Heathrow Airport Expansion: Elmbridge

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this important debate. I must immediately apologise, because I am covering for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport. He would have responded to this debate, because it is in his policy area, but he is opening a factory in the west midlands. This is a bit of an away fixture for me, but I will be able to answer some of the questions raised by my hon. Friend, and I can guarantee that I will take them all back to the Department and make sure that he gets the fullest answers that we can provide. All his questions were entirely appropriate for a Member standing up for his constituents.

My hon. Friend asked whether this could be the start of a fruitful dialogue. I can confirm that indeed it can. This debate is certainly timely, because on 2 February my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary laid before Parliament a draft airports NPS—national policy statement—under the Planning Act 2008 and published an accompanying consultation. The draft NPS sets out the framework against which an application for a development consent order will be judged in respect of a north-west runway at Heathrow airport. Right now we are in that important period of public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. Before I address the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend, I want to remind the House of the process in which the debate sits.

On 25 October 2016, the Transport Secretary set out in his statement the Government’s preference for a new north-west runway at Heathrow airport. Some of the key points he made do bear repeating. The need for additional capacity is clear and paramount, and that has driven the entire process. A north-west runway at Heathrow airport would provide economic and employment benefits, delivering tens of thousands of additional local jobs by 2030, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, in the area of Elmbridge. It would also provide new global connections and better connections for domestic customers, new capacity for freight imports and exports, and reduce fares for passengers.

The benefits of the scheme would be felt by businesses and passengers throughout the UK. Therefore, while we are dealing with an issue that is acutely local for my hon. Friend and of great importance for the south-east of the United Kingdom, it has relevance for the entire United Kingdom. For example, my constituency is at least 220 miles from my hon. Friend’s, but its chamber of commerce came out in support of the application, recognising its impact for the UK as a whole. There is a further point: in our post-Brexit world, a new north-west runway sends out a clear message that Britain is open for business.

The publication of the draft NPS was a significant milestone. It sets out the case for additional capacity as well as the reasons why a north-west runway at Heathrow has been selected as the Government’s preferred scheme. It specifies the requirements that the promoter will need to meet in order to gain development consent. Those include important requirements on air quality, noise, carbon and community compensation.

Last month, we also published an appraisal of sustainability for the draft NPS, which assesses the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of the proposed policy in the draft NPS. It incorporated a habitats regulations assessment, equalities assessment, and health impact assessment, and it includes analysis of the reasonable alternatives to the preferred scheme: the Heathrow extended northern runway and the Gatwick second runway.

In the light of the issues we have been discussing, it is important to note that, in parallel to the draft NPS consultation, we are also consulting on UK airspace policy, which impacts on the entire country. The airspace proposal aims to strike a balance between unlocking the economic and social benefits of modernising airspace and addressing the local impacts of aviation, which is a hard balance to achieve. People around an airport are split because the economic opportunity benefits are significant in employment provided, but there can also be an impact on quality of life. In particular, in the consultation there is the creation of an independent commission on civil aviation noise, which is required to help to build trust in how noise is taken into account when airspace decisions are made. The policy principles set out in the airspace policy consultation will inform decisions taken later in the planning process for a north-west runway at Heathrow, including how local communities can have their say on airspace matters and how their impacts are taken into account.

The Planning Act 2008 places a requirement on the Transport Secretary to consult appropriately on a draft NPS and publicise it. There has been a significant number of events. My hon. Friend’s point about a consultation in Elmbridge was well made and has been noted. There have been 20 local and 12 national information events, which have provided an opportunity for residents and people who are affected to contribute their opinions. We have had 1.5 million leaflets delivered to households and businesses in the areas, and there has also been advertising on radio, digital and social media channels and print media.

Scrutiny is taking place outside the House, and scrutiny is taking place within the House, too. At the same time as the consultation period, a period of parliamentary scrutiny has commenced, which will end at the start of summer recess 2017. Members will be aware that the Select Committee on Transport has been nominated to provide formal scrutiny of the draft NPS. To assist Members of both Houses, there will be a draft NPS parliamentary information event on 3 May. Following consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, we expect to lay a final airports NPS before Parliament for debate and a vote in the House by winter 2017-18. If the House approves the airports NPS, the Transport Secretary will decide whether to designate it. If the NPS is designated, the airport promoter can then submit its application for a development consent order. That is the process we will go through.

I will address some of the points raised by my hon. Friend. I have got and will take back the message about Elmbridge. At least one event was arranged in each local authority area that either borders the airport or falls within an indicative 54dB noise contour as assessed by the Airports Commission. Those were the criteria used for selecting where events took place, but I have received his message and will take that further for him.

Noise is a big factor, and my hon. Friend raised that powerfully on a couple of occasions. We recognise that aircraft noise is a significant concern for communities close to airports or under flightpaths. That is why the draft NPS requires an applicant for development consent to demonstrate that measures will be in place to take effective action to address the noise impacts of the scheme. Such measures have to be finalised through the planning process, or the exercise of statutory powers, and are subject to public consultation. The draft NPS does not exclude such measures as a 6.5 hour ban on scheduled night flights, but the whole point about noise was well made and I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives detailed answers to his specific questions.

Night flights are when noise is at its most acute. The Government understand that point and recognise that they are perhaps the least acceptable form of aircraft noise. We have recently consulted on the restrictions for a new night flights regime, which will begin in October. Our proposals seek to ensure that the benefits of night flights are appropriately balanced with the impacts that they have on local communities. The phrase my hon. Friend used was “equitable dispersal”. I have noted that and will take that back and follow through on that.

One of the proposals we are making is to maintain the current movement limits at Heathrow and then reduce the amount of noise the airport will be allowed to make. We are currently analysing the consultation responses and will announce a decision later this year. Again, the draft NPS sets out the Government’s expectation for a 6.5 hour ban on scheduled night flights at an expanded Heathrow.

Access points have to be a consideration. That was raised by both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry). It is clearly a major concern. As part of the proposals for Heathrow, we are looking at how to improve public transport access to the airport. The proposed Southern rail access scheme has the potential to greatly improve access to Heathrow airport from Surrey and Hampshire and from the South West Trains network. That could include, for example, direct trains to Heathrow from Weybridge or Woking. Although that scheme is still at an early stage of development, we are looking at options to maximise the benefits for both airport and non-airport users. It is clearly appropriate that access to Heathrow airport is a key part of all of the decision making because of the impact on quality of life from traffic and the impact on air quality.

It is fair to note that the Government are putting significant emphasis on improving the emissions from our vehicle fleet. Air quality is shooting up the political agenda, which is a very positive thing. In this Parliament we are committing £600 million to encourage the use of, for example, electric vehicles. That is a positive agenda, which is at its most acute where we see interventions that will increase traffic.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton again on securing the debate. It is the start of dialogue. The consultation to which I have referred closes on 25 May. There is a drop-in event on 3 May, which is taking place in the House of Commons terrace pavilion between 1.30 pm and 4 pm. The Transport Secretary is attending and will address the consultation at 1.30 pm. I am sure it will attract a lot of interest, but I hope to see my hon. Friend at that event.

Question put and agreed to.

DVLA and Private Car Parking Companies

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We want fairness in the process. We must understand that the DVLA has the information in the first place as a legal requirement so that the police may know to whom cars belong. That is why, by law, we are obliged to register our cars. We are not obliged to register them for the benefit of a subsequent private contract, which is a subsequent activity beyond the initial purpose of the DVLA. It was to be there for public interest, not for private contracts. Because of the way in which parking has developed, the DVLA has got involved in this private parking aspect. It earns fees from that, although apparently it is loss-making, which if true seems extraordinarily silly.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

If it is not true, that is very reassuring; I am glad. However, the fact that that is not true is worrying in another direction, because the DVLA ought not to be affected in its judgment by its revenue streams. If we have an accredited parking authority that gets revenue from the car park, and the car park pays money to the DVLA to get information, there is a chain of money going through, which seems to be overriding the chain of justice and the right of the state, the duty of the state and the obligation of the state to protect the individual.

The DVLA has the solution in its hands, as do the Government. The situation requires not changes of legislation but changes by the DVLA in how it gives out information. I will carry on banging on about this until we know that companies have been suspended, that companies have been audited, that companies are not getting the information any longer and that the DVLA is taking proper charge to protect our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing the debate on the disclosure of DVLA data to private parking companies. I welcome the opportunity to discuss a matter that is clearly of concern to him and to his constituents; there is a slight bias towards the south-west, but this is clearly of concern across the UK.

Although the policy on disclosure of DVLA data is of long standing, it is true that management of parking companies and the release of vehicle keeper data frequently generate significant concern. Of course, that is entirely understandable. No one likes to receive a parking ticket, and motorists become annoyed when they are the subject of enforcement action. Many examples have been shared of inappropriate and heavy-handed enforcement action. Motorists often disagree with the principle that DVLA vehicle keeper data can be provided to private companies for such purposes. I should point out that the private parking sector is not regulated by the Government. The Department for Communities and Local Government consulted on this issue in 2015 and is currently considering the approach to any future Government intervention. I am afraid I cannot give the House a detailed time as to when that will be finished.

As it stands, the private parking industry is an unregulated sector in which common law on breach of contract or trespass applies in the relationship between the motorist and the landowner. Drivers who choose to park their vehicles on private land do so in line with the terms and conditions, which should be clearly displayed on signage at the entrance to and around the car park. Those conditions may relate to the need to pay a fee to use the car park and to display a valid ticket, to observe the maximum permitted time for parking or possibly other conditions, such as a stipulation that parking is not permitted at all.

Parking control is necessary to ensure that landowners are able to exercise their legal rights and gain the benefit they are entitled to from the use of their land for that purpose. The use of wheel clamping used to be widespread in the sector as a means of parking enforcement, but was banned in England and Wales by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, meaning that that method of enforcement is now effectively outlawed. I am sure that colleagues will agree that, without any form of control, errant drivers could park as they like, breaching reasonable terms and conditions without fear of recourse arising from their misuse of the land. That would obviously have a detrimental effect on the availability of parking spaces for more compliant motorists.

[Kevin Foster]

To be clear, no one is arguing that there should be no ability to control. Does the Minister agree that the issue is about the heavy-handed enforcement, and the fact that the fines are far above those that local authorities find are perfectly adequate for management and enforcement in their own car parks?

[Andrew Jones]

I do indeed recognise that. I was just trying to clarify the legal position. My hon. Friend made his case extremely well and has now clarified it again.

The law allows for the release of DVLA vehicle keeper information to those who can demonstrate that they have reasonable cause for requiring it. That provision has been in law for several decades. To receive data, a requester must show that their need relates to the use of a vehicle following incidents in which there may be liability on the part of the keeper or driver. Where a parking infringement may have taken place, it is considered reasonable to provide the vehicle keeper’s contact details, so that the matter can be taken up with the person responsible. Despite the unpopular nature of that process, it is a well-established principle in case law that such enforcement is lawful, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in late 2015.

Despite this being an unregulated industry, and while the law provides for the release of information, the DVLA has strict conditions in place in relation to the disclosure and use of data. The DVLA will only disclose vehicle keeper data to parking companies that are members of an accredited trade association; I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. Such trade associations have codes of practice that are based upon fair treatment of the motorist and require their members to operate to high professional standards of conduct, while allowing reasonable action to be taken to follow up alleged parking contraventions. The codes of practice contain requirements on clear and prominent signage, appeals processes and information that should be provided to motorists on parking tickets. They also contain requirements on the use of automatic number plate recognition cameras, which are expected to be in good working order.

There should be no hidden charges or ambiguity for the motorist as to what is and is not permitted on the land. The codes of practice require that contact with the motorist is not threatening and that parking charge notices are issued promptly, so that the driver can recall the circumstances surrounding the event. A reasonable amount of time must also be given to the motorist to allow payment to be made before any escalation of the matter occurs.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

These codes of practice are marvellous, but the problem that has been established in this debate is that they are not followed, and the DVLA is complicit in that.

[Andrew Jones]

I am coming to that. I recognise entirely what we have heard this morning.

A further requirement in England and Wales, where additional liability for parking charges exists for vehicle keepers, is that access to an independent appeals body is provided. That independent appeals service must be free to the motorist. The outcome of the appeal is binding on the parking company but not on the motorist, who can continue to dispute the charge. Companies that do not comply with the codes of practice can face expulsion from the trade association, resulting in the right to have DVLA vehicle keeper data removed.

[Drew Hendry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Jones]

I am running out of time, so I will not.

I want to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay about whether there is enough enforcement action. Bad practices are tackled. The DVLA can and does suspend the disclosure of data to companies that have not been compliant. However, there is clear concern from Members that we need to go significantly further. I have been working to ensure that we get the balance right.

Let me reassure the House on how we control the data. We have had lots of debates in this House about the right to privacy of our personal data. The trade associations have a code of practice, which includes access to DVLA data being tightly controlled. Companies with an electronic facility to request DVLA data have to sign up to a detailed contract that lays out the requirements on the use and security of data. The DVLA undertakes remote checks on parking companies.

In addition, the Government Internal Audit Agency carries out detailed audit visits on the DVLA’s behalf and undertakes more in-depth checking of individual cases to provide further assurance that requests have been submitted for genuine reasons and there is reliable evidence to back up the request. Non-compliance can result in sanctions, including the removal of the right to data.

The DVLA’s controls around the disclosure of data to parking companies were subject to a detailed data protection audit by the Information Commissioner’s Office last year. I can confirm that the Information Commissioner awarded the DVLA the highest rating for the controls it has in place surrounding the disclosure of data.

There have been a few questions about costs. I can confirm that this is priced on a cost recovery model, so it is neither subsidised nor run at a profit. The DVLA charges a fee for providing vehicle keeper details. In the cost recovery model, the fee is £2.50, which is designed to ensure that the cost burden is met by the companies involved and not the taxpayer. There are significant volumes of requests; we are looking at potentially 4 million in the course of this financial year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay highlighted. However, the Government are not seeing either a profit or a loss.

Many Members have mentioned constituents’ complaints regarding bad practice and motorists who feel they have been unfairly treated by parking operators. There are several routes for redress should an operator fall short of the standards expected. The first is the company’s initial appeal process, which it is required to offer under its code of practice. There is also the independent appeals service, which is free to motorists. I have already mentioned the need for an operator to demonstrate compliance with the code of practice in order to retain its membership of an accredited trade association. If there are breaches of the code of practice, the trade association is there to investigate and ensure that action is taken. Without membership, there is no access to DVLA data.

Consumer protection laws also apply here. Those laws are designed to protect consumers from unfair practices. Trading standards officers are there to investigate complaints and can take action against a particular company. Consumer protection legislation applies to individual cases and the actions of the company in individual circumstances. Breaches can result in prosecution.

I hope that colleagues will recognise that the DVLA has gone through significant controls to ensure that the data are handled correctly and that there are controls and audits. There was a question about responsibility. The DVLA is the responsibility of the DFT. The parking companies and on-street and off-street parking sit with the DCLG. We have to work on this issue together because, without car ownership data, accessed through the DVLA, this industry would stop.

Colleagues have raised issues with me in writing previously and today, and there is clearly a significant issue to resolve. The Government are most concerned about the matter, which is why the DCLG launched its consultation. I will ensure that DCLG colleagues are aware of concerns and the content of this debate. I will also arrange a meeting with the trade associations, to highlight the concerns we have in this House about their members’ practices and to review exactly what enforcement action they take. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that this is a little bit David and Goliath. Our job is to stand up for the Davids, not the Goliaths. That is completely fair.

I have been asked whether there should be a single standard-setting body for the industry. Competition between industry bodies is generally quite good. Competition can improve services, so I do not think we necessarily need to have just one body. I was also asked whether the relationship between the trade associations and the DVLA is appropriate. It is legal, and it is controlled and audited. The information provision is managed. The concern lies in the code of practice and its enforcement. That is where the next actions will be, and I will take those actions forward from today’s debate.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. It has been interesting to hear so many examples from across the length and breadth of these isles. This issue is not localised to Torbay.

Competition is good where it is about services, but we would not suggest having competing magistrates courts. Once upon a time, we did that for the civil courts, and it did not produce a good outcome. The concern of many is that the industry is able not only to mark its own homework but to choose the marker. We need to look closely at that. There are more than 4 million of these transactions. Given the debate we have had today about the cost and the comments made in a House of Commons Library document, based on a Transport Committee report in 2014, I suggest that the Minister places a letter in the Library. It would be helpful if he clarified that point.

[Andrew Jones]

I am happy to make that commitment.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the Minister for that positive reply and the courtesy he has shown. This issue will continue, and further action is needed. We cannot stand aside and ignore the key role the state plays in handing over details that it compels its citizens to provide to the DVLA and in allowing some of these practices to continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the relationship between the DVLA and private car parking companies.

Car Insurance: Young People

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for opening this debate on the important subject of the cost of car insurance for young people. I also thank all hon. Members for the very good debate we have had this afternoon.

I reassure hon. Members that we take the cost of car insurance for young people—indeed, for all motorists—very seriously. Ultimately, the issue is about road safety and recognising that many people lose their lives or are seriously injured on our roads each year and that behind each statistic there is a shattered life and a shattered family. This is not just about numbers, but about people.

I congratulate the original petitioner, Rhys Michael Parker, who described his own experience of finding motor insurance costly to obtain as a novice driver. I recognise that, like Mr Parker, many young people use their cars to access work, education, caring responsibilities or even just the fun of social activities.

I remember receiving my driving licence—that moment might be 33 years ago to the week for my hon. Friend, but it is almost 36 years ago to the week for me; I took a moment to work that out. Getting a driving licence is a fantastic moment of opportunity in someone’s life and that is why we are committed to bearing down on the cost of car insurance for young drivers. In order to do so, the Government have identified the root causes of high insurance premiums and they are addressing them, as I will discuss.

The first root cause is the alarming rate at which fraudulent, minor and exaggerated whiplash claims have increased in the UK. The scale of the problem is highlighted by the fact that 90% of recent personal injury claims relating to road traffic collisions were labelled as whiplash or soft tissue injuries to the neck and back. The magnitude of costs that insurers inherit from whiplash claims are then often passed on to their consumers through higher insurance premiums. To tackle the issue, we recently introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill to Parliament; it is having its Second Reading today and includes measures to cut fraudulent, minor and exaggerated whiplash claims. That will generate estimated savings to insurers of around £1 billion per year. In this debate, colleagues have said that savings are not always passed on. We expect insurers to fully pass those savings on to motorists through lower premiums. The point was well made by colleagues. I am pleased to inform the House that three leading insurers have already committed to do that.

I would now like to address another of the root causes: the high levels of risk associated with younger drivers. Colleagues have highlighted the well-known fact that younger drivers are over-represented in road collisions. Car drivers aged 17 to 24 are four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured compared with drivers aged 25 or over. That is a terrible statistic and we should not in any way be complacent about it. Higher levels of risk associated with younger drivers have resulted in higher insurance premiums. While we do have some of the safest roads in the world in the UK, we are determined to make them safer; addressing the cost of car insurance is one additional factor spurring everybody on.

I have been asked about a Green Paper, but frankly it has been overtaken by events. We have no intention of publishing a Green Paper because we published the British road safety statement in December 2015. It included proposals aimed at younger drivers—indeed, all drivers—for making our roads safer, such as improving the safety of young and novice drivers both before and after they take their test. It includes our intention to commission a £2 million research programme to test the effectiveness of a range of technological solutions and educational and behavioural measures, including telematics, to improve the safety of young and novice drivers. Those interventions will be designed with careful consideration of behavioural change.

It might be helpful if I explain a bit more about how telematics policies work and play an important role in helping young drivers to access lower insurance premiums. Telematics is a key part of the future and I strongly support the expansion of telematics products in the marketplace. Telematics devices allow information on driving styles and behaviours—such as speed, braking, acceleration and where and when the vehicle is being driven—to be monitored and considered alongside the traditional risk factors that insurance companies consider, such as the driver’s age, to set premiums that are more tailored to the risk of the driver than traditional motor insurance policies.

We are seeing an increasing take-up of telematics. The technology is increasingly being chosen by young drivers as a way of ensuring that their premiums are lower. In March 2016, the British Insurance Brokers’ Association reported that there were 455,000 live telematics policies in the UK—up 40% in just two years. However, that needs to be put into the context of how many policies there are in the marketplace to show how much progress we need to make to encourage their wider use. We are not in any way complacent, but I recognise that young people benefit from telematics.

A number of organisations have lobbied me about the insurance premium tax rate exemption for young drivers with telematics policies. It is important to stress that IPT is a tax on the insurer, and there is no guarantee that it will be passed on to the customer. I also have to say that taxation is a matter for Treasury colleagues.

We are focusing our efforts on a number of other measures to ensure that younger people are fit and safe to drive. We encourage learners to do more on-road, pre-test practice and to practise in a wider range of conditions. As has been mentioned, we have recently consulted on allowing learner drivers on to motorways—with an approved driving instructor, of course—and we are analysing the results. That is very important given that people can go along at a low speed and then suddenly encounter what can be very difficult driving conditions. It can be pretty scary, although it is worth noting that the strategic road network in this country is the safest it has ever been.

We are ensuring that driving tests assess the skills needed for safe, independent driving and are raising standards across the driver and rider training industries. Importantly, we are looking at changing driving tests, which evolve continually. We have been trialling more free-flow driving and using fewer set pieces. Notwithstanding the parking issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, we are looking to remove some set pieces so that people have more understanding and experience of free-flow driving and are more road-savvy. That will include taking instructions from a sat-nav during the test. We are trying to make the test more reactive to current technology and the benefits that it can bring.

We are also looking to identify innovative applications, such as augmented and virtual reality, to improve drivers’ hazard perception—that is, the skills required to correctly assess a situation. That could mean using technology from the games industry to complement the existing on-road practice and the testing regime. We are always looking at finding ways to get people better prepared for the marvellous freedom ticket that is their licence.

[Richard Burden]

I agree that looking at ways in which the test can evolve and exposing the person taking the test to the greater range of experiences that they face when driving are important. However, could I take the Minister back to graduated licensing? A focus of the call for a Green Paper was that the pros and cons of graduated licensing need to be weighed up and a decision made. If the Minister has turned his face against the idea of a Green Paper, does that mean that the Government have completely rejected the possibility of looking at graduated driving licences, or are they still prepared to look at it, but want to do it differently?

[Andrew Jones]

We have been considering the idea of graduated driving licences but I am not inclined to support them, because we want to strike the right balance in respect of freedom for young drivers. As we have discussed, many people need their vehicles, particularly in rural areas; rather than imposing post-test restrictions on novice drivers, our efforts are all about improving driver training and testing so that people are better able to benefit from a driving licence.

I am not looking to introduce a graduated driving licence system in the UK. We have heard from colleagues how that might impact on people who live in darkness for part of the year as they perhaps seek to get to shift work early. All those factors have impacted on and led to our decision not to go down the route of a graduated driving licence.

[Mrs Ellman]

I note what the Minister said about the need for better training. Does that extend to training after people have passed their driving test?

[Andrew Jones]

Yes. I am very keen to encourage people to do more learning. We continually learn as drivers and get better continually at assessing risk. I highlight the Pass Plus scheme, which colleagues have mentioned. Pass Plus has six modules, which broaden the range of driving skills that people need. It covers driving in town, in all weathers, on rural roads, driving at night, driving on dual carriageways and driving on motorways. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency issues people with a certificate to say that they have been through the course. That can often be used to access lower insurance premiums, so yes, I entirely agree with the principle.

A number of factors demonstrate that we are committed to improving the safety of all road users and especially those who are at greater risk, such as young drivers. I very much like the road safety training highlighted by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr). I am aware of other schemes around the country. He offered me a visit—well, he lives in a very nice part of the world and I like the idea of visiting, so if he lets me know, that might be a possibility. To make a cheeky comment, I like finding ways to show that our two fine countries are stronger together. I am very keen to take ideas from all parts of the world, not just all parts of the UK, if they can make our roads safer. I am aware of comparable schemes—including in London, again with links into motorsport—that are all aimed at younger drivers, and I recognise the importance of those.

We are seeking to improve the safety of all road users and especially younger drivers, who are more vulnerable and at risk of being in a collision. Nine out of 10 road collisions have an element of human error, so if we can cut the amount of human error, it will have a huge impact on road safety. I therefore agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) about the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which is an important Bill that we have to get right for the future. The benefits of connected and autonomous vehicles will be profound, but the set of changes is also profound. The Bill is in Committee now.

We are seeking to lower the risk by making progress in ensuring that people are better able to drive and, through that, they will pay less for their insurance premium. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle asked about the discount rate, which has to be considered in the pricing of insurance. I am aware that the recent change in the discount rate and the likely impact on the insurance industry were discussed in some depth in the evidence session last month. I am therefore keen to set out the Government’s reasons for the change and a number of actions being taken as a priority.

The Ministry of Justice leads on this issue, but let me explain: the discount rate is used to convert a compensation award made to an injured person for future losses into a present value lump sum payment, which reflects the return that the person could expect to earn if investing the lump sum today. Last month, the Lord Chancellor notified the market of a change in the discount rate from 2.5% to minus 0.75%. She made it clear that the decision was made in accordance with national law, given her legal duty to consider only the impact on injured parties. The decision was made following a Ministry of Justice public consultation in 2012, the report of an expert panel in 2015 and the responses of statutory consultees, Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Government Actuary. The review process has been lengthy and extremely thorough, reflecting the complexity of the subject matter and the importance that is placed on the decision.

We recognise that the change is likely to have an impact on the insurance industry, resulting in a knock-on effect on some consumers but I must stress that, under law, the Lord Chancellor cannot consider the impact on defendants such as the insurance industry, only the impact on the injured party. I also stress that any effect of the change in the discount rate on the cost of insurance premiums, including car insurance premiums for young drivers, is a matter for insurers to consider.

