Environment Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I support the intention behind all the amendments in this group today. I agree with the contributions of my noble friends Lady Hayman and Lord Whitty, and with virtually everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said. However, I will restrict my remarks to Amendment 156 in my name in this group.

The amendment seeks to put Ella’s law into the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned, on 16 December last year, the coroner in the case found that the death in 2013 of nine year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah, who had a severe case of asthma, was caused by “excessive air pollution”. Ella lived in Lewisham, in south London, very near to where I live. The fact that this poor child suffered a terrible death from breathing in toxic particles should be a matter of concern for us all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, did, I want to pay tribute to Rosamund, Ella’s mother, for her tireless campaigning over seven years to get the verdict on 16 December last year. Ella is the first person in the UK to have had air pollution listed as a cause of death. We all know that thousands of people die every year due to respiratory failure, but Ella’s doctors, and others, were clear that the filthy air she was breathing was suffocating her and contributed to her death, and that is now recorded on the death certificate.

Amendment 156 in my name seeks to place duties on the Secretary of State in the Bill to ensure that the health of members of the public is put centre stage. I hope that the Minister and all Members of the House will support that. The amendment may not be perfect, but it sets out clear targets for the Secretary of State for particulate matter, at WHO levels, and a plan to achieve compliance, along with the monitoring of air quality, the publishing of live data and providing information to the public. It also seeks to ensure proper education, training and guidance for healthcare professionals.

I am hoping for a very positive response from the Minister today. I want to hear him say very clearly to the House that he is prepared to meet me, my noble friend Lady Hayman, Ella’s mother Rosamund and members of the Ella’s law campaign to see if we can get an agreement to put this in the Bill before we come back to this issue on Report. I assure the Minister that we will come back to this issue on Report, and I hope to be able to do that on the basis of co-operation and agreement. I look forward to the Minister confirming, at the end of this debate, that he is prepared to meet me and the other people I have listed.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to support this group of amendments, because this is the point where general environmental and climate change benefits directly coincide with health benefits. It is therefore plain common sense to give them total priority.

Reducing emissions of NOx, CO₂ and PM2.5 are vital targets. I read this week that research by Imperial College London has revealed that, in London and other cities, there is still lead in our atmosphere—in the air. Lead was banned from petrol 20 years ago, so we need to bear in mind how long it takes to produce a long-term solution to these problems.

The problem with the Bill as it stands is that, although it commits to targets, they are too vague and much too far in the future. The Environmental Audit Committee drew attention to what it called the “needlessly long timeframe”. The details of the target will not be in place until the end of next year, when it could be in place as soon as the Bill passes through both Houses, and there will be no requirement to meet the target until at least 2037. That is so distant as to absolve the current Government, and the one after that, of any sense of responsibility and incentive to take the difficult decisions required. Even the aviation industry, which has the greatest technical challenges in dealing with emissions, is urging the Government to set shorter-term interim targets. It argues that only shorter-term targets will incentivise investment in nascent clean technologies.

Rail Update

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in the other place earlier today. Railways were privatised in 1994. Whatever we think of privatisation—there was lots going on at that time—it is fair to say that it has not gone well over the last few years. There were problems with Railtrack, Network Rail and various companies, and here we are again with another problem with the railways.

Today’s announcement by the Secretary of State, repeated by the noble Baroness, is just another monumental misjudgment, and adds to a growing list of miscalculations by the Secretary of State. I do not think that taxpayers or rail passengers are at the heart of this, or the rail industry itself. The culture in the Department for Transport is not serving the taxpayer or the travelling public well. I regularly use the railways in and around London as well as to and from the Midlands and the north of Scotland. With all the times that I have been detrained at Doncaster and elsewhere, and the problems and frustrations on the east coast line, it is really just not good enough.

It is frustrating to hear in the Statement what the Minister said about the new tender, that of course we cannot prevent the provider from actually tendering, because legally we are not allowed to do that. That is fair enough, but I recall the public sector being prevented from tendering for this contract; it was running it very well but was not even allowed to tender, which is very frustrating. If we want to get the best value for taxpayers, you want to get the best service possible.

I just do not believe that making direct awards to Virgin/Stagecoach on the west coast or east coast represents good value for money at all. I am really not convinced by that one little bit. We now have a number of train companies getting contracts without competition; many of our routes are now run that way—west coast, Great Western, east Midlands, CrossCountry and now east coast. That is because the Secretary of State is ideologically opposed to the public sector running railways; that is the political dogma that we have here today in front of us.

