Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

19: Clause 4, page 15, line 12, at end insert—
“(9) A local service contract must require that new vehicles delivering local services meet the specifications of the low emission bus scheme as set out by the Office for Low Emission Vehicles in its 2015 document “Low Emission Bus Scheme: Guidance for participants” if the vehicle comes into service after 1st April 2019.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, in my various discussions with bus operators, it has become clear to me that recruiting bus drivers is a complex and localised process. A standard tariff of wages across a large area can attract people in one part of it and be inadequate in another. Certainly, the experience of Transport for London has been along those lines: it is difficult to attract drivers in central London and easier in parts of outer London. That applies also to areas such as Bristol. Therefore, how one deals with the TUPE regulations and the transfer of staff from one company to another is essential to good relations between the workforce and the employer. We on these Benches support the intention of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

fits the bill. The amendments have our full support.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the views put forward by the two previous speakers. Under previous legislation, there were five main tests for franchising. I do not propose to go over them, but they were fairly stringent. Attempts by local authorities to introduce franchising previously failed those tests.

We are in uncharted territory with the Bill. It does not seem inherently fair that the authority that wants to set up a franchising scheme can be judge and jury for that scheme, which appears to be the current situation. We need a degree of independence in judging the merits or otherwise of such a franchising proposal. Common fairness demands some sort of independent scrutiny of the proposals.

I do not know the Minister’s intention, but I hope that he will see the common sense and fairness behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. If an independent element is not introduced, one can just imagine the number of judicial reviews that will be held—from one end of the country to the other—if bus companies feel that they have been unfairly treated by the franchising authority acting as judge and jury. So the amendment is eminently sensible and I hope that the Minister will act on it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, simply inserts the word “independent”. It is, however, extremely important, as it makes clear that the auditor conducting an assessment must be independent of the authority. I very much agree with the point made by the noble Baroness when she spoke about the concentration of power, the protection of the public and the importance of independent scrutiny. One would hope that any authority seeking to make use of franchising powers would do this anyway, but adding the word is a wise move, in particular if we consider the role of the Competition and Markets Authority in complaints. The authority would surely want the most robust information available that had been independently verified to evidence that decisions taken were sound. This should not cause the Government any problems, and I hope that they will accept the amendment.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

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

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who I thought made an excellent case for Amendments 1 and 113 in his name and, in so doing, I should say that I am the vice-president of the Local Government Association. I simply add a little for the Minster to take away, because the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked a great deal about the importance of bus services for employment opportunities and for training purposes.

In the consultation that is talked about—a huge amount of consultation will take place on this Bill, not just in terms of this amendment—one type of organisation that should be automatically consulted is employers’ organisations. There can be huge problems for people who often are on a low income, live in remote places and have no access to a car and who, therefore, need to be able to get to employment and training opportunities, often at unsocial hours, by public transport. Therefore, it is important to consult those people. Proposed new subsection (4)(d)(iv) in Amendment 1 refers to,

“organisations, or types of organisation, specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument”.

I hope very much that employers’ organisations and jobcentres will be included in that list.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution to the discussion on Report of the Bus Services Bill, I refer noble Lords to my register of interests: I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I should also say that, generally, we on these Benches welcome the provisions in the Bill.

Bus use in London has grown while outside it the picture has been very different. We are hopeful that when the Bill passes into law, it will help to halt the decline in bus use outside London, particularly in rural areas. The two amendments in this group are in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. As we have heard, Amendment 1 seeks to place a duty on county councils in non-metropolitan areas to consult on the needs for local bus services. It would require them to issue a consultation document and, following the consultation, to issue an assessment on the need for local bus services in the county and, further, to seek to secure the provision of bus services that address the needs identified that would otherwise not be met, as my noble friend outlined. The amendment is very focused and requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to assist county councils in making sure that they have properly responded to the outcomes of the consultation. The amendment goes further in setting out what the consultation must address and who, at a minimum, must be consulted. I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about ensuring that employers’ organisations are properly consulted. However, the amendment gives considerable scope to the Secretary of State to set out and shape the consultation to be undertaken.

