I come to the Bill, I will pay my respects to Baroness Randerson. Since being appointed to your Lordships’ House, Baroness Randerson served as a Government Minister and spent almost 10 years as her party’s transport spokesperson. During this time, she showed a mastery of the transport brief, making important contributions to wide-ranging debates and holding successive Governments to account.

After becoming a Minister in July, I enjoyed exchanging views over the Dispatch Box and in private with Baroness Randerson. I was very grateful to work closely with her on the recent Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill—now Act—the first Bill I have taken through as a Government Minister, and she showed her characteristic attention to detail, inquisitiveness and determination to ensure that the legislation left this House in the best shape possible. I know she was enthusiastic about the Bill in front of your Lordships’ House today and would have wanted again to make sure that it left this House in excellent shape. On that, I will do my best.

As your Lordships will be aware, Baroness Randerson had a distinguished career prior to her introduction to the Lords, serving in the Welsh Assembly, now the Senedd, as the Member for Cardiff Central for 12 years and holding a ministerial post in the Welsh Government. I am honoured to have had the opportunity to work with her, and I know that her commitment to public service will be long remembered. I send my condolences to her family, friends and colleagues in this House.

Moving to the Bill, I am pleased to present the Bus Services (No.2) Bill for Second Reading today. It is not to be confused with the Bus Services Bill, which was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the other place. I declare my interest as a licensed PCV driver and that the charity of which my wife and I are trustees holds a number of community bus service permits used for the Imberbus service, which raises money for charitable purposes.

Buses are the most popular mode of public transport and are essential for growth, jobs and housing. However, we have seen in England that passenger numbers and bus service levels have been in decline, with 1.8 billion fewer annual bus journeys outside London in 2023-24 compared with 1985-86. The Transport Act 1985 radically changed the bus industry by privatising the National Bus Company companies and deregulating services outside London, restricting the powers of local leaders to decide what is best for their local area. This Government intend to reverse this.

In London, passengers have long benefited from public control of the bus network, with lower fares and frequent and reliable services. The 1.8 billion passenger journeys made in London in the year ending March 2024 demonstrate how critical the network is to London. This figure accounts for over half of all bus journeys in England. Outside London, two of the existing local authority bus companies, in Nottingham and Reading, are ranked second and third for the highest number of bus journeys per head in England. The success of London, Nottingham and Reading is not a coincidence. Passengers will use good services. It is therefore only right that these options are available to all local transport authorities.

As a Government we are committed to delivering better buses. In the 2024 manifesto the Government set out a clear plan to improve bus networks. This Bill marks an important contribution to supporting the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth and break down the barriers to opportunity. Changes that the Bill makes will enable safer, more reliable, inclusive and accessible networks that provide the connections that passengers need. This, as I said, is essential to accessing vital jobs, education and healthcare in cities, towns and rural areas across England.

The Bill is about providing local leaders the ability to choose the best way of running services in their area, a choice not currently available everywhere in England. Local authorities should be able to decide how best to run their services, choosing the right operating model that works for their communities. This will help improve bus services and grow usage, meaning that it will be passengers who benefit. The Bill is focused and narrow in scope. Its measures apply primarily to local bus services in England. School services are also in scope due to the single clause relating to enhanced criminal record checks for drivers of school services.

We have already taken a first step in reforming bus services. We brought forward the Franchising Schemes (Franchising Authorities) (England) Regulations 2024. These came into force on 18 December and enable all local transport authorities in England to franchise their bus services. These powers had previously been limited to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral county combined authorities. The Bill builds on these regulations and marks the next step in our ambitious plan towards a better bus network. The need for reform is clear—to reverse the decline in passenger numbers and services that have been depleted over many years, and particularly recently.

Transport for Greater Manchester’s journey to bus franchising has shown the potential benefits of greater public control. It is timely to be presenting the Bill during the week in which its journey has been completed. Manchester has already seen patronage increase by 5% since public control began to be rolled out in 2023. Elsewhere, local authority bus companies such as Nottingham City Transport have delivered award-winning services to passengers. There are also great examples of local transport authorities working in partnership with the private sector to deliver excellent services, such as in Brighton, Norfolk, Bournemouth and Poole, and Wiltshire. Sadly, there are also examples of towns and cities with little or no evening or Sunday services, and rural areas with no services at all. There will be no one-size-fits-all approach. Different cities, towns and rural areas have different needs. The Bill is about ensuring that local areas have all the tools they need to improve bus services for their communities.

Bus services are the lifeblood of communities. They carry people to hospital appointments, to school and to their jobs. This is especially true for women, those who are young, those on low incomes, ethnic minorities and the elderly, all of whom rely on buses more. Given the strong case for change, the principles behind the Bill should, I hope, receive cross-party support. The manifestos of all three main political parties acknowledged the importance of buses. There is also strong public support, so I sincerely hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House can get behind the Bill as a vital step towards fixing our fragmented and variable bus networks.