[Huw Merriman]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. Does he agree that more could perhaps be done to incentivise the payment of compensation awards annually rather than as lump sums, so that the risk of return would effectively remain with the insurer, which would then pay out? My understanding is that the legal profession is keener on lump sums; I believe it is said that lump sums mean greater fees for lawyers. As a former lawyer, I cannot believe that any lawyer would be guilty of thinking of themselves in such an instance, but perhaps we could do more to encourage a move away from lump sum payments of compensation.

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Notwithstanding the element of fees in the legal profession, I would expect the insurance and legal professions to sit down and work that out for themselves. What is insurance for? The point of it is that it is collective pooled risk in case something bad happens in our lives. How that is met is for the insurance companies to work out. We have a competitive and innovative sector, which I am sure will be listening to this debate, including to my hon. Friend’s suggestion.

As a Government, we remain determined to address any knock-on effect on consumers caused by the change, which is why we will launch a consultation before Easter to review the framework under which the new rate was set, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer chaired a roundtable late last month with representatives from the insurance industry to launch discussion on the consultation.

Colleagues have mentioned the importance of driving licences in rural areas due to the difficulty of accessing public transport mechanisms. I recognise that as someone whose constituency, although not rural, certainly has some rural parts. We must ensure that other forms of transport are viable alternatives to motorcars for young people, particularly in rural areas. It is not easy. We understand the importance of affordable, accessible transport and recognise the extra pressures placed on local authorities throughout the country to provide those services, particularly as the lower the population density, the harder it can be for local authorities to do so.

That is why, during the spending review period, my Department will provide more than £1.5 billion to local authorities through the integrated transport block, which will provide capital investment in small transport improvement projects. It will also provide significant road maintenance budgets, which relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). If her constituency is like mine, she will receive more correspondence on potholes than on any other transport issue.

The integrated transport block investment scheme reflects the Government’s belief that local authorities are best placed to decide where investment should go in response to the needs of local communities. It is a local decision to solve a local problem. There are numerous examples of Government-funded road transport schemes throughout the country, such as voluntary car schemes. We have mentioned the Wheels 2 Work scheme and how it could help, although it has its limitations, and we have a £25 million community minibus fund, to name a few initiatives. Such initiatives are helping young people to access work, education and so on. The Government recognise the need for investment in alternative modes of transport, alongside a commitment to road safety and to bearing down on car insurance premiums for young drivers.

To return to some of the questions asked, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay mentioned the driving test and how it is evolving. I do not think the question is about making it harder. He might be interested to know that, according to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, the first-time pass rate for the 2015-16 financial year was 47.5%. It is not that high. People are not looking at the driving test and thinking, “Easy; piece of cake.” More people fail first time than pass. It is a question of making the driving test more realistic and improving training before they get to it and after, as we discussed previously.

[Steve Double]

I take the point that the Minister is making. I was saying not necessarily that I think that the test is too easy, but that people are coached to pass the test rather than taught to drive well. He is making a point about the test being more comprehensive; that is where we need to go.

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to clarify that he was not asking for the test to be made easier; that is absolutely correct.

Colleagues from Northern Ireland, who are no longer in their place, made contributions. This is an entirely devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and my responsibilities do not extend there.

We heard from colleagues about the insurance market and how benefits can be passed on. It is important that we see all the signs of a good, thriving, competitive market, including people shopping around and competition on price and service. We do see that, but we also see inertia. From April this year, changes to the Financial Conduct Authority rules will require insurers to disclose last year’s premium to the policyholder at the point of renewal, which should incentivise shopping around. The randomised controlled trials certainly showed that that prompted up to 18% more people to switch provider or negotiate a lower premium. It would be wise of me to consider following that example, rather than trying to renew on the very last day, as I did this year, only to find an enormous hike in my premium, unlike the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk.

The issue of targets has been raised; it is raised frequently. I have no desire to reintroduce targets. They can help in other countries, as they have helped in our past, but the Government’s clear determination to make progress on road safety is evident in the road safety statement that we published, the initiative in the autumn statement to channel funding into the 50 least safe stretches of road in our country and the changes that we made to the penalties for mobile phone use, which came into effect this month. By the way, that is most important; we know that 60% of people killed or seriously injured in an incident involving a mobile phone are younger drivers. This is about cultural change, and we are seeking it with the penalty change.

I will not consider reintroducing targets. If targets were the right answer to policy, then policy making would become remarkably simple, which I do not think it is. Frankly—to make a political point, which has not been done in this debate—if targets were the answer to everything, Gordon Brown would have left us a very well-governed country, which I do not think he did. Policy is a little more complicated than targets.

At the heart of this debate is the potential cap on insurance premiums. It is a long-standing principle that insurers set their premiums according to their assessment of the risks involved, notwithstanding my hon. Friends’ point about gender.

[Mrs Main]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned that. Is there any opportunity for us to consider the gender directive? If we are truly interpreting risk, suddenly hiking premiums for young women seems unfair.

[Andrew Jones]

Not right now, but who knows where the future will take us? We have some idea, but the detail will still need to be filled in. Opportunities will certainly arise and that may well be one of them.

I want us to get to the point where individuals are assessed according to their risk and where the Government do all we can to de-risk driving and incentivise safe driving. Motor insurers use a wide range of criteria to assess the potential risk associated with a quotation, including the age and driving experience of the applicant, the type of vehicle and where it is kept. The level of premiums is a commercial matter for individual insurers, because they use their own funds to underwrite the policies they issue. It is critical that the insurance industry takes such decisions for itself; the Government should not seek to control that market. However, I confirm to all who signed the petition, and to Mr Parker, its originator, that I am extremely sympathetic to their point. I hope that the explanations of our actions that I have given demonstrate our commitment to making progress.

[Calum Kerr]

I realise that the Minister is probably reaching the end of his speech, but there is one thing that I would like to ask him. I do not doubt the sincerity of his desire to improve the situation. Does he see a role for the Government—I appreciate that it would not be his Department—in introducing more formal qualifications to the school curriculum that could help to improve skills and create the outcome that we all desire?

[Andrew Jones]

It is important to capture people young and to instil road savviness among younger people. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) mentioned doing his cycling proficiency test at primary school. That scheme is now called Bikeability—we have Bikeability Plus, too—and it is thriving. We have protected its budget throughout this Parliament because it plays a critical role. The education of younger people in this area is important in making progress.

We have had a very positive debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay for introducing it, and to all hon. Members for their contributions to our stimulating discussion. I recognise that the cost of car insurance is important to young people. We are tackling fraudulent whiplash claims and making our roads safer for all drivers, including younger drivers. The motor market, including the motor insurance market, is among the most competitive markets in the UK. I trust that the insurers themselves have strong incentives to innovate and to deliver products targeted at younger drivers at a price that they can afford.

We are not at all complacent about this. We will continue to look at what we can do to address the cost of car insurance for younger drivers head on. It is right to tackle the issue by reducing risk. The Government are doing what we can to help our younger people to get about and get on.

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind all persons present in the room to ensure that their electronic devices are in silent mode. Today’s selection list is available in the room. I remind the Committee that we will consider the clauses and schedules in the order set out in the programme motion, which was agreed on Tuesday and is at the back of the amendment paper.

Schedule 4

Further amendments: enhanced partnership plans and schemes

Amendment made: 18, in schedule 4, page 88, line 12, leave out “123A(4)(b) to (f)” and insert “123A(4)”.—(Andrew Jones.)

See explanatory statement for amendment 17.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Power to require provision of information about English bus services

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 18, page 74, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert—

“which have one or more stopping places in their areas”.

This amendment will allow regulations under new section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 to require local transport authorities to provide information about all relevant local services which have stopping places in their areas. As currently drafted the power is available only where there are franchising arrangements.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 13 and 14.

[Andrew Jones]

An important element of the Bill is the availability of journey planning information about bus services. The clause will facilitate the provision to passengers of information about timetables, fares, routes and tickets, and live information about bus arrival times. This is one of the most exciting parts of the Bill.

Amendment 12 will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring all local transport authorities, rather than just those that are franchising authorities, to provide prescribed information about local bus services. Our overall policy intention is still for operators to be responsible for providing route, timetable, fares, tickets and real-time information. However, during the development and drafting of the Bill, our discussions with operators and local authority representatives highlighted that current practices in the industry mean that local authorities rather than operators often hold the relevant information. That is particularly the case in respect of real-time information.

Historically, local authorities invested in real-time information systems, including the equipment fitted to the vehicles. In those cases, it will be important to require local authorities rather than operators to provide the relevant information. Without the amendment, there is a risk that the amount of real-time information available to passengers reduces in future because operators cannot provide the information held by the authority. To ensure that there is no degradation in the level of service available to passengers, we will amend the clause so that real-time information may be required from the local authority if it owns the real-time system. The intention is for that to be a short-term measure while appropriate processes and procedures are put in place to enable the obligation to be passed to operators.

Stakeholders have stressed the importance of two existing datasets currently maintained by local authorities, which accurately and uniquely describe and locate all bus stops in a common format. Those datasets are fundamental to the production of meaningful journey planning information for passengers. However, they are currently maintained by local authorities on a voluntary basis. Should it become necessary to put the ongoing maintenance of the datasets on to a statutory footing, amendments 13 and 14, in conjunction with amendment 12, will ensure that regulations could be made requiring information about stopping places to be provided and maintained by local transport authorities or operators.

The Secretary of State must consult with local authority operators and passenger representatives before making such regulations, and any impacts of new requirements will be assessed before implementation. The regulations are also subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will be able to debate the detail of the final regulations.

The amendments are necessary to ensure that the level of information currently available to passengers is not reduced in the transition to the new open data arrangements, and to secure the maintenance of the datasets that are fundamental to all open data requirements. We are seeking to make information available from which app developers can produce products that offer a service outside London that will be comparable to that which is available inside London. We are not thinking of developing such a measure within the Department, but thinking of making it available so that entrepreneurs can pick it up, run with it and create exciting products.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is important that products are equally as accessible to small providers and large providers. Will that be the case?

[Andrew Jones]

Yes.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I share the Minister’s excitement on the clause. It is a huge opportunity. We have absolutely no objections to it, we are enthusiastic and support it. I reflect in passing on the amazing work that has gone on in London through Transport for London, and would have had across the rest of the country if we had had a similar system for the past 30 years.

[Andrew Jones]

I suspect we are going to have a further outburst of Tuesday’s agreeing with each other. Helping passengers with information on how bus services in their areas can meet their transport needs will put more passengers on to buses. That is fundamental to what the Bill is about and why the clause is central to the Bill.

Amendment 12 agreed to.



Amendments made: 13, in clause 18, page 74, line 22, after “routes,” insert “stopping places,”.

This amendment and amendment 14 ensure that information about stopping places is included in the types of information that can be required by regulations under new section 141A of the Transport Act 2000.

Amendment 14, in clause 18, page 74, line 23, at end insert “stopping places,”.—(Andrew Jones.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 13.

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Variation or cancellation of registration: service information

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 19, page 76, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

This amendment would specify that regulations will require, rather than may require, operators to provide prescribed information.

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is a pleasure to be back in the Bill Committee and serving under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I hope the Minister will accept the amendments as being helpful and seeking to improve the Bill.

I will begin by explaining the background. The Competition Commission completed an investigation into bus markets in 2011 and recommended that the Government give local transport authorities powers to obtain revenue and patronage information for de-registered services and the right to disclose that information to potential bidders for subsequent tenders. It also recommended a 14-day pre-notification period preceding formal service registrations, variations and withdrawals, which I think was partly aimed at curbing undesirable operator behaviour—bus wars—but was also relevant to its recommendation regarding supported services, specifically in relation to the provision of revenue and patronage information. However, it was not specific in its report about whether those data should be provided by default, or whether the onus should be on local transport authorities to request it. I contend that providing those data should be the default, rather than it having to be requested every time.

Fundamentally, the amendment is about efficiency—the efficient operation of the tendered bus services market and the efficient administration of that market, both of which have clear implications for public funds. It would not be a significant burden on operators to provide the data by default because a competent operator would already have the data to hand, as they would have been vital in informing their decision to withdraw or vary the service.

Nowadays, data are available in electronic form, so it would be fairly straightforward for the local transport authority to agree with operators a standard format for the provision of data. Many have already done so for financially supported services. Service changes where the provision of data is not necessary—for instance, normal frequency increases or minor time changes—can be specified in the regulations, making it clear what data the local transport authority is entitled to.

On the contrary, it would be an administrative burden, both for local transport authorities and operators, for the data to be requested and provided on an ad hoc basis. If the data were provided at the start of the pre-notification period, the local transport authority could make initial preparations for whether and how to replace most effectively the commercial service and, if appropriate, challenge the operator’s intention. That could result in either the operator continuing to provide the service commercially or amending the variation, so that less public sector service support was required.

Provision of the data to all potential bidders would encourage more and better-informed bids, which would result in more competitive prices, a lower risk of successful bidders being unable to sustain the service and, therefore, a lower risk of the need to retender the service, with associated administration costs and potential disruption to passengers. It would, of course, reduce the ability of operators to game the system by withdrawing or reducing a profitable service in the expectation of regaining the service when it was put out to tender.

In summary, having information available as quickly as possible is essential for supporting efficient passenger services and minimising disruption. The amendment seeks to address concerns raised by the Competition Commission and to implement its recommendations most effectively. Making provision of information the default and automatic removes unnecessary bureaucracy. Any draft regulations should align with the provision, making it clear that when an operator applies to vary or cancel a service registered under section 6, the operator should automatically disclose the information to the authority.

[Andrew Jones]

I will speak to amendments 31 and 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham South. They would require operators to provide the prescribed information automatically, without the local authority having to request it. The purpose of clause 19 is to improve competition in the supported services market by putting all bidders on an even footing, which is clearly positive.

Where an operator chooses to reduce or withdraw a service, the clause should help prevent incumbent operators from having an unfair advantage when preparing a bid, if the local authority decides to tender for a replacement service.

Not all local authorities will want to provide a subsidised service. If the requirement to provide information were automatic, it could present an unnecessary burden on both the operator and the council when there is no intention to proceed. They would simply be required to provide information to the local authority, even if no one intends to make use of it.

There is nothing in the provisions to prevent a local authority whose default position is always to consider tendering for replacement service from reaching an agreement with operators in their area for the information to be provided automatically, but compelling such activities regardless of need seems unnecessary and a bit excessive.

I hope that explanation and the reassurances are helpful to the Committee and that the hon. Lady feels able to—

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Jones]

Good timing; I had two words left.

[Graham Stringer]

I am grateful to the Minister. He makes the fair point that there may not be a substitute subsidised service. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South made the case that many bus companies, to get round the competition and to game the system, withdraw profitable services in order to get an extra subsidy. What will the Minister do to stop that happening? He has not addressed that point at all.

[Andrew Jones]

It is addressed by the fact that the local authority can request, at its instigation, data from the bus operator to prevent that from happening. It will have transparency on that. I am aware of such things happening in theory—the case was made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South—but the system is there to prevent that from happening. The question is whether the information is given at the request of the local authority or automatically, regardless of need.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does the Minister not think that it could reduce bureaucracy if operators knew that they would always have to provide that information, rather than the local authority having a limited period to request the information and the operator then having to go away and find it? If it is readily available, as it must be if the operator has considered withdrawing or amending a service, surely it would be simpler if operators always provided that information.

[Andrew Jones]

The information will clearly be available, because the operator will be making a commercial decision, based on information. However, if the authority has no intention of taking it forward, do we need to go ahead with this proposal, or is it excessive? If sufficient interest in doing so is expressed in the current consultation, I am happy to consider adding a mechanism in the draft regulations under the clause to allow a local authority to notify operators if it wishes always to receive such information, but otherwise I think that it is excessive.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for that assurance. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Andrew Jones]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 19, page 76, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) In this section “local transport authority” has the meaning given in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000.”’

This amendment adds a definition of a term, “local transport authority”, which appears in the clause.

Clause 19 provides powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations that enable local transport authorities to request information on the revenue and patronage of commercial bus services that are being withdrawn or reduced, and to disclose that information to bidders for subsequent tenders. Amendment 15 is a little dry and technical. It basically adds a definition to the term “local transport authority” to clarify that it has the same meaning as in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000. It is necessary because otherwise there would be no clarity about the definition of a local transport authority in proposed new section 6C of the Transport Act 1985.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England

“(1) A relevant authority may not, in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether the relevant authority is acting alone or with any other person.

(3) In this section—

“company” has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the Companies Act 2006);

“form a company” is to be construed in accordance with section 7 of the Companies Act 2006;

“local service” has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985 (see section 2 of that Act);

“Passenger Transport Executive”, in relation to an integrated transport area in England or a combined authority area, means the body which is the Executive in relation to that area for the purposes of Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968;

“relevant authority” means—

(a) a county council in England;

(b) a district council in England;

(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(d) an Integrated Transport Authority for an integrated transport area in England;

(e) a Passenger Transport Executive for—

(i) an integrated transport area in England, or

(ii) a combined authority area.”—(Andrew Jones.)

This amendment prohibits county and district councils in England, combined and integrated authorities in England and passenger transport executives in England from setting up companies to provide local services.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Shareholder dividends may be shared with some members of the public, but not many of my constituents find such money coming into their pockets. I think they would rather have it more directly, in lower bus fares.

Rather than getting money from dividends, bus passengers pay the price for those substantial profits, because bus fares have been rising. According to the Department for Transport’s local bus fares index, fares in England, outside London, rose by more than 156% between 1995 and 2016, while the retail prices index rose by 77%. That shows that bus fares—and I think that this is virtually everyone’s personal experience—have risen much faster.

Equally, bus companies sometimes tell us that the rising fares are due to rising fuel prices, but a number of us have noticed that when fuel prices go down, fares rarely fall; they tend to remain static. We believe that there is a strong case for a bus investment strategy, and we hope that the Minister will reconsider his objections.

Subsection (2) of the new clause relates to the consideration of a reduced fares scheme for young people. It would simply require the Government to look at and consult on funding options to help young people with the cost of travel. Many young people have to take the bus to school or college, but the number of councils financially able to provide a discretionary young person’s pass has dropped from 29 to just 16 since 2010. With fares shooting up faster than inflation, the Government should look properly at introducing a statutory concessionary fare scheme for young people.

I appreciate that that would be a substantial commitment, but we ask the Government only to consider it and to do the preparatory work. I remember that, when I and others first suggested the older people’s concessionary fares scheme to a Labour Transport Secretary who later became Chancellor, his immediate response was less than encouraging, but popular measures have a habit of making their way into manifestos—and the rest is history.

We all know that for many young people, the cost of getting to college and job interviews, and just of getting out to have a life, is a key determinant of what lies ahead of them. That is why the Opposition thought that the education maintenance allowance was so precious and that it was a mistake to remove it. Agreeing to the new clause would be a first tentative step in repairing the damage to the prospects of many young people and families who might even be described as “just about managing”.

There is not a word about funding in the Bill, yet cuts to local authority budgets have meant that thousands of routes and services have had to be withdrawn since 2010. Young persons’ concessionary fare schemes have been cut, while large operators have experienced generous profit margins. The way buses are funded is not working well enough. We need a proper Government strategy to address the illogicalities of funding, and to bring buses into line with other modes of transport. The new clause would help to achieve that objective, and would send a strong message to young people that the Government understand what life is like for them.

[Andrew Jones]

New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a national bus strategy. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there is nothing in the Bill about funding. That is right; it is not a Bill about funding. It is about providing authorities with new tools to enable them to improve their local services in the way that best suits their areas.

Central Government have a valuable role to play in providing funding and setting the wider agenda through policy initiatives such as the low-emission bus scheme and our Total Transport pilots, but a centrally determined strategy for local bus services would not help local authorities to address issues relevant to them and their area. I am slightly reminded of a saying from my 25 years in business: “I’m from head office and I’m here to help.” Rarely is that the truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is right. The amendment is not intended to put drivers into impossible situations. I recognise that they often try to deal with such matters helpfully. I would not want confrontations to arise between drivers and passengers who might be unwilling to move. However, the provision would arm drivers with legal backing, making it easier for them to pave the way for wheelchair users to get access to the space.

I recognise that many drivers in the industry receive disability awareness training and do all they can to help passengers with a range of disabilities to get on the bus, but that should happen everywhere, at all times, and the drivers should have the backing of the law in making sure that wheelchair users’ rights are protected. If guidance came from the Department, that would not be all. The issue is about raising public awareness, and about people understanding the impact. I hope such conflicts would then arise less often.

Bus operators could address the matter through their choice of vehicle design. There is a good argument for two spaces—one for a wheelchair user and a separate one for buggies and luggage. I have seen some buses with a large number of tip-up seats that could be used on routes where it is known that problems tend to arise. Nevertheless, back-up for drivers in dealing with situations could be important.

Under subsection (3) of the new clause, priority wheelchair spaces would mean that a wheelchair user has priority over a space unless it is not reasonable for passengers to move. Passengers must give up the space for the wheelchair user if it is reasonable to do so, and—this gives it the teeth of being required by regulation —a passenger who unreasonably refuses may, if necessary, be required to get off the bus. That has hopefully dealt with new clause 7.

New clause 9 would require operators to publish their accessibility policies. Essentially, it supports the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge requiring bus operators to have accessibility policies. It seems entirely right that, if they have them, they should also be required to publish them. Buses are a particularly important form of travel for disabled people, but standards of accessibility vary greatly among bus companies—some are really excellent and others leave something to be desired. Disabled people using public transport need to know in advance what provision is made, and should not face a postcode lottery.

The Government say they want an integrated transport policy. I am sure we would all agree with that, but we need consistency for that to happen. Without it, disabled people may not have the confidence to travel, especially when they have to cross different local authority areas or use different modes of transport. I have seen the experience of Claire Lindsey from Greenwich, who has talked about travelling on the tube as an autistic person. She says that she needs to have a fixed daily routine and know what is going to happen:

“This routine means always needing to travel the same way to and from places. When there are diversions, journey restrictions or cancellations, it doesn’t just irritate me, it can feel like the end of the world and it can cause an ‘autistic meltdown’—an extreme panic attack which causes me to pass out.”

For someone like Claire, using different modes of transport with different levels of protection and accessibility would be hugely problematic.

The proposal is not unreasonable—precisely the same requirements are made of rail operators. When the Bill was in the Lords, an amendment was tabled to introduce a system requiring bus companies to operate policies like the disabled people’s protection policy, which is used across train operators, and it seems reasonable to apply the same to bus operators. I have already mentioned audio-visual indicators. It is welcome that the Government acted on that, and in many ways this measure would simply extend it to all disabled people and the whole range of different disabilities. That should not be onerous, because it is good business and what any employer should be doing under the Equality Act 2010 in any event. Given that we have DPPPs for train companies, there is no reason why something similar could not be developed for bus companies.

The fact that bus companies are not responsible for bus stations and bus stops should not be a reason for not explaining what their policies are and what they are doing to make bus travel accessible. Government guidance for local authorities will help to bridge the gap and complement the requirements on companies. Finally, I hope the Minister is minded to accept my hon. Friend’s new clause requiring bus companies to put in place policies for making their services accessible. It seems entirely reasonable that where they have such policies, they should also publish them.

[Andrew Jones]

We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill, both here and in the other place, that bus services must work for the people they serve. We have heard examples from colleagues this morning about how important buses are for people with disabilities. We know that is the case, and that buses and taxis are the two main modes of transport for people with disabilities.

New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, seeks to require bus drivers and other staff to complete disability awareness training. I am sure the Committee will be pleased to hear that there is much in the new clause that I agree with—I too have met campaigners and charities. Disability awareness training can help transport staff to provide the assistance that disabled people require, and I agree that we should all expect bus drivers to complete it. That is why we fully support the implementation of article 16 of EU regulation 181/2011, which from 1 March next year—a full year before the hon. Gentleman’s proposal would take effect—will require drivers to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I want to press the Minister a little further on that. I appreciate that there is already a requirement for bus operators to make reasonable adjustments but, frankly, the Paulley case would not have gone all the way to the Supreme Court if there was not a need for further clarity. If the Minister agrees that the wheelchair space should provide priority to the wheelchair user, rather than others who might wish to use that space, surely such legal clarity would be helpful to drivers who seek to ensure that that right is there for the disabled person. I am not sure I understand why the Minister is reluctant to provide that.

[Andrew Jones]

I will come straight to new clause 7, which the hon. Lady tabled. That new clause seeks to provide the means by which wheelchair users must be given priority use of the wheelchair space on buses. I fully recognise the comments that have been made about how difficult this is for bus drivers. That is clearly a fair and accurate comment. I recognise the challenges that wheelchair users face in accessing bus services. That was set out very clearly and powerfully in the written evidence to the Committee from Mr Paulley.

I have highlighted the work that we are doing to understand the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the provision of reasonable adjustments on buses and to identify what interventions might be required as a consequence. It is my intention that we should hear the advice of disabled people, wider passenger groups and communities, and bus operators themselves before we reach a conclusion on the best course of action.

I can see practical difficulties, as I think did the Supreme Court. We have to recognise that wheelchair users will not be the only passengers with a genuine need to use that space. Interventions should also protect the interests of parents with disabled children, those with walking frames and the owners of assistance dogs. This is a complicated issue and we have to take care to find the most appropriate solution.

We have already contacted people to ask them to join the group that we are pulling together. I recognise that there is a timeliness to this work. I assure the Committee that we will respond proactively to the Supreme Court’s judgment, where a need for Government intervention is identified. Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of our stakeholder discussions, I doubt that any new regulatory powers will be required. A range of existing powers, such as the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990, are available to us, should we need them.

