Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andy Burnham and Huw Merriman

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Like the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), I was a member of the Bill Committee, and was pleased to contribute to what was, as the hon. Gentleman said, a consensual discussion. It was very well piloted by the Minister, to whom I was grateful for sending a Double Decker chocolate bar through the internal mail. Sadly, owing to the internal mail system, it looked more like a bendy bus by the time it was opened, but I was grateful none the less.

There is much in new clause 1 that is attractive, but I think that, given the improved local data requirements in the Bill, it should be perfectly possible to fix the strategy on a local basis rather than needing some form of Government top-down approach. The essential aim of the Bill is surely to bring about more localism.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) made the important point that a national strategy, or consistency, would really help disabled people, who may travel to a different part of the country and not know what to expect from the public transport system. Can the hon. Gentleman not see that basic minimum standards for disability access or ticketing, for instance, would be very helpful to those who travel across the country using different public transport systems?

[Huw Merriman]

I can certainly see the attraction of that, but I also think there is a danger that if local authorities think that Government will deliver the strategy, they might then not put anything in place themselves.

Another mechanism in the Bill will make it easier for local authorities to get more involved in the actual policy of how the Bill is implemented and how partnership should operate. Rather than talking of a national strategy, I would state that the Bill has some excellent points that should assist strategy at a local level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

Thank you. I have no desire to talk on other proposed measures.

On new clause 1, I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), and see the advantages of this scheme. I serve a rural constituency where it is incredibly difficult for young people in particular to travel by bus. I would also extend his point: in my view, this relates to our desire to increase social mobility. If our young people cannot access work, perhaps at weekends, because it is too far for them to travel, and they cannot afford motor insurance premiums—which we all know, and have debated, are incredibly expensive—then there is something to be said for the argument about lack of social mobility. I am therefore attracted to the idea that this should be looked at.

We on the Conservative Benches would point out that we need to make sure that we cost those measures up, however, and that is the matter that would give me concern. If we increase the national debt through policies such as this one, that will have a negative impact on young people, because it is they and future generations that will have to repay it.

Perhaps we could consider the overall cost of concessionary travel, and whether it is time for concessionary travel, perhaps for the over-65s, to be given only to those who cannot afford it. We would therefore be looking more at means testing than giving concessionary travel to those who can well afford it and perhaps would therefore like to share that benefit with 16 to 19-year-olds, who, after all, we are requiring to stay in education and training and so need some assistance.

[Andy Burnham]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it may not be necessary to throw money at this? The powers in this Bill could be used cleverly to extract value. For instance, if longer-term franchises were given to the bus operators on condition that they could give free travel to 16 to 18-year-olds, they might then become more regular bus users in their 20s, in which case the bus operators would capture the upside of that. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that this could be done cleverly if more areas were given the ability to use these powers?

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andy Burnham and Huw Merriman

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

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

I should like to thank Madam Deputy Speaker for allowing me to pop out for 15 minutes to lobby for more funds for my schools. Let us hope it was worth while. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and to get an angle on the environmental impacts of the Bill. It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and I wish him well with his forthcoming election campaign. I note that other candidates are available.

I do not wish to prolong the Manchester versus London debate, but it was noteworthy that we heard comparisons between London and Manchester during the Transport Committee evidence session on the Bill. I remember one of the partners from KPMG saying that there should not be a tendency to think that what works in London will work well in Manchester, and that there were differences between the two cities, not least the reduced subsidy in London and the lack of congestion charging in Manchester, which I believe Manchester will have to deal with. It was also pointed out that Manchester had a smaller market in that respect. That was an interesting debate, although I do not wish to encourage it to take place again here.

I want to talk about the three forms of organisation that deliver bus services to the country: partnerships, franchising and municipals. In so doing, I also want to welcome the Bill. I hope that it will shake up the system and deliver more innovation and more entrants into the bus market. It struck me and other members of the Committee that the big five bus operators deal with 70% of the market, and that when we asked them to give us examples of where they were competing with each other, as they had told us they did a great deal, they struggled to give any. Anything that shakes them through the system will be no bad thing.

I want to talk first about partnerships. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) spoke highly of the Nottingham municipal, and I certainly would not wish to take away the awards that that company has won, but I would like to put in a plug for the Brighton & Hove bus company, which provides the service near me. I spent two happy hours in its depot talking to the team. It is a partnership and a private operator, and it has delivered 5% passenger growth year on year since 2003. It has been remarkably successful, working in partnership with its local authority. It already has a ticketing system in which it reimburses a competitor in the region; it already has that shared system. When I talked to members of the team about the benefits of audio-visual provision, they seemed a bit surprised because they already have it on their entire fleet. Their fleet is also incredibly green. I should like to advance that company as a good example of a partnership operator working incredibly well. I therefore welcome the extension of local transport authority powers beyond infrastructure and towards allowing authorities to market bus services and provide information and ticketing concepts. I believe that that will be a good move.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fair point. In my constituency, a smaller operator has been in operation since deregulation. Jim Stones Coaches is renowned for providing an excellent service to the community; it is a very community-focused company. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the big players have often not shown the same levels of responsiveness to their local community and the same levels of innovation, and that they now need to take a long, hard look at themselves and really start to deliver for the public?

[Huw Merriman]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps for too long we have had the same players serving the same routes, and I think that the system needs shaking up. I believe that the Bill will do just that.