I know from speaking to many noble Lords that they believe in improving the bus network for the better, whether that is improving accessibility or rural services, or protecting routes. The Bill seeks to address all these issues and keep passengers at the core of its aims. It is a government priority. The ambition is clear, and it is hoped that the Bill will deliver greater consistency in bus services across the country. Its objectives include protecting passengers from anti-social behaviour and violence, reducing fare evasion and expanding powers to local authorities on bus funding.

I am sure that some noble Lords will question how the Bill moves forward from the last fundamental shift in bus legislation. It is true that the Bus Services Act 2017 gave new powers to local transport authorities to create enhanced partnerships and allowed mayoral combined and mayoral combined county authorities to pursue bus franchising, but these franchising powers did not extend more widely. New local authority-owned bus companies, formerly referred to as municipal companies, were also banned by that Act.

This Bill builds on the 2017 reforms, while also reversing the ban on local authority-owned bus companies. This will help deliver a wider set of options for local areas. Local transport authorities—LTAs—know the needs of their communities and they are best placed to decide what shape their bus services should take.

I will briefly enumerate what the Bill does. It is split into 11 areas. First, while the recent franchising regulations removed the limit on which local authorities could franchise, the clauses on franchising in the Bill will streamline the process, including by removing the Secretary of State consent requirement. The intention is to introduce flexibility and to reduce the amount of time it takes for LTAs to franchise their bus services if they choose to do so.

Secondly, a provision in the Bill will require LTAs to specify requirements which must be followed where bus operators under enhanced partnerships wish to vary or cancel a service that has been identified as a socially necessary local service.

Thirdly, for local areas where enhanced partnerships remain the best option for local services, the Bill will strengthen these partnerships, allowing for improved working between LTAs and bus operators.

Fourthly, the Bill will repeal the ban on establishing new local authority bus companies, giving local authorities the chance to use their local knowledge to run services in their area and opening up powers currently limited to the five legacy local authority bus companies.

Fifthly, LTAs will be given the power to design and make grants to operators of bus services in their areas. They will have greater freedoms to decide where that money is directed.

Sixthly, provisions on bus registration will improve the availability of information for passengers. This includes new statutory powers to require LTAs in franchised areas to provide information about local bus services with the aim of helping to improve reliability for passengers.

Seventhly, the Bill includes measures to improve safety on buses by giving powers for LTAs to bring forward by-laws to tackle anti-social behaviour and powers to enforce fare requirements.

Eighthly, it is important to increase the safety and accessibility of stopping places, so there is a measure giving the Secretary of State the ability to set out expectations for bus stops and bus stations in statutory guidance.

Ninthly, the Bill closes an existing loophole through the inclusion of a safeguard for school services. This requires the operator of a public service vehicle to check an enhanced criminal record certificate for drivers who carry out closed school transport services more than three times in any 30-day period.

Penultimately, there is a power in the Bill to mandate training of bus staff, including bus drivers, on tackling crime. This is intended to tackle incidences of violence against women and girls, as well as anti-social behaviour. There is also a measure for training on disability awareness and assistance.

Finally, to meet the commitment to move towards sustainable travel, there is a measure on zero-emission buses to accelerate their rollout by introducing a restriction on the use of new non-zero-emission buses on registered local bus services. But, in recognition that the industry will need time to adjust to this change, this will not come into force before 1 January 2030.

This is a comprehensive and focused Bill that reforms and develops critical aspects of bus services. Stakeholders, including the bus industry, have been engaged throughout policy development to ensure that the provisions are fit for purpose and address the key challenges that the industry faces.

The Bill’s application is largely to England only. This is the case for the critical measures relating to bus operating models, such as franchising. Certain clauses will also apply to Wales and/or Scotland where necessary, but the Bill as drafted will not require any legislative consent motions from the Welsh Senedd or Scottish Parliament.

Before I conclude my opening remarks, I reinforce that reform does not end with this Bill. This journey has many stops. Following Royal Assent there will be further regulations required, including on franchising, bus registration, fare evasion, staff training and zero-emission buses. These are needed so that that which the Bill has enabled can be set out clearly for industry stakeholders and local authorities to follow. My department will continue to engage with all parties.

I recognise that franchising is a choice, but that this route is not currently well trodden. My department is therefore developing guidance to increase capability and capacity in those authorities that are striving to franchise, and this guidance will follow the Bill.

While the Bill does not introduce new funding, I am sure that noble Lords will wish to debate funding through the parliamentary process. It would be remiss not to mention the Government’s Budget commitment to over £1 billion of funding for buses in 2025-26 to support and improve services and keep fares affordable.