The Statement from the Minister is lengthy, and I have a couple of questions. The Statement said that the problem was that Stagecoach got the numbers wrong, that it overbid and is now paying the price. Maybe the Minister can explain to the House whether, when the bid was submitted—I assume that it was analysed and looked at—anybody anywhere thought, “Oh, maybe they’ve got their figures wrong here”. At the end of the day, of course you want to get a lot of money for your contract but, if it was actually not going to work, why did nobody spot that? Were any questions raised anywhere, when that contract came in? I would be very interested to hear what happened with that contract. Also, with regard to contracts in future, what is going to happen there?

The Statement talks about ensuring the,

“smooth running of the east coast franchise for its passengers”.

Can the Minister say a bit more about that? How will the Government ensure that it will be a smooth operation with no problems for passengers? I like the idea of this short-term, not-for-profit basis for a railway. That is the policy of the Co-operative Party. I have been a member of that party for many years, and we have a policy for a people’s railway, with the whole railway run on a not-for-profit basis. So I am delighted to see that, even if it is only in one small part of the policy, the Government have actually taken that point on board.

Can the Minister say a bit more about the operator of last resort? Who would that operator actually be? How would it actually be done? On the legal advice, the Minister said that they could not actually exclude Stagecoach or anyone who failed. Would it not be wise to draw up the contract in such a way that, if an operator fails to deliver on it, they cannot come straight back in and have that contract again? They may need to look at that as well because, if they cannot get the bid right, what is the point of having people running it who cannot get it done properly?

I shall leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response on the issues that I have raised.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I start from a rather different position, as I do not believe that the answer lies in renationalisation—but I am sure that the Minister will accept that things are not going well. We have had the fiasco of Southern and we have had Carillion being given more and more contracts, despite the profit warnings. We have had HS2 and the unauthorised payments, and now we have the east coast. The DfT seems to be presiding over a tale of muddle and huge commercial misjudgment.

The Secretary of State in his Statement says that Stagecoach/Virgin overbid. We all knew that it had done so; there was commentary in the commercial press at the time by other operators that this was a hugely overoptimistic bid. Why did the DfT allow that bid to go ahead if it was unrealistic?

The Statement says that,

“the franchise had breached a key financial covenant”.

Can the Minister please explain to us what that is, and why they are stepping in now as opposed to at any other point?

Much is made in the Statement of the £1 billion return to the public purse, but does the Minister accept that the railways are run as a service to passengers and that maybe the DfT is expecting far too great a return to the public purse, and the whole concept on which this is based is unrealistic? The Government are slowly reducing the percentage subsidy to our railways at a time when the railways are expanding and the number of passengers is generally increasing. Does the Minister accept that this is actually unrealistic as a way forward?

I am glad that the Statement includes options for the future and that among them it has the DfT as the operator of last resort. When that happened before, rather a good job was done by the state stepping in, and I urge the Government to do that in the case of Southern. Does the Minister consider that the concept of a franchisee needs to be expanded so that it includes public/private partnership and public sector bodies? Maybe mutual models, which involve staff and passengers, could be allowed to bid as well.

I also want to ask about the knock-on effect on other franchises. It is known that other franchisees are having a tough time. We need only a small hint of further problems in the economy and those franchisees could say, “The Government stepped in this time—why can they not step in and help us?”.

Finally, how is it that there is no adequate legal ground to exclude Stagecoach from further bids at this point? Surely the DfT should be writing the franchises more tightly than this.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson

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

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, we are back at Clause 21, which without doubt is the most contentious clause in the Bill. It is totally unnecessary; it is pure political dogma from the Government and despite the opposition expressed to it by noble Lords both at Second Reading and in Committee, it is still here. It is a clause that does not belong in this Bill. It does nothing whatever to improve bus services for people. That is a great disappointment. As I have said many times from this Dispatch Box, this is generally a very good Bill which we have been happy to support. The Minister has listened carefully to all sides of the House, to good points well made, and he has responded positively, which is much to his credit.

Then we get to Clause 21 which runs against all that. As I said earlier, it is merely a piece of political dogma. Local authorities have powers under the Localism Act 2011 and associated powers under the general power of competence provisions. What is wrong with allowing a company to be formed and for it to compete on the open market and win contracts if it can demonstrate better value for money and a better service? Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us when he responds to the debate. We have heard that the present municipal bus companies often run some of the most competitive and best bus services in the UK. Nottingham City Transport has one of the highest number of passenger journeys per head outside London. It has been praised for its innovation, praised for its service delivery, and was awarded Bus Operator of the Year in 2012 and 2014. For many years I lived in Nottingham and the company runs a really good bus service. My reaction to that is “Well done. How can we learn from you because we want to be as good as you?”. Reading Buses, which won Bus Operator of the Year in 2015, has been praised for its,

“combination of innovation, strong operational performance and award-winning marketing initiatives”.