Amendment 113, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, would place a requirement on the Government and the Secretary of State to issue a national strategy document within 12 months of the Act coming into force. Noble Lords will recall that that was discussed in Committee. As we have heard, there is no need for the bus industry to be the poor relation of other transport services. I fully support this amendment’s objective of requiring a proper national strategy. As we have heard, this document will set out the objectives, targets, plans and funding mechanisms for the delivery of bus services over the next 10 years. That is a very welcome idea. We have heard and seen the decline in bus services outside London. The Bill is an attempt to halt that decline. It seems sensible for the Government to pull those things together into one document. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as my county was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for which I thank him, I thought that I should respond. I do not think this amendment is necessary. Many counties such as Wiltshire already know exactly what is happening with bus services in their areas and the importance of them to their communities. Wiltshire has just finished a review which took place over the last six months. We have had nearly 12,000 responses, which is excellent for our county. We are looking at our bus services in response to those responses. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, bus services rightly need to be provided for vulnerable people and people trying to get to work but also for people in rural communities trying to access leisure facilities. We are doing that. It is interesting to note that we will save half a million pounds this year by not retaining the bus services that are not required by the people of Wiltshire.

However, a much more important aspect of this concerns the number of buses used by public services in our local authorities. Health, for example, spends as much money in Wiltshire on supporting transport in our county as we do. Therefore, it is important that we work together with other public services to ensure that we obtain the most efficient service for moving people around our areas as we possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

If I have one doubt about the amendments, and I hate to have it, it is that experience too often demonstrates that these things can become a pretty hollow formality; they have to be done by officials but they do not really put their heart into them. In supporting the Minister, we should do our best—I am not sure how much effect it will have—to bring home that this is a serious provision: you are providing a service, and it is absolutely essential that the people for whom you are claiming to provide that service have a real say in what they are experiencing and what should be done.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I very much welcome the fact that the Minister has taken on board the need for consultation with employees as well as with the passengers we referred to earlier. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has just pointed out, the Bill is uneven from one part of it to another, and something taken for granted in one section is neglected in another. As I said in an earlier debate, it is as if the Bill had been written by several different people who had not got together to make sure that the same terminology was used from one part to another. We in our party—not a party run by the trade unions; far from it—believe in the trade unions. They are an important part of a stable industrial relations picture and it is important that they are referred to, where appropriate, in the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, the noble Earl is raising a legitimate concern but, as much of the Bill is in a skeleton form with guidance to follow, I would have expected the spoiling process that he is warning about to be addressed in those guidance notes.

I remain seriously concerned about the tone and content of the CMA letter about the Bill to the Department for Transport, to which I drew noble Lords’ attention in Committee. It sets what I regard as an impossibly high bar: franchising should be allowed only if it is the only way to improve services. That is effectively impossible to prove. It is reasonable to ask local authorities to demonstrate that franchising is designed to improve services or that services need improvement. However, it is not possible for them to prove that there is nothing else they could possibly do, other than franchising, that would provide that improvement.

The Department for Transport has responded to the CMA, saying that it accepts the recommendations of the CMA letter in full. I am anxious to hear from the Minister in some detail about what impact accepting the recommendations will have on the Bill and its subsequent guidance. The CMA view seems to run counter to the thrust of the core aspects of the Bill, rendering it in practice likely to become yet another overcomplex piece of legislation on buses—sadly, along with the two attempts made by the previous Labour Governments—to reverse the impact of deregulation. We support the Government’s intentions with the Bill and we think they are working very strongly on the right lines, but we are concerned that inadvertently, as a result of the CMA’s response, their approach might be undermined.

Our concern, expressed in these amendments, is that the CMA could be seen to be overpowerful in this context. Given that it is clearly at odds with the thinking of the Department for Transport in some respects, it is important that the CMA is not allowed to become judge and jury in these cases. If it is consulted beforehand, it should not be allowed to come back after decisions are made unless there are genuine causes for concern as to how the franchise is working.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

14: Clause 4, page 14, leave out lines 36 and 37

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 14, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, returns to a key part of the Bill raised both at Second Reading and in Committee. Under the Bill, only mayoral combined authorities can automatically opt for a franchise scheme if they believe that that is right for their area. All other categories of authority have to seek the permission of the Secretary of State to go down that route; that in turn would need to be approved by the affirmative procedure.