Given that, and with my assurance that this is live work that I will continue to treat with great importance, I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham South will recognise that the new clause is a little premature. We need to work through all the implications, but the good will is clearly there to find a practical way forward for the industry.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I certainly welcome the assurances the Minister has given. I would not wish to prevent that work with stakeholders from being undertaken, but will he give us the likely timescale for that work? I recognise that he is being very helpful, but I think that there will be concern among the wider community, particularly those with disabilities, that this matter has been discussed for some time. Although I am mindful of what he has said, I would like some assurance about when the work will be completed.

[Andrew Jones]

It is right to raise the issue of timing. I think that it took five years for Mr Paulley’s case to go through our legal system. We have already started by making contact with the groups who would like to be involved in that work and we intend it to run during the course of the summer. I entirely recognise the timeliness of this and hope that that provides reassurance.

Finally, new clause 9, which also appears in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham South, would require bus operators to publish policies similar to the DPPPs produced by train and station operators, in order to protect the interests of disabled passengers. My colleague in the other place, Lord Ahmad, looked into this issue in some detail. I, too, have considerable sympathy with the underlying aims of the proposal. I have met campaigners on the issue, including Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. I know that for many disabled people, a lack of information on the accessibility of bus services may well prevent them from travelling at all.

Confidence among disabled people was highlighted in our debate this morning, and I entirely agree with that point. Lack of information may ultimately mean that they are prevented from accessing work or excluded from their local communities. We have, therefore, committed to recommend in the guidance that authorities ensure that information on the accessibility of bus services is made available to passengers. That might be in a form provided by the authority itself or individual operators, but we hope it will be of significant help to disabled passengers in making more informed travel choices.

We have been working on the issue with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has developed a template that we could use. I am keen to publish that as part of the guidance and to encourage all bus companies to use it. That will keep it simple and bring the information together in a presentable way. I thank DPTAC for that work.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South talked about the difference between guidance and mandation. We are seeing significant progress in our bus industry. More than 94% of buses in England now meet the accessibility standards. We want to make it 100%, but that is good progress. Mandatory disability awareness training will be introduced next year. Our work so far with the industry suggests that the vast majority of drivers have already had or are going through that training.

A requirement for all buses to be talking buses is in the pipeline, as we have just discussed, and there is a clear commitment to advise authorities of our view that disabled people must have the information they require. I believe that our bus sector is making significant progress in meeting the needs of all who wish to use its services.

There is a slight concern that a proposal of the kind made by the hon. Lady could lead to a cumbersome approach, although I recognise that was not her intention, as she made clear. I want companies to be focused on delivering for all passengers the services that they need. I am aware that DPPPs are in play in the rail sector. However, there are only 30 companies in our rail sector and more than 1,000 in our bus sector, so the read-across is a little difficult.

Given that and my clear and unambiguous commitment to make buses, and public transport in general, increasingly accessible for all passengers, including disabled passengers, I hope that the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Nottingham South will be minded not to press their new clauses.

[Daniel Zeichner]

There was much in what the Minister said that I strongly welcome. I very much welcome his assurances on driver training. We will obviously hold the Government to that in future but, on that basis, I will withdraw the new clause.

I had hoped that we would make more progress on the Paulley issue. The Supreme Court has basically passed the matter back to us to make some decisions. I heard what the Minister said about how difficult it is; it clearly is a very difficult issue and no one is pretending it is easy. However, every bus driver in the country faces this on a daily basis. Without leadership from us, they will still face this problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South put the case very well for moving towards some kind of decision. I worry, having listened to the Minister’s account of the kinds of consultations that lie ahead, that this could go on for years and years. At some point, a decision has to be made.

[Andrew Jones]

I was not talking about consultations in this area; I was talking about getting together a small working group of people who are directly involved in delivering services—big and small companies—and, importantly, people who use those services. We have already started this work and we intend it to take place this summer—I am not looking years ahead. I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points about how the industry will benefit from clarity. This is really quite a complicated point, as I tried to get across in my remarks, but I recognise the timeliness that he has mentioned.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I appreciate the Minister’s point, but we can probably already predict the kinds of difficulties that will be raised. In the end, there are different interests and someone, at some point, has to make a decision. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South was absolutely right to say, “Can the Minister put a timeframe on this?” I do not think I have heard him respond to that yet. Therefore, my hon. Friend may well want to pursue her new clauses, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Bus safety

“(1) An operator of a local service may not participate in any scheme under sections 1, 4, 7 or 9 of this Act, and an authority or authorities may not approve the participation of an operator as party of any such scheme, unless the operator has given a written undertaking to the applicable authority or authorities that—

(a) it has subscribed to a confidential safety reporting system that—

(i) is suitable for bus operations staff;

(ii) can demonstrate it is adequately experienced, resourced and staffed; and

(iii) is entirely independent of any bus operator’s control;

(b) it has used its best endeavours to ensure that all staff of the operator have been made aware of their right to use this confidential safety reporting system to enable bus operators’ staff to report incidents, unsafe acts, concerns and safety-related issues that they do not feel able to report through normal channels, or where normal reporting channels have not resolved the issue;

(c) it will collect and monitor bus casualty data in a manner to be prescribed by the applicable authority or authorities from time to time, and

(d) it will make its bus casualty data available to the applicable authority or authorities by way of a report on at least a monthly basis.

(2) The authority or authorities must publish on their own website, every quarter, the bus casualty data that they have collected from operators.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require bus operators taking part in any scheme to subscribe to a confidential safety reporting system, to make bus casualty data available to local authorities, and for local authorities to publish that data quarterly.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause was tabled following a discussion on Report in the other place about bus safety and casualty reporting. The new clause would require bus operators to subscribe to a confidential incident reporting scheme to report bus casualty data to the local authority, and require local authorities to publish that information regularly. I am aware that the Government said that an amendment on this issue was tabled too late during the Bill’s passage through the other place for it to be considered, but that they would look at the issue again in the Commons. I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

I do not think that it is too prescriptive to argue that bus operators entering into any form of scheme, whether franchising, an enhanced partnership or an advanced quality partnership, should be required to subscribe to a confidential incident reporting scheme and report bus casualty data to the local authority. Nor is it too prescriptive to require local authorities regularly to publish those data so that they are available to the public. Such a system works well in the rail industry. The cost of membership of one confidential incident reporting system—the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System—is based on turnover, and in our view fees would be unlikely to represent a serious obstacle. The Government said in the other place that they were

“keen to explore further the issues raised”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2016; Vol. 776, c. 1978.]

A confidential reporting system has proven effective in London. Statistics suggest that prior to the first year of operation of the CIRAS system in 2016, 64% of London bus workers said that the outcome of their having reported issues internally was “inadequate”, with a further 23% saying that the outcome was “adequate, but not implemented” and 13% reporting that there had been no response. There is clearly a need for this.

It is important that we consider bus safety. Although many people would say that, overall, the safety record is good, 64 buses and coaches were involved in fatal accidents last year and 5,381 were involved in an accident. Although those absolute numbers may seem small compared with the number of all road fatalities, the rates are fairly high. In fact, 24 buses and coaches were involved in fatal accidents per billion vehicle miles, which is much higher than the rates of 7.2 per billion vehicle miles for cars, 3.6 for vans and 19 for heavy goods vehicles. About 4% of all road fatalities last year were caused by accidents involving buses and coaches. There were 68 deaths and 7,571 casualties.

We all know that having the data helps us to improve our systems. We believe that the new clause would make buses safer.

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Gentleman proposes a new clause that would require bus operators to subscribe to a confidential reporting system in order to participate in any bus scheme provided under the Bill. The new clause would also require operators to collect and monitor bus casualty data and make those data available to the relevant authorities for publication.

Let me start by emphasising that road safety is a critical issue and a matter of national importance. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency plays an important role, along with the traffic commissioners, in seeking to ensure that drivers and vehicles are licensed and safe. My Department already collects and publishes data on reported road accidents, including details about the type of vehicles involved and recorded casualties. I am encouraged, though not in any way complacent, that we have a very good record of road safety in our country. I am aware that that has come about through the good work of many of my predecessors, and I am keen to build on that work.

Members will be aware of what we have been doing, including most recently the significant change to the mobile phone penalty points for hand-held use. It is encouraging to see numbers decline. In this case, the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in an incident involving a bus or coach outside London fell by 33% between 2005 and 2015.

I agree with the sentiment of the proposed new clause. However, I do not believe it is appropriate to mandate an independent confidential reporting system in primary legislation. I am aware of the TfL work, and that TfL mandates the confidential reporting system, CIRAS, as part of its franchising agreements with operators. TfL introduced that system in January of last year but I am not aware yet of any robust evidence of the benefits it has brought. It is probably difficult to say with any certainty or to what degree reports from systems such as CIRAS have prevented road accidents from occurring.

I understand that TfL pays the subscription cost for CIRAS on behalf of its operators, and that is its choice. A bus operator that has a well established and efficient confidential reporting system in place that is already working effectively might take a different view. I do not want to impose the burdens that the new clause would bring on local transport authorities or operators, some of which could be very small community transport organisations, without clear evidence of the added benefits to be achieved.

Although I cannot support the proposed new clause, I have asked my officials to explore how the issue could be addressed through guidance, to encourage operators and local transport authorities to consider the benefits of an independent confidential reporting system when establishing a franchising or partnership scheme. Just as local authorities take other decisions relating to road safety, they can decide on this, too. That is exactly what has happened in London. I hope the hon. Gentleman has found that explanation reassuring and will, therefore, seek to withdraw his new clause.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am not reassured, though I will withdraw the new clause. I heard what the Minister said but I do not see why we could not have taken this modest step in favour of improving bus safety. The amounts are relatively minor and the potential benefits considerable. We will pursue that in future when we come back to him with the evidence. I hope the guidance can be strengthened. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7

Priority wheelchair spaces

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose of facilitating travel by wheelchair users on local services.

(2) The regulations may in particular require operators of local services to put in place and enforce a policy for priority wheelchair spaces.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a policy for priority wheelchair spaces is one under which—

(a) a wheelchair user has priority use of any wheelchair space on a public service vehicle unless it is not reasonable for other passengers to vacate the space;

(b) other passengers are required to vacate the space for the wheelchair user if it is reasonable for them to do so; and

(c) a passenger who unreasonably refuses to vacate the space may, if necessary, be required to leave the vehicle.

(4) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify—

(a) an Act passed before or in the same Session as this Act; or

(b) an instrument made under an Act before the regulations come into force.

(5) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.

(6) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”—(Lilian Greenwood.)

This new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require bus operators to put in place and enforce policies for priority wheelchair spaces.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will be fairly brief. As the Committee will be aware, bus service operators grant is currently paid as a rebate to bus companies. It is calculated based on the amount of fuel they use. It is therefore a direct disincentive to economising fuel consumption and/or moving to low-emission vehicles. The Department itself acknowledged that under the coalition Government in its “Green Light for Better Buses” document of 2012, which states:

“we were…concerned that a system which pays subsidy according to how much fuel a company uses cannot be right for the twenty-first century.”

They were right about that. Back in 2012, they began to devolve funding in some areas, which were known as better bus areas. The results were encouraging.

The new clause simply seeks to build on that work by terminating the payment of the bus service operators grant directly to bus companies, instead passing the money to local authorities, not least to promote the development of better partnership working, which is part of the thrust of the Bill. Where local authorities set up advanced quality partnerships or enhanced partnerships, it would be incredibly helpful if they could incentivise operators to meet the commitments they make under those partnerships. We could call that the carrot. Conversely, the stick would be to penalise poor compliance by limiting the payment of BSOG to operators, thereby helping them to adhere to the partnership work that had been set up. I am sure we would all recognise that sometimes we agree to do something and really do mean to do it, but we need a bit of a prod to remind us. Giving local authorities control over the bus service operators grant would enable them to do just that. It would be very helpful in enabling partnerships to operate effectively.

In 2012, the coalition Government considered further devolution of BSOG. There was a concern that it might lead to a loss of funding for bus services. That is why, in drafting the new clause, I was very clear that, as the funding passed to local authorities, it would be ring-fenced to be spent on local transport. BSOG needs to be used in such a way that passengers see a maintained or even improved local transport service. We would also like to encourage the bus to be greener and more efficient in the long run.

I hope the Minister will consider this a helpful new clause that follows on from other work he has done.

[Andrew Jones]

Each year nearly £180 million of bus service operators grant is paid to commercial bus operators that run local bus services. A further £40 million is paid to local authorities to subsidise socially necessary local bus services that are not commercially viable. In addition, a further £20 million a year is provided in incentives to bus operators, for example to encourage them to install smart ticketing machines or to use low-emission vehicles.

The new clause would abolish the bus service operators grant that is paid to commercial bus services. The funding would be transferred to be spent on local transport services. I simply do not think that would work effectively in practice. Commercial services often run across local government boundaries. If this approach were implemented, decisions taken by one local authority about funding buses could easily have adverse impacts on adjacent areas. Many of the passengers affected would have no way of making their views known at the local ballot box.

There would be no guarantee under the terms of the new clause that the funding would be used for bus services. It could be used on other means of supporting local transport. Nor does the proposal guarantee additional local authority funding for transport. An authority could simply substitute this funding for existing transport funding and divert that resource elsewhere. The proposal could therefore remove support for local transport entirely.

We are undertaking a review of how BSOG is spent in England and hope to publish details of our proposals later this year. We have already committed to devolve BSOG where franchising is implemented. Overall, I believe that it is right that the grant should generally continue to be paid to commercial bus service operators in a revised form. I hope the hon. Lady feels able to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

To help the Committee, there is an open-ended sitting this morning—we do not have a cut-off point at 1 o’clock. Both Front Benchers have agreed that we will continue with the remaining business rather than reconvene at 2 o’clock.

Clauses 22 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

On a point of order, Mr Owen. May I confirm what happened to new clause 9? Did we withdraw it or vote on it? I do not recall a vote. What happened to new clause 9?

[The Chair]

The clause was not pushed to a vote by the hon. Member for Nottingham South.

Clause 26

Short title

[Andrew Jones]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 26, page 79, line 37, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.

I beg to move that clause 26 stands part of the Bill, not out of zeal to move to a conclusion—I wanted to double-check that we have everything done. We have had a fantastic couple of days focusing on the bus sector. Before begging to move clause 26, may I thank you, Mr Owen, and Mr Nuttall—

[The Chair]

Order. We will finish with the amendment and the clause first. There will then be an opportunity for you to thank the officials under a point of order—I know you are keen to thank the officials. You can either move the amendment formally or speak to it. We can get the business done then move to the final bit.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Andrew Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Owen. As we conclude our Committee work on the Bill, I thank everybody for a very constructive and positive debate. It is clear that we have much passion for buses. It is a sector of our transport mix that does not always achieve much attention, but we have clearly shown that it has support. The Bill will go to the House for further consideration with measures to improve bus patronage, and to improve facilities for disabled passengers. I thank everybody involved in the Committee for the positive way we have approached the Bill. I also thank the Clerks and you, Mr Owen, and Mr Nuttall, as co-Chairs.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Further to that point of order, Mr Owen. I thank the Minister and all members of the Committee for a cordial, constructive and positive discussion. I also thank the officials. We heard at one point about the decline in headcount at the Department. There are fewer people doing more work, and with Brexit, I am sure the pressures are many. Those of us who have ploughed through the guidance will know how much work has been done by officials. I thank you, Mr Owen, for your splendid chairing, and Mr Nuttall. I finally thank my colleague Juliet Eales, who has been working with me and will finish at the conclusion of the Bill, which I am sure will come as much relief to officials, who will no longer be bombarded by her incessant and endless good questions.

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting : House of Commons
Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will now be made available in the Committee Room. We will now start the detailed, line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I will allow hon. Members to take off their jackets during the sitting if they wish. I again remind Members to ensure that mobile phones are switched off or to silent.

The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the Committee Room. It shows how selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Those that have been grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment—the first named amendment in a group—is called first. Any other Member is then free to catch my eye and indicate that they wish to speak on all or any one of the amendments within that group. A Member may, if they wish, speak more than once in a single debate on a group. I will work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all the Government’s proposed amendments.

Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection and grouping list, but decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I hope that explanation is helpful to Members. I will use my discretion as we go through proceedings, as will the other co-Chair, to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following debates on relevant amendments.

Clause 1

Advanced quality partnership schemes

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 3.

This amendment removes an order-making power under which the Secretary of State may confer on a local transport authority with an advanced quality partnership scheme power to enforce traffic offences.

The amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to confer the functions to enforce traffic offences on authorities that make advanced quality partnership schemes. English local authorities outside London that can enforce parking violations already have powers to enforce bus lane contraventions, including moving traffic violations in bus lanes. The measure that was made in the other place would broaden those powers beyond the scope of bus lanes and allow the enforcement of other moving traffic offences such as contraventions in yellow box junctions. There are already provisions in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to permit the enforcement of other moving traffic violations.

The Government have not yet made a decision on whether to provide these powers to authorities, but we continue to discuss the issue with the Local Government Association and other organisations; I have met the LGA to discuss this issue on two occasions. A key concern remains that if the powers are granted, they could be misused to generate revenue for local authorities—indeed, I had a letter from a councillor only a few days ago suggesting that it would be a highly desirable thing to do from a revenue-raising perspective—but their primary purpose is traffic management, and that kind of attitude reinforces the Government’s concerns.

I recognise that congestion can have a major impact on local bus services, but authorities can take action to address it through new infrastructure measures and technological solutions, for example by enforcing moving traffic offences in bus lanes, as I mentioned earlier. Given the existing powers available to local authorities and the existence of part 6 of the Traffic Management Act, I hope that hon. Friends and colleagues on the Committee will agree that the additional legislation, particularly where it relates to only one type of partnership, is unlikely to achieve better outcomes.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I am sure that the discussions we will have in Committee over the next six sittings will be civil and cordial, as they were on Second Reading. Indeed, the Opposition would be delighted to save everyone a lot of time and agree to the Bill as it now stands, because we believe that it was much improved in the other place—but we appreciate that the Government have other plans. At the outset, may I put on the record that for many years I have been a member of the trade union Unite? As it represents many members in the bus industry, I have regular conversations with it.

Government amendment 1 on moving traffic offences may be a curious place to commence our discussions, but it highlights the fact that, welcome though many of the Bill’s measures are, they are only a part of what is needed to achieve what we all want to see: a much more comprehensive and thriving bus sector. Although many more public transport journeys are made by bus than by any other form of public transport, sadly the number of journeys and, in many cases, their speed is declining. The industry tells us that part of the problem is traffic congestion, which is why enforcement of moving traffic offences matters, as the Minister indicated.

When I went to meet my local bus company soon after being elected, to continue the long period of constructive dialogue that local bus manager Andy Campbell of Stagecoach and I have had over many years, he was absolutely clear that one of the biggest problems facing buses in Cambridge was the snarl-ups at a major junction where the yellow box had been removed after a major reconfiguration. However, what is the point of a yellow box if everyone knows that there is no sanction for transgressing it? That point struck me last Friday as I did exactly that at another junction in the city, just as everyone else does. The measure introduced in the other place would give local councils the powers to do what the police no longer have the resources to do. That is not their fault, but a direct consequence of Government cuts—cuts add to congestion, and they add to delays on the buses.

This destructive Government amendment removes an order-making power under which the Secretary of State may confer on a local transport authority with an advanced quality partnership scheme the power to enforce traffic offences. Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 gave the Government the power to make regulations and publish guidance relating to the civil enforcement of road traffic contraventions, such as the regulations we have been talking about for parking and moving traffic offences. As I have outlined, we believe that it is important that all councils should have enforcement powers to deal with moving traffic matters such as banned turns and yellow box junctions, to help improve the reliability and punctuality of buses, which would in turn increase bus patronage, which is something we are all trying to achieve.

It is disheartening to see the Government refusing to enact the power. According to Department for Transport figures, road traffic levels and congestion are projected to increase by 55% and 86% by 2040. The powers could help local authorities with advanced quality partnership schemes to reduce congestion, improve punctuality and increase bus ridership, so why not do it? We know that the Government do not really trust councils and run scared of press columnists who whip up scare stories. In the meantime, every driver stuck by a gridlocked crossing, and every bus passenger stuck because their bus cannot move, is the loser. I exhort the Minister to be brave and make yellow boxes work. If that is good enough for London and Cardiff, why not for Cambridge and Yorkshire?

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I accept your invitation on that basis, Mr Nuttall. It would be incredibly remiss of me not to make at least a brief contribution, as I see a fellow member of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, looking at me and no doubt remembering some of the things I said on this point in that Committee.

I live in a constituency where we do not even have civil parking enforcement. The hon. Member for Cambridge is correct that at the moment the police do not have the resources to deal with traffic offences. In my constituency they have even given up on dealing with people who park in a bay for two hours. As a result, many parts of the constituency are chock-a-block and no one is taking responsibility.

I am greatly concerned about the fact that there is no direction from above, conferring powers but also making sure that powers are used. I do not want to vote against the Government but I would ask the Minister to consider how they can ensure that councils take responsibility for powers that they can utilise, and how to improve council enforcement with respect to traffic movement.

The Transport Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry on urban congestion, and it is clear to us that difficult decisions must be taken. I would like local authorities to be granted more powers, and I would like us to ensure that they take them rather than arguing with the police about who does nothing.

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I think that councils, rather than arguing with the police about who does nothing, have significant powers, and we should encourage them to take action. I hope that we can move to much greater civil enforcement, and to people leading their councils with a view to shaping their local areas and making them better environments, in all respects, including traffic management. As for whether the Government trust councils—a point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge—the Bill is an enabling one that gives councils powers. Clearly his underlying point is not correct.

The Government are unconvinced that, without further controls, the proposals would be anything other than the potential for revenue-raising by councils, rather than traffic management. That view is reinforced when I receive letters such as one that I had stating, “This is an opportunity for us to get some cash in.” However, I am not against the principle and will continue to talk with the Local Government Association. I discussed it only last Thursday with the LGA—Councillor Martin Tett, the leader of Buckinghamshire County Council, is leading on it—so there are live conversations.

I am happy to give the Committee my commitment that we shall continue with those discussions, but I want to make sure that we see the issue from the point of view of traffic management. If the LGA will do further work on that we can continue to talk. I do not think that the Bill is the right place to tackle moving traffic offences.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I understand what the Minister is saying, but the provision is not about enabling councils to carry out a function; it is about restricting current and future ministerial teams. Why does he want to restrict the powers of his Government and following Governments, if they think fit, to confer that power on local authorities?

[Andrew Jones]

I am happy to consider the commencement of these powers, but we have to go through a number of safeguards yet. I do not think that we are in a position to go any further. I am quite happy to keep this dialogue going, but the case has not been made in a way that has convinced me or other departmental colleagues. Indeed, I think that there are reservations across the House more broadly.

This is not about restricting powers; it is about granting powers to councils to enforce moving traffic offences. I know that they want them. These powers have been on the statute book for 13 years and not commenced. Our predecessors probably had some of the same reservations that I have had. I do not think that we can go any further than my commitment to keep talking and not to be against this in principle.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the report by Professor David Begg for Greener Journeys about the impact of congestion on bus passengers and the fact that bus journeys have been reducing by 10% each year. If that trend continues, will he look again at traffic management? Clearly, congestion hits buses harder than it hits other vehicles. If bus speeds are reducing, that can hit bus patronage. This goes against the very ethos of his Bill, which is to increase bus patronage and encourage the use of the bus as a means of transport.

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The heart of the Bill is more powers to get more passengers on to buses. That is what the Bill is for. I am certainly aware of the report by Professor Begg; I have read it and discussed it with him. Indeed, we have spoken at a couple of conferences together and discussed the matter. I have no doubt that congestion is a factor. At the same time, the Government are taking significant action to tackle it. Only last Friday morning we announced a further £110 million of schemes to tackle congestion and particular pinch points on the strategic road network.

We are aware of the impact on congestion and are taking action. I am aware of the concerns in the industry. I support, for example, the introduction of bus priority measures, where it is appropriate and when councils, as local highway authorities, take these actions. That still does not mean that we are in the right place to take this issue forward today.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

[Andrew Jones]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 4, leave out lines 37 to 42.

This amendment removes a requirement that, under an advanced quality partnership scheme, new buses providing local services must meet eligibility requirements contained in the “Low Emission Bus Scheme” (a programme of grants to support the use of low and ultra-low emission vehicles), where the vehicle comes into service after 1 April 2019.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 6 and 11.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

The amendments would remove the requirement that from 1 April 2019 all new buses used to deliver services as part of a partnership or franchising scheme in England must be low-emission vehicles. As a result of changes made in the other place, the Bill currently requires such vehicles to meet the eligibility requirements contained in the low emission bus scheme.

I support the spirit behind the changes made in the other place. We all want to see greater use of low-emission buses. Last July, we published details of the local authorities and operators that will be sharing the £30 million budget under the low emission bus scheme. That builds on budgets that have come from previous Governments in support of cleaner vehicles. In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that a further £100 million will be made available over the next few years to help to spread the use of such buses.

The drafting of the Bill as it stands, however, is not the way to go about encouraging greater use of these very impressive vehicles. The requirement would tie the hands of authorities looking to implement franchising, advanced quality partnerships or enhanced partnerships. It would require them to specify standards for newer vehicles that are higher than in other parts of the country. It is a bit of a centralist approach, which goes against the principle of the Bill, and it would certainly result in additional costs, which could make the difference between whether schemes are viable or not. The likely consequence is that many local transport authorities would simply not pursue such schemes at all, which would lead to lower levels of bus use and potentially worse environmental outcomes than would have been achieved without the provisions. Even where schemes are set up, the provision could be circumvented for several years if authorities simply do not introduce any new buses at all, which would be a perverse consequence and the opposite of what it seeks to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear what the Minister says, and of course there is always a debate to be had about how to drive up standards, but the evidence is clear that unless such mechanisms are used, it does not happen. It is disappointing that the Government intend to remove the provisions in the Bill that would ensure that schemes 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.

