Regional Flags: Driving Licences and Number Plates

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Nuttall. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on initiating the debate. In the light of the Prime Minister’s decision to invoke article 50 last month, and ahead of the general election in June, it is right that we discuss in this place the many and varied ramifications of leaving the European Union, from the big issues right down to what some might see as the finer detail about the symbols that appear on our driving licences and number plates. Detail it may be, but it is important nevertheless, because symbols matter. The questions of who we are as a society and as a country and who we identify with are at the heart of the decision taken last June, so the significance of these issues should not be underestimated. I still carry my “Sack Boris” Oyster card holder from previous London mayoral contests, partly because its message is timeless, but also because it makes a small statement. Doubtless others could cite similar examples.

On the issue of number plates and driving licences, as things stand, the United Kingdom is still a member of the European Union, and as such we operate within the body of EU legislation to which we have agreed. Accordingly, it is clear that we are not at the moment in a position to introduce regional flags on driving licences and number plates, because only the use of national symbols is permitted. With regard to number plates, the relevant legislation is regulation 16 of the Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001. That allows the display of

“the international distinguishing sign of the United Kingdom”.

Although it was not until April 2009 that the UK Government introduced regulations to permit the display of national symbols, we now see number plates bearing not just the Union flag, but, as we have heard, the cross of St George, the saltire and the red dragon of Wales, as well as letters denoting the UK or one of the individual nations that form the Union.

The EU legislation relating to photocard driving licences is set out in annex I to the third driving licence directive and came into force in January 2013. It states:

“After consulting the Commission, Member States may add colours or markings, such as bar codes and national symbols”.

Since July 2015, all photocard licences issued in England, Scotland and Wales have carried the Union flag alongside the EU flag. However, unlike with vehicle registration plates, symbols of individual nations within the UK are not permitted on driving licences. That has led to some consternation in certain areas of the country; in fact, I am reliably informed that it has even spawned a thriving cottage industry in very small stickers of saltires and Welsh dragons for those who wish to accessorise their driving licence. It does seem inconsistent that number plates are permitted to bear a number of symbols of the various nations that make up the United Kingdom, whereas driving licences are allowed to bear only the Union flag.

The responsibility for deciding which national symbols are put on UK driving licences rests with the Secretary of State for Transport, except in Northern Ireland, where that power has been transferred to the Department of the Environment. As the EU directive does not explicate what constitutes a national symbol, the Secretary of State has to determine what, if any, national symbol they would like to introduce, and consult the EU Commission. That is perhaps the crux of this discussion— what constitutes a nation? That is a very big question indeed and one that, as we know, can both inspire and divide and so has to be handled with care and discretion.

Of course, the party of nations and English regions is Labour, unlike the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, who tore asunder our regional structures in the last Parliament—an act of vandalism that Vince Cable famously described as “Maoist”. In the spirit of supporting thriving and healthy regions, I happily endorse the notion of regional symbols, but I gently say to the Minister—

[Sir Greg Knight]

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how far he would go in deregulating in this area if he was in office? For example, would he go beyond regional symbols and allow other symbols, such as a motif or artwork used by a sports club or local car club?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have to say that our detailed policy discussions in the run-up to the general election have not extended to that level of detail so far. It is an interesting suggestion that I will happily consider in the future, but for the moment I will concentrate on regional symbols. The point I was about to make to the Minister is that symbols are important, but if one is to have a symbol for a region, there needs to be a region first; I suggest that that is where we ought to head back to. However, that is possibly a bigger debate for another day.

I conclude by giving an assurance that a Labour Government will bring the policies on number plates and driving licences into line with one another so that, if nothing else, we have consistency. If that helps to build community, solidarity and a positive sense of identity in our nations and regions, that can only be a good thing.

Diesel Vehicle Scrappage Scheme

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for securing this important debate. Having read some of the minutes of his Committee, I can tell that he gives Ministers a hard time—he is exactly the kind of friend any ministerial team needs.

This is a very timely debate, although I have to say that I think it is the first debate in which we have heard only male voices in my short time in this place. I am not quite sure what that tells us, but clearly women and children are among the 40,000 people who, as the Royal College of Physicians tells us, suffer premature death in the UK every year because of these issues. To take one local example, Brixton Road in south London breached its annual air pollution limit for 2017 after just five days. The Government’s continued failure to address the problem meant that they were taken to the Supreme Court.

Labour recognises the need for action. In our view, clean air is a right, not a privilege. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for the work he is doing on the Clean Air Bill and I note his powerful point about the role that manufacturers should be playing in sorting out some of the problems.

We heard a powerful speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), which was fitting, as he is a former esteemed Transport Minister. He made a wide-ranging set of points. I very much agree about the need to protect hard-working people who need their vehicles to get to work, and his strong plea for robust evidence in the debate.

There is no denying that diesel vehicles account for a large percentage of NOx emissions. A 2016 DEFRA report stated that road transport still accounted for 34% of UK nitrogen oxide emissions in 2015. The European Commission reported in 2016 that around four fifths of road traffic nitrogen oxide levels come from diesel-powered vehicles. Decisions have been taken in the past to incentivise the ownership of diesel-fuelled private cars, which reflected the urgent need at the time to act on the threat of CO₂. That worked, because that is now down more than a third since 2000.

This is not just about private cars, as we have heard: buses, coaches, taxis and minicabs are all high-mileage vehicles that operate within our towns and cities. Just looking at diesel private cars in isolation is therefore not the complete answer to the problem we face. It has to be seen in the context of the move to a greener and more efficient public transport system across the UK, which means removing barriers to the uptake of electric vehicles and rethinking vehicle excise duty. Any diesel policy must take clear account of the impact it could have on CO₂ emissions, and it must avoid severely penalising the almost 12 million diesel car owners who, as we have heard, bought their vehicles in good faith.