To conclude, this Government will reform the bus network to deliver improved services for passengers across England. This supports our growth and opportunity missions, providing a clear strategic direction for buses and proper integration and co-ordination. The Bill presents an unprecedented opportunity, learning from the 2017 Act, to create a safer, more reliable and transparent bus network, with local leaders having more powers to decide what is best for the local area that they represent. This will be a step forward in reversing the decades of decline that have become synonymous with bus travel in this country. There is much to be done and this will not be an easy journey, but industry stakeholders and local authorities alike are invested in creating an improved bus network that users can be proud of. This Bill is a vital component in our plan to reform buses. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank those who have engaged in today’s lively debate on the Bill. I have listened carefully and with much interest to the excellent points being raised across your Lordships’ House. I will attempt to respond to some but not half as many questions and concerns as I would like to because of the time. We also have Committee, in which we can explore many of these issues in greater detail. In the meantime, I will follow up where I can as soon as I can on some of the issues that I cannot mention now.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his introduction, much of which was covered by what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just said, but I will say one or two things to him in passing. First, on the notion that bus fares increased by 50% from £2 to £3, it is of course a calculation that bus fares of £2 increased to £3, but many passengers do not travel on individual tickets. Also, as the industry trade body said, for the 26% of passengers who travel on individual tickets many fares for shorter journeys remain below £3. The cost of franchising in Manchester is not £1 billion; it actually cost, on a one-off basis, £135 million, much of that paid for by Greater Manchester itself. One of the reasons why it cost so much money is because it took six years, as the process was so convoluted. A clear aim of this Bill is to make franchising easier.

Also, as a point of issue, it is not only electric buses that get recalled by manufacturers. As a bus operator, I can tell your Lordships of many circumstances in which buses have rightly been recalled for safety reasons. I think it is inevitable that zero-emission buses will take over in future, and the Bill seeks to ensure that the industry recognises that. However, he is right in referring to a one-team ethos; I am not entirely sure that that sentiment was reflected in what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, just said, but we will do our best to get a good Bill out of this, I am sure, and I welcome that sentiment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her really helpful remarks. The devolution of funding and the statutory guidance given by the Secretary of State, under new Section 154A, we will debate in Committee. It is not the intention to apparently devolve funding and then put on such rules that in fact it is not really devolved. The intention of the Bill is to allow a much greater level of freedom for local transport authorities than they have had. It is also the intention of the Government in due course to streamline the funding streams above that. I recognise that point completely. Frankly, I am as confused as some noble Lords about how many streams there are. The noble Baroness mentioned some of them, and that would be better, but actually the result of this Bill is that to make it much easier at the point at which the money is distributed, which must be the right thing.

I recognise the points about young people’s fares. There are already local transport authorities that give concessions to young people, and nothing in this Bill will prevent that. The wider point, which we will come to again and again with this Bill, is that this is designed to give local transport authorities more freedom. A number of noble Lords have referred to that this afternoon and this evening. It is the right thing to do because buses are a local service, not a national service. I will come back to the specific remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the end, but the clear intention of this Bill is to allow local transport authorities to decide what methodology of providing a service is best for them and then to do it.

I was much heartened by hearing that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, a former Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, welcomed multiyear funding. I will reflect with my colleagues in government on what his experience is of that. We have to wait for the Spring Statement to know what this Government are able to do in the straitened financial circumstances that they find themselves.

The noble Lord and other noble Lords have referred to open data, and I can certainly commit to the fact that open data is the intention of this Bill and of the Government. The intention of open data, reflecting the recent point by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is that it should be free. That is the right thing to do. If you want public transport usage to increase, the data should be available. I have a rather good story to tell the House about open data. At Transport for London, we searched for the person who developed the best open data app for the Underground. I said that I would like to see that person. It turned out that they worked for a bank in Melbourne, and it was not immediately possible for them to turn up in my office. However, it is a really important point.

The noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Hampton, and others, referred to integrated ticketing. I will write to them about that. It is obviously the intention to have integrated ticketing. One of the attractions of franchising is that it enables that to happen. One of the weaknesses of commercial bus provision outside London is the degree to which individual operators would rather offer that technology but only on their own buses, whereas the public and passengers want it to be available on every bus. I know that my noble friend Lady Blake has some experience of that from Leeds and West Yorkshire. It is obviously desirable for passengers, particularly in urban areas, to be able to use any bus and for the ticketing system to be consistent.

A number of noble Lords referred to training. There is already mandatory training for bus drivers. The intention of this Bill is to specify further mandatory training but to deliver it within that regime, which I think is absolutely right. A number of noble Lords referred also to the roads on which buses operate. It is quite right that the reliability and indeed the economics of bus operation are vastly altered by the existence of congestion and the ability of buses to get through traffic, whether through bus lanes or other things. One of the most notable things about the Manchester franchising is that a consequence of putting some of the bus service into the control of the Mayor of Greater Manchester, then to be reflected in the local transport authority, was that a vastly increased focus was immediately available on, for example, getting rid of temporary traffic lights and straightening out traffic management. There have been references this afternoon and this evening to what help can be given to local transport authorities that wish to engage in franchising. The Bus Centre of Excellence has been mentioned. It does not need full-time employees but for advice to be available when needed. One of the features of that is to give advice on traffic management so that buses can take their appropriate place in transporting passengers in local areas.