It goes on. UK Bus Awards gave Nottingham and Lothian gold awards in 2015 and 2013 respectively, silver awards to Nottingham in 2014 and Reading in 2012 and 2013, along with Reading again getting a bronze award in 2015. So what do the Government do; what is their response? It is this: “We had better put a stop to any more springing up then; we can’t have the public sector doing a good job, being recognised as delivering some of the best services in the country, winning awards and leading the way”. I hope that when the noble Lord responds to this debate he will pay tribute to the municipal bus companies for their innovation and service delivery.

This clause goes too far and it does not belong here. I would like to meet the person who thought it up and understand their reasoning. For me it is certainly not about a sensible, improved service delivery or business case reason. If we want to improve passenger services and increase passenger numbers, all the options should be on the table at the very least. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to accept the amendment and remove this clause tonight. If he does not, I will divide the House and hope that noble Lords do it for him. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, many of the amendments to the Bill have dealt with issues of detail and degree, but not so with this amendment, which is appropriately numbered 111. It involves a fundamental principle. I am bewildered why the Government are clinging to this nasty and mean-spirited clause which is totally at odds with the purpose of the Bill as a whole. Indeed, earlier today the Minister reaffirmed to us that this is a devolutionary Bill.

We on these Benches strongly support the principles behind the Bill. They will give local authorities more control over local bus services after three decades of decline since the deregulation of bus services in the 1980s. We have been fully supportive of the Government’s attempts to strengthen the role of local authorities in setting up both partnerships and franchise agreements. We believe that the structure being created through the Bill should raise the game of bus operators and at the same time should encourage local authorities to be much more proactive in recognising and supporting the role of bus services in their communities—local authorities will thus be able to raise their game as well to ensure that they are all as proactive as the best now are. We will have more Readings and fewer Oxfordshires, for example. So it is truly amazing and counterintuitive for the Minister to cling to this clause which takes away powers from local authorities in a Bill that is designed overall to give them more powers.

I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments so far on why the clause needs to be in the Bill. I have listened carefully to him and read Hansard to analyse the thinking behind the clause. As the noble Lord has just pointed out, municipal bus services actually do rather well. I say to the Minister: go with the evidence. Municipal bus services, of which there are approximately a dozen, consistently feature in among the 10 best-performing bus companies in Britain—I give him just two examples: Nottingham and Reading. There are also very good examples of municipal bus services which work in partnership with commercial operators, bestriding the divide between local authorities and commercial operators. Such municipal operators are the remnants of the system that existed prior to deregulation. I remind noble Lords that, despite still having the power to set up bus companies, local authorities have not rushed out in the past 30 years to set them up. Rarely has there been anything other than a gradual dwindling in the number of such companies. Why are the Government determined to intervene now?

We have to bear in mind that bus services might need the intervention of local authorities in the future. Local authorities might want to set up new bus companies. For example, a rural authority, faced with the collapse of its local bus company, might want to run its own limited service, integrating specialist transport for schools and social services with regular bus services.

What part of Conservative dogma does this clause serve? There is no doubt that we are legislating here for decades ahead—the previous Act was 30 years ago. The Government need to be flexible and far-sighted. On these Benches, we are certainly not in favour of large-scale renationalisation of bus services, but we are a devolutionary party which believes that local authorities should have ultimate responsibility for ensuring that local bus services are provided where they are needed. For that, they need all the powers in their armoury, so I ask the Minister to let them retain them by deleting Clause 21.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson

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

[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.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson

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

[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.

--- 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.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that of course the arguments he makes about less reputable companies fortify my argument that a lot of these things need to be set out in the Bill, so that we can ensure that only the more reputable companies—those that observe those aspects important to passengers and indeed to our environment—are able to win a franchise.

I say in response to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that I cannot understand why bus companies should be immune to the usual rules of business in this country. Increasingly local government services are run through commercial companies in various forms. Many commercial organisations are involved in the provision of a range of local authority services right down, for example, to care for children, the elderly and so on. Local authorities franchise services or commission them and from time to time they will change the companies they are working with; someone loses the contract. There are well-known procedures throughout our public life which account for that to happen, thus enabling a service to be handed over from one organisation to another. I cannot see why bus companies should be exempt from that general run of business.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 35, which has been proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is not one that I can support today. As we have heard, the amendment puts a requirement into the Bill that would require the taking into account of any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses are wholly or partly expropriated by the scheme. I do not think that there are any plans in the Bill to expropriate anyone’s business. The franchising model will work on similar terms to those which presently operate in London, where private bus operators happily deliver services on routes laid down by TfL. They make profits and the service works well.

I agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who asked why the bus industry cannot be aligned with the rest of the public sector in terms of contracts being tendered for and then won or lost. People move on and things change. That works in the whole of the rest of the public sector and is certainly the case in local government; I have said before that I am a councillor in Lewisham. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will advise the Committee, but I think I am correct in saying that the Government do not anticipate any compensation being required if a franchising authority follows the process as set out in the Bill. For me, the Bill is about improving bus services for passengers and increasing the number of bus journeys being taken by people, thus halting the decline in bus routes and journeys over recent years, and that should be embraced by bus operators. Indeed, they may find that they actually make more money if they increase their routes and more people use them.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and I hope that he will allay the concerns raised by the noble Earl and thus demonstrate to the Committee that the amendment is not necessary.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My view is that bus drivers are greatly undervalued. They do a hugely complex job. They do not just have to drive the bus safely; they also have to manage the passengers, not all of whom are easy people to deal with. Training and refresher training for drivers is essential. It is very important in dealing with disability and with customers as a whole. At the moment, bus drivers undertaking training do not have to achieve anything. They have to attend, but they do not gain a qualification as a result of achieving a set standard. It is time that we empowered bus drivers, if I can put it that way, with further information, knowledge and skills by making sure that they get regular training of sufficient standard and quality that it enables them to do their difficult job better. They deserve to have the very best possible skills and training to do their job. I support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I think I can probably help the noble Lord by speaking specifically about Amendments 19 and 68. One of the problems with the Bill is its scattergun approach to giving the Secretary of State additional unspecified powers. As the noble Lord has clearly picked out, these are two examples among dozens of broad powers. The Government have made a list, from (a) to (f), and then they say, “In case we’ve forgotten something, we’ll just give the Secretary of State the power to deal with life, the universe and everything”.

By putting these amendments before your Lordships, we hoped to probe exactly what the regulations might look like. To take up the theme of the Delegated Powers Committee report yet again, I say that the powers are too vague. The Secretary of State is being given very broad powers without specifying properly, even in the Explanatory Memorandum, what those powers will be used for.

Ideally, draft regulations should have been available by now, at least on one or two aspects of the Bill. It is hopelessly optimistic to think that they might be coming out any day now, because we have only just had the impact assessment, and we are still awaiting the response to the Delegated Powers Committee. But that is what we should be doing—looking at drafts to find out about the tenor of a Bill as broad and as dependent on regulation as this one is.

The success of advanced quality partnerships, and of enhanced partnerships and franchising, will stand or fall on the quality of the regulations. If the regulations are too onerous, the Bill will fall into the trap of the 2008 Act and prove impossible for local authorities to manage and implement, and will therefore fail. But the regulations have to be sufficiently ambitious and robust to deliver a true improvement in service.

I have spoken to Amendment 19. Amendment 68 is simply a similar example in the case of franchising. One amendment relates to advanced quality partnerships and the other to franchising. I remind noble Lords of the tenor of the criticism in the Delegated Powers Committee’s report.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 6, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seeks to insert a new subsection saying that an operator can provide services only if those services are provided within an advanced quality partnership or another scheme that meets the outcomes set out in subsection (6). I support the amendment, as it seeks to ensure that we get some improvement in bus provision as a result of this legislation, and would leave less to chance.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made some important points about congestion, the effect it has on bus services, and the other effects of poor air quality in many areas, including some of our smaller towns, villages and hamlets.

If the Minister is not going to accept the amendment I hope that we shall get a full explanation, because the Bill is driven by the need to improve bus services and save them from further decline outside London, and the amendment would be helpful in that respect.

Amendments 19 and 68, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke, seek to restrict the power of the Secretary of State to make further provision under regulations about “incidental matters”. We ought to be careful when we give powers to Ministers. I suppose it all depends on who defines “incidental matters” and what the scope of those matters is. I am not against giving sensible and proportionate powers to Ministers, but I also want to see clarity and openness, and these provisions have a feeling of opaqueness about them. So I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, responds, we shall get a much clearer explanation about what is intended here; it will help the House enormously if he can give one.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was right to raise this issue. It is important that we get these things on the record, so that we can see what the Government intend to do. There may be a number of incidental matters, but if they all come together they could become one quite big matter, so we should be very clear what the Government’s intention is in this respect.