However, we are a little cheered by the fact that the Government amended the Bill to specify that the standards of service that may be specified in a scheme include requirements about emissions or types of fuel or power. Our amendment says that schemes must ensure new vehicles party to the scheme meet the low-emission specifications, but the Government’s amendment says only that standards of service may include requirements about emissions, and does not set out what they may be.

The draft guidance is not much better. It says that the Department

“would encourage authorities to think about how they can use the tools in the Bill...to help improve the emission standards of the vehicles used and therefore local air quality”,

but adds

“it is important to remember however that these tools are designed to help authorities...not dictate standards.”

While that may be a very cosy way of arranging things, it does not do what is necessary to drive up standards.

We all know how pressing the air quality issues in this country are and how frequently the Government have been losing in the courts. We think this is a straightforward opportunity to take robust action, but sadly the Government’s response is to think about it. We need more robust action to make the buses in our country greener and cleaner.

[Andrew Jones]

To say that the Government are just thinking about it does not capture the spirit of what I said earlier about our low emission bus scheme and the further funding that was allocated in the autumn statement. I agree that air quality is a significant and pressing issue, and I have no doubt that progress with buses is at the heart of improving the air quality in our towns and cities. However, the Bill is explicit that emissions standards can be specified in partnership schemes or included in local service contracts, in the context of franchising. Emissions standards can be included in schemes, thus giving local authorities the flexibility to determine an approach that is right for their area.

I am not quite as doomy and gloomy as the hon. Gentleman on this issue. From my discussions with bus operators, I see a recognition that new low-emission vehicles present a fantastic opportunity. They are moving their fleets in that direction and we are supporting them in that work. In my constituency, the Harrogate Bus Company will move to an electric fleet for much of its service. It will be a leader for low-emission buses across the country and I have supported it in its enthusiasm.

That also has good public recognition but that does not mean we should dictate cost, which could have a perverse effect rather than the positive motive behind the amendment. That is the reason the Government have tabled it.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

[Andrew Jones]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 6, leave out line 1.

This amendment and amendment 4 remove a requirement to consult representatives of employees of affected bus operators about a proposed advanced quality partnership scheme. The representatives must be representatives of a trade union recognised by bus operators or, if there are no such representatives, appointed or elected representatives of the employees.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 4, 8 and 9.

Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 18, line 16, leave out “advanced quality partnership scheme” and insert “franchising scheme.”

This amendment would amend a provision in the franchising scheme section that refers to advanced quality partnership schemes.

Amendment 27, in clause 9, page 44, line 33, at end insert—

“(i) appropriate representatives of any affected employees”

This amendment would make appropriate representatives of any affected employees statutory consultees when a local authority is consulting on a proposed enhanced partnership.

Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 44, line 33, at end insert—

‘(6A) In subsection (6) (i) “appropriate representatives of any affected employees” means—

(a) representatives of a recognised trade union, if an independent trade union is recognised by existing operators in the area of the proposed franchising scheme; or

(b) in any other case, employee representatives appointed or elected by the affected employees who have authority from those employees to receive information and be consulted on their behalf.”

This amendment specifies what is meant by the term “appropriate representatives of any affected employees” in Amendment 27.

[Andrew Jones]

A number of amendments have been tabled by the Government, the hon. Members for Cambridge, for Nottingham South and for Scunthorpe that relate to the consultation of employee representatives in relation to proposed partnership and franchising schemes.

Government amendments 3, 4, 8 and 9 would remove the requirement for authorities to consult representatives of employees about proposed advanced quality partnership and franchising schemes.

The Government introduced amendments in the other place to require authorities to consult employee representatives about proposed franchising schemes, as it is those schemes that are likely to impact on staff. The Bill, therefore, already places a requirement on authorities to consult employee representatives in the appropriate circumstances, which ensures that any trade unions that represent employees will be consulted on franchising proposals.

The further amendments that were made in the other place in relation to consultation of employee representatives and trade unions on proposed franchising schemes therefore partly replicate Government amendments. Government amendments 8 and 9 would simply remove that duplication. In the light of that duplication, I hope the hon. Member for Cambridge will feel able to withdraw amendment 22, which would amend further that duplicated text.

I completely understand the need for employee representatives to be consulted on proposed franchising schemes because these proposals could have a direct impact on bus industry employees in an area. It is, therefore, completely correct that they are consulted and that employee representatives can be involved in that process. However, I do not consider it necessary to consult employee representatives when establishing an advanced quality partnership or an enhanced quality partnership, as amendments 27 and 28, tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge, for Nottingham South and for Scunthorpe, would require.

In most cases, a partnership is likely to lead to changes such as multi-operated ticketing schemes. Only in a very individual, particular set of circumstances will an enhanced partnership lead to changes for employees that could be similar to those arising from franchising.

Government amendments 3 and 4 would remove the amendments made in the other place. I hope on the basis of my explanation, and the Government’s clear intention to support employee representatives speaking up on behalf of employees in an area where there will be changes, that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw his amendments.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We were rather hoping that the Government would be minded to retain the parts in the Bill on employee consultation. It is disappointing that they feel the need to remove recognised representatives of affected employees from the list of statutory consultees when authorities are making advanced quality partnership and franchising schemes.

It seems a touch petty and perhaps an ideological dig at trade unions. I cannot imagine where in the Department that might have come from but I know the Minister is better than that, so I hope he might think again.

I do not understand why the Government think that local authorities should not hear from trade unions or other employee representatives when they are consulting on schemes that could have a profound impact on the local bus workforce. One thing that strikes me about the whole discussion about partnerships, which we all support, is how few people are actually aware of them in any area. Not many of my local councillors are aware of them. We have to dig deep to find that these wonderful partnerships already in place, so here is an opportunity to involve more people and to spread the word. The expertise of those frontline staff in providing the services is unique. I generally find that if I want to know what is going on, I talk to the people delivering the service on the ground. They often have a rather different take on what is happening, so if people want to know what is happening, go and talk to the drivers. Their expertise and their local knowledge is not, it seems, to be taken into account.

We are disappointed at the Government’s removal of what seemed to us to be harmless and sensible provisions. When this was discussed in the other place, the Minister, Lord Ahmad, said:

“I agree that it is important that employee groups are consulted appropriately on proposals to improve local bus services. I agree particularly that significant changes to local bus services could well impact local bus industry employees, so it is only fair that they are given the opportunity for input in such circumstances.”

He also said:

“I agree that employee groups and others affected by the proposals should always be consulted formally on franchising schemes”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. 1651.]

I appreciate we are extending this to the other forms of partnership, but the principle seems fairly clear.

Amendments 22, 27 and 28 are partly related to drafting issues. We think that amendment 22 corrects a minor technical error in the Bill and clears up what we think must have been a typo, because clauses 4 to 6 relate to franchising schemes but clause 4 refers to “advance quality partnership schemes”. Amendments 27 and 28 would, in our view, simply tidy it up the Bill and bring clauses 9 to 15 on enhanced partnerships in line with those on advanced quality partnerships and franchising. My amendment inserts into the section on enhanced partnership plans and schemes a requirement that a local authority or authorities must consult appropriate representatives of any affected employees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Nuttall. I rise not to make a long speech, but to save you from telling me that an intervention on the Minister is too long—I suspect that such an intervention would be. I want to use these amendments to ask him on what principle he has decided what should be done at the centre—what should be the Secretary of State’s or Government’s decision—and what should be devolved.

We are on our third set of amendments. The Minister has argued that the Opposition amendments are otiose and too prescriptive and, in effect, that things would be better left to normal procedures. He said that traffic management would be better dealt with by current policies and that bus emissions schemes would be better left to local schemes. A number of amendments have been tabled—some by him—that take powers away from local authorities and give them to the centre, but he has also argued that some things should be left to local authorities.

This is a good Bill, which I want to support, even if the Government remove some improvements that have been inserted by the other place, as I am sure that they will. It will still remain a good Bill that I wish to support, but will the Minister explain what principles he is using to decide what should remain within his ambit and what should be devolved? At the moment, what has been devolved down and what has been left at the centre is very confusing, if not to say arbitrary.

[Andrew Jones]

There are a few questions to deal with. Let me start with the underlying principles. I agree that devolution has not been tidy over the past few years, but it has generally progressed from the ground up. I am a great supporter of devolution; we should trust people to make local decisions wherever possible. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton suggested that the principle was a little arbitrary, but actually, it comes down to whether there is governance and some kind of control. If we can ensure that we have governance and control, I am happy to see devolution progress. A further point could be accountability, which we might come on to during our debate on franchising.

I am all in favour of consultation with employee representatives when there are material changes to people’s working conditions. A franchising scheme would mean that, which is why we put employee representatives in that proposed new section in the Bill. That is unlikely to be the case for the simple, more structured partnership arrangements, which are about local authorities and bus companies coming together to agree and put forward a set of consumer offers.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I wonder whether the distinction that the Minister is making is right. Employee representatives clearly have a role and need to be consulted on issues that affect the terms and conditions of their members, but does he not accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge? The people who deliver those services—the frontline workers in the bus industry—have valuable expertise, so there is value in consulting them and seeking their view on operational aspects and not just the bits that might affect their employee terms and conditions. Does he not accept that there is value in gaining their expertise as part of the process?

[Andrew Jones]

Yes, I do accept that. I worked in business for 25 years before coming to Parliament. If changes are going to be made or if a company seeks to improve, the best thing to do is to talk to people and take them with you. I fully recognise that; doing so is good practice.

I would expect any authority developing partnership schemes to talk very widely. The whole point of partnership schemes is to get people to come together to decide on a set of customer benefits and deliver those benefits to put more people on buses. The authority will be free to consult as widely as it wishes—that is fine, I am all for it doing that—but in areas where terms and conditions change, we need to go further and make it mandatory. That is the difference between us on the Bill; it is not a big difference.

Is consultation a good thing? Of course it is. Are employee representatives at the heart of that? Of course they are, but where terms and conditions are changing, we need to make it mandatory.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Andrew Jones]

One of the most interesting parts of the Bill is the proposal to see greater powers in the world of partnerships between the bus companies and local authorities. Clause 1 introduces new advanced quality partnerships, which build on the existing quality partnership schemes that were first introduced in the Transport Act 2000. Under the existing schemes, a local transport authority has to invest in bus-related infrastructure. That might be priority lanes, new bus stops or a bus station. Local bus operators that choose to use those facilities improve the quality of their services in return, so there is an offer from both the operators and the local authority. Indeed, operators that do not participate cannot use the facilities provided by the authority.

Advanced quality partnership schemes have a broader scope. In addition to, or instead of, the provision of facilities, an advanced quality partnership scheme can include measures taken by a local authority that will help buses. It might use other areas within its powers as an authority, such as traffic management policies or parking policy. The new advanced quality partnership schemes can therefore include a wider range of requirements that operators must meet, including in relation to the marketing of services and tickets, the provision of information to passengers, and even smartcard requirements.

An advanced quality partnership scheme may be made only by an LTA or LTAs working together in England. The existing quality partnership scheme provisions will continue to apply in Wales, as will such schemes made by an English authority in conjunction with a Welsh authority where we are dealing with cross-border services.

This is an interesting addition to the range of powers available on a local basis. There is strong support of partnership arrangements in the bus sector. Indeed, I have travelled around our country a lot over the past couple of years looking at different bus arrangements, and good partnership working has been at the heart of progress. We have seen that right across the country. Clause 1 is a welcome addition.

[Daniel Zeichner]

There is much to agree on here. We understand the case that a bus service cannot be run without infrastructure around it and the co-operation of the local authority, so we strongly welcome the extra flexibility that the advanced partnerships will bring.

However, I return to a point I made earlier about the lack of understanding in the wider world about what is going on with these schemes. I was slightly troubled by the response to my questions to the Department about analysis of the success of existing partnerships across the country. There seems to be a certain vagueness about that, which may reflect the fact that the Department has many other things to work on. I appreciate that, but as we move on to create extra types of partnership scheme, it is useful to know what has and has not worked around the country before. I encourage the Department to do a little more research on that, as we process these schemes.

There is a question over who exactly will be come forward to use these advanced quality partnerships and the enhanced partnerships that we will come to later in the Bill. I divert back to the moving traffic issue. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle probably created the soundbite of the day when he referred to the many years spent talking about doing nothing. There is a further danger. It is clear to me that very few people in the wider world understand what the Government are trying to achieve here.

This is a worthy intention, and we support the Government’s proposals on advanced quality partnerships. We are disappointed that they have not felt able to maintain the amendments made in the other place, but we appreciate that that is their role in life, and we strongly support advanced quality partnerships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I have just a couple of comments. I agree that right across the country we are seeing good partnership working. I have seen it with my own eyes, and I also look at sales data that comes into the Department. The idea that the Department is ignorant of such matters is not entirely fair. I agree that knowledge of these things might be limited locally. I have no means of quantifying that, but I suspect that there could be some truth in it. The point remains that where there is good partnership working, we see more passengers on buses. I am not too worried about whether people know about the formal structures behind the scenes. I want to see the outcome of that planning and preparation, which is a stronger bus market that is growing in an area.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Further amendments: advanced quality partnership schemes

Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Andrew Jones]

The schedule contains only consequential amendments to the Transport Act 1985 and the Transport Act 2000 that are necessary for the effective implementation of the advanced quality partnership scheme provisions. They are technical amendments that will ultimately ensure that, once the advanced quality partnership scheme provisions are in force, the existing quality partnership provisions in sections 114 to 123 of the Transport Act 2000 will enable such schemes to be made only by Welsh authorities or jointly by English and Welsh authorities. The schedule also amends the Transport Act 2000 to require local authorities in England that make advanced quality partnership schemes to satisfy themselves that any adverse impacts on competition are outweighed by the benefits secured.

The amendments that the schedule will make are perhaps a little dry, but they are necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3

Transitional provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Andrew Jones]

The clause automatically turns all existing quality partnership schemes made by English authorities into advanced quality partnership schemes. Such schemes may then take advantage of the new provisions and flexibilities of the advanced quality partnership schemes, but will not be obliged to do so.

[Graham Stringer]

Will the Minister tell the Committee how many quality partnerships the clause affects?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

The clause affects all the existing quality partnership schemes. I do not have an exact number for the hon. Gentleman but, having seen some schemes in action, I am aware that there are good schemes all over the country. I could not give a precise figure without checking but it is into double figures. [Interruption.] Inspiration is now arriving in the form of a written brief that gives the answer as 10.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Double figures!

[Andrew Jones]

Yes, it is double figures.

Clause 3 is a small measure that makes transitional arrangements to turn existing quality partnership schemes into advanced quality partnership schemes. I commend it to the Committee.

[Daniel Zeichner]

A theme is emerging through these discussions. I return to my point about the number of these schemes and the understanding that exists across the country. While I entirely take the Minister’s point that, for the bus passenger, the issues are whether the bus is running, the quality of the bus, the fares and all of the rest of it, my worry is that many of the people who should know a bit more about this locally—local authorities and local councillors—are probably unaware of what has happened in the past and what the opportunities might be in the future. I encourage the Department to talk more about these partnership schemes because, if we only have 10 across the country, that rather suggests that there are many areas that do not currently benefit from these schemes.

My part of the world in Cambridge is frequently cited as one of the good examples. Although I have robust conversations with my local bus company—we will perhaps come on to that later on—the relationship between the bus company and the local authority has helped deal with some very pressing issues over many years. That has meant that the traffic in Cambridge, although still grindingly slow, has not got any slower. I would suggest that the number of my local colleagues who know about how that has been achieved is relatively small. It is not talked about or discussed.

I think that there is a lot of potential to look at the good examples—and there are other good examples across the country—and make more of the opportunities that exist.

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Gentleman and I will spend part of the day agreeing with each other, because I do agree on that point. Partnerships have been working—we have seen that. He has direct first-hand experience; I have direct first-hand experience from many visits around the country. My focus is on consumers—getting consumers on to buses—but his point about whether the partnerships are widely understood among passengers does not worry me.

Are the partnerships understood among councillors? That is potentially a little disappointing. Perhaps that builds slightly on the pithy phrase from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. Councillors really should know if their local authority is engaged in a partnership. It would be surprising and disappointing if that were not the case. As a general point, we should all take the opportunity to talk up the bus market.

I have toured many bus conferences and local markets over the past 21 months or so and it has been very good fun. I see an industry that is changing rapidly—we talked about the low emission changes earlier—but I do not think the changes are fully understood and appreciated by customers. Perhaps people have excluded themselves from the bus market in recent years and are unaware of how things have developed to offer them a much better product.

Part of what we have to do is go round and encourage people to use buses and just try it. We have a “catch the bus” week organised by Greener Journeys every year; that has been successful and is growing in momentum. I have participated in that wherever I have been able to do so—and that has been quite a lot—and I support more of that work.

I agree about partnerships being the bedrock of a good marketplace. It is about customers, and if councillors do not know about these matters, they certainly should.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Franchising schemes

[Andrew Jones]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 4, page 15, line 11, at end insert—

“But each of paragraphs (b) to (f) has effect only if the Secretary of State by regulations so provides.”

This amendment enables the Secretary of State to control the bodies, other than mayoral combined authorities, that may introduce franchising schemes. The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations before county councils and other authorities in England referred to in paragraphs (b) to (f) may be franchising authorities.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 7, 17 and 18.

[Andrew Jones]

Government amendments 5 and 7 reinstate the original provisions of the Bill to require authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities to apply to the Secretary of State before they can consider implementing franchising. The amendments will mean that only mayoral combined authorities will be able to access the franchising powers automatically. Amendments were made in the other place to provide automatic access to franchising powers to all authorities, regardless of the seriousness of their intent or their suitability to take franchising forward. The Government’s view is that automatic access to franchising should be available only to combined authorities with directly elected Mayors because combined authorities with Mayors, when established, will provide clear, centralised decision making for transport across a relatively wide local area such as a city region.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Selston is a rural parish in my constituency. People have to turn down jobs in Nottingham because there is no bus service to get them back at night, and an elderly gentleman cannot get back from his beloved Nottingham Forest on a Saturday evening if there is a late afternoon kick-off. Why would my constituents have to apply to the Secretary of State to control their bus services and routes when others would not?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady makes a point about the value of local bus services. I agree that many people rely on them. Some communities are connected only via buses in the world of public transport. We are talking about automatic access—franchising is a significant jump for an authority that wishes to go down that route. I am quite relaxed about who franchises. We have a suite of powers and the Government are neutral.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I wonder whether the Minister is familiar with the experience of the future mayoralty in the west midlands. The Mayor will give accountability to the process and, effectively, big decisions will be made at that level. Local people can therefore have a better input into what happens across the whole region.

[Andrew Jones]

I was coming to the point my hon. Friend has made and made very well. Mayors will have access to significant budgets, which they can commit to bus services if they wish, and will be responsible and accountable for a decision to move to a franchising model. This is a question not of some areas having fewer rights than others, but of ensuring that the governance arrangements are in place when making that significant jump.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

The Minister has talked about the accountability that comes with a Mayor. Can he also talk about the guidance that accompanied the Bill and why Cornwall is regarded as an exception? I welcome all areas wanting to take on powers for franchising, but I cannot distinguish a difference between the north-east and Cornwall. I cannot see why Cornwall should be looked on favourably whereas the north-east would not automatically have those powers.

[Andrew Jones]

I will certainly address that, but first I will finish answering the point made by the hon. Member for Ashfield. When a village requires a service but does not have one, local authorities have the power to tender for services and subsidise them. The point is to get more passengers on to buses to make buses a much more sustainable, financially secure mode of transport. That is at the heart of the Bill.

Franchising is a significant step and attracted much of the attention within the industry as we developed the Bill. My personal view, as I have said, is that partnerships are at the heart of the Bill. I can imagine some areas choosing to go down a franchising route, and they can do so if they wish—it could be appropriate in some areas, and Greater Manchester, for example, has indicated throughout that it wishes to go down that route. Other areas, even combined authorities with Mayors, have indicated to me that they would be unlikely to go down that route, but we are keeping the access to that route open. That is because we have Mayors with significant budgets, and they have the responsibility and accountability.

Other authorities, such as Cornwall, should be able to have access to franchising powers where they are well placed to make franchising a success and where they have a clear plan to benefit passengers. We want to ensure that franchising powers can be made available to authorities that have the ability, the powers and, importantly, the funding to make a success of franchising, and where franchising will benefit passengers. The amendments therefore enable other authorities to access the powers, with the Secretary of State’s consent, on a case-by-case basis.

It will help the Committee if I set out in more detail how we envisage things working in practice—that might address the concerns of the hon. Member for Ashfield. Last October, we published a draft policy statement setting out the sorts of factors that the Government would take into account when determining whether to provide an authority that is not a mayoral combined authority with access to franchising powers. We are clear that the Secretary of State will not take the final decision on whether franchising powers proceed in these areas, nor will he review every last detail of an authority’s plans. Our statement set out the core requirements that we consider are necessary to implement franchising successfully.

Our intention is that authorities that wish to secure the Secretary of State’s consent to pursue franchising will need to demonstrate that they have five things in place. First, they must have clear plans to use franchising to deliver better services and outcomes for passengers—this is about passengers, not process—and explain why those outcomes could not be achieved through other routes. Secondly, they should have sufficient powers to make franchising a success. Those powers could include control over local roads and parking or planning. An authority may have those powers itself, or it could explain how it will work with other authorities that have them. That might include, for example, the creation of a key route network of local roads across different authorities but under one management organisation and decision-making structure.

Thirdly, authorities need to demonstrate that franchising can be put into practice across the geography of the area, explaining why the area that they propose is appropriate—that will obviously be with reference to individual travel patterns. Fourthly, they must be able to demonstrate that they have the capability and resources to deliver franchising effectively. We will be looking for evidence of successful delivery of complex projects, previous commitments to improving public transport, sustainable local investment in transport schemes, and robust plans to resource a financing system.

[Gloria De Piero]

May I ask about a basic principle? In principle, would the Minister prefer bus routes and times of services to be dictated or set by elected politicians or bus companies?

[Andrew Jones]

It is not a case of one or the other. There will be different models in different places—I am quite relaxed about that. We cannot say that one is better than the other. I can see areas where there is a route to franchising; Manchester certainly feels that that would work for it. There are other areas where we have partnership working already and the decisions are made by bus companies that are seeing passenger growth. I want to continue to have innovative bus companies seeing markets and opening up routes to take advantage of those markets, marketing their services and developing a product that was not there before. I have seen that in my constituency. It is not one or the other, but a mixture of both. I see quite a complex market with different providers doing different things, but at the heart of that I see collaboration and co-operation, which effectively will be built into the partnership powers.

I was explaining the criteria that we will consider for franchising. The final one of the five is that the authority will need to demonstrate that it has effective decision-making and accountability arrangements for its decisions on franchising. That relates to a point that was made by my hon. friend the Member for Solihull. Those arrangements should be transparent to local people and a named individual should take the decisions—it could be the Mayor or a council leader. That is what is likely to demonstrate accountability most clearly.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I completely accept what the Minister says about local elected politicians having to take responsibility for their decisions, particularly if they move into franchising. However, will the Minister explain something that I do not understand? If Nottinghamshire County Council, for example, wanted to provide better bus services, why is that not a decision it could take? It is accountable to the electorate through county council elections and can make many decisions about the local authority services for which it is responsible. Why is the provision of bus services through a franchising model different from every other decision that the local authority might take and for which it is accountable in the normal, democratic way?

[Andrew Jones]

Moving to franchising is a fundamental change that will affect potentially hundreds of thousands of people. It is not something that can be entered into lightly. Any decision to move to franchising can only be reversed in certain circumstances. It is therefore right that people know exactly how the decision to implement franchising was taken and by whom, so that there is clear accountability for such decisions at the ballot box. The policy statement we have put out does not absolutely require a single person to take the decision to implement franchising. Authorities are free to suggest alternative approaches and explain why they believe that they offer sufficiently high levels of transparency to the public. We would, however, be likely to require some persuading that a complex structure would be an appropriate route. I am trying to keep things simple, with a line of accountability, rather than make anything more complex.

I do not want to give the Committee the wrong impression. The hurdles that we are talking about are not designed to be impossible. The Government are not seeking to put barriers in the way of authorities that wish to go down the franchising route. I am quite neutral about the different types of model they will have access to. This debate is about who has automatic access and who has a further set of questions to answer before they get the powers to do so. I have just been detailing the criteria for that.

I can see examples where franchising will work, but I am putting my thoughts into the views of local authorities, which is not exactly in the spirit of what the Bill is trying to do. I can also see areas where it will be inappropriate, which is again putting my views on the matter. That is not what the clause is about. It is about having a suite of powers so that local authorities and bus companies can come together to put more passengers on to buses, so that buses are no longer the Cinderella part of public transport that they have been, as Members have suggested today.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. What is the balance between a local authority choosing to go down the franchising route and a local authority taking completely the opposite view? I looked at the Campaign for Better Transport report yesterday, which shows the impact of some of the decisions that local authorities have taken. Local authorities can choose to remove all subsidy from all supported services, which seems to me a huge decision, but they can do that without asking the Secretary of State whether it is okay, yet if they want to introduce a system to improve bus services, they have to leap over the Minister’s five hurdles. It seems disproportionate that to improve services they have to leap over five hurdles, but to remove all subsidy from local authority provided bus services, no reference to the Secretary of State is required. How is that a fair balance?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. We all know that councils are under financial pressures. I was a councillor for eight years, which included financial responsibility during the financial crisis of 2008 and the years to follow, until I came here. The point is that where councils make investments to subsidise services, those will be targeted interventions, usually to meet a particular need. It could be to do with the village that the hon. Member for Ashfield highlighted, for example. We all know that that happens around the country.