It is clear that scrappage schemes can work. Labour’s scheme, introduced in 2009, shows that they can impact consumer behaviour, but the circumstances now are different. It is not about stimulating the economy following a global downturn, but about taking the most air-polluting vehicles off our roads. Any scrappage scheme must be shown to achieve value for money, and it must be targeted at the right drivers.

A recent Royal Automobile Club Foundation report sounds a warning note about that. It suggests that the cost of implementing a scheme could be expensive and may not automatically achieve the expected benefits. Targeting older diesel vehicles in the bands known as Euro 1, 2, and 3 could take 400,000 cars off UK roads, costing the Government and industry a combined £800 million, but that would cut the total emissions of diesel cars by only 3.2%, and only if all those drivers elected for an electric vehicle replacement. The percentage drops to 1.3% if the drivers opted for the newer Euro 6 models. The findings show that creating a robust scrappage scheme is far from simple. It is not necessarily about how dirty a vehicle is or how many there are, but about how many miles they do and where they do them. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made a very strong point when he suggested that any such scheme should focus on cities, and I think the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton agreed with that point.

Have the Government considered the RAC Foundation findings? Has the Minister considered the Mayor of London’s proposals for a targeted scheme that supports low-income families? Without targeting the right drivers operating in crisis areas, a scrappage scheme risks having a limited impact. It is therefore absolutely essential that the Government publish robust environmental evidence and a cost-benefit analysis for any proposal.

Scrappage schemes are only one of the measures that need to be taken if we are really to tackle the air quality crisis effectively. Not only are we awaiting the Government’s third attempt at producing an air-quality plan following a judicial review, which should happen imminently, but I am afraid that they are more than 1.5 million vehicles short of their 1.6 million 2020 target for electric hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles. They are also going backwards on the 2020 renewable transport fuel targets. In our discussions on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, Labour pressed for strong action on reviewing the plug-in grant and charging point schemes, both of which were cut by the Government, for licensing and accreditation for technicians—both proposals were backed by the Institute of the Motor Industry—and for a clear review of vehicle excise duty, which was backed by the RAC Foundation, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and many other motor and active travel organisations.

As someone who has spent much of my time in Parliament talking about buses, I know that there are huge opportunities to improve the environmental performance of our bus fleets. As was pointed out, in some areas they are ageing and very polluting. It was disappointing that the Government did not take up some of the Opposition’s constructive proposals on the Bus Services Bill. I urge them to think about that further. There is an opportunity to create a greener bus network, so I ask the Minister to assure us that analysis will be done to look at how we can make better use of the Bus Services Bill to improve our fleet’s environmental performance.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee told us last year that only five of the 12 worst-polluted cities have been given the ability to charge to enter clean-air zones. Will the Government also look at extending the network of clean-air zones, which Labour committed to in 2015?

The Government have some serious questions to answer about air quality. We believe that to breathe clean air is a right, and the health, environmental and economic case for acting is overwhelming. Action on diesel is part of the solution, but measures must be cost-effective and targeted actively enough to affect the high-mileage vehicles that operate in our towns and cities. That means investing in greener buses and public transport, reviewing the plug-in grants and excise duty rates for electric vehicles, reducing other barriers to electric vehicle uptake and extending clean-air zones to more local authorities. One way of rising to these challenges is to back the London Mayor’s call for a new clean air Act that is fit for the 21st century. That would send a powerful message to everyone that clean air is not a privilege but a right. A YouGov survey shows that two thirds of the public support that.

As we eagerly await what must only be an exhaustive and robust air-quality strategy—at the third attempt—I hope the Minister considers his response. The truth is that we can no longer hold our breath while we wait.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

The charge is £2.50 for the data. It is basically set on a cost-recovery basis. It is not possible to predict entirely accurately how many claims there will be during the financial year; some years there could be a small deficit, some years a small surplus. As I undertook to do in the debate last week, I will put all the data in a letter in the House of Commons Library.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

We have heard about the Westminster Hall debate last week and we have heard complaints from Members across the country about the practices of cowboy parking operators. Extraordinarily, in that debate the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) revealed hitherto undiscovered socialist tendencies by demanding that the Government act and introduce regulation. These cowboy operators need DVLA data to fleece their victims. How many operators have been struck off for poor practice? After years of dithering on this, when are the Government going to step in to protect innocent motorists?

[Andrew Jones]

There were a few points there. I shall relay to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) his socialist tendencies, which will be a surprise to him. The answer on suspensions is 18, and I cannot answer for the DCLG on when it will respond to the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s long-established campaigning interest in road safety, and I would just refer back to the earlier answer: we have well-established collision investigation units within the police service, so I see no point in duplication.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Collisions have a range of causes, but one of them is undoubtedly the poor condition of our local roads. The Minister will be aware of the ALARM—annual local authority road maintenance—survey published this week showing that one in six local roads will not be fit for purpose in five years’ time, and that the number of potholes filled per authority fell by 19% last year. I anticipate that he will tell me how just much money is being poured into those potholes, but does he accept that short-term fixes are no substitute for proper resurfacing, which for most roads currently happens just once every 55 years?

[Andrew Jones]

The condition of the local roads is the responsibility of the local highways authorities, and we are very keen to support them in their work. I fully recognise that there is a backlog and have seen various projections of how much that might cost to fill, which is why we have allocated a record amount of money to support local highways authorities. The sum stands at over £6 billion during this Parliament, including £250 million specifically to help fix potholes.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

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

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Report on the provision of concessionary bus travel to apprentices aged 16 to 18—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay a report before each House of Parliament setting out possible steps to support local transport authorities in providing concessionary bus travel to persons aged 16 to 18 who are participating in statutory apprenticeships.