It is always a delight to hear from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin. He has made some excellent decisions in his time, including appointing me as the chair of Network Rail, though my wife was not similarly impressed by that appointment. Many of the points that he raised are obviously germane, in particular on the very sharp decline in passenger numbers in the north of England. He said that one size does not fit all, and he is absolutely right—I think that is much more to his point. This Bill enables local transport authorities in cities, towns and rural areas to choose the best way of going forward. It is not necessarily franchising. Even if it is franchising, it is not necessarily on whole routes. Some of it is about franchising in particular areas where a franchise mechanism might produce better public services. The Government do not want to dictate whether you should have a franchise; they want local transport authorities to use the best mechanisms that they can.

It was a delight to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and even better to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is recovering. I look forward to seeing her in her place. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a number of questions that will have to be answered either in Committee or in correspondence. She referred particularly to recovering lost routes. One of the real sadnesses of the last several years is that some bus funding has been available to start new bus routes when the old ones ceased, because they were not able to be funded through that arrangement. But it is better if routes are not stopped and then started again because, in the course of that, you can lose a lot of patronage.

The noble Baroness mentioned South Yorkshire. I can tell her that the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority has completed a franchising assessment, and the consultation on its scheme closes on 15 January.

I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I had an exchange with her previously about the circumstances in North Yorkshire that she raised, and her concerns are known to the Government. I am also aware of a petition tabled to Parliament from a Member for the area in the other place, and my colleagues in the Department for Education will respond to that shortly. I note, out of interest, that North Yorkshire is a Conservative council.

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, referred to matters including the cost of zero-emission buses. One of the reasons for the Bill proposing both an effective ban on non-zero emission vehicles and the date of 2030 is that, as he knows as an experienced bus person, the cost of zero-emission and hybrid vehicles has gone down. The intention is to support sales, which this and the previous Government have strongly supported through funding to bring down the cost of those vehicles, such that they will be available and economical to run when that time comes.

A lot of points were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about bus services, many of which were germane. I have no doubt that we will discuss them in Committee. She asked whether I agree that, as local transport authorities have or will get more responsibility, more councillors should be involved. I am not sure that it is my job to decide that but, as has been mentioned before, help might be needed with some of these arrangements. I know—actually, it is quite well known—that the quality of passenger transport in local transport authorities depends on their having expertise. On that matter, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. One of the purposes of the Bill is to set out the choices, and the department is putting money and resource aside to help people make the right choices and institute them successfully.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised several issues about safety. I will consider the points that he and others have raised about whether safety data should be collected. I will certainly write to the noble Lord and I have no doubt that those matters will be raised in Committee.

I do not drive passenger service vehicles in service very often now, but my technique in keeping time was always secondary to road safety. My belief is that that is still widely true in the bus industry, if only because of financial reasons, because bus operators, and for that matter local transport authorities that choose to operate buses, will always be subject to the costs of insurance. We will have a further look at driver welfare and will no doubt discuss it. The noble Lord also raised data sharing, to which I have already referred.

It was extraordinarily kind of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to refer to London 2012, which now seems quite a long time ago.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It was a long time ago.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It was a long time ago; the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and I completely agree. I wanted only to say that I do not claim particular credit for it; if you lead a team, you should give credit to the team that you lead and not take it all yourself.

The noble Lord’s more important points were about inclusion and accessibility. I absolutely recognise the points he made about the accessibility of the bus service to people with disabilities. I note his contention that Clause 22 does not go far enough, but I promise—and I am sure we will discuss it in Committee—to look at the degree and extent to which this clause can answer his points. He must be able to see that the intention of Clause 22 is to improve bus stopping areas and for the Secretary of State to give some guidance, which ought to be mandatorily taken into regard by local transport and highway authorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised points about community control and who is in control. As I said, the point of this is to return control to local transport authorities. He also raised a question, which he largely answered, about what happens if local transport authorities do not do their job. One would hope that the citizens of the local transport authority would vote them out for not doing their job. That is the remedy. I do not think that the Secretary of State coming down on local transport authorities like a ton of bricks is a satisfactory alternative; we want to return control to the people who should rightly have it.

Incidentally, there have been bus routes down the Embankment since the trains went. I used to travel on route 109, but it does not go there any more.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also raised some important points on the Bill. She raised Clause 9 on approved persons, which we will discuss in Committee. The intention is not to deregulate approved persons but to widen the range of them. I completely agree with her that they should have some qualifications. An unqualified person should not be able to make a judgment about whether a franchising scheme is right.

The noble Baroness asked whether Clause 11 complies with the procurement regulations. I am advised that I am able to tell her that it does.

The noble Baroness welcomed Clause 19 and referred to assistance data. I will take that away and see what can be done. Bringing data on bus service usage into the 21st century is quite important and I am sympathetic to the idea that, as long as it is not a burden to bus operators, or indeed local transport authorities, collecting data is the right thing to do, so that we know what is going on.

I note very clearly the noble Baroness’s comments on Clauses 24 and 25, that diversity training is not the same as the rights for disabled people, and on what we did, with her great assistance, in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, referring to the Equality Act. I will go away and reflect on that.

Lastly, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has some extraordinary views about socialist paradises and returning to the era of the Attlee Government. I find it particularly extraordinary because I know that the noble Lord has such a strong view about the autonomy of local authorities. The Bill intends to return bus services to the autonomy of local authorities and for the Secretary of State not to intervene so much in the provision of services.