However, if an area moves to franchising, it affects the entire market, not an individual route. It is a significant jump of enormous scale that affects hundreds of thousands of people, so we are looking at having greater controls before councils have access to those powers. That is all this is about. It is not about taking the view that they should not go down that route or putting up impossible hurdles. These are sensible measures that give authorities a realistic chance of effective delivery of a franchising model. They are simply sensible tests.

Amendments 17 and 18 will ensure that two cross-references in schedules 3 and 4 are correct. The relevant regulation-making power will be in new section 123A(4) of the Transport Act 2000. The amendments make that minor change and are technical in nature.

We have had a conversation about the principles of franchising and we have made the case very clearly that the Government support franchising as a model and recognise where automatic access is appropriate. We also recognise that such is the scale of the decision that further tests are required before authorities have access to those powers.

[Bridget Phillipson]

Will the Minister say a bit more about the timescales for bringing forward the regulations?

[Andrew Jones]

I will check out the timescales. Our intention is bring all this through as quickly as possible, because there are mayoral combined authority elections on 5 May, I think. That is no more than a few weeks away and it will be appropriate to have these things in place. Timescales will obviously be involved in setting up franchising schemes. We have built notice periods into some of the provisions in the Bill. I will be able to get some more information for the hon. Lady in a moment.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I understand the point the Minister is making about the areas where the powers will be available automatically, but will regulations also be brought forward for areas that do not have a Mayor and that will require the approval of the Secretary of State to commence the process?

[Andrew Jones]

We expect that the regulations will only be made if they are needed to turn on that type of authority. It would require an authority to apply, rather than the other way round. If an authority applies to the Government and makes it case, we can take that forward. It is not a question of the powers being there automatically; they would be there on an on-demand basis only.

[Daniel Zeichner]

As the Minister has indicated, the clause takes us to the heart of the Bill. We strongly welcome the opportunity for combined authorities with a Mayor to move to a franchised system. It has been the call of bus campaigners, including myself, for many years for areas to be able to adopt the London model. Finally, there is a real chance to make it happen. I will come on to my objections to limiting that opportunity only to combined authorities with a Mayor, but I will start by making it absolutely clear that, for those areas to which it is being offered by the Government, we want to ensure that it actually happens. As the Minister has indicated, with mayoral elections only a few weeks away, this is a key issue.

Those who have read the guidance closely have been alarmed by phrases such as the need to make “a compelling case”. The worry is that there will be opportunities, once again, to frustrate such schemes before they are brought to fruition. I certainly welcome the assurances given by the Minister on Second Reading when he was pressed on this point. I think he will probably assure us again this morning that he does not wish to put any hurdles in the way. That will be strongly appreciated by those who have done the devolution deals and expect the promise to be honoured.

Moving on to whether franchising should be available to other authorities, it is clear that Members of the other place felt that it should, hence their amendment. The amendments before us would enable the Secretary of State to control the bodies, other than mayoral combined authorities, that may introduce franchising schemes. They require the Secretary of State to give consent for such a franchising authority to take the preliminary step of preparing an assessment.

We have made no secret of the fact that we believe powers to franchise bus services should be available everywhere, partly for the reason raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield. Across the country people find that bus services are disappearing and that they are left completely isolated. Figures from the Campaign for Better Transport, year on year, show that more and more councils are unable to support services in key areas. People’s hopes are being raised by the possibility that something can change.

I am sure Ministers would say that resources cannot be created out of thin air, but many of us would argue that there are resources in the system and they could be applied more comprehensively. That is what authorities are looking for—to be able to use levers that are not currently available to help people who are not able to get to their local town to watch the football, do the shopping and all the other things that people need to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

There are many points to reply to, but I want to highlight some data about bus usage. This is to challenge the assumption that somehow in the mid-1980s—I am not quite sure when it was but the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton was very generous: I was either at university or working for B&Q—that precipitated a decline in the bus industry. I just do not think the evidence supports that.

If we go back to the 30 years prior to deregulation in, say, 1985, between 1955 and 1985, the number of passenger journeys fell by 2% per year, from 15.5 billion a year to 5.5 billion. Since deregulation—and I accept that numbers have continued to fall—it has fallen at an average rate of 0.2% per year. On the idea that deregulation was the cause, those responsible for deregulation would probably argue that they stopped a precipitate decline. We should not get too worried about archaeology; we should be more concerned about what we can do for the future.

[Gloria De Piero]

rose—

[Graham Stringer]

rose—

[Andrew Jones]

Oh my goodness, I thought I was being helpful.

[Gloria De Piero]

Does the Minister know the figures for London? I am just interested.

[Andrew Jones]

No I do not, but I am sure they are available if we go and check. I was only trying to clarify something and provide extra information to help our debates.

[Graham Stringer]

I can possibly help the Minister on this point. I was referring to a number of Transport Committee reports that pointed out what he said: the bus industry was in decline because we had cheap petrol and for all sorts of other reasons. However, a straight comparison can be made from 1985 to 1999 between London— regulated—and the rest of the country. The lines went in the same way, but when the regulated system, without subsidy most of the time, was left in London, passenger numbers remained the same, whereas passenger numbers in the rest of the country went into sharp decline.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I am aware we are seeing different trends in London and in cities, but London has extraordinary and acute transport needs. Planet London is quite different from many other parts of our country.

I will address some of the points that have been made. The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South spoke with great passion about the importance of buses in her area. We agree on this matter. In the north-east, there was a challenged attempt to get a quality contract in place, and a lot of resource went into that. However, the legislation was cumbersome and nobody managed to achieve it, so we will repealing it as part of this process.

The question that arose in a number of places was whether we are approaching this with good faith. I can confirm that we are. We are not seeking to put barriers in place. I have met Nexus on a number of occasions and I support its positive ambitions for the area in the metro and on buses. Our door is open, should it wish to take that up.

We have heard a bit about the very interesting bus market in Cornwall. Apart from living in an important and beautiful part of our country, people have a real passion for their bus market, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall said. The authority will not have automatic access to franchising powers, but it is a good example of an authority that the Government would consider to be highly likely to demonstrate the factors we discussed. It is a unitary authority that covers a wide geography, with the necessary wider powers to improve bus services. It has a good track record of delivering projects, and it would be free to apply to the Secretary of State, just like any other authority. Is there parity between the north-east and Cornwall? Yes—both are free to request that the Government introduce regulations for that category of authority, if such regulations are not available at the time, then go further to seek the Secretary of State’s consent to proceed with franchising powers.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful for and appreciate the Minister’s earlier comments, but may I refer him to the guidance that accompanies the Bill, of which he is no doubt aware? It guidance makes it clear that during negotiations with the Government, Cornwall made a strong case for franchising powers and, as such, the Secretary of State is minded to grant them. Although Cornwall can go through that process should it wish to do so—I wish it well if that is its approach—the north-east does not have that same commitment, so although what the Minister says is right, there is a subtle distinction between the two areas. I welcome what the Minister has said and I look forward to the north-east being granted similar consideration.

[Andrew Jones]

The door will most certainly be open. We do not seek to put barriers in the way. The whole point about the Bill is that it is an enabling one. My last conversation with Cornwall suggested that it probably would not go down the route of franchising, so it may not seek to make an application to the Secretary of State. However, it has done something interesting with its bus market, which is why Cornwall gets a lot of attention. A partnership has been established with the primary local provider in Cornwall—FirstGroup, I think—which has changed networks and routes and co-ordinated services. We are seeing the company invest in a new fleet, and patronage on the bus network has grown and the market has become profitable. Cornwall is an interesting example of what can be achieved by working together, which is why the authority is often discussed and held up as a poster area for the marketplace. Interestingly, it is using some of the powers in the Bill before we have got to the Bill, but not necessarily in the franchising area.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does the Minister not believe that the fact that Cornwall would potentially have the use of franchising powers may have assisted it in the partnership negotiations? The very fact of having access to powers can be enormously important in assisting an authority, perhaps in getting a bus company to listen in ways it would not otherwise do.

[Andrew Jones]

That is a possibility, and it would, of course, be a possibility that would exist absolutely everywhere.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Not if there are no automatic franchising powers.

[Andrew Jones]

Cornwall does not have automatic franchising powers, but it could apply for them in the same way as all other authorities. That goes a bit towards the national versus local capability that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned.

My general view is that we should support localism. We stand a better chance of a good delivery of a service to solve a local problem if the decision is made as near as possible to the point at which the service is delivered. The service would be tailored to the local need. That should be a basic principle, but does it lead us to question the criteria? No, because the criteria for the introduction of franchising are significant—this is a significant step. They are safeguards; it is not about putting barriers in the way but about ensuring that everything is fit for purpose in order to proceed. The key point is that we do not want to stifle investment by the bus industry, and that could well happen if an authority attempted to pursue franchising under automatic powers without delivering it. Once a category of authority has the powers, there is a permanent risk of its deciding to use them, whatever a court may ultimately decide. It is a question of getting the balance right and getting the safeguards in place without making them onerous hurdles.

The hon. Member for Cambridge said that there is hope attached to the Bill. Yes, in some ways there is. People want buses. It is a good thing. I have to say that I have been pleased to see how the industry has received more retention, not just among the big operators but from some of the smaller ones—

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting : House of Commons
Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing Government amendments 7, 17 and 18. I call the Minister to pick up where he left off in his reply to this morning’s debate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

If we had been paying more attention, at 24 minutes past 11 I would have said that we were done, that we had had a good debate on the issue and should now proceed to a vote. I think I have said all I need or wish to say on the issue. I hope I have answered colleagues’ questions about the principles of franchising and access to franchising, which will be a feature of our bus market. We have built in to the Bill safeguards of accountability and preparedness of local authorities, as well as protection for small and medium-sized companies.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Jones]

Yes, go on then.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Minister is characteristically generous. During the break, I reflected on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South. The Minister has been clear that franchising should be one of the options available, particularly to mayoral authorities, in trying to deliver for passengers. He put passengers at the heart of the matter. Will he take this opportunity to condemn the language used by one of the major operators, who described local authority leaders who were trying to improve passenger services as “a bunch of unreconstructed Stalinists”? Does the Minister agree that that is unhelpful language when referring to local authorities that are seeking to do the best for their constituents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I do not know who said it, the context or to whom they said it. As a general principle, I suggest that constructive engagement and partnership is part of the way forward. People need to find their appropriate personal language that will help that to be achieved.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Minister has been most generous in taking interventions. It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. Before he took the intervention from my hon. Friend, the Minister said that there is protection for small and medium-sized companies in the Bill. Will that cover companies such as Hornsby Travel, which has celebrated 100 years as a small family business doing excellent work in my constituency and the north Lincolnshire area, and is concerned about the impact of franchising on its capital, stock and drivers?

[Andrew Jones]

That protection would certainly encompass companies such as the hon. Gentleman describes. In many parts of the country there are excellent family-owned businesses that have been serving their communities for a long time with high-quality product and are much liked by their customers. I see them as having a significant role in the bus industry, whichever regulatory model is chosen by local authorities on a local basis. I most certainly do see that as part of the picture. That concludes everything I have to say on Government amendment 5.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, for what I think is the first time.

I will speak briefly to amendment 19. Punctuality and reliability are extremely important, as my hon. Friend said, in persuading people to continue to use buses and attracting people back on to them. The problem is that on many occasions it is difficult to know why the bus does not turn up or is late. Bus companies blame congestion—which is, no doubt, part of the problem—for affecting their reliability and punctuality, and they ask for more privileged use of public sector road space via bus lanes. I do not completely accept that, because the last time I looked at hard statistics—I would be interested if the Minister had up-to-date statistics—I found that about a third of reliability problems were to do with bus companies not maintaining their vehicles properly, resulting in mechanical breakdowns, and another third were due to drivers not turning up and there being no reserve pool to deal with that. It is obviously in the commercial interests of bus companies, and perhaps, on many occasions, of bus passengers, to have bus lanes, and each case should be considered separately against agreed criteria, but we really need to know why things are going wrong.

This is a slightly historical case, but some years ago the FirstGroup buses in Rochdale were in such poor condition that the wheels fell off while they were going along. The traffic commissioner wrote a report about it and the company was fined. FirstGroup does not therefore have a great record. It is also the case, not just anecdotally —there is some evidence, and even more anecdotal evidence—that when buses are delayed for whichever of those three major reasons, they do not complete the route. They take shortcuts. It would be in the interests of public service if each bus had to carry a GPS, so that under the deregulated system, and more so under a franchised or an enhanced quality partnership, the taxpayers and the local transport authority could know where the buses were at any particular time. I would interested in hearing whether the Minister thinks that all buses being required to carry GPS, and have its information made public, would help our understanding of what is happening to bus services.

[Andrew Jones]

Amendments 19 and 20, tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge, for Nottingham South and for Scunthorpe, propose that the Bill explicitly state that bus punctuality, journey speeds and the provision of w-fi are standards that an authority could specify as part of a franchise contract. Any authority that chooses to implement franchising will be free to determine which services run in an area and the standards of services, including those important matters. Authorities will have to consider as part of their assessment of the proposed franchising scheme whether the proposals represent value for money and are affordable, taking into account the costs of requiring those standards.

I think we all agree that the provision of wi-fi on buses is an extremely attractive prospect for customers. I entirely agree that where an authority wants to require the provision of wi-fi on services, it should be able to do so, and the Bill allows for that. In terms of bus punctuality and journey speeds, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an authority from specifying the standards it expects from operators running services under franchise contracts.

I was asked about journey time guidance. We said to the Transport Committee that we would produce guidance on setting journey time targets. We intend to do that, though I recognise, as the hon. Member for Cambridge rightly said, that the guidance is not yet drafted.

The provision of customer information was at the heart of the contribution from the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton. He is right; customers do not always have access to the level of information that is desirable to let them plan their journeys or be communicated with should there be a problem. The Bill includes clauses on open data, and making information available will hopefully create fantastic new products through which customers can receive that information. The open data powers in clause 18 are sufficiently broad to require real-time information for all buses to be provided. That requires GPS on the buses.

I would like customers outside London to have access to the information that is available to bus customers within London, but the amendments would make provision for something that is already provided for. This is about local decision making, rather than making things mandatory. I assure the hon. Member for Cambridge that the Bill already gives franchising authorities powers to set the standards he seeks, and I hope he will therefore withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I suspect we will rehearse some of our previous arguments about whether decisions should be made at the centre or locally. Earlier, we heard about the incredibly prescriptive approach that the Government are taking to allowing local authorities to franchise; now we are told that on this issue, the Government are quite happy to leave it to local authorities to make up their own minds. I suggest there are some inconsistencies here, exactly as we discussed in relation to driving up environmental standards.

The amendment is about ensuring we get the kind of connectivity, and particularly wi-fi connectivity, that we all agree the country needs. That is not just something we would like to have. Sadly, in the modern world, although we are enjoying ourselves as well, we are often working while we travel around. For Britain to prosper in the 21st century, we need connectivity. If we leave it down to local negotiations, the operators will almost inevitably say, “This is going to raise the cost by a little bit,” which will make it harder for the franchising authority to insist upon it. We can stop that happening by specifying the key things we believe are needed. Wi-fi is an essential part of people’s daily lives. The answer is not to leave this down to local negotiations but to insist upon it in the Bill. We will pursue this, not just because it is important for bus infrastructure but because it is part of creating the kind of digital Britain that we will need if we are to prosper in the years to come.

On the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton, I am sure that he has been involved over many years in discussions with bus operators about where the burden of responsibility lies for punctuality. Of course, if we could solve that, we would probably have solved the entire problem with the Bill. It will always be a complex debate. The partnership arrangements are partly about trying to ensure that bus operators can run their services on time. I am in no doubt that bus operators want to do so. Whenever I meet the manager of my local bus company, he is absolutely clear that that is what he wants to do. The arguments, particularly in many of our precious historic cities such as my own, are about dedicated road space. Obviously, operators would love to have that, but there are other competing interests.

We think that punctuality and journey times are key. We think that they are so important to the future of the bus industry that specifying them, not just as an accidental by-product or consequence of schemes but as part of the agreement, is far more likely to concentrate minds locally on ensuring that they are achieved. Punctuality and reliability are key qualities that bus passengers look for. We all know from our own experience that if people cannot rely on the bus to get them somewhere, they will always turn back to their cars. The only way to have modern local transport systems that people use is if they are sure that the transport is reliable enough to get them there and that they will make their connection, so they are not late for work, school or college. Punctuality and journey times are not an added extra; they must be central to the process, which is why I will not withdraw my amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

We are discussing a group of amendments that relate to the assessment or the business case that authorities must prepare before they can implement franchising. The Government’s aim is to ensure that authorities fully consider the benefits, impacts and potential risks of franchising before taking the decision on whether to go forward and implement it in practice.

The Bill requires authorities to conduct an assessment of their proposed franchising scheme, which should include comparing it with one or more other courses of action. Amendment 34 aims to ensure that the different courses of action that should be considered as part of that assessment should reflect local conditions. I entirely agree that authorities should compare their franchising proposal against other realistic courses of action—that just seems good practice—and that those realistic courses of action will be different in each case. The Bill does not set out what other courses of action franchising should be compared against; it will be for local authorities to decide what is appropriate. The draft guidance that we are currently consulting on highlights that further by explaining that the authority should consider which courses of action are likely to meet their objectives. I hope, and I assure the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, that amendment 34 is not necessary; he may consider withdrawing it.

Amendment 35 proposes removing the requirement of the Secretary of State to issue guidance for authorities to assist with the preparation of their assessments, while amendment 36 proposes adding new requirements to the contents of such guidance. Our intention has always been to assist authorities in preparing robust assessments by providing guidance. The draft business case guidance is 10 pages long, which is much shorter than that for many other schemes or projects. It has actually been developed in discussion with authorities that may use it in future. It is about seeking to help authorities, particularly by reducing their risk of being challenged for not considering other realistic options, which could save time later on—particularly in any kind of legal matters.

I recognise the point about rail franchising, but I think that actually highlights the scale of the decision to go down a franchising route and how these things have to be considered and planned for carefully. On whether local government or national Government are infallible, the hon. Gentleman and I both know that neither is and can throw up a litany of records to demonstrate that. However, this is about having safeguards in place for decision-making criteria; it is not about national control. He highlighted Rail North, but Rail North is a partnership between the Department for Transport and Transport for the North to manage the north’s two rail franchises—Northern and TransPennine. Rail North was involved in designing the programmes and judging the tenders, and is now involved in managing the franchises; it is actually the first time we have moved to a more devolved management of our railways. The team, which is a joint team of the DFT and Rail North, is based in Leeds and will ultimately become part of Transport for the North. That is quite the opposite of the national control that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton highlighted—it is about devolution in rail for the first time. When we look at what has happened with rail in the north—the franchises will offer quite a transformation to services and be much more tuned in to their customers—we see the progress that is made by having more local decision making.

The guidance is intended to help authorities through the process and give them some national guidelines with criteria for consideration; we have no intention of making it onerous. This is more about sharing best practice and stopping reinvention when it comes to routes that are new to authorities. Our intention is to assist authorities in making robust assessments, and we are keen to receive views through the consultation about how the guidance can be further improved. I am pleased to be able to reassure hon. Members that our draft guidance recognises that it is for the Mayor or the authority to decide whether to proceed with franchising—it is not a national decision, and central Government should have no further involvement. I can also confirm that it is not our intention to place any unnecessary burdens on a franchising authority through the guidance.

Our approach is based on the standard approach to decision making in government set out in the Treasury’s Green Book. We actually drew the phrase “compelling case for change” from the Green Book. The assessment that a franchising authority is required to develop is based on the principles of the “five case” model for public sector business cases. The draft guidance on the development of that assessment therefore draws on the associated Treasury guidance material on using the five case model, which states:

“The business case in support of a new policy, new strategy, new programme or new project must evidence: That the intervention is supported by a compelling case for change”.

This is not a question of the Government seeking to impose burdens; we are seeking to assist and streamline decision making while keeping it local. That model is an established mechanism that any authority that has ever brought forward plans for a significant transport project should be well used to, and it seems entirely appropriate to follow a similar proven approach for fundamental change to the delivery of bus services, which of course will affect many thousands of passengers every day.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton asked about the number of officials. I can tell him that there are absolutely no plans to increase the number of officials currently working on this area, except in one section: there will be a small increase in the open data team, because significant work is needed to deliver that project. To put that in context, the headcount of the Department overall has fallen by 17% since the 2010 spending review. I hope that, in the light of my comments, the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw his amendments, although I recognise that he may wish to press one of them to a vote.

[Graham Stringer]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I will withdraw amendments 34 and 35. I take what he says about amendment 34, although I think it really would enhance the Bill.

I will press amendment 36 to a vote. It would not add to the guidance but prescribe that “the Secretary of State should not go here”. The context of this debate is that bus companies are hostile to these proposals. It is likely that bus companies will end up in court—Nexus has recent experience of that under existing legislation—and it would be helpful to say that the guidance should not be over-burdensome. It would also be helpful—the Minister did not really reply to this point—to say that where schemes have been tried and failed, or bus companies have refused to try them, they will not be reconsidered in some future scheme. I take the Minister’s reassurance that the final decision will be made by the Mayor or the authority. In the light of that, I will press amendment 36, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 34.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

Amendments 21, 25 and 29, tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge, for Nottingham South and for Scunthorpe, propose to specify the terms and conditions for employees that an authority should include as part of the franchise contracts it enters into with bus operators. It would not be consistent with the rest of the Bill to mandate the basis upon which contracts are procured by local transport authorities or the content of those contracts, as the amendments propose.

The amendments would require local authorities to set out in their contracts that employees hired by the bus operator outside of the TUPE transfer of staff would receive terms and conditions no less favourable than those provided to staff transferred under TUPE. I fully understand the intent behind the amendments. The power to achieve the outcome sought already rests, however, with the franchising authority letting the contracts

The amendments also pose some real practical difficulties. First, employees transferring under TUPE will not all have the same terms and conditions. Some may have been in post for a short period, and others may have been in post longer. There may be different terms and conditions for newer staff. It is not entirely clear which set of terms and conditions the amendments refer to, and I therefore see some difficulties in implementation. In addition, the amendments could place a financial burden on operators and, through them, the local transport authority by requiring them to employ people at something other than the market rate. That could prevent authorities from pursuing franchising schemes.

It is worth noting that the employee protection rights in the Bill replicate those in the Transport Act 2000 for quality contract schemes, introduced by the Labour party. There has been no intention at any point to water down TUPE arrangements. In fact, those were one of the first things we considered when preparing the Bill, and we were committed to ensuring that they were in place right away. I am committed to ensuring that staff affected by franchising are protected. However, I am not sure that it is the job of the Bill to set out the terms and conditions of employment offered to new staff who may join the industry at some point in the future.

On amendment 26, which relates to potential dismissals, I have sympathy with the intention behind the first two subsections concerning redundancies that may be made before or after the introduction of a local service contract. However, employment law already deals with the issue of unfair dismissal of employees. It is simply not appropriate for the Bill to be a vehicle to address such issues, and the Labour party did not include that provision when drafting the existing quality contract scheme legislation. The scenario that the amendment addresses is an unlikely one. I find it hard to imagine that an employer will choose to bear the redundancy costs associated with dismissing an employee if it is able to transfer them to a new operator under TUPE instead.

The hon. Member for Cambridge asked for my opinion on a minimum national salary for bus drivers. That is an interesting idea, but it would very intrusive for a Government to intervene and say that a company has to pay its employees a particular rate. We have done that through the national living wage, to protect some of the more vulnerable workers in our society, but it gets very intrusive indeed into the relationship between a company and its employees if the Government start to direct national minimum wages. It is not the Government’s belief that we should go down that route. I suggest caution would be required in doing so.

I hope that everything I have said confirms the Government’s position and that the hon. Member for Cambridge will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I appreciate the Minister’s comments about not seeking to water down the previous arrangements, which we accept. Our worry is that these things have never been tested, and we all now expect this situation to occur very quickly in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 4, page 20, line 11, leave out “six months” and insert “112 days.”

This amendment states that a scheme may not specify a period of less than 112 days for its start date following the notice that the local service contract has been awarded by the franchising authority.

You will be pleased to hear that this is a briefer introductory speech, Mr Owen. Proposed new section 123H(4) of the Transport Act 2000 states that

“A scheme may not specify…a period of less than six months”

for its start date following a notice that the local service contract has been awarded by the franchising authority.

The draft regulations—pages 77 and 78 relate to the deregistration of local services by operators—state that franchising authorities will have the ability to set a notice period of up to 112 days for operators wishing to deregister their services following the publication of a franchising scheme. Our concern is about the gap between the two periods. For 68 days of a six-month period, there is the potential for services to be deregistered, which we believe will cause unnecessary disruption and uncertainty for passengers. It is more of a point of clarification for the Minister. Will he consider revising the period as per our amendment, and if not why not? What advice and guidance would he be able to offer to passengers, franchising authorities and operators?

[Andrew Jones]

Amendment 23 proposes to reduce the time that must elapse between a franchise contract being awarded and it coming into force. This part of the Bill was designed with transition in mind to ensure that operators—those that are incumbent and those that would be incoming, having won the franchise contract—have sufficient time to put any necessary plans into place to deal with either of the two circumstances. Our overall aim is to ensure that all parties are ready to respond in the interests of passengers. I am concerned that reducing the time period to a minimum of 112 days —less than four months—could lead to a hurried transition, which would not necessarily benefit passengers. I recognise that there may be concerns about the behaviour of operators during that transitional period.