(2) Any report under subsection (1) shall include, but will not be limited to, an evaluation of whether section 93(7) of the Transport Act 1985 should be amended to enable local transport authorities to provide concessionary bus travel to persons aged 16 to 18 who are participating in statutory apprenticeships on the same terms as that which may be provided to persons aged 16 to 18 receiving full-time education.

(3) In this section—

(a) “local transport authorities” has the meaning given in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000; and

(b) “statutory apprenticeships” has the meaning given in section A11 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out possible steps to support local transport authorities to provide concessionary bus travel to apprentices aged 16 to 18.

New clause 3—Assessment of possible concessionary travel schemes: impact on use of bus services—

‘(1) A local transport authority that does not provide travel concessions under a scheme established under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 to persons specified in subsection (7)(c) of that section shall be required to prepare an assessment of the impact of establishing such a scheme on the use of bus services by persons specified in that subsection.

(2) Any assessment under subsection (1) shall consider, but will not be limited to, the impact of establishing such a scheme on—

(a) the ability of persons aged 16 to 18 to attend schools and further education institutions by means of bus travel,

(b) the cost of bus travel to persons aged 16 to 18 receiving full-time education, and

(c) traffic congestion and emissions at peak times in the local transport authority’s area.

(3) In this section—

(a) “travel concessions” has the meaning given in section 112 (1)(f) of the Transport Act 1985; and

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

This new clause would require local transport authorities to assess how creating an authority-wide travel concession scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education would affect how these students use bus services.

[Daniel Zeichner]

New clause 1 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for North West Durham (Pat Glass). It would require that the Secretary of State for Transport publish a national strategy for local bus services within 12 months of the day on which the Act is passed, setting out the objectives, targets and funding provisions for buses over the next 10 years. It would also require that the national funding strategy include a consideration of a reduced fare concessionary scheme for young people aged 16 to 19.

New clauses 2 and 3, in the name of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), also relate to bus funding generally, and to young people’s concessionary fares specifically. New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament setting out possible steps to support local transport authorities in providing concessionary bus travel to apprentices aged 16 to 18, and new clause 3 would require local transport authorities to assess how creating an authority-wide travel concession scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education would affect the way in which students use bus services.

It is clear that a long-term national discussion from central Government on the funding of the bus industry is long overdue. Since the bus market in England outside London was disastrously deregulated in the 1980s by a Conservative Government, public support for bus services has been provided in a far from transparent way. The effects of deregulation have been stark.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the drop of more than half in passenger journey numbers in Yorkshire and Humber since 1985 is no coincidence—it is down to deregulation?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I will return to other examples of the failure of deregulation in a moment. It is not just about the number of services. Fares have risen faster than inflation, and patronage overall has fallen by more than a third. Bus market monopolies have become the norm in far too many places.

Back in October, we noted the 30th anniversary of bus deregulation, but it was far from a cause for celebration. It meant 30 years of bus users being ripped off by a handful of big bus operators, which have carved the market into chunks and which go largely unchallenged in their own territories.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that for people on low incomes in rural areas, and in some urban areas as well, it is almost impossible to job hunt without a decent bus service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I agree with my hon. Friend. In too many parts of the country, it has become very difficult for people to get to and from work. Throughout the 30 years since deregulation, fares have shot up even at times when fuel prices have been falling. For 30 years, while patronage in the still-regulated capital increased, passenger numbers declined in the rest of England.

This month, the Campaign for Better Transport published its latest “Buses in Crisis” report. The organisation made more than 100 freedom of information requests to local councils to get a full picture of recent bus cuts, and it found that funding for buses across England and Wales has been cut by 33% since 2010, and by nearly £30 million in just the last year. Last week I was in Somerset, where support from the county council will fall by another 19% next year. Across the country, more than 500 routes were reduced or completely withdrawn in 2016-17.

Despite the seemingly endless rounds of bus cuts, the Government seem reluctant to look at whether anything can be done in the round to improve the current system of bus funding. The Government’s argument is well rehearsed: the bus industry is a private industry and thus has nothing to do with central Government or central Government’s money. But that is just not the case. Around half of bus industry funding comes from the public purse. In 2014-15, total public support for buses accounted for 41% of overall industry funding. In the past, the figure has been higher; in 2010-11 it was more than 46%.

I do not think that asking the Government to publish their strategy regarding such funding for buses in a single document is really asking that much. We just want a little clarity in a system that has become convoluted and confusing. The strategy would set out the plan and objectives for the public money that goes towards local authority-supported bus services, the reimbursement of bus operators for trips made by concessionary pass-holders and the payment of the bus service operators grant to bus operators. Public money is being spent on buses, but the Government lack a strategy regarding how that money is spent. We believe that that needs to change.

I have previously raised the fact that operators are being reimbursed by public money for trips made by concessionary pass holders, but those operators can cut services and routes; the public have no say. That leads to the bizarre situation in which someone may have a concessionary bus pass, but no bus on which to use it. That is not a good deal for anybody.

We already have national strategies for roads and rail, and we are told that the cycling and walking investment strategy is imminent. Buses are being singled out within the transport family. Our new clause 1 would redress that imbalance and bring buses into line with other modes of transport.

We believe the Government need to do far more to help young people to afford the cost of bus travel. That is why we are asking the Government to include consideration of a young person’s concessionary fare scheme in the national bus strategy. Young people rightly have to stay in school, further education or training until they are 18, and many of them use the bus to get there. It is quite right that the Government should look at how they can reduce the financial burden on young people who are only trying to get to their school, job or apprenticeship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Young people in Greater Manchester have told me that it is sometimes cheaper for four of them to get a Uber than to travel on buses in Greater Manchester. How on earth can that possibly make sense, and how on earth can that lead to anything other than complete gridlock on our roads?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. On Second Reading, we heard a number of cases from across the country about the excessive costs of travelling locally, particularly for families. Such a cost is bad for congestion, it is certainly bad for employment and it is bad for social justice.