I have to tell the noble Lord that there is currently a huge disparity in the provision of bus services across Britain. I was not only responsible for the bus service in London, as he knows, but, for a measurable length of time, I was responsible for the bus services in what was laughingly called south-east England but apparently included Norfolk, Northampton, Leicester and Southampton. Even within one bus group, 20 years ago, there was an extraordinary variation in the provision of services and the extent to which bus operators sought to maximise the network and the return on it, or cut off individual journeys, to the extent to which some towns and cities in Britain find themselves short of or even without bus services after 7 pm and on Sundays.

I think I know roughly how to run a bus network, and one of the things you should do, which is the feature of the best bus services run by the private companies outside London—I can mention some places, but I will not—is to seek to service the network and to take people to school, hospital, work, leisure and home. It is in those places where those services have drifted away that something else needs to be done.

That is also true of rural services. The noble Lord alleged, quite wrongly, that the Bill does not deal with demand-responsive transport. It very much does—that is one of the remedies open to local transport authorities, as it should be. It is not a particularly cheap methodology but it is there to be used and, in fact, there are some startlingly good examples of it. He refers to it as though it is an urban feature but his own Government instituted an experimental regime in Cornwall, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, knows, has produced rather a good bus service in Cornwall by having features of Cornwall Council’s activities that amount to franchising in the same way that the Bill will allow to happen.

I have come to the end of my allotted time. There is a limit to what I can answer here. As I set out earlier, the Bill is primarily about empowering local leaders wherever they are. It is a privilege to bring this forward to your Lordships’ House for Second Reading. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s debate. I welcome the support of those who have spoken in favour of the Bill’s measures and look forward to continuing the debate on the Bill in Grand Committee.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule, Clauses 11 to 31, Title.

Motion agreed.

Old Oak Common: Train Disruption

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what intercity train disruptions are expected and for how long because of the construction of the new Great Western Railway station at Old Oak Common.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, building Old Oak Common station will enable HS2 to start operations by providing a new interchange with the Elizabeth line. Without it, HS2 cannot open. The complex construction work cannot be delivered without some disruption to the Great Western main line. It will require a mixture of overnight and weekend possessions and some limited use of full closures. Industry partners are reviewing plans to ensure that disruption starts no earlier than it needs to and is minimised during construction, and that any journey time impacts, both during construction and future operation, are limited.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation, but is he aware that four of the eight platforms to be built on the Great Western main line are for intercity trains that come from Bristol, Swansea and the south-west? There seems to be no idea of how many people would want to get off a train from Bristol and change at Old Oak Common to get to Birmingham. There is a perfectly good service called CrossCountry. Why is it necessary to have the four intercity platforms built at all? How much money would be saved if they were not built?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I have to give your Lordships a brief description of railway geography in west London. The Great Western main line at Old Oak Common has two pairs of tracks. One is called the main line and the other the relief lines. The Elizabeth line now runs on the relief lines and, as my noble friend said, Great Western main line trains run on the main line. However, two of those four tracks sometimes close for maintenance, and if platforms were not built on the main lines, even in the interim period before HS2 provides the full service that it one day will, the station could not be operational because Elizabeth line trains could not stop on the main lines. So it is essential to have platforms on both sets of tracks, and in the long term, when HS2 is operational and serves a whole variety of destinations in northern England, stopping Great Western Railway trains there will be useful to railway passengers.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my entry in the Member’s register. The current fastest train time from Maidenhead to Paddington is 17 minutes. It is possible that the work at Old Oak Common could cause those trains to stop for 15 minutes, which would double the length of time to no benefit to passengers. Will the Government now actively look at creating a proper hub and interchange station at Old Oak Common or Old Oak Common Lane to improve and provide benefits for people coming from the Thames valley, the south-west and Wales?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I was pleased to discuss this matter with the noble Baroness personally recently. Of course, there will be some benefits to travellers on the Great Western main lines and, particularly, the Elizabeth line east of Reading. On the wider interchange at Old Oak Common, which she referred to, there are other railway lines in the vicinity and providing platforms on those would enhance the interchange experience and improve the effectiveness of the site for the development of jobs and housing, but they are not part of the initial proposals, at least. I will not deal in detail with the times that she mentioned, but I do not recognise them. In fact, we are working very hard—I was on the site with all the industry partners in November—and my estimation is that if we carry out this work properly the actual delay for trains that do not stop on the Great Western main lines will be in the region of 60 to 90 seconds.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what discussions has the Minister had with the new chief executive of High Speed 2 to ensure that all platforms at the new Old Oak Common station will provide level boarding for all passengers?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I was at Old Oak Common with the new chief executive of HS2 on the day of his appointment and I raised the question about platform heights, particularly on the Elizabeth line platforms at Old Oak Common, because I know this is a matter of great interest to everybody who needs level boarding and, indeed, for the safety of the railway. The discussion has not concluded, but her point is very clear and I intend to pursue it.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, given the Government’s sensible decision to restore Euston as the terminus of HS2, is Old Oak Common really necessary given the fact that a lot less passenger interchange will arise following that decision? Will it really take seven years, as has been reported, for this work to take place—if it actually does—bearing in mind that the Chinese could probably build 10,000 miles of electrified railway line in that time?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will answer the second part of the question first. Our construction methods are a good deal safer than Chinese construction methods. Saving lives and preventing accidents on construction sites has been one of the principal activities on the railway and in wider construction for a very long time. Both stations are necessary because HS2 will not be a complete service to anywhere without a central London station, but Old Oak Common will be equally necessary because it will have interchange to, for example, Heathrow Airport. The wider development of the Old Oak Common area will be dependent on a station at Old Oak Common, just as it was in Stratford with the Olympic park.