Our amendment, and Amendment 25 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would put the whole question of franchising on a level playing field. We support the Bill in general, as I have said, and there are many good measures in it which we believe would improve bus services outside London. We have evidence that franchising works here in London and, where an authority thinks that that is the right model for it, we want it to be able to take it up, improving the number of passenger journeys and driving up standards.

With the change of government, I hope that there has been and continues to be a period of reflection on the whole question of mayors and the exclusivity of powers under the Bill that can come only when having a mayor. If an area wants a mayor, that is fine; if it does not, that is fine too. I hope that we can move away from effectively forcing authorities down a certain path if they want to have certain powers to a much more consensual approach, where it can be determined locally what is the best model for a locality and the full suite of powers be available, no matter what model is chosen.

Amendments 24, 26 and 27, also in my name in this group, are complementary, although in my opinion Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, works better. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

I support this group of amendments. The issue is whether a distinction should be drawn between the powers of a mayoral combined authority and an ordinary combined authority, the difference between which is only whether an elected mayor chairs the authority’s meetings. A second issue is whether a distinction should be drawn between a mayoral combined authority and a county council or an integrated transport authority.

It is very difficult to see why the Government are drawing the distinction they are. It is also very difficult to see why other bodies with transport responsibilities are being excluded from an automatic right to propose a franchising scheme without the Secretary of State’s agreement. Devolution of power implies devolving that power and devolving responsibilities associated with it. I would be content with the right to propose franchises to be extended to authorities other than mayoral combined authorities.

My concern relates in part to a later amendment, Amendment 28, about the independence of the audit function. If we have a robust audit system in place to examine proposed franchising schemes, it is much easier to allow other authorities, beyond mayoral combined authorities, to propose the franchising route. If a local transport body feels that franchising is right for it, and if it is subject to that rigorous independent scrutiny, it should be allowed to proceed.

There is an issue about the future of elected mayors where some combined authorities have turned into mayoral combined authorities and others have not. There could well be a change of heart within the Government anyway about the application of elected mayors—whether they will be compulsory in areas with substantial devolved powers. We are writing now into legislation that the extra powers that go with the right to franchise can go only to mayoral combined authorities, when not all combined authorities may end up being mayoral.

I hope that the Minister will look carefully at this because there is a very strong case to extend the power to franchise to authorities other than just mayoral combined authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Randerson. It may appear to be an issue of semantics on the term “may specify” in new Section 138C, to which the amendment relates. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, wishes to amend the words to “must specify” and my noble friend Lady Randerson prefers the words “must consider”. I think the term “must consider” is better. “Must” is stronger than “may” and “consider” does not require a specification. I am not sure it is necessary to require an enhanced partnership to define or specify what a ticket looks like.

There are two issues in the long list of possible requirements in new Section 138C. Some have a national standard. They may relate to issues such as emissions, which my noble friend Lady Randerson has talked about, and they should apply across the country. Others are simply best left to the local arrangements and definitions of what seems appropriate. I hope that when we come to understand a little better what the list of requirements in new subsections (3) and (4) amounts to, we can get some closer definitions.

I understand that it is not necessary for this to be in the Bill, but the issue will arise in the context of statutory guidance. In that context, having read the list of requirements, it is helpful to consider what the appearance of a vehicle being used to provide local services should be. I do not fully understand whether the appearance refers to, say, the colour of a vehicle. In London, buses are red; in other places, buses in the same transport authority can be different colours. It is important that those matters are considered. Of course, appearance could relate to the number of times a bus is washed. On the appearance of a bus, if it gets dirty in winter, we prefer to have windows that people can see out of. I understand that this is a very small example, but we need to be a bit clearer about what the list of requirements actually is and, if they are requirements, whether they must or may be specified, and whether they must be considered. Having read all this very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the words “must consider” are a better way of explaining what should be done.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response so we can understand a little better what this means by the time we reach Report.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

Before I speak to the amendments in my name, I will contribute to the debate on the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which puzzles me. I cannot understand how a bus operator would be about to enter into an enhanced partnership if it did not agree with something as fundamental as the fare structure. The enhanced partnership would not be taking place. This is not something that local authorities are forcing bus companies to do; it is an agreement that is entered into by both sides. Therefore, if they could not agree on the fare structure, it would not be going ahead. I find the amendment puzzling.