The way in which buses are funded in this country is clearly not working. We need a proper governmental strategy to address these funding issues and enable the country to have the national conversation about buses that is long overdue and much needed. I therefore urge the Government to accept our new clause 1. It may help the House if I suggest that we will press it to a Division.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

New clause 1 calls for a national strategy that sets out various targets and objectives. I feel sure that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), sees one of the targets as the need to have accessibility for all who use the buses. I understand that the Government have already considered that issue after it was raised in Committee, and that they have very valid reasons for not going forward with a national strategy. However, by tabling the new clause, the hon. Gentleman has raised several important issues, and I want to mention some of them briefly.

In particular, there is a need for consistency. I welcome the change the Government have made with regards to information for bus passengers, which will help all our constituents. Some of my constituents have contacted me about the importance of having information available on the routes that they are taking. That is important not only for partially sighted or blind passengers, but for one constituent with autism and special needs who contacted me. This will help that individual, as well as a broader group.

As my noble Friend Baroness Campbell pointed out in the other place, other issues of national importance for people who use buses would fall within the national strategy proposed by the hon. Gentleman, such as wheelchair priority and access policies more generally. The Minister’s comments in Committee on wheelchair priority are very heartening. Following the Paulley case, it is important that an advisory committee will be set up. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he has given further thought to the composition of the group’s membership. Does he intend to involve the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee? He should consider that carefully. The Minister did not touch on that detail in Committee—perhaps it had not been all worked through at that stage—but perhaps he could take this opportunity to assure the House that, subsequent to our debate in Committee, the discussions as part of that advisory group will be acted on quickly and that all relevant people will be involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I am not sure that there is a straightforward read-across from rail to buses. There are 30 or so rail companies in this country and 1,000-plus bus companies. We need to have something that is proportionate. For the very largest groups, what she suggests might be appropriate. For the smallest companies, which might be operating a single route, what we are suggesting would clearly be more appropriate to provide information to disabled passengers, which is ultimately our joint objective.

New clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), would require local authorities that do not provide a concessionary scheme for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education to produce a report, setting out the impact on that group of young people and on local traffic of not providing such a scheme. As I have said, the legal responsibility for transport to education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds rests with local authorities, which are free to put in place appropriate arrangements. Those arrangements do not have to be free, but we expect local authorities to make reasonable decisions based on the needs of their population, the local transport infrastructure and the available resources.

Local authorities already have a duty under the Education Act 1996 to publish a transport policy statement each year, specifying the travel arrangements they will make to support young people to access further education and training. New clause 3 would simply replicate that duty.

In short, I do not believe that new clauses 1, 2 and 3 would add anything of value to the delivery of a bus service on a local basis or directly benefit passengers. I therefore hope that hon. Members will not press them.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, we have had a constructive exchange; the points made about disabled access are welcome and will be pursued. As in Committee, much of the discussion has hinged on issues of localism. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) described well what we and many others see as the failures of the systems over the past 30 years. We discussed at length in Committee the value of a national framework, and I did not hear a huge amount of opposition to that in the contributions from Government Members, with many seeming to suggest that they, too, could see the benefits. The Minister heroically stuck to the script and clearly does not wish to go down that route just at the moment, but as we consider in future the way we fund bus services, be it the concessionary fares schemes or the bus service operators grant, there will clearly be a debate to be had.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to have that national discussion, involving not only passengers but the industry and the local authorities, about the most sustainable way to fund buses? As local authorities develop different emissions standards as part of their own partnership and franchising schemes—the Campaign for Better Transport has said this—would a national strategy not provide some certainty for the UK’s bus vehicle manufacturers as well? There are many advantages to doing this, are there not?

[Daniel Zeichner]

As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has raised the important issue of air quality, which is clearly becoming more important in many of our cities across the country. I just suggest to the Government that having a national framework within which to discuss these things might be extremely helpful, for a whole range of reasons. I fear that we are not going resolve or agree on this issue, so we will press new clause 1 to a Division.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I will come on to it. He is right to be concerned about that, but I want to develop the logic of the argument that I am making as to why these are not sensible amendments. In large parts of the country, where most bus passengers are, we do not have competition. The basis of the Transport Act 1985 was that there would be on-the-road competition and that would provide good services, and if bus companies lost out because of on-the-road competition, they lost out as in any other capitalist-competitive market situation. That has not happened, however; we have moved to monopoly.

Incidentally, when the 1985 Act was implemented in 1986 no compensation was paid to those bus companies—of which there were a number—running on regulated routes. Mayne in east Manchester, for instance, had run for many years in that area; when it had to compete, it did not get compensation.

We are now moving—through principled objectives, in a different way—to a competitive system, in those areas that choose that, because there will be choices for Norfolk, Greater Manchester and other areas at some stage. As with rail franchising, in a competitive situation, when a company loses out, it loses its business, even if it has invested in it previously. In fact, one of the difficulties with franchising is that we end up with investment up front and a lack of investment at the end; that is just the nature of franchising.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about medium-sized bus companies, that can of course be taken into account in the way that franchises are set up, by local choice. Areas can set them up in as many different ways as they wish, so medium-sized companies could be given the right to tender for routes that fit the size of the company if that was what the franchising authority wanted to do.

That brings me to a point I made in Committee, and which was rejected. Rather than the amendments we have here, I would have preferred the Bill to say that the regulations should not be overly burdensome and that they should reflect local conditions. If they were reflecting local conditions, they could take into account those small and medium-sized companies. There is a large point here, however, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, the large companies would be more pleased than the small bus companies if these amendments were passed.