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

Would the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the House and those of us who are privileged to live in the south-west that our transport needs are given as much attention and priority as those of our vocal friends in the north? It is beginning to feel, with the impact of the six-day contract and the long construction programme at Old Oak Common, that we are being condemned to a six-day service in the south-west, which will have inevitable consequences for individuals’ quality of life and the economic growth of that area.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to criticise a railway that cannot operate reliably on Sundays and a lot of work is going into making sure that the optional working arrangement for Sundays for drivers and train managers on the Great Western Railway is addressed. But he is conflating two issues. We are mindful of the railway needs of the south-west of England. I think I have met virtually every Member of the other House west of Bristol on the matter of Old Oak Common. Old Oak Common will be an asset to the railway, and the railway to the south-west of England. As always with these things, construction is difficult and takes more time than we would like, but the result will be a better railway network for all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said that a station at Euston is indispensable for the success and effectiveness of HS2. Indeed, the Government made funds available in the Budget to build the tunnels from Old Oak Common through to Euston. How close are the Government to seeing deliverable engineering proposals for the construction of those platforms at Euston that allow passengers to board, alight and make use of these tunnels? How far away are we from actually having a plan?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord knows, but one of the things that I took on in my previous role was chairing the Euston Partnership, which I did for five years. In that time, we saw at least two iterations of a design for the HS2 station. One was eye-wateringly expensive and included air-conditioned platforms, which is not the case even in Saudi Arabia. The alternative looked like an eastern European railway station after the Second World War, with corrugated iron canopies. Neither of those is at all sufficient. I have seen work going on for an integrated station between the Network Rail side and the HS2 side. I am optimistic that it is affordable, and that it can be financed and built. Incidentally, there will be a large amount of office space, creating jobs and housing in that area as well.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister will be well aware of the vital importance of these rail links to the south Wales economy. He will also be aware of the uncertainty that has arisen on many occasions recently regarding the dependability of services. Therefore, in view of these changes, can he look to find some mechanism whereby the maximum amount of advance information can be made available about the impact of these changes so that people travelling know what to expect?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I welcome that question. One of the issues that arose was quite clearly that a number of Members of the other House had not received information about the closures in November and at Christmas and the new year. I spoke to the managing director of Great Western Railway so that that information was shared. I can leave the noble Lord with this thought: I am not expecting further disruption as a result of the construction of Old Oak Common in this calendar year, the next one or, indeed, the one after that. I think the next line closures are quite some way away. That would be right, because we should start that construction process no earlier than it needs to be done in order to open it in time for HS2.

Electric Scooters and Electric Bicycles: Pedestrian Safety

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to introducing safeguards to protect pedestrians and the disabled when considering whether to permit additional categories of electric scooters and electric bicycles.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, safety is our top priority, especially for our most vulnerable road users and disabled people. There will be no new categories of e-cycles or e-scooters before the impacts on these groups have been thoroughly considered. Any new regulations will be subject to public consultation before they come into force and designed with disabled people—not for them—utilising the Government’s independent expert committee, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