Amendments 96 to 99 seek to find out more about how the Government envisage the system will work for enhanced partnerships. Once again we are trying to tackle the potential power of a bus operator to block an agreement or a partnership in an unreasonable manner. New Section 138F(11) refers to what the regulations may cover. But, to be honest—and I have read this a dozen times—it is pretty meaningless without seeing the draft of the regulations. So Amendments 97 and 99 require that the regulations be approved by Parliament—they cannot be slipped through by negative resolution. The important thing is that both Houses get the chance to debate the practicality and robustness of the regulations.

I remind noble Lords of what I said the last time we debated these issues. First, the Bill is a skeleton Bill. It stands or falls on the quality of the regulations. Basically, in this part of the Bill, we are being asked to approve a blank sheet of paper because we have no concept of what the regulations will look like. I remind the Minister that there are no guarantees of success for the Bill. The fact that there is a great deal of cross-party agreement with the principles of it does not mean that it will actually work in practice, because two previous attempts failed. The 2000 and 2008 Acts have not been practical. The practicality of the Bill lies in the regulations.

Secondly, I am not confident that even the Minister and his officials have a clear view yet of how some of this will work. I say this not out of any kind of inspired thought process but because the Explanatory Memorandum actually says at one point that the policy has not yet been finalised on an issue. You think to yourself, “If the Explanatory Memorandum confesses that the Government have not got round to the policy yet, clearly the regulations have not been prepared and the practicality and difficulties of them have not been assessed”.

I turn to Amendment 98. The concept is introduced elsewhere in the Bill that unreasonable objections should not be allowed. I am puzzled about why there is no mention of the concept at this point in the Bill. In this case, the provision allows objections on a purely numerical basis, rather than introducing again—consistently, I would argue—the concept that an objection might be unreasonable. This amendment attempts to introduce the concept of unreasonable objections to enhanced partnerships and address how they should be dealt with and tested. We suggest that, in the case of unreasonable objections, local authorities should have an appeal mechanism to a traffic commissioner. I hope the Minister will take on board the spirit of these amendments in an attempt to find out more details and practicalities of how this will actually work.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

91: Clause 9, page 42, line 29, at end insert—
“(h) passenger groups and other stakeholder groups representing bus users in the area.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 91 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It seeks to put into the Bill a new paragraph stating that passenger groups and other stakeholders must be consulted. We have discussed the issue before and I am sure that we will again. I am clear that the Bill is about improving the bus services that passengers receive. The voice of passengers needs to be heard loud and clear. To ensure that, our amendment puts it into the Bill. It is not good enough to rely on new paragraph (g), which states that other persons can be consulted as thought fit. This is too important to leave to chance like that.

Amendment 95, also in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, seeks to ensure that any consultation should be of reasonable timescale and in a format that would allow interested parties to respond. Noble Lords might say that that is all very obvious and would happen anyway, but allowing a specific period and thinking about how the consultation should be undertaken will make it more meaningful. Of course, this is only a probing amendment, and the matter may in the end be more suited to guidance, but it is important to have some clarity; I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, can give us that.

Amendments 108 and 111 are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. They seek to ensure that, when making a variation to an enhanced partnership scheme, notice must be given to bus users. That is important, as the risk is that they will otherwise be forgotten about. It could be done by notifying passenger representatives and groups. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, Amendment 93, which is in my name, states:

“Once consulted, the Competition and Markets Authority may not overturn an enhanced partnership plan and scheme”.

We tabled it because we are seriously concerned about the retrospective role of the CMA that we have seen operating in the rail industry, for example. A retrospective power to impose competition, red in tooth and claw, at all costs is at odds with the principles behind the Bill.