There is not a single quality contract in this country, and that is because when they were brought in under the Transport Act 2000, it contained a clause that is very similar to measures here, saying that they are the only practical way of delivering a better bus service. That is an incredibly high hurdle to jump, which is why there are no such contracts. Quality partnerships were referred to; I asked the Minister in Committee how many of them there were in the country, and, after a little help from the officials, we discovered that there were 10. So even quality partnerships are not abundant on the ground in this country. We do not need overly burdensome regulations. We want to make this work because it will improve the service for passengers, be more competitive and lead to better services.

We are not discussing them now, but there are huge guidance notes associated with this Bill, which I think tend to be overly prescriptive. I prefer to rely on the good sense of local councillors; they will make some good decisions and some bad decisions, but there are many bus companies with vested interests who are opposed to this, and if local authorities behave in an unreasonable way, they have the right to apply the Wednesbury principle and go for judicial review.

Rather than having lots of prescriptions, and putting ever more hurdles in the way of locally elected people making decisions, we should rely on their good sense. Sometimes they will get it wrong, as sometimes national politicians in Governments and Cabinets get things wrong, but we can rely on them and the common law, which will ensure that if bus companies feel that they are being unfairly treated and that transport authorities are behaving in an unreasonable way, they can take that to court.

So I hope the Minister will reject these amendments. We have held in the balance throughout our discussions the question of what is central and what is going to help local authorities, transport authorities and elected mayors to make these decisions, and these amendments do not help move us towards having a better local transport system.

[Daniel Zeichner]

There is a wide range of amendments in this group, many of which we support, but some we do not.

I genuinely hope that the Minister will consider new clause 4 on bus safety, despite his comments in Committee. More disappointment has been expressed to me on that aspect of our Committee discussions than on any other, partly because the comments of the Minister in the other place had been encouraging, but also because I cannot believe that there is any disagreement on the value of improving bus safety, and this is widely seen as an effective and cost-effective way of achieving that goal.

I think the Minister suggested in Committee that he might be minded to insert some guidance to encourage bus operators to sign up, but the evidence on voluntarism is clear: to my knowledge, no bus operator outside the London franchises is signed up to any independent, confidential incident reporting system. We have an opportunity now to end that situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said, such a system is not expensive. It works in the railway industry, and I have not heard a strong case made against it. It seems to work well and I urge the Minister to grasp the opportunity.

Amendments 14, 16 to 23 and 15 appear to us to be unnecessary and to go against the spirit and devolutionary nature of the Bill. The assessment process laid out in the Bill and the extensive guidance—168 pages—available for it are extremely thorough and tough, and do not need to be added to. Amendment 24 undermines the assessment made by the Government of the issues relating to compensation and sufficient time to enable operators to plan. Provisions already in the Bill fully satisfy all value-for-money considerations. We are pleased that the Minister confirmed on Second Reading and in Committee that the aim of the process is not to put barriers in the way of authorities proceeding to franchising. We fear that the amendment threatens the very heart of the Bill. Amendment 25 also seems to be unnecessary, as additional appropriate independence, rigour and structure for the audit process will be ensured by the Government, to which I think the Minister is about to speak. Amendments 26 and 27 also seem at odds with the devolutionary nature of the Bill, because it should be for elected authorities to make the decisions, based on their local judgments.

We strongly support amendments 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead. The arguments were well made in Committee, and perhaps even more strongly today. In any transfers workers should be properly protected, and we have the opportunity to ensure that. I fear that the Government will choose not to take the opportunity, but I urge them to do so.

[Andrew Jones]

The respective roles of central Government and local government were a running theme in Committee, and I think we are back to it this afternoon. I will begin with the amendments that deal with the franchising schemes.

The decision to move to a franchising system is a big one for any authority or combined authority to take, and it is therefore not to be undertaken lightly. It must have at its heart improvement for bus passengers, but it must be very much a local decision. That principle has underlain the Bill right from the beginning. We want to ensure that authorities contemplating franchising do so with their eyes wide open to the opportunities, the risks and the costs, and we expect them to have consulted widely on their proposals.

The Bill sets out clearly the processes that authorities must follow before they can implement franchising. Those include developing an assessment of the proposed franchising scheme—in effect, a business case. As part of that assessment, the authority must consider the value for money and affordability of the proposal and must compare making the proposed scheme with other courses of action, such as a partnership—very much as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) suggested.

Several of the amendments in the group would change how those arrangements are operated. Amendment 24, tabled by my hon. Friend, would require an authority to include in its assessment consideration of whether the proposed scheme will be more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to operators. Given the extensive requirements I just set out, I do not see a need to make those similar additional matters a separate part of the assessment. Also, it is not necessary or appropriate to refer to compensation in this part of the Bill, or indeed any other. Any move to a franchising scheme will not come as a surprise to bus operators; the clear processes and consultation arrangements we have set out will give them sufficient warning and sufficient opportunity to express their views on the proposed scheme, as statutory consultees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

I would like to think that the Minister will provide within the guidance to the Bill, once it is enacted, a reference to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System as best practice in the industry. Notwithstanding that, I do not seek to press the new clause or amendments 6 to 13. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.



Clause 4

Franchising schemes

Amendments made: 2, page 16, line 38, after “an” insert “independent”.

This amendment and amendment 4 make plain the status of the persons who may audit an assessment under section 123B produced by a franchising authority or authorities.

Amendment 3, page 17, line 2, at end insert—

“( ) The Secretary of State must issue guidance as to the matters to be taken into account by a franchising authority when selecting a person to act as an auditor.

( ) Franchising authorities must have regard to any such guidance.

( ) The Secretary of State must issue guidance concerning the matters to be taken into account by an auditor when forming an opinion as to whether the information relied on, and the analysis of that information, by an authority is of sufficient quality for the purposes of subsection (2).

( ) Auditors must have regard to any such guidance.”