The Bill and any associated secondary legislation on which we are currently consulting sets out a number of ways in which authorities can help protect passengers during transition, and measures in the Bill directly address that, including enabling the authority to vary the deregistration and variation notice period that operators must observe before cancelling or changing services, and allowing services to be registered at short notice when they are replacing a service that has ceased to operate. This is about ensuring continuity of provision of service for customers. I recognise the point made by many colleagues in the Committee that people rely on services. This is about ensuring continuity during a transitional period. The Bill strikes the right balance in achieving that, and I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Cambridge feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. I am not sure I am wholly reassured. In some ways, we are moving into unchartered territory, which is why it is important we get this right.

If everybody was working with good intentions—it is almost like I am discussing other things—there would be no problem, but these transitions may not always be entirely as amicable as one might wish. Our concern is that in those circumstances, passengers could be the innocent bystanders stuck at the bus stop and be put at risk, because authorities may not always be able to make this possible if they do not have the resources and access to vehicles, depots and all the rest of it in the meantime.

I hope the Minister and his Department will talk to those who face this very real prospect and ensure that we make it work successfully for everyone involved. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Andrew Jones]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 4, page 24, line 41, leave out “21” and insert—

“(Bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment NC1.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 1—Bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England—

‘(1) A relevant authority may not, in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether the relevant authority is acting alone or with any other person.

(3) In this section—

“company” has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the Companies Act 2006);

“form a company” is to be construed in accordance with section 7 of the Companies Act 2006;

“local service” has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985 (see section 2 of that Act);

“Passenger Transport Executive”, in relation to an integrated transport area in England or a combined authority area, means the body which is the Executive in relation to that area for the purposes of Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968;

“relevant authority” means—

(a) a county council in England;

(b) a district council in England;

(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(d) an Integrated Transport Authority for an integrated transport area in England;

(e) a Passenger Transport Executive for—

(i) an integrated transport area in England, or

(ii) a combined authority area.’

This amendment prohibits county and district councils in England, combined and integrated authorities in England and passenger transport executives in England from setting up companies to provide local services.

[Andrew Jones]

New clause 1, which was tabled by the Government, reinstates the original provision of the Bill, which prohibited authorities from establishing companies for the purposes of operating local bus services. Amendments were made in the other place to remove that provision, which forms a key part of our proposals, from the Bill.

The Bill provides a number of new tools for local authorities to improve their local bus services, and it is important that operators and authorities work together to improve services for the benefit of passengers. We want to ensure that passengers benefit from the strengths of both local authority influence over services and the private sector. We have seen great improvements in services across the country due to private sector innovation and investment. It is also true to say that authorities have a lot to offer, with many around the country working collaboratively with their local operators to ensure that communities are well served and that services and ticketing offers are joined up.

The franchising and enhanced partnership tools in the Bill will provide authorities with more influence over bus services than they currently have. Striking the right balance between local authority influence and the role that private sector bus operators can play is important. Our view is that passengers will see the most benefit where the commissioning and provision of bus services are kept separate. That purchaser-provider split is a frequent feature of our public services, and as such we do not think authorities should be able to set up new bus companies.

[Graham Stringer]

I understand the Minister’s argument, but does he not see the case for transport authorities having the power to set up a bus company as a last resort, where private sector companies withdraw from the area?

[Andrew Jones]

The franchising provisions in the Bill detail what powers an authority has should a franchise service fail, as a stopgap measure, to ensure the continuity of service provision for passengers. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about continuity of service, but we are addressing that in the Bill.

[Graham Stringer]

To press the Minister on that, I take the point about continuity of service where, for instance, a bus company goes bankrupt and can no longer provide a service. However, that was not the question I asked. In circumstances where bus companies withdraw from an area as a point of policy because they are completely hostile to the idea of franchising, should transport authorities not be allowed to set up bus companies?

[Andrew Jones]

I suggest that the answer is no. If an area has a service withdrawn simply because of some kind of principled objection by a bus company to a regulatory model, those would be very unusual circumstances, with the company turning down business. In that case, others would, I suggest, snap it up.

[Lilian Greenwood]

If only the situation were as unlikely as the Minister suggests. I invited him earlier to express a view on the remarks made by the chairman of Stagecoach. I will continue his remarks about “unreconstructed Stalinists”. He went on to say:

“The first contract that they put out on my business I’m out of Tyne & Wear completely, and they can buy 500 buses and find four bus depots.”

Is the Minister not saying precisely that Tyne and Wear could not do that? Therefore, it would be subject to the whim of a large private sector operator that knows that it has local authorities over a barrel when it is the large incoming operator.

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady has been drawing on a very interesting set of quotes. The chairman of Stagecoach was obviously having a very lively day and making some lavish comments. If he wished to withdraw from the marketplace, I am sure there would be plenty of competitors saying, “Thanks very much, Brian, we will snap up that little operation.” I still do not think that changes the position. If people withdraw from a marketplace, I would expect others to pile in. That is what the nature of competition should be about.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South for raising the outrageous behaviour of Stagecoach over the years in the north-east. Is it not the case in the rail industry that the Government have sometimes had to step in? It has been necessary to ensure that that safeguard is in place. Were an operator to follow through on such threats—who knows whether it was a mere threat or had any intent behind it?—there should be safeguards and protection for the travelling public.

[Andrew Jones]

That is a very interesting point from the hon. Lady. Yes, we do have the opportunity in the rail sector for directly operated railways but that is for a short, interim period. That is what happened with the East Coast franchise, which serves both of our constituencies. We have such a provision in proposed new section 123O in clause 4, which allows for an interim stopgap measure.

Stagecoach obviously has a lot of experience in the world of franchises. It is engaged in the rail sector and operates in London. If the opportunity arises in the north-east—it may or may not choose to go down that route—let us see what the company says. Stagecoach has plenty of experience of franchising, should it wish to bring it to bear.

We have had some talk about the merits of the innovation and investment from private sector operators. I highlight the fact that many existing municipal bus companies, such as Reading Buses and Nottingham City Transport, deliver a high standard of service, and I would expect them to continue doing so. Their ability to do that is not affected by this provision. I remind the Committee that those operators have prospered in a competitive market in which many other municipal bus companies have struggled. Only last month, Thamesdown Transport in Swindon was sold to the private sector after what I understand was a prolonged period of losses.

I have seen the good work done by municipal bus companies. They regularly do extremely well in customer feedback. Our intention is to leave them well alone, doing the very good job that they do, but to make the balance right between public and private, which I think the Bill achieves.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I recognise that my point is slightly off kilter with the thrust of the Bill. Brighton & Hove bus company is a superb private operator that has taken over the Swindon municipal service the Minister mentioned, and it intends to invest. In my desire to see private as the first option, would there be scope in the Bill to start with a partnership approach but, if that did not work, to cascade down to franchising? I believe the Cornish model shows that the sword of Damocles makes bus companies see sense. If there is to be an absolute fall-back, municipals could well be that fall-back.

[Andrew Jones]

I have no doubt that municipal bus companies have been delivering for their customers. If they had not been doing so, they would have gone out of business. We can also see the customer response to them in various surveys and the national bus awards.

My hon. Friend’s proposal is interesting, but we have provided for cover in the Bill. We have anticipated the situation in the read-across from the rail sector, where interim services—replacement services—are required. It would be within the powers of the franchising authority to commission services.

[Huw Merriman]

To clarify, am I correct in saying that the Government or state takeover scenarios are just for franchising and not for partnerships? If so, there is still a gap. If franchising is not applicable because of the type of authority, only partnerships are available, and it cannot go to municipal because there is a prohibition.

[Andrew Jones]

We have no intention of having authorities setting up bus companies and awarding themselves contracts. The purchaser-provider split is important. Authorities would have the capacity to intervene and directly commission services, but it would be for a short period of time only. They have the capacity to do that already. Our intention is not to have a municipal bus company do that. It would be for a short period of time and authorities would commission from the private sector.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

With people interested in franchising in Greater Manchester, there is an expectation that there will be a number of different providers of bus services. If any one provider failed, other providers could step in, whether they were already in Manchester or were other ones coming in. There would not be the need for Greater Manchester as an authority to be running the bus services.

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I anticipate from my conversations with Transport for Greater Manchester that it will be keen to pursue a franchising model. This will be its call, but I would anticipate not a one-size-fits-all model, but different operators providing services in different parts of his area. If one failed, others could come in. I have certainly been contacted by bus companies that see franchising tenders as a way to enter the UK marketplace. It could prove to be a spur to competition. We have powers in the Bill should there be failure, but those should involve private companies under commission, rather than municipal companies.

Amendment 10 relates to new clause 1. It concerns a cross-reference in the Bill and nothing more.

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I oppose new clause 1, as I am sure the Minister anticipated. I thank him for his recognition of the success of some of the existing municipal operators. Mr Owen, I hope you will indulge me if I explain why this is so important. I represent a constituency with a very successful municipal operator. I do not think the Committee will mind if I remind it that Nottingham City Transport, which is one of the most successful municipal operators in the country, is the only operator to win the UK bus operator of the year title four times. It also won the Route One large operator of the year award in 2016 and the award for customer focus at the European Business Awards in 2015; it had the top national bus driver in 2014 and won the Guide Dogs Award for breaking down barriers in 2014. I could go on, Mr Owen—there are many ways in which it is an exemplary bus operator. As I said on Second Reading, these things are not just being stated by me because I am the local MP—they are backed up by evidence.

When we look at the most recent national bus passenger survey, for 2015, we find that Nottingham City Transport is No. 1 one out of 50 operators for overall satisfaction, with 97% satisfaction. When we look at value for money, it is not No. 1, but it is No. 4 out of 50 operators, with 74% satisfied with its value for money, which is pretty good. On satisfaction with punctuality, again it is No. 1 with 85%, and it is joint second on satisfaction with bus journey times. There is no doubt that it is a really good example of what a good operator should be doing, and not just on those issues that are covered in the passenger survey.

I know we are going to discuss accessibility during the passage of the Bill. The percentage of accessible buses run by Nottingham City Transport’s 330 buses—it is quite a large operation—is 100%. In the other place the provision of audio-visual announcements on buses was raised. Many operators have suggested that it is too costly, but 80% of Nottingham City Transport’s buses already have audio announcement. As has been acknowledged, 100% have free wi-fi. On many levels, that shows what a bus company can do. I found it quite difficult to understand the Minister’s submission, as he acknowledged the value of municipals such as Nottingham City Transport and others—Reading Buses has also been a recent winner of bus operator of the year—which is okay, but why not allow that possibility in other areas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Indeed, that point is well made. It has been possible to take back control in that case, and it is working to the benefit of passengers in that area. It seems extraordinary that we should want to close down the options when all the evidence points to the fact that, when transport systems are integrated, it is possible to get a better outcome for everybody.

I am not sure I am allowed to mention European law anymore, but it may be worth noting that, in EU regulation 1370/2007—I am sure Members know it off by heart— article 5.2 allows that:

“any competent local authority, whether or not it is an individual authority or a group of authorities providing integrated public passenger transport services, may decide to provide public passenger transport services itself or to award public service contracts directly to a legally distinct entity over which the competent local authority, or in the case of a group of authorities at least one competent local authority, exercises control similar to that exercised over its own departments.”

In Europe, local authorities are able to award contracts directly to their own company. We simply want new municipals to be able to compete in the process.

As I come to my conclusion I shall quote a further authority. Regarding municipal bus companies, the Institute of Public Policy Research said that

“authorities need to encourage and support the many innovative transport solutions–—such as social enterprises and municipal companies—that have emerged over the years.”

It added that:

“the continued strength of some municipally owned transport schemes…demonstrate that conventional commercial operations are not the only option…Choosing to operate a business without the pressure to deliver profit to shareholders can allow social values to be put at the heart of that business’s activities and deliver considerable benefits for communities.”

Our final problem with the proposal, as touched on by my hon. Friends, is that it seems as if the Department is working without any evidence. I have asked a number of written questions about the plans, and it has been revealed that

“no analysis has been undertaken by the Department for Transport to understand the potential benefits”

of the municipal model for passengers. I was later told that there are no plans to undertake any analysis of those benefits. I asked what evidential basis there is that the commissioning and provision of bus services should be kept separate, and was told:

“Supporting evidence of direct relevance is not available”.

Furthermore, I was told that a ban on municipals was not included in the bus reform workshop discussions because the provisions

“had not yet been drafted when the workshops took place.”

I simply do not understand why the Government persist with this divisive and mean measure when they have absolutely no evidence to back it up. In our view, this is a piece of symbolic, ideological dogma that has no place in an otherwise positive, enabling Bill that is broadly underpinned by consensus. We have every intention of revisiting this issue on Report.

[Andrew Jones]

I covered much of the ground in my earlier comments. I do not view this matter as the cause célèbre of the Bill, because frankly not a single local authority has contacted me to say that it wishes to start a municipal bus company. I do not think that this is at the heart of the Bill at all. Why do we have it? We have it simply because of the points I mentioned earlier—that commissioning and provision separation could easily deter investment from the private sector should this be reversed. What we have sought to do in the Bill is find the right balance and retain the strengths of private bus companies and the involvement from the public sector to find that proper partnership where we most effectively see the industry making progress for customers.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am mindful of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge made about evidence. When the Minister says that the existence of municipal bus services or an intention to set up a municipal bus service would prevent investment from the private sector, what evidence is he drawing on? My city has a very successful municipal operator, but that does not prevent investment in the private sector. In fact, we have an extremely effective local private operator and, if anything, the competition with the high-quality municipal has driven up its investment in its services. I therefore ask the Minister to set out what evidence he is drawing on in making those remarks.

[Andrew Jones]

What I said was that it could deter investment. We are talking about projections into the future, and as the future has not yet happened, of course we do not have any evidence for it. I am just looking at what the risks may be.

What we seek to do in the Bill as a whole is to enable bus companies and authorities to work more constructively together on behalf of passengers to deliver better services. I think we have struck the right balance. There is no doubt at all that the municipal companies are, indeed, successful, but we have chosen to highlight a couple that have perhaps been at the high end of success—the Nottingham and Reading companies have quite reasonably had a lot of mentions today. The last company that I visited was the bus company in Reading, and I thought it a very successful and impressive operation, but within a few days of that visit we saw the Thamesdown service sold after many years of making a loss. The idea that it is only municipals that are successful and innovative is not true. Success has come from having the right balance, and that is exactly what we are achieving in the Bill.

On international comparators, I am not an expert on the bus markets of different countries, but I am aware that the successful transformation of our rail services, which was mentioned earlier, has led to ours being the fastest-growing railway in Europe.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 4, page 32, line 47, at end insert—

“123Y Compensation liability

Where a bus operator brings a successful legal challenge for compensation against a relevant franchising authority, central government shall be liable for any financial penalty imposed by the court on the franchising authority.”

This amendment specifies that central Government shall bear the financial risk of legal challenges brought against franchising authorities by bus operators.

The amendment would ensure that central Government bear the risk for financial penalties where a bus operator brings a successful legal challenge for compensation against a relevant franchising authority. We want to protect local franchising authorities from legal action by operators and ensure that they are not prevented from bringing forward good schemes for fear of potential risk.

We heard reference in earlier debates to the attempt in the north-east—many of us would say the heroic attempt—to achieve a quality contract and how difficult that proved to be. When Nexus, the North East combined authority’s transport arm, attempted to introduce a quality contract scheme for Tyne and Wear under existing legislation, the legal decision made by the quality contract scheme board suggested that local authorities could be liable to compensate bus operators for financial losses they might incur as a result of bus re-regulation. The board concluded:

“Legislation enabling franchising should specifically address the issue of proportionality of financial loss of bus operators. It may be that some form of compensation is considered appropriate.”

It went on to suggest that local authorities could have been liable for payments of between £85 million and £226 million if the scheme had gone ahead. At that time, many of us were astonished by that conclusion, but despite the absurdity of it, that was what the board said. It causes real concern for people who may be thinking of bringing forward what I think we all agree could be the kind of schemes that will really improve bus services in our country.

I asked the Minister what assessment his Department had made of the reference in the quality contract scheme board’s report to bus operators being compensated by the Government for future losses that might be incurred as a result of franchising. The Minister responded that the decision related to existing legislation and was unrelated to the Bill. I do not think that that is good enough. It is important that we protect local authorities from that risk. It is not the case that this situation has not been rehearsed—it is out there.

If we believe that franchising will produce better services for passengers, we cannot have a situation in which authorities are worried about bringing schemes forward because they are intimidated by the financial risk. The Government might feel that that is not relevant, in which case they can demonstrate their confidence in the new system by making it clear that the risk does not lie with the local authority.

Some share the view that was expressed by the board in the Nexus case. The Confederation of Passenger Transport has, indeed, said that bus franchising

“would unquestionably amount to indirect expropriation”,

and that the Bill is “anti-enterprise” and

“silent on the issue of compensation.”

I and many others obviously do not agree. As I have said, franchising moves competition from on the road to off the road, with the system of bidding for service contracts.

More than that, any industry that receives almost 50% of its revenue from the public purse cannot be surprised that the public seek a say in how the services they fund are run. The Transport Committee found:

“We accept that the question of whether incumbent operators would suffer a loss from franchising is a complex one. However, franchising does not mean operators already providing bus services in the market cannot compete; it simply means that they must compete for the market rather than for passengers as they do at present. There is no case for compensation for operators in areas where the local transport authority decides to introduce franchising.”

The Opposition need clarity on this issue, because we fear that if the Government do not provide it, good schemes might not be introduced.

[Andrew Jones]

Amendment 24, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge, for Nottingham South and for Scunthorpe, proposes that central Government assume liability for compensation payable as a result of a successful claim against an authority that has implemented franchising. The Bill is about devolution. It gives authorities the ability to decide which model of bus service provision works best for local passengers. It makes it clear that the decision to implement franchising lies with the Mayor or the authority in question and not with central Government

Local accountability is at the very heart of the Bill. Any Mayor or authority that is not able to stand by and take responsibility for their decision should not implement franchising in the first place. Looking to central Government to solve local problems would undermine the accountability required to make a success of franchising in the longer term. Frankly, it would be out of step with the rest of the Bill for central Government to step in and assume responsibility for a local decision in which they have played absolutely no part. The proposal is very strange, and would mean a complete break between accountability and responsibility.

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Minister will recall that during the process that led to the quality contract scheme decision in Tyne and Wear, the issue was, in part, where responsibility would lie were there to be a legal challenge, not on the grounds of the scheme itself or in respect of whether any compensation would be owed, but concerning where responsibility for the legislation itself would lie. This is Government legislation, so would it not be for the Government to defend, if challenged, its principle and to take on any liabilities that arose from that?

[Andrew Jones]

In developing the legislation, we have taken into account the views in the quality contract board’s comment on compensation. We are confident that the processes in the Bill are fair and give operators sufficient notice to enable them to plan accordingly. I therefore do not think that what the hon. Lady says will apply, but we have clearly been learning from the problems that the north-east, more than any other area, experienced in the quality contract scheme.

[Huw Merriman]

The Transport Committee spoke to authorities that might consider franchising about the risks they would have to bear. Surely this is one. If they decide that it is not a risk worth taking, they will not utilise the power. It is not just a question of asking for a central Government bail-out, but a question of asking for a bail-out from my local taxpayers, who will not have the benefits of franchising. I find the proposal outrageous.

[Andrew Jones]

It is a strange idea to put forward that central Government should be liable for decisions taken in a local council or by an elected Mayor. That break between accountability and responsibility could only lead to bad practice. Any legal challenge by operators against an authority is likely to be based on the way in which the authority has approached the decision-making process. Central Government are not seeking to control that, and we should not be responsible for it. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I note that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is outraged by the suggestion, but the crux of the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South and it is an important point. It is clear that some in the industry see the concept as an act of expropriation—that is what the industry body has said. The Government are proposing the legislation and we support them, but the danger, as I have said, is that if local authorities fear that they will be subject to the full force of legal challenge, people might be unable to use this good legislation. We will be back to a situation of spending many years talking about doing absolutely nothing, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I shall speak to amendments 37 to 39. Amendment 37 would allow the franchising authority at an early stage to obtain pensions information from operators so that it can begin to understand the potential scale and impact in relation to historic and future pension liabilities. Currently, proposed new section 143A(3)(e) says:

“Information about persons employed by the operator in the provision of those local services”.

As such, it is not clear whether pensions information would be included. Will the Minister clarify whether the Bill will enable franchising authorities at an early stage to obtain information about pensions and the pension schemes of individuals employed by the operator? Does he agree that the amendment enhances the provisions by ensuring that franchising authorities have access to this relevant information in preparing their assessments?

Amendment 38 would enhance the Bill, better reflecting draft regulations and guidance. The statutory guidance includes a new obligation for authorities to consider journey speeds and reliability when developing an assessment. In order for authorities to be able to satisfy this additional obligation, an amendment to the Bill will be required so that authorities can request the data from incumbent bus operators. A large amount of the information is held only by operators and is not currently available to authorities. Currently, journey speeds and reliability are not provided for in the list of information that authorities may request from bus operators, meaning that authorities are unable to satisfy this additional consideration. Does the Minister agree that including the measure in the Bill will ensure that the Bill and the accompanying guidance are better aligned?

Amendment 39 reflects the fact that “a reasonable period” is not currently defined. Obtaining the information from operators set out at proposed new section 143A is vital to inform the franchising authority’s assessment. Any delay in providing that information will have a significant impact on the timetable for audit, public consultation and the Mayor’s decision. Does the Minister agree that 56 days is a reasonable period? If not, how does he define “a reasonable period” and will he make that definition clear in the accompanying guidance?

[Andrew Jones]

This group of amendments relates to the information authorities can request from bus operators in connection with their franchising functions. Amendment 33 would require bus operators to provide information to authorities about the services they operate under existing franchises and outside the franchised area. The purpose of clause 5 is to ensure that authorities have the information they need about the services in their area so that they can make an informed decision. I therefore struggle to see the rationale behind requiring them to provide information about services that are unconnected to the scheme they are developing or their area.

[Graham Stringer]

Business case guidance, as I said, specifically requires the franchising authority to consider the impacts of franchising on neighbouring authorities and services and transport in their areas. Surely that is a reason why the bus companies should hand over information about what they are doing in those areas.

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about considering developing schemes and the impact on bus provision in neighbouring areas. It does not necessarily suggest that entirely unconnected areas need to have information about franchises beyond the area directly under consideration. I understand where he is coming from, but the information described in the amendment would not be material to an authority’s assessment. I am not convinced that there is any need for the authority to have access to it. I hope he considers withdrawing the amendment.

Amendments 37 and 37, tabled by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), propose to add new categories to the list of information that can be requested by an authority—in particular information about an operator’s pension schemes, and about journey speeds and reliability. Clause 5 already allows authorities to request information about people employed by operators. That will include information about their pension arrangements. That is clearly a material consideration and will be included. I am not convinced therefore that amendment 37 is necessary.

I agree that an authority may want to consider information about journey speeds and reliability when conducting its assessment, particularly to understand where there are congestion hotspots. Having said that, I would like to think that any authority with the skills and abilities necessary to implement a franchising model already has a clear view of where congestion problems are in its network. There are other ways that the authority could access that sort of data without placing burdens on operators, such as through existing punctuality and timetable information and roadside monitoring equipment.

We are currently consulting on draft regulations under the clause that set out further categories of information that can be requested by authorities. If a clear case is made through our consultation that journey speed information would be a valuable addition to that secondary legislation, we will certainly be happy to consider it, but I am not convinced today that we should place it on the face of the Bill. I hope I have provided the hon. Member for Cambridge with reassurance that the issue will be addressed and that he will therefore not press amendments 37 and 38 to a vote.

Amendment 39 would require operators to provide the requested information within 56 days rather than at the end of a reasonable period that the authority may specify. We want to ensure that we leave as much flexibility as possible to allow authorities to work with operators on a local level. In some cases, the information requested will be very limited and could be provided in a shorter timescale. We also have to consider the full range of possibilities and give due consideration to smaller operators, which may have more difficulty collating and sharing information when their limited resources are focused on doing the day job and running their existing services.

The Bill will allow authorities to take local circumstances into account and set realistic and appropriate timescales for delivery, without an arbitrary cap. If an operator fails to take all reasonable steps to respond to a request, the Bill requires the franchising authority to report it to the traffic commissioner, who then has the ability to impose sanctions on operators that contravene that requirement, provided that the commissioner agrees with the authority that the operator has not taken all reasonable steps to respond. Given that flexible approach, which I believe will work well in practice, I ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw amendment 39.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Andrew Jones]

The clause introduces new provisions for advanced ticketing schemes in England, which improve the existing ticketing powers in the Transport Act 2000 in a number of ways. First, the clause future-proofs the legislation by ensuring that new or future developments in technology can be accommodated within its framework. Secondly, the clause contains new duties for local authorities to consider linkages and compatibility with other multi-operator ticketing schemes. I must emphasise, however, that this is not about price. There is no ability for ticket schemes to set ticket pricing. An advanced ticketing scheme may only be made by local transport authorities in England. The existing ticketing scheme provisions will continue to apply in Wales and to schemes made by an English authority in conjunction with a Welsh one. This part of the Bill has been widely welcomed in our discussions and has not proved at all controversial.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 9

Enhanced partnership plans and schemes

Amendment made: 11, in clause 9, page 42, leave out lines 15 to 20.—(Andrew Jones.)