We have a deregulated bus market. Through the Bill, the Government are trying to bring in an element of regulation to improve quality and standards. We support that, but the potential role of the CMA could undermine or, at the very least, seriously disrupt the purpose of the Bill. It is important that we get the role of the CMA clear at this stage and that, once consulted, it will not be able to say retrospectively—after an agreement has been made or a partnership or franchise established—that it is not possible, and to disrupt it and prevent it going ahead.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the statement put out by the CMA on 5 July. Among other things, it states:

“We recognise that the introduction of franchising may be appropriate in specific circumstances. But we continue to believe that on-road competition should only be abandoned in favour of competition for the market where it’s clear that this is the only way to secure better outcomes for the travelling public”.

I emphasise the word “only”. It is impossible to prove that something is the only way. You can prove the reverse, but it is often impossible to prove that something is the only way. That sets an impossible hurdle for local authorities trying to set up either enhanced partnerships or franchising.

The CMA states that local authorities should have to,

“demonstrate that any distortion to competition created by the proposed arrangements”—

this applies to partnerships as well as franchises—

“would be justified by the contribution to achieving other policy aims”.

That is another complex and potentially impossible step. It states that local authorities should,

“ensure that partnership schemes don’t harm competition unless it’s strictly necessary to achieve their objectives. We want that principle to be hardwired into every stage of the process”.

It recommends that,

“LTAs should be obliged to take the following steps”,

and one of them is to,

“demonstrate that any distortion to competition created by the proposed arrangements would be justified by the contribution to achieving other policy aims”.

That is setting an impossible hurdle for local authorities to achieve. It is also in danger of making even partnerships so complex to achieve that local authorities simply do not bother. If that is so, the Bill will fail.

Amendments 108 and 111 both simply specify bus users as among those who must be consulted on enhanced partnerships. This is very much in line with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, just emphasised. It is truly astonishing that the Bill, which purports to have at its heart the desire to increase the number of people using buses, specifies as people to be consulted the operators, the CMA and,

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

It is perfectly reasonable to include the operators and the CMA, but I am unsure why it is not acceptable to use the phrase “bus users” or “bus user groups”. The poor old passenger is worthy of a specific mention. I know that the Minister will say, “Of course bus users will be consulted”, but I think that they are worthy of a mention. There is no philosophical or legal objection to mentioning bus users, because the Bill mentions them at one point—but it does not mention them consistently.

I urge the Minister to take our points on board. The bus user point is not new, but the role of the CMA needs to be clarified if it is not to make it very difficult for the Bill to work as intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

Amendment 91 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, before I move Amendment 111A, I would like to put on record that I do not understand page 59, line 42. I think there might be a spelling mistake. I do not need an answer from the Minister, but it is useful to put it on record.

The amendments in this group concern what happens when a traffic commissioner refuses an application. In both cases, it is quite important that before refusing an application the traffic commissioner needs to have as much information on the local transport authority as possible. The Minister may say that this is not necessary and that it is obvious that he would do this, but it does not always happen that way, so I thought it would be useful to put in the new subsections proposed in Amendments 111A and 111B to say that the traffic commissioner must have regard to relevant information. It might prevent some unnecessary debates and complaints later from organisations whose applications have been refused. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support the principle of the amendment that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has just moved. We have had debates about inserting references to passenger representation at various points in the consultations on the Bill. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to state this as a general principle so that, in effect, there would be in every area some form of passenger representation to cover the involvement of passengers in the development and continued operation of the franchise, partnership or contract. Further, passenger representation should be part of the general decision-making process as we go forward, not simply in the original consultation.

In addition, my noble friend’s amendment refers to a complaints system. It is vital that there should be within this industry a system for complaints to be rapidly dealt with by the operator and, if necessary, the transport authority. To do that, there needs to be an effective passenger body. It could be a national body or a combination of a local body and Transport Focus nationally. On earlier parts of the Bill, the Minister very gratifyingly showed some encouragement to those of us who were arguing for engagement of passenger representation. I hope that in his reply the Minister can tell us, or at least give a general indication—tonight if possible but certainly before we get to Report—how the Government will bring forward amendments on Report to reflect that commitment to passenger representation and the ability of such organisations to deal with complaints with bus operators. It would be very useful if we all received a letter before Report setting out all the points at which this would be reflected in the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

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

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

124: Clause 17, page 67, line 43, at end insert—
“(d) information about the environmental impact of bus operations and vehicles including information on the emissions of the vehicles in use.”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 124 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch would include in the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State can prescribe information to be held about the environmental impact of bus operations and vehicles and the emissions of the vehicles in use. We are all aware of the danger of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and the damage that they are doing to the planet. Providing clear information about environmental impact to the public generally is a welcome move. Having people travel on a bus is preferable to them all making separate car journeys, but there is still a cost to the environment. Technology is improving and greener buses are possible as fleets are renewed over time. The amendment enables this information to be prescribed, and that for me is a positive move.