This amendment imposes duties on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the matters to be taken into account by a franchising authority when selecting a person to act as an auditor and to issue guidance on whether the information relied on, and the analysis of that information, by an authority is of sufficient quality. It also imposes duties on franchising authorities and auditors to have regard to any such guidance.

Amendment 4, page 17, leave out line 3 and insert

“For the purposes of this section an auditor is independent, in relation to an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme, if the person would not”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 2.

Amendment 5, page 17, line 8, leave out from “person” to end of line 9 and insert

“eligible for appointment as a local auditor by virtue of Chapter 2 of”.—(Andrew Jones.)

This amendment alters the definition of “auditor” so that it means an individual or firm eligible for appointment as a local auditor by virtue of Chapter 2 of Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006 as modified by the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.

Clause 22

Bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 1,  page 78, line 4, leave out clause 22.

This amendment would remove Clause 22.

Amendment 1, which appears in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and for North West Durham (Pat Glass), would remove the clause that bans 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. In short, we seek to overturn the Government’s ban on municipal bus companies.

This clause is a piece of ideological dogma that has no place in an otherwise agreeable piece of legislation. We visited this issue in Committee and I fear that the Government are not minded to budge, but I and many others found the Government’s arguments there extremely unconvincing. In Committee, the Minister said:

“Our view is that passengers will see the most benefit where the commissioning and provision of bus services are kept separate…as such we do not think authorities should be able to set up new bus companies.”––[Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 57.]

The Opposition also want passengers to see benefits; we simply do not agree that municipal bus companies cannot be a part of achieving those benefits.

The latest annual Transport Focus bus passenger survey, which was published just last week, demonstrates once again that municipal bus companies provide some of the best services in the country. Nottingham City Transport and Reading Buses—municipal bus companies —had higher overall satisfaction results than the big five private national bus operators. The Government’s attempted ban on new municipals therefore flies in the face of all the evidence.

The ban also flies in the face of the Government’s purported commitment to the spirit of localism and devolution, which they claim the Bill encapsulates. Although they say that the Bill will provide local authorities with a range of options and tools, and that local authorities are best placed to make a decision about how local bus services are organised and run, they are imposing an arbitrary ban on one of those options—and not just any option, but one that has been shown to work very well for passengers.

Of course, many of us suspect that the clause is about pacifying some private bus operators, which the Minister once said

“are already on a journey here”.

Without wishing to rehash every fine point from the Committee, we do not see municipalisation and competition as necessarily antithetical. In fact, it is the Government who are undermining their long-held admiration for competition by imposing barriers to the market to stop municipal bus companies competing with private bus companies. Are the Government really afraid that local authority-run bus companies might just be better? The Competition Commission has reported that it has seen no evidence that municipal operators distort competition in the bus market.

[Ian Mearns]

Ministers have short memories about how an awful lot of the big bus franchise companies came about in the first place. Some of them were based on old municipal bus companies, which were sold off at a pittance with their entire estates of bus depots, bus parks and vehicles, only to be floated on the market a matter of months later for 10, 15 or 20 times the price at which they were bought in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some of the people who worked on the buses in that period still feel very aggrieved by the process that was gone through 30 years ago, which left so much of our country with services far poorer than the universal coverage that was available at the time.

The Competition Commission suggested that municipal companies might be minded to run services and routes that make less sense for economic reasons—perhaps those unprofitable routes and services that bus operators have been cutting left, right and centre. The Institute for Public Policy Research has also described municipal bus companies as an innovative transport solution that demonstrates that

“conventional commercial operations are not the only option.”

Sadly, they soon will be if the Government have their way with this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) first.

[Graham Stringer]

Two have come at once! Does my hon. Friend agree that, aside from the reasons given by the Competition Commission, municipal bus companies can provide a benchmark? In a rational debate, we should be able to get from the Government a reason why, when municipal bus companies have performed in an excellent way, they are not allowed to compete. Does he agree that that reason was not forthcoming in Committee?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The point about keeping the market honest is important. When I was first elected as a local councillor, the housing officer told me that one of the roles of an in-house operation was to keep the market honest. That is an important role.

[Andy Burnham]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).

[Lilian Greenwood]

Is not one reason that Ministers have given for objecting to municipal operations that they would prevent the market from operating effectively? When we look at the latest bus passenger survey, is it not interesting that Nottingham City Transport has the highest value for money of any single operator in the country?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend consistently makes the case for Nottingham. That is made far easier for her by the excellent local services she has. People from my city of Cambridge have gone to Nottingham to see how to do it. Part of the lesson is that a municipal can do it really well, but according to the Bill, that will not be possible.

[Andy Burnham]

The Minister stressed the importance of vigorous competition. Is it not the case that if a franchising process were used, the existence of the municipally owned option would enable those doing the franchising to drive an even harder bargain on behalf of the public, because there would be that fall-back option if the private sector could not come up with the goods? Therefore, would it not enhance competition and enable the passenger transport authority to get an even better deal for the public?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend is correct yet again. Interestingly, much of the discussion in Committee was about moving competition from on the road to off the road. I think we agree that in areas where there has not been competition, franchising would be far from a less competitive system. People in London talk about just how competitive the system is, so no Government Member should be worried about a lack of competition. My fear—this is why it is so important that we have protection for the workforce—is that if we are not careful, competition can bring the risk of a race to the bottom. That is why we believe that we should have the provisions that we have just debated. I think the evidence is clear that the franchising system would benefit from having municipals as an alternative.