There are a number of troubling features about e-scooters and e-bikes, and disagreements on solutions, including licensing, insurance, speed restrictions and better enforcement, such as the impounding of vehicles ridden on the pavement, which is my favourite. The problem is getting worse. It is a Wild West out there, with deaths, injuries and a growing fear among the disabled and elderly, not to mention the mushrooming of crime. Will the Minister ensure that early action is taken and, at the very least, could he work with the mayor and the Met to introduce much more robust action in London, where this is such a problem?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly understand the noble Baroness’s point. As far as e-scooters go, the last Government commissioned the trials in 2020 and legislation was promised in 2022 but not delivered. That trial is therefore still in force and the length of time is regrettable. A very similar Question was answered on the last sitting day before Christmas. It is a complicated area. We need to work out what the best forms of regulation are. I note her plea to me to talk to the mayor and the Metropolitan Police. Of course, the enforcement of these regulations is always a matter for chief police officers and I know that the mayor is as concerned as the Government are about this.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the design of these bikes is a real problem. At the moment, they are limited to 15 miles per hour, but hardly any of them observe it. By simple modifications, two things can happen: the speed can be increased to 30 miles per hour and, by pressing a button, they can maintain the speed without any cycling. We should really have something done about that. Along with all the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned, I have argued that cyclists should be legislated against. What is the argument for not legislating for registration marks, licensing and insurance for e-cycles, which, in 2023, killed the most people on the roads that we have ever seen?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly know that the noble Lord has a strong view on this. We had a debate in the autumn and, as I said, a Question on this before Christmas. He is right in saying that there is a limit to the legal use of pedal cycles—a maximum assisting speed of 15.5 miles per hour and a maximum power of 250 watts—and it is clear that plenty of e-cycles have been either sold or adapted that do in excess of that and, as a result, are in fact motor vehicles and should be registered, licensed, ridden and insured as such. In the end, it is up to chief police officers to enforce this. He is remarking on a subject of growing concern in our urban areas, which should be addressed by chiefs of police.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, many bikes are being imported from abroad that are illegal. Do the Government have any plans to clamp down on the illegal importation of vehicles that should not be on the road?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend is right: there are plenty of imports and plenty of illegal sales of these in this country. It is a trading standards matter and there has been some action. If I leaf through these pages fast enough, I will be able to find the statistics for what we know about what has happened so far. But, of course, that is a local authority matter. In the end, we need legislation. It is a shame that it did not start with e-scooters. The Government are committed to doing something. The subject of the original Question—the effect on disabled people—is clearly of great concern and we will seek to address it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am really grateful that the Minister just referred to disabled people. Many people in wheelchairs are finding that dockless bikes being dumped all over the pavements means that they do not just have a problem but cannot go down the street. Just before Christmas, the RNIB’s most recent survey of its members said that 47% of respondents had said that they felt unsafe on the pavements. Will the Government consider ensuring that e-scooters and e-bikes are more visually and audibly detectable? Whether or not they are illegal, they are on the pavements and causing problems. Will they also please ban dockless bikes?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly recognise the passion with which the noble Baroness speaks. Before Christmas, the Government published the English devolution White Paper, which has in it a provision for local transport authorities to be empowered to regulate on street micromobility—that is, e-bikes and e-cycle schemes—so that local areas can shape these schemes and tackle the scourge of badly parked e-cycles and e-scooters.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, as well as being potentially criminally ridden, these vehicles are also being used in the course of committing crime. In 2023-24, there were 11,000 offences recorded involving the use of e-bikes and e-scooters—a huge growth on previous years, and there is no sign of abatement. Do the Minister and his Government have a plan for curbing this epidemic?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is easy to recognise the position the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, talked about. Indeed, he talked about it in very similar terms the week before Christmas. It is primarily a matter of enforcement by chief police officers, simply because, as he says, there may or may not be a crime in relation to the use of e-scooters and e-bikes, but crimes are being committed as a consequence of using them. This debate is one of the ways of drawing it to the attention of chief police officers, so that enforcement action is appropriately taken.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, despite rental e-scooters being legal for use in public places in some English cities, they remain illegal on the roads and footpaths of Northern Ireland. However, they do sometimes appear, which prompted the Police Service of Northern Ireland to take to social media before Christmas to warn that any e-scooters gifted in the Province could be used only on private land. Using his good offices, can the Minister offer an assurance that any possible change to the legal status of e-scooters in Northern Ireland will not happen without full and proper consultation with the PSNI?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am certainly willing to commit to consultation with all the enforcement authorities on this, because it is very important, when we are able to do something about this, that the law is framed in a way that can be enforced both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one of my concerns is the number of scooters and bikes, whether electric or otherwise, ridden on the pavements. Does the Minister have any statistics on the number of people injured or killed by this method in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly have statistics about the number of people injured and killed in connection with cycling in general. I do not believe there are statistics specifically about these things being ridden on pavements, but I am not wholly sure we need to see that, because it is quite clear that riding e-scooters, e-bikes and bicycles on pavements is the wrong thing to do. The original Question is about the effect on the disabled. It is clearly a threat to the mobility of disabled people to find these cycles or scooters being either ridden or just dumped on the pavement. Both things are unsatisfactory for the mobility of our disabled people in Britain.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, given the huge safety concerns, what is the timescale for new legislation to regulate private electric bikes and e-scooters?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is a shame that the previous Government did not carry through their intention to legislate in 2022. Deciding what the overall legislative policy of the Government should be is above my pay grade, but it is clear that this is an issue we need to confront and the department is thinking very clearly. The noble Baroness will recall that I wrote to her to show her the variety of rules and regulations for these things across Europe and other countries. The department is thinking about this in advance, because framing this legislation will be more difficult than it might be because of the range of solutions adopted in other countries.

Cost of Living: Rail Fares

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the level of rail fares on the cost of living.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I answer the Question, I must say how sad I am to hear of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who I have known for a long time. I was expecting to see her in her place today for this Question but, sadly and unexpectedly, that was not to be. I will say more at the Second Reading of the Bus Services (No.2) Bill on Wednesday.