This amendment removes a requirement that, under an enhanced partnership scheme, new buses providing local services must meet eligibility requirements contained in the “Low Emission Bus Scheme” (a programme of grants to support the use of low and ultra-low emission vehicles), where the vehicle comes into service after 1 April 2019.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Andrew Jones]

The clause will introduce enhanced partnerships in England. They go further than the advanced quality partnership schemes provided for in clause 1, which we discussed this morning. In particular, enhanced partnerships may include a broader range of requirements. They are designed to be easier to apply to a wider geographical area, and provide for the involvement of operators from the outset. They do not require every single objection from operators to be resolved.

The clause provides for enhanced partnership plans and enhanced partnership schemes. The plan provides the context for the partnership and sets out the bus improvement objectives, which are relevant to all parties. Detailed actions to be taken by the authority and bus operators on the ground locally are set out in the associated scheme or schemes. Both the plan and schemes are made by the local transport authority but are developed in partnership with any relevant operators that wish to participate. To ensure that operators remain involved and supportive, the authority can proceed at certain key points only if it has sufficient support for its plans from the relevant operators. The mechanism by which that will be judged will be set out in secondary legislation, on which we are currently consulting.

Under an enhanced partnership, competition remains generally on the road, and services continue to be provided on a commercial basis. All operators in the scheme area, whether a new entrant or an incumbent, must comply with any of the requirements set out by the scheme. Those requirements fall into two broad categories. Operational requirements can include vehicle standards—including emissions standards, as we discussed this morning—branding, payment methods, ticketing structures, the price of multi-operator tickets and information to be provided to passengers. Route requirements address the frequency and timing of particular services.

There is a menu of options so that authorities can work with operators and passenger representatives, among others, to find the best solutions for their area. That is the essence of an enhanced partnership. It is a flexible set of powers that can be adapted to local circumstances. The provisions have been welcomed by passenger groups, bus operators and local transport authorities. I think that these provisions are at the heart of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Traffic commissioner functions

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 14, page 69, line 22, at end insert—

“(5) After section 6I insert—

‘6J Community bus routes

(1) Traffic Commissioners must keep a list of bus routes in their area which are of community value.

(2) For the purpose of this section, a bus route of community value is one that has been designated by the traffic commissioner as furthering the social well-being or social interests of the local community.

(3) Bus routes may only be designated by a traffic commissioner as being of community value in response to a community nomination.

(4) A community nomination must be made by a community group which is based in, or has a strong connection with, an area through which the bus route passes, and on which community the bus route has a direct social impact.

(5) A community group may be, for example—

(a) a local or parish council;

(b) a voluntary or community body with a local connection;

(c) a bus user group;

(d) a group formed for the specific purpose of maintaining the bus route;

(e) a church or other religious group, or

(f) a parent teacher group associated with a particular school or schools.

(6) The traffic commissioner must consider the community nomination, and if—

(a) the nomination is successful, the commissioner must notify the relevant parties of this decision in writing; or

(b) the nomination is unsuccessful, the commissioner must notify the relevant parties of this decision in writing and give reasons why the decision was made.

(7) An operator of a bus route which is designated as being of community value must give a minimum of six months’ notice of an intention to terminate the service, in order for the community to—

(a) work with relevant authorities to find an alternative operator;

(b) set up a community transport group in order to run the service; or

(c) partner with an existing not-for-profit operator to run the route.

(8) The community may apply to the Secretary of State for financial assistance, training or advice during the notice period in order to achieve any of the aims set out in subsection (7).’”

This amendment would give Traffic Commissioners the power to designate bus routes assets of community value.

I apologise, Mr Owen, but this bus is moving rather more quickly than I had anticipated. We are doing very well.

The notion of defining a bus route or a bus service as a community asset may come as something of a surprise to people, as it did when it was first raised with me. However, the more I have thought about it, the more significant it seems it could be. Although much of the discussion today, with our comments about Nottingham, and on Second Reading has been about urban areas, the problems facing buses in rural areas are dear to many people’s hearts. Many of us would agree that the local bus service is a key aspect of everyday life in many parts of the country.

Without rehearsing the figures, which I suspect are familiar to all of us, bus services are disappearing from many parts of the country for a whole range of reasons. As was explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, there is quite often a feeling of powerlessness when there is a sudden change to what may be a lifeline—sometimes that is for relatively few people, but it is crucial to them none the less. Whether from urban or rural areas, I suspect all of us, as Members of Parliament, have found ourselves in the difficult situation of responding to local people who come to us and say, “The bus service is going or changing; what can you do to help?” That has been a part of the discussions we have had throughout the day.

I suspect that a discussion about advanced quality partnerships, franchising, net costs, gross costs, contracts and all the rest of it will not greatly reassure many people. They want to know what can be done about their bus service; that is what matters to them. What we suggest is that those means of communication—those routes—are seen as a community asset and put on the same legislative footing as community assets such as pubs, community buildings and land. That is not to say that something can be preserved forever—that is impossible—but the measure would slow down the process, just as we do with a potential pub closure, to give the community the chance to build the capacity and support to put something else in place. I am not sure that the big society is still with us—

[Andrew Jones]

It certainly is.

[Daniel Zeichner]

In which case, this is the big society revisited. I am sure the Minister will be commended for defending it.

The community asset legislation sits comfortably within the Conservative Government’s Localism Act 2011. It rightly recognises that community assets should be protected and given elevated status so that communities can come together and help to save or run things that they judge they cannot do without. The proposition is to establish a new class of assets of community value—bus route assets of community value—based on the route of the bus, as designated and held by the relevant traffic commissioners. It is notable that currently, bus stops can be an asset of community value. Indeed, some have been designated as such, which shows the importance that local communities place on such services.

The amendment would allow communities to come together to apply to the relevant traffic commissioner to designate the service they hold dear as a bus route of community value. The route would then be subject to a six-month moratorium should there be a threat of its being cut, which would allow precious time for the community, as defined by the Localism Act, to work with the relevant authorities to find an alternative operator, set up a community transport group to run the service, or partner with an existing not-for-profit operator. The powers mirror those in the Localism Act, and would change rural passengers’ influence over how bus services are delivered to them.

The nomination would be made by a community based in, or with a strong connection to, an area through which the bus route passes and on which the route has a direct social impact. Community groups could include a local or parish council, a voluntary or community body with a local connection, a bus user group, a group formed for the specific purpose of maintaining the bus route, a church or other religious group, or a parent-teacher group associated with a particular school or schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Yet again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about trying to find ways of tackling the relentless erosion of services that have been a key part of the fabric of many communities.

Happily, I have been provided with a particularly good example from the constituency of Witney, which I am sure a number of us have had cause to visit in the last year—well, we should have, anyway. I did. I am not sure why, in retrospect—[Laughter.] It was because I was a good friend of the unsuccessful Labour candidate. Anyway, in the face of vital service withdrawals, the local Labour and Co-operative councillors in Witney—I think it was the Labour candidate, in fact—have helped to save local bus services for the community.

The West Oxfordshire Community Transport benefit society was formed, and its people’s bus service has begun to carry passengers. It has managed to maintain timetables, fares and the routes that people in the area rely on, but one thing is different about that new service—it belongs to the community itself and will be run not for profit. As it is a community benefit society, anyone is able to join, which has an additional effect in terms of community development and bringing people together. That is a good example of the types of organisations and communities that would benefit from the amendment.

The amendment would go one step further than the existing Localism Act powers and place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance, training and advice to communities working to save routes through the new moratorium period. We think it is an innovative proposal that could be built on by a Government that wished to join the hundreds of communities around the country that will meet today or this week to discuss ways in which they can maintain their area’s bus service.

[Andrew Jones]

Amendment 30 would reinforce the local importance of certain bus services by enabling them to be designated as routes of community value. I am fully aware of the issues that many people experience with bus services that are under threat or have been reduced, and there is no doubt that many local authorities face funding issues and therefore difficult decisions about the services that they wish to subsidise. However, in several areas of the country we are seeing innovative solutions, from the community transport sector stepping in to the provision of more integrated services and the Total Transport pilot schemes that my Department is supporting. It is encouraging to hear the story from Witney. Interestingly, that is not an area that I have been to for quite a long time. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is not listening. [Laughter.] Well, it was never in doubt, was it?

The amendment would resolve issues relating to the continued provision of services on routes that are deemed to be of community value. I agree that where services are to be cut or their frequency is to be significantly reduced, commercial operators—or, in the case of subsidised services, local authorities—must do all they can to keep people informed, consult them and seek to pass on a service in some form. That is part of the thinking behind clause 19, which provides for greater information to be provided to local authorities when a service is reduced or cancelled.

However, I do not think that it is reasonable or sensible to force operators to continue to operate a service, potentially at significant financial detriment, for six months rather than the 56 days currently required. Doing so could act as a disincentive for operators to trial new services, step in to see whether they can make a service viable or operate services commercially where local authority funding is precarious and can be kept going for only a short time. The unintended consequences could easily outweigh the benefits that the Opposition wish to see. I hope that, in the light of those considerations, the hon. Member for Cambridge feels able to withdraw his amendment.

A6-M60 Relief Road

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) on securing this debate about the proposed A6-M60 road scheme, also known as the Stockport north-south bypass? I have to say that 242 years as a local issue is a record in my experience of transport. However, as ever, my hon. Friend demonstrated his passion for the area and his knowledge of it.

I will address my hon. Friend’s questions, but I just want to put in a degree of context the underlying point he was making about the importance of transport investment. Transport investment is hugely important to Greater Manchester, as it is, indeed, to our whole country. We agree with local partners that it is essential for growth, and that is why we are investing significantly in it. That includes record spends on rail and road, with £38 billion on rail—excluding High Speed 2—£15 billion on our strategic road network and £5 billion for local schemes through the local growth fund. That investment is designed to drive the economic growth we all want, as well as to relieve communities and the wider economy of the effects of congestion, as was so eloquently highlighted by my hon. Friend.

Through our devolution deals, we are putting Greater Manchester at the heart of the northern powerhouse. As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to creating that northern powerhouse to rebalance our economy. That is part of our longer-term economic plan, and one we share with the north. We have created Transport for the North to develop and drive forward transport plans that support economic growth. We will invest £13 billion during this Parliament to better connect the region, so that our towns and cities can pool their strengths and work together to create a single economy.

Greater Manchester is right at the heart of this. As my hon. Friend knows, it is a centre for innovation, education, industry and culture. The population is 2.7 million and rising. Greater Manchester generates £48 billion of gross value added—a 4% share of our national economy. It is the UK city region outside London most likely to be able to increase its long-term growth rates, with its access to international markets and its strong connections to the rest of the world, so there is real scale and real opportunity in the Greater Manchester economy.

South Manchester, with key assets such as Stockport and Manchester airport, is a critical element of that success. The airport is the UK’s third largest, employing over 20,000 people, and it indirectly supports a further 25,000, contributing £1.8 billion per year to the economy. In addition, the airport city enterprise zone promises to create between 7,000 and 13,000 jobs. That is tremendous news for not just the north and the northern powerhouse but Greater Manchester and my hon. Friend’s constituents.

However, to make that growth happen, we need transport infrastructure in place to support it. That is why we are heavily investing in the area. SEMMMS highlighted the significant problems we all know everybody experiences in south Manchester. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the proposed solutions have sat on the shelf for too long—I was unaware that it has been over 240 years, but I think we can all agree it has been too long.

That is why I am delighted that the Government have been able to approve the first of the schemes recommended in that study—the A6 to Manchester airport relief road. The road is currently under construction, and it is due to open at the end of the year. It is an important scheme, and it will not just bring significant benefits to the residents of south-east Manchester, including those of my hon. Friend’s constituency, but have much broader benefits. It will certainly make access to Manchester airport much easier, which will help to drive economic growth, therefore benefiting the whole area.

As my hon. Friend said, initial approval has been given to the second of the three schemes in the SEMMMS report—the Poynton bypass. That is subject only to Cheshire East obtaining the necessary legal permissions and showing us that the scheme is value for money. The funding is available for this scheme, and we want to see it in place.

That leaves the third scheme—the Stockport north-south bypass, which is the topic of our debate. This scheme would build on the other two. It will clearly bring additional benefits to residents of Stockport and Hazel Grove, primarily through the much needed and long-awaited relief from the congestion on the A6 and other roads in the area. Residents will also benefit from airport access and economic growth. My hon. Friend highlighted his concerns about the time it has taken for the scheme to get to this point. He is clearly correct. As the scheme is not on the strategic road network, it is the responsibility of local partners, and decision making rests with them. It is possible that the high cost of all the SEMMMS schemes, and the many other improvements in the area that have taken place right across Manchester from a transport perspective, will have been a factor in local partners’ decisions on which schemes to prioritise for delivery.

I understand—my hon. Friend articulated this with great sensitivity—the concern about the possible adverse effects on the green belt and the local community that could occur with the housing that may be developed in the wake of this scheme. Indeed, he raised this issue with the Prime Minister last week. I would echo the commitment that the Prime Minister made. The Government are very clear that the green belt should be protected. Boundaries should be altered only when local authorities have fully examined all other reasonable options. Any changes should be balanced with improving the quality or accessibility of the remaining green-belt land so that it can be enjoyed. Green belt is a critical part of the protection of our local environments, and I think we are all passionate about seeing it protected.

I am aware that Greater Manchester Combined Authority has recently consulted on its draft spatial framework and that this has stimulated much debate. It will be for the local planning authorities to make sure that the much needed housing will be situated in ways that limit any effect on the green belt. It will also be for the road scheme’s designers to be sensitive to the area through which it will pass. I commend my hon. Friend for his work in seeking his constituents’ views on how the construction of the A6 to Manchester airport relief road has affected them, and on what lessons Stockport Council and the construction company can learn for future projects. It has to be accepted that there will be some adverse effects on residents while these new transport schemes are built, but every opportunity should be taken to minimise these problems and learn lessons for the future.

My hon. Friend asked whether we support the proposed scheme. Yes, we have shown our support for it by providing Greater Manchester Combined Authority with £350,000 to fund a feasibility study for the route. That study, I understand, is due to be completed in May this year. It will then be for the combined authority and Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council to decide what to do next. They could decide to fund the scheme from their own or from third-party sources, or they could seek access to Government funds. If the study is sufficiently detailed, they could bid for funding from our large local majors fund—the vehicle to support schemes like this through the Department for Transport. That fund is designed to help councils to build transport schemes that are too large to be funded through the usual source of funding—the local growth fund—but not big enough to be classed as of national strategic importance. However, I have to warn my hon. Friend that this fund is very popular and likely to be oversubscribed—and this scheme will be an expensive one. Nevertheless, our support for the scheme shows that we are serious about working with local partners to deliver a world-class transport network to improve the lives of local people.

I should highlight the fact that we are investing in many other parts of the local transport network. Transport in Greater Manchester is being transformed. Indeed, I have spoken at conferences where colleagues from Transport for Greater Manchester have said that this is a golden age for public transport and investment in Greater Manchester.

On the strategic road network, we are investing £1.5 billion in the north-west to provide the biggest increase in capacity to be delivered there since 1971. It includes an upgrade to strategic roads serving south Manchester, such as the smart motorway on the M60 and the M62; and the A556 Knutsford to Bowdon scheme, which also improves the main southern access to Manchester. Those are live schemes in the plan.

We are also looking at future projects. We are running studies of the case for building a trans-Pennine tunnel between Manchester and Sheffield, and for improvements that could benefit the area of the M60 north-west quadrant and therefore the whole M60 route. The process is now under way to set the next road investment strategy, which will cover the period post 2020.

We are working closely with partners in Greater Manchester and Transport for the North to determine future priorities. I am sure my hon. Friend, with his customary diligence, has raised the matter with them, but I will certainly mention this debate next time I meet Transport for the North and highlight my hon. Friend’s concerns, to make sure that they are firmly on its radar.

We also have the biggest programme of railway modernisation since the Victorian era. The north of England rail infrastructure upgrade programme will transform rail in the region. Work has begun, and we are seeing real progress. The first phase of north-west electrification enables electric trains to run from Manchester Airport to Glasgow. Journeys are faster following the completion of track improvements and electrification between Liverpool and Manchester, and Liverpool and Wigan. Particularly topical is the significant progress made on the Ordsall chord. That included last week the lifting into place, using two of the largest cranes in this country, of the world’s first asymmetrical network arch railway bridge. That attracted a lot of attention, and some quite good time-lapse photography shows the bridge being inserted into position.

Those are positive developments, but there is clearly much more to be done. Our programme of more than £1 billion includes a substantial electrification programme and other track, signalling and station improvements. They will all increase capacity and the number of services, making journeys faster and more reliable. We will certainly see transformative change through the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises, which will deliver high-quality services to passengers. The residents of south Manchester will see benefits, which will include significant increases in capacity into Manchester in the morning peak; more trains to a range of major destinations across the north; new and refurbished trains; and—if my hon. Friend’s constituency is like mine, this will be particularly welcomed—the disappearance of the outdated Pacers.

Looking to the future, HS2 will be coming into south Manchester—it will go straight through to central Manchester, too—and will be a huge boost to the whole region. It will bring with it jobs, growth, and magnificent regeneration opportunities. Those are big schemes already under way, in planning or in study form, all of which will have an impact on the north-west.

We are not just talking about big national schemes; we are also looking to improve our local public transport network. We should be celebrating the achievements that we have made, which include improvements at Cheadle Hulme and Hazel Grove railway stations; priority bus routes into central Manchester from south-east Manchester; extensions to the Metrolink system—I congratulate Greater Manchester on the opening of the second city crossing this week—and new transport interchanges in Altrincham and Wythenshawe. In addition, £115 million of local growth fund is being invested to improve transport access in Stockport town centre. Those have all received contributions from central Government, so our support for the area is significant at a strategic and a local level.

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that this Government are committed to improving transport in Manchester as a whole, including in south Manchester and in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have shown that support by providing significant funding for a wide range of improvements, as well as the specific funding for a feasibility study of the A6-M60 scheme. He has made a great case—I would expect him to do so, as a local champion for his area—highlighting the benefits very clearly and showing great sensitivity to environmental concerns. I very much look forward to receiving a copy of the report once it has been completed. Once the promoters have looked at the study, I expect it—should they choose to seek our support—to arrive in the Department, where it will be considered and given a very good hearing.

Question put and agreed to.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Andrew Jones Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

It is interesting, is it not? I read the Second Reading debate and that point was put to the then Secretary of State many times, and, Kuala Lumpur notwithstanding, there was no other evidence to support the major changes. I seem to remember that there are plenty of rickshaws in Kuala Lumpur, but I do not know whether he was including that in his argument.

That Secretary of State and his Government inflicted an ideological experiment on the country without evidence to support it. The facts show that it has been an unmitigated disaster for the travelling public. Today, Members on both sides of the House should at least agree to call time on it and give the various parts of the country the powers they need to correct it.

I want to say something about coverage and quality of services. I know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) said in his excellent speech—I wish I could have been in that café with him while Eric Cantona played chess; it was a great image—that in parts of his constituency, particularly as it goes into the centre of town, buses are nose to tail. Particularly as they get towards Oxford Road in Manchester, people can see that the bus congestion is just ridiculous. I was with the vice-chancellor of Manchester University last week and she told me that the record number of buses that students had counted along Oxford Road was 34 continuously nose to tail. Of course, that has a terrible effect on traffic congestion in the city centre and it simply does not work.

We have saturation on the lucrative routes, as the bus companies see them, but, as we have heard today, they abandon more isolated areas that do not make a profit for them. The Higherfold estate in my constituency, which is in an isolated area, has constantly had problems with services being unilaterally withdrawn. Then there is an attempt to hold the passenger transport authority to account by saying, “Give us a subsidy or there is no service at all.” That leads to large subsidies for the bus companies that operate in such a way.

A year ago, a Mrs Healy wrote to me to say that the withdrawal of the 12 and 15 services from Leigh meant that her son could no longer get to work in Little Hulton and he had lost his job. No notice was given of the withdrawal of that service. This has a real impact on people’s lives and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, because many people in this Chamber do not use buses they might not understand how detrimental poor bus services can be to some people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned the Arrowfield estate. I recently went there to meet the Arrowfield and Hough End residents group, who told me about the withdrawal of the 84 service, which he mentioned and which, I think, served Withington hospital. The group said that that service had been withdrawn without any formal consultation with the community and the new service that was meant to replace it stopped at 5.30 in the evening, meaning that people could not get home from work. It is not acceptable for the public to be treated in this way.

Then, of course, there is the cost. In London between 1995 and 2016, fares rose in real terms by 36%, but in metropolitan areas, particularly Greater Manchester, fares rose by 60%. As we have heard today, the fare for a single journey can often cost more than £3. Because of the free-for-all, because operators are all running different ticketing systems and because of the chaos, we cannot have an integrated Oyster-style system, so, again, the public lose out.

During a consultation with young people in Bury a few months ago, I asked about the issues facing them, and the cost of transport came up again and again. I asked them whether they travelled on buses and whether they could afford it—this goes back to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East—and the answer was that it was cheaper to get an Uber. If there are four of them, they can get an Uber together and it is cheaper than the bus.

Is it any wonder that the roads of Greater Manchester are becoming more and more congested as every year goes by? As the quality and the coverage of our bus service has gone down and the cost has gone up during the past 30 years, congestion has got worse and worse. That is affecting the air quality in Greater Manchester, and it means that Greater Manchester is in breach of the standards—the legal limits—for nitrogen dioxide. This simply cannot carry on, and I welcome the focus in the Bill on air quality.

I hope that the Government will go further and give Greater Manchester the powers to introduce a clean air zone. I ask the Minister: what reason can there be for the Government to exclude Greater Manchester from the list of places that they have allowed to introduce clean air zones, other than cost? Cost is not a good enough reason. It is not good enough that children are breathing in polluted air on the way to school. We look forward to his and the Government’s help in solving that problem.

If all of this were not bad enough in the experience of the travelling public, we are paying through the nose for it as well. A £100 million subsidy has been given to the bus companies annually, while at the same time they have been paying out large dividends to their shareholders. This system really does not work for the public in any meaningful way. As I say, it is time to call time on what is a failed ideological experiment.

I give credit to Sir Howard Bernstein, who has been mentioned, and Sir Richard Leese and Lord Peter Smith, as well as other leaders of Greater Manchester, who in my view were right to insist that the Bill should be part of the devolution deal that was done with Greater Manchester. I pay tribute to the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), for agreeing to that request, and indeed to the current Minister and the Secretary of State for sticking by the deal and making sure that the Bill was put before the House.

However, I want to press the Minister and the Government on a number of concerns. An issue that several colleagues have raised today is the decision to reintroduce the clause that will restrict municipal ownership of bus companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, why restrict people, because we could at least have that as an option? From my point of view, as someone who might consider using the franchising powers, to have the fall-back option of a publicly owned company being able to come in and provide the service if there were no bidders on the terms sought would provide leverage, would it not? It would do so if they knew they could run a service because they had such an option up their sleeve. I say to the Minister that nobody wants anything to happen to the Bill that might disrupt its passage, but the Government should surely give people such flexibility so that they can make full use of the powers proposed in it.

Another issue I want to mention is the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton. He talked about the regulations that have been published very recently—within the past couple of days—relating to the Bill. They state that the powers in the Bill can be given to a metropolitan mayoral area only if a “compelling case” is presented—not just a viable case, but a compelling one. In his winding-up speech, the Minister needs to spell out precisely what that means. Is he erecting a high hurdle to prevent metropolitan mayors from using the powers in the Bill?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

indicated dissent.

[Andy Burnham]

The Minister shakes his head, but I want to see more reassurance than that. If he wants to intervene and say more about it now, he is more than welcome to do so. We cannot have such obstacles placed in our way that may actually limit our ability to use the welcome powers in the Bill.

I see that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) has retaken her seat, and I do not want to finish without making some reference to her speech. Frankly, I did find it quite difficult to listen to at times. She said that it was right for London to have the powers it gained by being exempted from the original deregulation measures because London is so different. I will tell her one way in which London is different: for every £1 in transport investment that we receive in the whole of the north of England, London gets £6. That inequality has existed for many decades. Consequently, people in London have several public transport options. They can use high-quality commuter trains, the tube network, the docklands light railway, regulated buses, and the bike scheme and dedicated cycle lanes. My constituents have no such choice. They are stuck with using the bus if they do not have a car. That is the difference. It is so wrong of the right hon. Lady to say that what is acceptable for her constituents is not right for Opposition Members’ constituents, who are stuck in their cars.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

It is with great pleasure that I close this Second Reading debate. We have had a very good debate about a very good Bill, and it has been fantastic to hear such enthusiasm for buses on both sides of the Chamber. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their keen participation and engagement. It is clear that we all want buses to thrive because of their impact on our local communities.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, the aim of the Bill is to increase bus passenger numbers and to improve services by creating new options and opportunities. It also delivers on our devolution deals so that local authorities and bus operators can work together on a bus strategy that works locally. That is how local authorities can work to cut congestion, support businesses and improve air quality, and it is how operators can increase their patronage. The Bill will build on good practice to make sure that we have an industry that is open and accessible to all.

Many Members—particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West (Chris Green) and for Bath (Ben Howlett), and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown)—welcomed the introduction of a requirement to provide on-board information throughout Great Britain, which will mean that all passengers, particularly disabled passengers, will be able to board a bus with confidence. Many colleagues have said how everybody benefits from that—I completely agree.

[Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

Although, of course, we support this initiative, will the Minister confirm that small rural operators that are struggling to keep costs down and vital lifeline services alive might be exempted from the initial provision of the audio-visual services?