The conclusion of the Opposition is that banning local authorities from running their own bus companies is slightly unworthy of the spirit behind the Bill. The evidence is clear that they work for bus passengers and are able to put social values at the heart of what they do. This measure has drawn the attention of the public more strongly than other parts of the Bill. It has rightly brought a strong reaction from local councils across the country. They do not understand why they should be prevented from doing something that they strongly believe is in the interests of their local constituents. Some trade unionists feel strongly about this measure, as do passengers, and I pay particular tribute to the organisation We Own It, which has campaigned strongly against it. We believe that this is a petty measure that sits uneasily with the rest of the Bill, and I urge the Government to look at it again and accept our amendment today.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I just wish to say that I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments in the previous group. I was not quick enough on my feet to catch your eye at the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have been in this place long enough to know that one should quit when in front. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that my amendment 25 is going to be incorporated in the guidance and for the useful reassurances he has given me on amendments 15, 26, 27 and 28. I was disappointed on the issue of compensation, but, as he pointed out, there can indeed be scope for the authorities to compensate if need be. On that basis, I will not seek to press those amendments to a vote, although I say so a touch belatedly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is also fair to say that no local authority has either set up a municipal bus company or approached me with a view to doing so. Therefore, this is in some ways a slightly notional or theoretical debate—[Interruption.] Making sure we get clarity is the entire point here.

This Bill seeks a balance between local authority influence—we are providing local authorities with a variety of tools to address local issues—and the role that private sector bus operators can play, in order to ensure that both are incentivised to deliver the very best services for passengers. This Bill is about local authorities and commercial bus operators working together to improve local bus services. It is about co-operation, all designed to improve the benefits for bus passengers. I hope that this has made the Government’s position clear and that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not press this amendment to a vote.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister has finally let the cat out of the bag. If there has not been a queue of local authorities coming to him with requests to form companies, he does not really need to legislate to ban them from doing so. This is pure ideology. There has been a great deal of agreement on the Bill—we have found a lot of common ground—but on this issue, I assure the wider world that there is clear red water between the Opposition and Government Benches. We will press the amendment to a Division, and its effect will be achieved by a future Labour Government.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

DVLA and Private Car Parking Companies

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on bringing forward the debate, which has enabled many hon. Members to give accounts of dreadful experiences. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) powerfully explained from his experience how this works, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) described how powerless people can feel when they are treated so outrageously.

I want to concentrate my comments largely on what the Government have or have not done. In March 2015 the Department for Communities and Local Government published a consultation, “Parking reform: tackling unfair practices”. That came at a time when the Government chose to move responsibility for off-street parking to DCLG. The then Secretary of State clearly saw regulation as a problem rather than a civilising solution. I note in passing that there is still some confusion about where responsibility for parking policy lies. We will hear from a Transport Minister today, but there is clearly a lot of crossover with the Department for Communities and Local Government.

DCLG’s consultation concluded in May 2015, and the Government have still not responded. In December that year, I asked when we were likely to see the response and was told that it would be in the new year. It was not clear which new year was being referred to; we went through 2016 and are now in 2017. Just last month, I asked what reason the Government had for not publishing their response, and was told:

“We have set out a clear manifesto commitment to tackle aggressive parking enforcement and excessive parking charges, and are taking steps to tackle rogue and unfair practices by private parking operators.”

They also said they were

“considering responses to the discussion paper, and options for reform.”

However, there was no mention of when those considerations might conclude.

The responses to the initial consultation clearly show just how many problems exist, and they are very much along the lines of what we have heard from hon. Members. The summary of responses was published in May 2016, and the consensus was a stark indictment of the current situation. The majority of respondents—78%—indicated that there were problems with either how parking on private or public land is regulated or the behaviour of private parking companies. So 78% think there is a problem, yet the Government show no urgency in dealing with it. The majority of respondents considered there to be significant issues with how parking on private land currently operates, and the majority of organisations concurred. Issues raised by individual respondents included the lack of a private parking regulator to protect the interests of motorists, problems with the current appeals process, unclear signage, which we have heard about, and a general lack of clarity and information.

As the Government fiddle and tarry, a further problem has arisen. Back in 2012, the British Parking Association set up an appeals service, as the Government had requested. One of the Government’s key requests was that the service be independent, so the BPA set up the Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals on Private Land—ISPA. It may be easy for hon. Members to get confused by the acronyms, but please stick with me. More recently, the other major parking organisation, the International Parking Community, established a competing scheme.

As hon. Members have said, both schemes have access to DVLA data, without which neither would work. However, because the BPA feels that the IPC scheme has no independent scrutiny element, BPA members feel that they are being put at a disadvantage because they have to meet the cost of funding ISPA. They feel that the IPC should not have access to DVLA data without that independent scrutiny element. Because the Government have completely failed to sort all this out, the BPA will cease funding ISPA from the end of this month. The voluntary regulation system for the private parking sector is falling apart, so I am bound to ask the Minister what he and his colleagues are doing about that.

Let me say a little bit more about the relationship between the DVLA and private parking companies. On the one hand, individuals who responded to the consultation felt that the DVLA was failing to properly scrutinise private companies before releasing driver data, and many felt that it should not profit from the release of those data, as hon. Members have suggested. In turn, parking organisations said that companies already have to be governed by the code of practice, to which I have already referred, in order to access DVLA data. There are real concerns that the DVLA profits from the sale of the data that it holds on drivers. We have already heard that there are views on whether the DVLA is making or losing money, and the evidence I have seen is contradictory. I would rather welcome some clarity on that from the Minister.

The actual test for who can access those data is

“any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.”

“Reasonable cause” is not defined in the legislation and seems to take precedence over the Data Protection Act 1998. However, since 2009, the release of that information has been limited to members of an accredited trade association, which goes back to the point I have just made.

In 2015, the Government said that the DVLA

“takes the protection and security of its data very seriously. A comprehensive set of safeguards is in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so. Individuals may write to the DVLA to request that their personal information is not disclosed if it would cause unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. The DVLA does not operate a blanket opt-out process but considers each such request taking into account the individual's particular circumstances.”

That comprehensive set of safeguards is vague. When pressed on the specifics in a written question, the Government answered:

“The safeguards that are in place to protect information held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) vary depending on the channel used and sensitivity of the data processed through the service.”