Amendment 124A is similar and Amendments 124B and 124C add requirements about making public information on complaints and other matters such as statistics on punctuality and cancellations.

The last amendment in the group is Amendment 125 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. It just changes the word “may” to “must”, but that is very important in this context. It must be right that information about English bus services should be made available free of charge and without restrictions. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

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

Amendment 124 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 21 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Clause 21 has been mentioned a few times during the passage of the Bill and it certainly was an issue in the debate at Second Reading. I am clear that the clause does not belong in this Bill. It does nothing whatever to improve bus services for people—rather, it is merely a piece of political dogma from the Conservative Party. As has been said many times, this Bill is generally seen in a positive light, but this clause runs against all that. Local authorities have powers under the Localism Act 2011 and associated general power of competence provisions. What is wrong with allowing a company to be formed and for it to compete on the open market, win contracts if it can demonstrate better value for money and offer a better service?

--- Later in debate ---

I am fully mindful of the fact that this is perhaps an area for discussion and further debate. I suggest to noble Lords that we continue that discussion and debate in advance of Report. There may be further clarification and I hope we can reach agreement on this, otherwise Report will perhaps be an occasion where we differ on the way we should progress on what is—I acknowledge the support we have achieved across the House—a Bill that seeks to put passengers at the heart of the provision of local bus services. I hope that what I have said—in part if not in whole—has reassured noble Lords that we continue to consider our position, but we remain of the opinion that the clause should continue to stand part of the Bill. On that basis I hope that, at this stage at least, noble Lords will be minded to withdraw their opposition.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord very much for his response. As I said, he has been very courteous and helpful throughout the progress of the Bill. I am grateful to him for that. Having said that, it is a nasty little clause. We do not like it very much at all. I am tempted to divide the House, but I will not do that to the noble Lord tonight. But if we do not get some movement on this, I can assure him that we will divide the House on Report. The clause does not belong here. There is no good reason for it and it should come out of the Bill—but at this stage I will not oppose it.

Clause 21 agreed.

Transport: London Bridge Station

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to address the problems suffered by passengers at London Bridge station.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, this will be a difficult period as we spend over £1 billion improving London Bridge station. Steps have already been taken to address problems at London Bridge by increasing the number of staff, adding further passenger information displays and temporarily adjusting the timetable to improve reliability. The Secretary of State met senior Network Rail and train operator executives on 9 January to understand the problems and discuss preparations for the Southeastern service changes from 12 January. We thank passengers for their patience.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

First, I declare an interest as an elected member of Lewisham Council. The chaos and failure to manage the situation at London Bridge has just highlighted to a wider audience what we have been experiencing in south London for many years. At Brockley, Crofton Park, Honor Oak Park and other stations, trains are cancelled or, when they arrive, are already full up. Either the trains do not turn up or, if they do, there are not enough carriages and people cannot get on them to get to work. As a result, the platforms become overcrowded and dangerous. Will the noble Baroness agree to arrange and host a meeting between me, local campaigners, Network Rail and the train operators Southern, Southeastern and TfL rail to deal with this problem?

[Baroness Kramer]

As your Lordships know, I am always happy to meet on these issues, so that is something that I shall be glad to try to accommodate. Whether we need to do so in two phases or one is not entirely clear but I hope that we can discuss this matter. The underlying issue of congestion on the railways is obviously behind many of the problems that we face. This massive set of improvements around the London Bridge area, costing about £1.5 billion, will play an absolutely key role in removing one of the major bottlenecks in the system, even though it will take several years to achieve that.