I turn now to the Question. We aim to keep the level of fares at a point that works for passengers and taxpayers. The forthcoming 4.6% increase to regulated rail fares is the lowest absolute increase in three years. To further balance rail fares with the cost of living, various concessions, rail cards and promotions are available. In early 2025, we will be holding a network-wide rail sale, giving passengers savings of up to 50% on selected advance and off-peak fares.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I would like to add my personal condolences on the loss of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who was an outstanding parliamentarian and public servant.

Does the Minister agree that the rail fare increase is a direct consequence of agreeing an increase in train drivers’ pay without agreeing an increase in productivity? Further, can he explain to the House how he expects fare increases and the inflationary increase to achieve the Government’s core goal of fuelling growth in the economy?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The pay increase for train drivers and other railway staff, made last July, was in truth very little different from the proposals of the previous Government—although these were manipulated so that the dispute was unresolved for many months, leading to a huge loss in revenue for the railway. The previous Government’s proposals had no productivity conditions attached to them. This Government were not in a position to offer productivity conditions, simply because many of the train companies had not developed proposals that would enable a wage deal to be made.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I offer my condolences to the family of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and pay tribute to the work that she did in Wales, not only on cultural matters but on transport matters. She will be greatly missed.

Does the Minister accept that one matter even more important to rail travellers than the cost of tickets is that the trains are running? What is the answer to the shortage of drivers, which is apparently the reason why Avanti West Coast is so often unable to maintain its timetable? What are the Government doing about it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The shortage of drivers, and in some cases train managers and guards, is endemic and a result of insufficient attention being paid over a long period of time—including the period in which the last Government were in control—leaving the train companies without enough staff to staff the service. This Government intend to do something about the numbers of drivers, train managers and guards. We also intend to make running the railway a seven days per week issue rather than, in many cases, a railway where six days are rostered and the seventh day is dependent on people volunteering to work on rest days.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, under the last Tory Government, we saw it become cheaper sometimes to fly to New York than to get a train from Manchester to Euston. Will the Government’s action make train travel affordable for ordinary people? At the moment, we have been left with a legacy where many people cannot afford to travel by train.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. The truth of the matter is that, although regulated fares are controlled by the Government, there are many other fares on the railways, some of which produce eye-wateringly expensive charges for what used to be the traditional peak period, while others are extraordinarily cheap, even by continental standards. One of the many jobs that this Government have to do in reforming the railways is to rationalise the 50 million fares, making them affordable and understandable for passengers in order to improve revenue and improve demand on the railway.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, it is with great sadness that I lead for the Lib Dems today on this transport Question, given the tragic passing of our noble friend Lady Randerson. She was such a wise person and we will miss her enormously. I hope that the moving tributes from across the political divide and beyond will provide some comfort to her family and friends at this time.

Given that rail journeys remain below pre-pandemic levels, could the Minister outline specific ongoing measures that the Government are considering to incentivise rail travel?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her warm tribute to Baroness Randerson.

As I said, the Government are to have a rail sale early this year, in which many millions of tickets will be sold at discounted fares. Noble Lords will know that, following Covid, the demand characteristics of the railway have changed: there is still less commuting, despite changes in working practices, and more leisure travel. That gives real opportunities to produce fresh fare scenarios that will incentivise travel. To pre-empt a question that otherwise will be asked, the railway needs to be adequately able to cope with leisure travel for all seven days of the week in order that people can not only travel cheaply but get a seat when they do.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I echo what the Minister said about the late Baroness Randerson. We will have an opportunity to discuss her sad demise later in the week and return to the subject then.

In the future that the Minister envisages for the reformed railways, will it still be the case that regulated fares are set by the Secretary of State, or does he expect that power to pass to Great British Railways? Will that be in the consultation document that he has promised is going to be issued? When are we going to see that consultation document, given that he told the House he hoped it would be issued before the Christmas Recess, which clearly has not been the case?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments on Baroness Randerson.

On the future of the fares structure of the railway, it is overwhelmingly likely that, whoever the Secretary of State is, they will continue to have a strong interest in the fares structure of the railway. However, the proposition is that Great British Railways will be responsible for both revenue and cost, and therefore will have some freedom to set fares. It is true that I had hoped that the consultation document would be available before Christmas, but clearly that was not the case. The passage of the seasons in political time is variable, but I am going to promise that it will be available in the next few weeks.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the Government promised us that public ownership of the railways would mean lower fares and better performance. We already have four previous franchises run by the state—that is, run by him and his department. Have those four areas experienced lower fares and better performance?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The first thing to say is that public ownership of the railways, as the noble Lord knows, is not the only issue that needs to be resolved for the railway to run better. He will also know, because he was there at the time, that two of the companies were taken over at times of great distress in either performance or commercial performance, and that there are companies among those four where better performance and innovative fare structures have delivered a real result, notably the London North Eastern Railway.

The noble Lord must know that the performance of Northern is not very good, but also that it has been in public ownership for six years. I have said from this position before that industrial disputes there have been going on for so long that the management could not immediately enumerate how many they had got. That seems to me to be a failure of the previous Government and of the previous regime, because if you take a railway company into public ownership then you should seek to resolve its performance issues. This Government intend to do just that with those train companies which are already in public ownership but not performing in the way that London North Eastern Railway is.