I was slightly concerned by attempts in the other place to make the powers that could be brought in through advanced quality partnerships a prescriptive matter. If we make it prescriptive, there is a danger that we will take the innovation out of local transport authorities. Indeed, if no further funds are going to those authorities, telling them how they should operate seems to be contrary to the kind of innovation that we are trying to put in place. Equally, while I welcome the consultation that will be required by local authorities for advanced quality partnerships, there is a danger that this requirement could place too heavy a burden on the authorities, resulting in nothing at all occurring. That certainly applies to consultation of a bus operator’s employees, which made no sense to me from a local authority perspective.

I also welcome the introduction of enhanced partnerships, which are a bit of a halfway house between advanced quality partnerships and franchising. They cover a wider geographic service area but have powers over timetabling and frequency and can set improvement objectives and analyse performance. The drawback in the Bill as it stands is that the introduction of an enhanced partnership requires a sufficient number of bus operators in the scheme not to object. Such a veto may mean that enhanced partnerships are unlikely to occur at all. Perhaps we need more checks and balances for bus operators, rather than giving them the power of veto. If I have misunderstood that, I would welcome a clarification.

Moving on to franchising, I was struck that the powers are limited to mayoral combined authorities, but it was noted somewhere in the policy documentation that they were deemed to be sufficiently democratically accountable. That may be a concern for my constituents in East Sussex, who are going to the polls in May and would hope that the council is democratically accountable. However, I take the point that our current system of county councils and district councils does not have the same clarity of power making and accountability as a mayoral combined authority.

[Huw Merriman]

I agree. There is some power in the argument for more unitary authorities and for legislative incentives to encourage authorities to get together to form a unitary authority. In a way, the Bill may provide that incentive, because I note that Cornwall Council has automatic franchising powers should it wish to use them, but it does not have a directly elected mayor because it is a unitary authority. That may be an incentive for other local authorities to combine. In what is a bit of a sword of Damocles argument, Cornwall is not actually going to go down the franchising route, but we heard evidence from Cornwall Council and the feeling was that just having that power perhaps got the council a better deal through a partnership and that it is happy to persevere for the time being.

While the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to grant franchising powers to authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities, I note that four factors must be met before that can occur. Cornwall might say that it could meet them, but I can understand the concern that the power will go no further than authorities that have an elected mayor. The Lords sought to widen franchising to all authorities that want it, but I note that no quality contract schemes have been put in place since 2000. Some areas has attempted to do so but have struggled—Tyne and Wear is a recent example—but the very fact that none has made it leads me to suggest that we are in danger of asking for wider franchising powers for authorities that would not want to take them up. Franchising can also be high risk for local transport authorities due to negotiating powers and back-office requirements. I certainly hope that we do not end up with the bigger players taking advantage of better lawyers and accountants to give them better terms, with town halls suffering as a result.

Turning to municipals, I note that proposed new section 123O under clause 4 states that LTAs can be an operator of last resort when a service provider ceases to deliver a service for the remainder of its contract. In that sense, the direction of travel is to allow LTAs to step in, yet the Bill prohibits municipals at the same time. Part of me feels that, when we consider devolution and localism, a closer look at what municipals can do would be welcome. That said, I am conscious that local authorities should be enablers, rather than providers, and that municipals should perhaps be more of a last resort.

[Andy Burnham]

Can the hon. Gentleman see that, as a fall-back option, it would help a combined authority that is going through the process of franchising? Having an operator of last resort would focus the minds of those bidding for a tender, would it not? It would strengthen the negotiating hand of the public sector over the private sector. For that reason alone, does he see the benefit of that option? Without necessarily wanting to use it, the existence of the option would improve the negotiating position of the public sector.

[Huw Merriman]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), will recall, my preference was for a hierarchy that starts with all authorities being required to go down the partnership route. If that route does not succeed, authorities would then move to bringing in franchising. If that does not succeed, municipals would be there as a last resort.

I have spoken about how Cornwall is delivering a good partnership and how its sword of Damocles is therefore not required. Having made that point, it would be difficult for me to contradict the right hon. Gentleman, even though I am sure his suggestion will not always find favour with Conservative Members. I am alive to the fact that, in the other place, Lord Ahmad talked about keeping the eight remaining municipal providers and wanting to see them continue to thrive. He said that it is perhaps an area for discussion and further debate, which is what we have just had.

Finally, I will address some of the Bill’s other provisions and some of the amendments made in the other place. As the Select Committee report mentions, new powers for partnerships to control moving traffic offences, as currently exist in London, are well worth considering. I also take the point about compulsory concessionary travel schemes for 16 to 19-year-olds. I am not sure where Opposition Front Benchers got to with their policy but, in all fairness, given that we require young people to stay at school or in some form of training to the age of 18 and that over-65s are able to get a free concessionary bus pass without means-testing, such a policy would support our young people, if funding were available. The Select Committee heard yesterday that young people facing crippling insurance costs are unable to drive and are therefore unable to get around.

I also warmly welcome the move to get open data into the system. Open data are vital for getting new entrants into the market, opening it beyond the big five. There has been talk of turning bus routes into assets of community value, in the same way that pubs can be. If open data are in place, with any bus company having the ability to apply for a route, perhaps there is no need to keep the notice period open for six months because the information will already be there. I also welcome the improved ticketing schemes. Having audio-visual media on all buses is hugely welcome and is a good example of how the Government have taken a lobbying proposal one stage further to deliver an enhanced deal.

Overall, I absolutely welcome the Bill, which will shake up the industry. I hope some of my suggestions will also be thrown into the mix. I wish the Bill well in its passage.