Energy: Biofuels

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we take the biofuels industry seriously; it is an important industry. However, we must have regard to the fact that we are regulated by EU and World Trade Organisation free-trade rules, and we therefore cannot put in measures specifically designed to protect the UK biofuels industry.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, what does the noble Earl’s department intend to do to support small companies that make biofuels from locally sourced used cooking oil?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is a great supporter of the used cooking oil biofuel industry, and it is important. In a previous exchange, he raised the dual obligation to avoid the problem of large-scale ethanol imports disrupting the market for used cooking oil for the biodiesel market. I have raised this matter with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State but I go back to the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw: we have to be careful to avoid setting regulations that favour UK industry, because we will rapidly come unstuck if we do so.

Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2013

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The noble Lord’s fluency in so many matters suggested that he wanted to make a contribution. I am sad that he will not do so.

We on this side welcome the regulations. They are a good step in a direction that many noble Lords will recognise has been a source of considerable annoyance and concern to consumers over many years. In that sense, I want to understand better the approach that the Minister is taking here. He quite rightly explained that there are requirements because of the European Union directive to move in this direction. In many senses today is interesting because the earlier order that we considered also relates to a European Union directive. The choice there was to do something at the latest possible moment whereas the choice here is to take forward the timing of the European Union directive and use it to solve a problem that is, as he said, a domestic rather than a European one. That aside, it is still a good decision.

Underneath this is a history that the Minister touched on but is worth recording. This comes from a civil complaint from Which? that was referred to the OFT, and the OFT generated the momentum behind this. Yes, it could have happened because of the European Union directive but there is sufficient pressure internally. That also shows that the measures brought forward under the previous Government to try to provide for more active consumer protection in this area have been successful. As a result of that, we are seeing these changes today.

In the impact statement, to which the Minister referred, the assertion is made that these drip-pricing approaches—you do not know the full cost of what you are buying online until you get to the final screen and suddenly some additional charges are put in—are, of course, a frustration and an annoyance. It is interesting, however, that the impact assessment is quite coy about whether it will be to the long-term benefit of consumers. It is effectively saying, if you read between the lines, that while the changes in the regulations and the consequences of what is being proposed mean that companies will not be allowed to add these additional charges, or drip charges, to the price that they are quoting and we will therefore be able to compare prices better and get more for our money, in fact, the money that is being taken out of the system through drip pricing will probably re-emerge as additional charges within the main cost. The impact assessment says that,

“the overall price level may fall; however this is considered unlikely”.

I wonder whether the Minister has any more information on that. I looked carefully through the impact assessment and I could not see much documentation about what will happen to prices. Does he think that my assertion is overstated or about right?

My final point is that the CRD—and the regulations implementing it—covers most retail sectors, but does not include some. Will the Minister please explain what is going to happen in areas which are not covered by the CRD or by these regulations? What measures are the Government considering to bring forward in future years to deal with those?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. I should have jumped in before him, so I apologise for not getting this right. I wanted to ask one question about the impact assessment and the opt-out for small businesses. I do not believe in extra burdens and regulation for businesses, but it seems odd to me that we seem to be saying that, by allowing business with fewer than 20 people to opt out, they can carry on overcharging customers. It seems odd and unfair that they will still be able to make these charges, but generally I think that this is a great order and I am delighted that it is being brought in.

[Lord Popat]

I thank the noble Lord. He is quite correct that this order will prohibit traders from charging consumers above-cost payments; in other words, the charges will not exceed the real cost of the goods or services bought from the trader. We are implementing this in December 2013, largely due to our own research and that of Which? magazine, which brought this to our attention. The European directive will be enforced in 2014, so it will be good for consumers. The European Commission is looking at the payment separately under the financial services regulations. We will obviously get this information in due course. It is our policy to exempt microbusinesses from the new regulations until 2014. They are small businesses that employ probably fewer than 10 people, but they are crucial for growth and we have to support and encourage them. That is my response to the questions about small businesses.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

May I push the Minister a little further on that? It just seems very odd to me; I want to see small businesses and the economy grow, but if I am running a small business, I do not see why I should overcharge my customers. That does not seem like good practice and we should not allow it because it is not fair. I hope he will explain the point he is making. Why should small businesses be able to overcharge when big businesses cannot?