[Andrew Jones]

We will work through the phasing of the introduction of the requirement, but we do not want to hold back from it. There is a slight cost implication for operators, but we think that that will be more than offset by the extra patronage they will secure if people are more able to use the buses. This is a business-generating approach, but we will treat the issues for the smaller operators with great sensitivity. We have taken a very deliberate approach, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will appreciate that it focuses on the information to be provided, not on any particular technology. We hope to consult on how to take this forward later in the year.

Many colleagues have welcomed the provisions on open data, and the Bill will ensure that passengers know how much their fares will cost and at what time to catch their bus. That important aspect of the Bill will benefit passengers right across England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), among others, rightly recognised. Personally, I think that it is one of the most exciting parts of the Bill.

By introducing new advanced ticketing schemes, the Bill ensures that new and existing developments in technology can be accommodated. That will enable multi-operator ticketing schemes to be introduced so that passengers can purchase tickets that will be accepted by different operators across scheme areas, and across different transport modes, such as rail or tram. Many colleagues have highlighted how complex catching buses can be—if multiple tickets need to be bought, for example—and we hope that the ticketing provisions will get rid of that problem.

One of the key proposals in the Bill is the new enhanced partnership. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) recognised, some partnerships are already working very effectively right across our country. That is true—we all know that—but more can be done. Providing the opportunity for improved co-operation between local authorities and bus operators will mean a more integrated transport network for urban and rural communities. Passengers, local communities, local businesses and the environment will benefit from improvements in bus services—from improvements in emission standards through to clearer ticketing options—while operators will be left with their commercial freedoms.

There has been a lot of discussion about bus franchising today. It is clear that there is a variety of views in the House, but I think that there is clear agreement that the existing powers under the quality contract scheme have not worked effectively. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out, our intention is that the Bill will give mayoral combined authorities the automatic choice to use new powers to franchise bus services in their areas. I assure the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside, for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) that areas with directly elected Mayors can decide for themselves whether to take up the franchising powers in the Bill. There is no need for further reference to the Secretary of State.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

As the Minister acknowledges, there is consensus in the House about making sure, as the Bill proceeds, that the powers are workable and effective. One important point is how pension liabilities will be affected if the franchise changes from one operator to another. Will the Minister, either on Report or in writing to interested Members, provide clarification about that?

[Andrew Jones]

I would be very happy to provide clarification. Throughout the development of the policies, we have been looking to protect workers who transfer in that way. We have put that right at the heart of our discussions in policy development, and I am happy to share that information with the hon. Gentleman and any other interested colleague.

Several hon. Members asked about this, so let me confirm once more that the decision about whether a case to proceed with franchising is compelling is entirely for the Mayor. We should perhaps thank the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for sharing the news that he is a mayoral candidate—I do not think anybody knew that until today.

Hon. Members have talked about the guidance for consultations. Some guidance for mayoral combined authorities on establishing a case for franchising has been published, but let me be clear that it is still the Mayor who will take the decision. Our guidance merely aims to assist mayoral combined authorities in establishing a well-evidenced case—that is an important point.

Several colleagues asked what such a case might comprise, so let me add a little detail. We have a number of criteria that we would expect authorities that may be able to apply for franchising powers to demonstrate: that the authority has a clear plan to make bus services better for passengers; that the authority covers an area that is sufficiently wide to make franchising work in practice; that the authority has the powers to make franchising a success, which might mean control over parking or planning policy; that the authority has sufficiently strong governance arrangements in place; and that the authority has the resources and funding to deliver franchising successfully. Those are some of the criteria we will consider when looking, case by case, at which authorities will be able to apply for and secure franchising.

[Mrs Ellman]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Ministers will look on such applications in a positive light, rather than looking at the case made with a view to rejecting it?

[Andrew Jones]

I can confirm that. Our approach will be one of glass half full rather than glass half empty. We are not trying to get in the way of authorities or others that wish to improve their bus services. The whole point of the Bill is to provide a suite of enabling powers so that authorities can do what is right for their area to put more passengers on buses and provide better networks. We will certainly view all conversations positively.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, benefits for passengers will need to be at the heart of any authority’s application for franchising powers. Governance, geography and evidence will be critical if authorities are to apply successfully for franchising status. I do not agree with colleagues, including the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who believe that bus franchising powers should be available to all authorities throughout England automatically.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) recognised the very real risks to investment by bus operators that will be created if franchising powers are made automatically available to all local authorities, and the chilling effect that that might have on operators and bus manufacturers such as Wrightbus. I am aware of the quality of that business’s products. My right hon. Friend made her point clearly, drawing on her experience. I agree with the concerns highlighted, which is one reason why we will seek to reverse the changes made in the other place.

I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West recognised, the Bill requires franchising authorities to consider how, in conducting their procurement process for franchising contracts, they will facilitate the involvement of small and medium-sized operators. We—and, I hope, every directly elected Mayor—want to ensure that such operators thrive if franchising is implemented. We have made that clear in the Bill.

I have been interested to hear the range of views about municipal bus companies. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham South and others who highlighted that those that have survived deliver great services to their passengers. I believe that there are seven municipal bus companies in England, and I saw one for myself yesterday on a visit to Reading. However, on the whole, private sector bus operators have delivered our local bus services for the past 30 years. We want to ensure that we strike the right balance, with commercial operators continuing to innovate and deliver good services for passengers.

The Bill provides local authorities with substantially more opportunities to influence the provision of local bus services in their area, whether through partnerships or franchising, and we are therefore still of the view that commissioning and the provision of services should be kept separate.

Many colleagues asked about rural services. Through franchising and partnership, the Bill will work for every area of the country—urban and rural. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), who is a great champion of rural bus services, that the Bill’s partnership powers allow local authorities to work with operators to improve the co-ordination of services, for example to link bus and rail services more closely. A good example of that is under way in Cornwall, which is already working in partnership with operators to ensure that rural areas have bus links to key shopping or employment centres at the right times of day. That is a positive development, which already uses the powers in the Bill. The local operator has invested in its fleet and increased its profitability and patronage in the area.

Several authorities are also planning bus services alongside community transport services and other types of transport, such as home-to-school or patient transport, so that rural connectivity is maximised. That is the sort of innovation that we need across the country and that we are encouraging through our Total Transport pilot scheme, to which the hon. Member for Nottingham South referred. The Government are a strong supporter of community transport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) was right to highlight clause 19. When routes are withdrawn, such as the 116 that my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire mentioned, we want local authorities to have the information they need to decide whether and how to provide replacement services. That is exactly what clause 19 aims to achieve.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside that bus routes should be designated as assets of community value. As the Government explained in our response to the Select Committee report, that would force operators to continue to operate a service for six months, potentially at huge cost, which could act as a disincentive for operators improving or maintaining services, especially in rural areas.

I should like to challenge the myth, which has been perpetrated in the debate by some colleagues, that bus services were flourishing before deregulation in the 1980s and that the decrease in bus passengers started at deregulation. I have gone back and looked at the data. In the 30 years between 1955 and 1985—30 years prior to deregulation—the number of passenger journeys on local bus services in Great Britain fell on average by 2% a year. Since deregulation, the fall has gradually reduced, at an average of just 0.2% a year. The number of passenger journeys fell from 15.5 billion in 1955 to 5.5 billion in 1985. One thing has been clear in the debate: all hon. Members want that trend reversed and for passenger numbers to increase.

Many colleagues mentioned buses and air quality. I have absolutely no doubt that buses can be a critical ingredient to improving an area’s air quality. As parts of a partnership or franchising area, authorities will be able to specify the emission standards of vehicles. In fact, the Government introduced amendments in the other place to make that clearer. We have supported and will continue to support bus companies with grants to encourage the take-up of low-emission vehicles. Low- emission buses are critical to putting in place good integrated transport systems with low emissions.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned the Traffic Management Act 2004. I agree that congestion is a problem that has an adverse impact on local bus services. However, the Government and I remain to be convinced about the case for giving all authorities the powers to install a raft of new cameras on yellow box junctions or elsewhere. In the past few days, I received a letter from a councillor who said that doing that would be a great idea because it would help with council revenue collection, which was exactly what we did not want to hear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath asked about tourist buses. As far as I am aware, any arrangements that are already in place can continue unchanged, but I will check that and write to him to confirm it.

We have covered many issues, but I am sure that my speech from the Dispatch Box and hon. Members’ comments have touched on only some of the issues that we will cover in Committee, which I look forward to. The Bill enables improvements where they are needed. It has also been clear from the speeches made by colleagues on both sides of the House that they have been thinking about how the new powers in the Bill will be used to improve services in their areas, which is great and exactly what we want.

The bus industry has made huge strides in making the experience of bus travel more attractive. Many buses have free wi-fi, as well as CCTV and USB charging points. The vast majority of buses are now accessible.

Last year, more than 4.65 billion bus passenger journeys were taken in this country, which was three times as many journeys as on the entire rail network. Buses are as relevant now as they have ever been. I see them playing a very important part in all our transport futures. All good public transport systems will have buses at their heart. There is no shortage of energy, effort and investment in the sector to support a growing bus industry. The purpose of the Bill is to continue that great work to the benefit of bus passengers, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

BUS SERVICES BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Bus Services Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 21 March 2017.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Andrew Griffiths.)

Question agreed to.

BUS SERVICES BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bus Services Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Andrew Griffiths.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (7 March)

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Tuesday 7 March, the following shall apply to proceedings on the motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority and on the motion in the name of Mr David Lidington relating to Standing Orders (Public Business)—

(1) proceedings on each motion may be entered upon at any hour and may continue, though opposed, for one hour;

(2) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of each motion not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on that motion;

(3) such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and

(4) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Michael Ellis.)

Use of Welsh Language in Parliamentary Proceedings

Resolved,

That this House—

(1) notes the Fourth Report of the Procedure Committee, HC 816, on Use of the Welsh language in the Welsh Grand Committee at Westminster, which builds on more than twenty years of use of the Welsh language in parliamentary proceedings in Wales and at Westminster;

(2) resolves that:—

(a) whilst English is and should remain the language of this House, the use of Welsh be permitted in parliamentary proceedings of Select Committees and of the Welsh Grand Committee held in Wales and at Westminster;

(b) reasonable notice, as determined by the Chair of the relevant committee, shall be given in advance of any proposed use of the Welsh language so as to allow the necessary arrangements to be made;

(c) the Chair shall have power to insist that points of order are made in English; and

(d) the Official Report shall record contributions made in the Welsh language together with their English translation; and

(3) accordingly rescinds the Resolution of 5 June 1996 (Language of Parliamentary Proceedings).—(Michael Ellis.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the level of transport modal integration in the north of England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

The Government have strongly supported the north of England’s local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to come together to form Transport for the North. We have committed £50 million to Transport for the North to produce a comprehensive transport strategy covering all modes of transport in an integrated manner to support delivery of the wider northern powerhouse strategy.

[Mike Kane]

The Institute for Public Policy Research North report this week revealed that London gets £1,500 more transport spend per head than the north. For the cost of one Crossrail project we could connect the four major cities of the powerhouse and the four existing runways, utilising the spare capacity, adding £100 billion to the economy and creating 850,000 new jobs. Does the Minister agree with the report?

[Andrew Jones]

I am aware of the report, and we await the recommendations from Transport for the North on northern powerhouse rail, but the point about the report is that it offers a snapshot of where we are at the moment. It reflects where individual projects are in development and delivery. The situation will look extremely different in a few years.

[Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that a 21% cut, on top of existing cuts, to the mode shift revenue support grant will have a devastating effect on the rail freight sector in the north of England and could lead overall to up to 190,000 extra lorry journeys every year? Surely this is taking things in absolutely the wrong direction. Will he undertake to reverse the cuts?

[Andrew Jones]

I hear the right hon. Lady’s comments. Our policy is to get more freight on to the railways. One of the points of HS2 is to free up capacity on the existing network for more freight. I will relay her points about the mode shift revenue support grant to the rail Minister.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Government have said that one of the benefits of HS2 will be how well it links into, and integrates with, other forms of transport. Why, then, in the alternatives for HS2’s route through Sheffield and south Yorkshire is there no reference to how HS2 connects to HS3?

[Andrew Jones]

Northern powerhouse rail is being developed with the platform of HS2 being delivered—we are looking potentially to use parts of the HS2 network for northern powerhouse rail—but the final decisions on the routes through south Yorkshire have not been made. This is a live consultation, running until 9 March, and I ask that the hon. Gentleman participate in it.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

4. When HS2 Ltd plans to produce a route management improvement and safety plan for the A4010.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

HS2 Ltd anticipates that draft route management improvement and safety plans, including that for Buckinghamshire covering the A4010, will be available for discussion and consultation with highway authorities in March.

[Mr Baker]

That is great news. I am glad that the people of Wycombe, Aylesbury and Buckingham will have an opportunity to scrutinise this essential emergency route. Will my hon. Friend take steps to enhance the safety of the route?

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Safety is critical as we go into the delivery phase of HS2. As a result of the petitioning process, the Secretary of State has committed to contributing £480,000 for permanent safety measures along the A4010 and A4129 in Buckinghamshire. The Government have also created a £30 million road safety fund for HS2, the details of which we will be announcing very shortly.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to reduce harmful emissions from road transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

12. When he plans to publish the Government’s cycling and walking investment strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

We will publish the strategy shortly, but I am not able to specify a precise date yet.

[Margaret Greenwood]

The Wirral Way in my constituency is a beautiful path that is popular with cyclists and walkers for the expansive views it gives over the Dee estuary, and, of course, the fresh air it affords and the internationally renowned bird life. The Government have committed more than £15 billion over five years for their roads investment strategy, but just £316 million for their draft cycling and walking investment strategy. What more will the Government do to increase cycling and walking in the United Kingdom?

[Andrew Jones]

We will publish our strategy shortly, but let me correct the hon. Lady. We are spending approximately 2% of the Department’s total budget in this Parliament on cycling, which amounts to just under £1 billion out of a total budget of around £50 billion. We want to make cycling and walking the default choice for shorter journeys, and I recognise all the hon. Lady’s points about the very pleasant area that she represents.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

That was an extraordinary answer from the Minister because at Transport questions six weeks ago, the Secretary of State told us that we would not have long to wait for CWIS, but it is almost a year since the consultation was launched. The Department seems to have a problem with lateness: the Bus Services Bill—late; CWIS—late; taxi regulation—who knows?; and private parking measures—more than a year late. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many people in the Department are working on CWIS and give us a firm date—or is it just the Department being late?

[Andrew Jones]

That question did not quite capture the hon. Gentleman’s customary generosity at the Dispatch Box. It is clearly a load of nonsense. The Government are investing more in transport than any other Government in British history. Publication of the strategy is slightly delayed because so many people have responded to the consultation, which we will go through very shortly. The strategy is near publication and I will let the hon. Gentleman know exactly when we will publish it shortly.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to ensure that disabled passengers have equality of access to rail services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

16. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of taxi and private hire vehicle regulation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

At the request of the Department for Transport, the Law Commission conducted a comprehensive review of taxi and private hire regulation in England and Wales. The Government are currently considering all the recommendations in the report, against the background of a rapidly changing industry. We will formally respond to the Law Commission and announce our intentions once that scrutiny is completed.

[Alex Cunningham]

That is useful. However, I share Stockton Borough Council’s concern at the fact that a taxi driver whose licence had been revoked following inappropriate conduct with young female passengers was able to go on working for the same company, driving a minibus. There are countless other examples, including examples of sex offenders doing likewise with public service vehicle licences. When will the Government actually do something, and change the law to close this loophole?

[Andrew Jones]

Loopholes are, of course being closed, and we are working with the Home Office on the issue, but it is critically important and has, I think, united the House before. We can have a further conversation about it outside the Chamber.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The theme continues. Last month, two taxi drivers in Southend who had been stripped of their licences by the council were found to be working in the town once again, having simply gone to another authority to obtain licences. The Conservative councillor responsible for such matters has been quoted as saying that the loophole has left the council

“impotent to protect the public.”

Does the Minister think it reasonable for the council to be left “impotent”? When will the Government actually take some action?

[Andrew Jones]

In fact, we are strengthening the law in this area. The Government tabled an amendment to the Bill that became the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to allow the issuing of statutory guidance to licensing authorities. That is obviously work in progress. This is a critical issue which is taken seriously by the Department and also by the Home Office, and action is clearly being taken.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

18. What steps his Department is taking to improve the road system in east England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

T4. In the light of this morning’s release from the Government, what guarantee can the Minister give us that any savings resulting from reducing pay-outs to innocent victims of motor traffic accidents will be passed on to drivers?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

We are working hard to ensure that the benefits of technology and improvements in road safety are passed on to drivers through motor insurance premiums. We are working particularly with younger drivers, and a research programme on this is under way. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with details of the work we are undertaking.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I am sure the whole House will be disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) was unable to ask about space flight, so will my right hon. Friend the Minister please set out what steps he is taking to ensure that the UK becomes the world leader in commercial space flight?

High Speed 2 (Newton)

Andrew Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) on securing this end-of-day debate on high speed rail. I apologise for being a bit croaky, but I will get through the next quarter of an hour.

Through programmes such as HS2, the Government are investing in world-class infrastructure to ensure that the UK can seize opportunities and compete on the global stage. I believe that HS2 is a great project. It will increase capacity on our congested railways for both passengers and freight. It will also improve connections between our biggest cities and regions, and generate jobs, skills and economic growth, helping us to build an economy that works right across our country. Even those who never travel by train stand to benefit from having fewer lorries on the roads and from the thousands of local jobs and apprenticeships created by HS2, with 2,000 new apprenticeships, 25,000 private sector jobs involved in building the railway, and 3,000 jobs involved in operated it once it opens. It has been estimated that 100,000 new jobs will be created by HS2, 70% of which will be outside London. That will provide a massive boost to employment in our country.

The route to South Yorkshire has not yet been decided. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Meadowhall option was still open—it is. We have not made a decision. We are consulting on that matter, and the consultation closes on 9 March. We will then review the submissions before making any final decisions. The original 2013 consultation proposed serving South Yorkshire with a route along the Rother valley and a new HS2 station at Meadowhall, which is about 6 km from Sheffield city centre. Since that consultation, opinion among local people about the best location for a station has been divided. Indeed, that is clearly an understatement. This has made the decision about how HS2 can best serve the region very challenging, and the factors surrounding the decision are finely balanced. I have met colleagues and residents from South Yorkshire, and I will continue to do so.

In addition, there have been a number of new developments since 2013, including the northern powerhouse aspiration for fast and frequent rail services between city centres right across the north. In the light of these developments and the feedback received in response to the 2013 consultation, HS2 Ltd continued to consider a range of options for how HS2 can best serve South Yorkshire while maintaining the integrity of the service to the larger markets right across the north of England. As a result of this work, Sir David Higgins recommended that the main north-south route should follow a more easterly alignment over some 70 km between Derbyshire and West Yorkshire, which we refer to as the M18 route. He also said that a 9.4 km southern spur at Stonebroom could be built off the HS2 mainline, enabling HS2 trains to run into Sheffield city centre along the existing rail network. That spur would pass close to Newton.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Erewash Valley line. It has been considered, but it was deemed unsuitable for high-speed trains. The line lies within a floodplain and would require elevating via a viaduct, and we would have to divert all the line’s existing usage on to some other rail facility.

[Mr Skinner]

This is vital to the meeting that we will have with the Secretary of State. The Minister said that the Erewash line could not or will not be considered, but the truth is that HS2 goes to Toton and then proceeds to Meadowhall. Under the present arrangements, the spur line would go through Newton and clean out at least 30 houses. Does the Minister realise what he is saying? He thinks that South Yorkshire can be dealt with, but 30 properties in Newton will be demolished purely because the Government do not have the wherewithal to deal with the Erewash line, which has traffic on it now.

[Andrew Jones]

No, I am saying that the Erewash line has been considered but that no final decision has yet been made. We are still reviewing all the options, as has been made clear in all debates. The consultation is live and will run until 9 March. I will come on to talk about Newton in just a moment.

The approach put forward by Sir David Higgins would allow HS2 trains to serve Chesterfield directly, which would have further benefits to neighbouring parts of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Sir David also identified the potential to create a connection back on to the HS2 mainline north of Sheffield, creating a loop rather than a spur, and enabling services stopping at Sheffield midland to continue to destinations further north. The proposed M18 route has additional benefits in that it affects fewer properties and will generate less noise pollution than the Meadowhall alternative. It is also less congested, avoiding businesses and the risk from the legacy of mining.

The hon. Gentleman has forwarded letters from his constituents in which they express concerns about the impact of the proposed new route on their communities. Today he highlighted the issues facing the community in Newton, where people have raised concerns about the impact of the proposed M18 route on property value, compensation, noise and other pollution, and disruption due to construction traffic. He mentioned the matter at Transport questions today, and I agree that it is important to meet local residents. I have met many, as has the Secretary of State, and we will continue to do so. The Government consider that it is really important to listen to residents’ concerns about the proposed HS2 route. That is why HS2 Ltd has engaged closely, and continues to engage, with the people of South Yorkshire to understand and address their concerns. Public meetings are taking place. The current phase 2b route refinement consultation is addressing the issues raised directly by local residents, including the location of depots, where tunnels and viaducts should be built, the height of infrastructure and property impacts.

In the other stages in the development of the project, we have seen that refinements have followed the consultations, so these consultations are genuine and open, and changes are being made as a result of them. This consultation exercise closes on 9 March. HS2 Ltd has run some 30 information events along the line of route at which residents and stakeholders have been able to ask questions and get information about the project. The events have been widely attended by residents, as well as engineers, environmental consultants and property experts. The entire HS2 programme has benefited from close engagement with communities all the way along the line of route. I hope that I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government and HS2 Ltd are listening.

[Mr Skinner]

It is not a question of listening. I do not think that the Minister really understands that the small village of Newton will be decimated as a result of Higgins’s decision. I want to know not only whether there will be consultations, but whether the Minister has the power to sack Higgins for coming up with this preposterous idea of a branch line that will result in Newton being wrecked.

[Andrew Jones]

I am not going to agree that people should be sacked for coming up with ideas, which is clearly not a sensible way forward in any kind of policy development.

I am aware of how challenging the situation is for communities all along the line of route, which is why my colleagues and I have met those communities. I emphasise that we recognise and sympathise with the difficult position in which those communities find themselves. Five residential properties in Newton and a further seven commercial properties at Tibshelf are potentially on the direct line of route.

We have tried to design the HS2 railway to minimise the effect on residents and businesses along the line of route, but it is impossible to build such a large piece of infrastructure without some impacts. The construction and operation of any major infrastructure project has the potential to cause substantial changes to the surrounding neighbourhoods and environments, and it is not only the impact of the line; there are also impacts such as dust, noise and road diversions during the construction phase.

Whenever the effect on property is considered, I am acutely aware that we are not just dealing with a financial investment, as people invest much more than money in creating a home, and a home is not something that one should ever take away from a person lightly. I have full sympathy with and respect for the communities along the line of route.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

As I said earlier, I have constituents who are not covered by the compensation formula. As a result, they will lose the value of their homes. What discussions has the Minister had with the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill? Has he taken on board any suggestions? Has he had any discussion about this?

[Andrew Jones]

I have met many colleagues, including members of the Select Committee.

HS2 Ltd is liaising with communities. I fully recognise all the complications and challenges that people face, and I fully understand that the blight, the concern and the anxiety are very difficult. HS2 Ltd is committed to working closely with authorities and communities to draw up a comprehensive and detailed package of measures to address the local impacts of construction, including hours of construction activity. It has provided information on its plans to mitigate noise and other environmental issues, and that information is all available on the HS2 Ltd website. Examples of mitigation could include environmental interventions such as the planting of trees, hedgerows and shrubs, the creation of landscape earthworks and so on.

HS2 Ltd has also provided, and continues to provide, information on property compensation schemes to affected residents. It has written letters to directly affected residents informing them of the specific impacts on their property and of their available options. Those options include a “need to sell” scheme, under which applicants are required to demonstrate that they have a compelling reason to sell their property, but that they have been unable to do so—other than at a substantially reduced price—as a direct result of the announcement of HS2. If an application is accepted, the Government will buy the applicant’s property at its full unblighted market value.

HS2 is recognised as a controversial project that has divided opinions in many communities, but the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 was passed by both Houses with huge majorities. On HS2 we have run the largest public consultation in British Government history. Throughout the lifetime of the scheme, we have sought to listen to communities and to take on board their comments and concerns at every stage—that will continue. We will certainly continue it with the hon. Gentleman and the residents he represents.

HS2 is already having an impact. Local authorities and local enterprise partnerships are gearing up for HS2 and developing growth strategies, supported by UK Government growth strategy funding, to maximise the benefits of HS2 in their areas. Regions can start to benefit from HS2 long before it is built simply by starting to work on their long-term plans for regeneration and development to bring in investment and businesses. I have met council leaders in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, all of whom have highlighted how this will be a fantastic boost for their cities and regions, with opportunities flowing from it. HS2 Ltd is working with businesses across the UK, including many small and medium-sized firms, to ensure they are well prepared to bid for contracts and reap the benefits. We have held a supply roadshow, and I spoke at our event in Aberdeen, which is a long way from the line of route. However, the point is that many businesses in that area have high levels of skills in steel platform construction and other engineering, and I wanted to say, “Right, this is a project from the UK for the UK. We want you to participate. There is business going.”

The point remains that HS2 is going ahead—Royal Assent was given just today—so we must recognise that the next questions are about how we minimise the disruption during the build and how we maximise the opportunities it presents, while working very hard to resolve the outstanding questions and to treat all the residents affected with the dignity, transparency and courtesy that they demand. HS2 is not simply about improving transport; it is about building a much better infrastructure network right across our country, and creating from that an economic legacy fit for future generations.

Question put and agreed to.