[Lord Popat]

As I said earlier, microbusinesses are crucial to growth. As a small businessman myself, I want to give value for money to my customers and do not want to make them pay any unnecessary charges, because I want to make sure that I get my repeat business. It is our policy is to exclude microbusinesses. The regulations will apply from June 2014 and not from December 2013.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation in order to support businesses that make biofuels from locally sourced waste and sell it close to where it is produced.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government strongly believe that the renewable transport fuel obligation delivers effective and sustainable market-based support to the biofuels industry. The RTFO provides additional support for biofuels made from waste by awarding two renewable transport fuel certificates for each litre supplied. The Department for Transport has committed to a review of the double certificate scheme and the support provided by the RTFO in 2013.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Earl for his response. There is a real problem here in that small, green businesses making biodiesel from waste products collected locally and sold from their premises are just not getting a fair deal. Will he agree to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Transport, and will he facilitate a meeting for me with the Secretary of State and relevant officials on this matter?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, one of the concerns I have identified in private conversations with the noble Lord is the possibility of distorting the market in UCO and biodiesel by importations of ethanol. I will happily raise that with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Railways: Franchises

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the cost to the public purse of cancelling the contract award for the West Coast Main Line railway franchise.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a full Statement in the other place at the earliest opportunity. The department will remunerate fully bidders for the direct and reasonable costs of putting together their bids and expects this cost to be approximately £40 million. The department expects additional costs from mobilising Directly Operated Railways, reissuing the tender and carrying out two independent reviews. The department will monitor these costs closely and be fully transparent in keeping the House informed.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, it is very regrettable that the noble Earl has not taken the first opportunity in Parliament to say sorry for this fiasco. He should be truly ashamed of what has gone on so I invite him to take the opportunity to apologise. Why are the Government saying there have been regrettable and unacceptable mistakes and yet no Minister is accepting responsibility?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, some noble Lords express disappointment that a full Statement has not been made. Nobody asked for a full Statement. I was very willing to answer a PNQ yesterday afternoon but there was not one because we have the topical question today. As for ministerial responsibility, noble Lords know perfectly well that this was a highly regrettable mistake by officials, not by Ministers.

Energy: Biofuels

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 8th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the ending of the duty exemption for biofuels and the implementation of the renewable transport fuel obligation on companies in the United Kingdom that manufacture biofuels from recycled food waste.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government strongly believe that the renewable transport fuel obligation—the RTFO—delivers effective and sustainable market-based support to the biofuels industry. The RTFO provides additional support to biofuels made from waste by awarding two renewable transport fuel certificates—RTFCs—for each litre of fuel supplied. The Department for Transport has committed to a review of the double-certificate scheme and support provided under the RTFO in 2013.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I would like to draw the noble Earl’s attention to the SME producers who recycle local food waste into biodiesel which has a remarkably low-carbon footprint. These companies have had to cope, in effect, with a 20p per litre reduction in their income because of the current value of certificates. It is clearly a difficult issue for these smaller companies, some of which have actually gone out of business. Will the noble Earl agree to facilitate a meeting between me, representatives of SME producers and the relevant Minister?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am well aware of the difficulties being experienced by these SMEs with their commendable work in producing biofuels. I would of course be delighted to invite the noble Lord, and any other noble Lord who would like to come along, to a meeting with the Minister and officials—the experts who understand these quite complex issues.

Roads: Private Investment

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what lessons learned from the privatisation of British Rail they will apply to any plans for increased private investment in the United Kingdom’s motorway and trunk road network.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we are considering a number of options for the future ownership and financing of the strategic road network, looking at a greater role for private funding to provide more investment. This feasibility study is considering a wide range of possibilities, and it will be taking account of the experiences of water, electricity, telecoms and gas as well as rail and other transport sectors.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That is a rather disappointing response from the noble Earl. I was hoping for “We’ve looked at it, it’s a stupid idea, and we’re not going to do it”. What words of comfort does the noble Earl have for the motorist, the small business and the taxpayer that they are not going to have additional costs to bear if proposals to introduce further private capital to our road system come to fruition?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the first comfort that I will give is that the feasibility study will consider the role that tolling can play, but it will not consider tolling existing capacity or road pricing. The purpose of the feasibility study is to look at how we can better run the strategic road network into the future so that investors can make long-term decisions rather than the short cycles that we are experiencing at the moment.