All of that shows that the situation is a mess. There is a complex set of trade-offs between the role of data held by the state, the privacy of individuals, the rights of landowners and the obligations of operators, but in essence, the poor old driver, who just wants to park, is left dazed and confused. The British Parking Association has made a strong case for a single standard-setting body with an independent scrutiny board. It would deliver a single code of practice and a single independent appeals service for consumers. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that proposal. Ultimately, we need to see the Government finally respond to the consultation. It has been almost exactly two years now, which is surely enough time to consider the responses and come up with a plan to clarify this mess, which is pleasing no one.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I ask him to please leave a few minutes at the end for Mr Foster to wind up the debate. That would be much appreciated.

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

The new clause would mandate that the Secretary of State for Transport must issue a national strategy for local bus services, setting out the objectives, targets and funding provisions for buses over the next 10 years. Subsection (2) would mandate that the national funding strategy must include consideration of a reduced concessionary fare scheme for young people aged 16 to 19.

We believe that the new clause is necessary and long overdue. The Government have published national investment strategies for road and rail, as well as a draft investment strategy for cycling and walking—the latter is proceeding at a snail’s pace, but I am sure it will be welcome when it arrives—so why not a strategy for buses? The way buses are funded in this country is not simple, as we have discovered during our discussions; it is a complicated mix that has developed over time with piecemeal changes. We might describe it as a very British approach; it sort of works—not well enough, in our view—but almost no one knows how.

What we do know is that almost half of bus industry funding comes from the public purse. Total public support for buses accounted for 41% of overall industry funding in 2014-15, and in 2010-11 that figure was even higher at 46.3%. We know that money goes towards funding socially necessary supported services on routes not served commercially by private operators through central Government’s general grant to local authorities and the reimbursement of bus operators for trips made by concessionary pass-holders, including the statutory older persons’ and disabled passengers’ scheme.

I spent some time during the early years of the concessionary fares scheme introduced by the Labour Government trying to find out how the funding flows worked, not least because many district authorities suddenly found themselves substantially out of pocket at that time. I would like to be able to say that the many hours I devoted to it were well spent, but I have to confess that, despite much help from officials, I never really got to the bottom of how reimbursement rates were calculated and, in some cases, negotiated. I suspect that the number of people in the country who fully understand it could comfortably fit in a small room—some of them may be in this one today.

Large amounts of public money are spent on concessionary fares and the scheme is so popular that subsequent Governments have been reluctant to touch it, yet there is no overall mechanism for assessing the impact on the bus sector. As I have remarked previously, there is not a lot of point in having a bus pass if there is no bus. Other questions are raised, often in areas where buses have disappeared, such as why community transport should not be available through the bus pass scheme.

On top of that complexity, we have the bus service operators grant—BSOG, to those of us who take part in the discussions—which was introduced back in 1965 as the fuel duty rebate. It is a rebate paid directly to operators and dates from a time when it was mainly an accounting transaction within the public sector. Of course, the world has changed considerably over that half-century —at times BSOG has changed with it. I suspect we will revisit that point later in our debate. I am informed by the Community Transport Association that in 2013, 21% of community transport schemes were completely reliant on BSOG, and 75% relied on it to some extent. There is a not insignificant amount of public money being spent.

The Government have argued, as I am sure they will this morning, that since the bus industry is a private one, a national investment strategy is inappropriate and unnecessary. However, where such large amounts of public money are being spent, even if the services are being delivered by private operators, we think it only right that there should be a proper planning strategy for how and why it is spent, as well as plans and objectives for future spending. Indeed, the Government themselves have said:

“Requiring operators to use their assets to provide a free service for a proportion of the population is a major market intervention”.

That is precisely why we need a proper strategy to be set out with clear objectives.

It is pretty clear—this is relevant to our earlier discussions on franchising—that there is scope to get better bang for the public buck. As my hon. Friends have several times said, the largest bus operators report significant profit margins. According to their annual reports, in 2014-15 Stagecoach’s operating profit margin on its regional bus routes was 13.5% and Go-Ahead’s was 13%. Yet those profits are not being shared with the public, despite the fact that large sums of public money are being invested in bus services.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Surely the point is that profits are being shared with the public, through shareholder dividends.

[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 ---

In short, the new clause would not add anything to help local authorities to deliver their services on a local basis, or directly benefit passengers, which is why I cannot support it. I hope the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response, although obviously not entirely surprised. For bus passengers in areas where bus services are being withdrawn, the question whether the funding is coming from the Department for Transport or through local authorities from other Departments is a touch immaterial—the bus has gone. We have seen the figures for this right across the country. Across whole swathes of the country, buses have gone because the funding to support them is not there. From the passengers’ point of view, that is all that matters. I am therefore disappointed that the Minister does not think that funding is worth addressing.

[Graham Stringer]

Did my hon. Friend notice, as I did, that when the Minister was relaying his experience of working in the private sector, he said that head office was rarely there to help? This is precisely the justification he has given for the mountains of regulations imposed centrally on transport authorities—he has said on a number of occasions in this Committee that the Department is there to help. When it comes to writing out a strategy, he will not do it, but when it comes to interfering in the detail, he will. Does he recognise that that is a huge contradiction?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that those who are carrying the 168 pages of guidance around under their arms will notice that head office is indeed there to offer a little assistance on occasion. We are returning to the theme running through the debate of the relationship between the centre and localities.

To return to the points about funding, just yesterday we saw newspapers in Stockton talking about the three women who describe themselves as “the three busketeers”. They have found that their bus route has been axed and it costs them £6 to get a taxi to go and buy a pint of milk. That is the reality on the ground that people face, so funding is crucial, which is why we think the new clause is important.

The debate about opportunities for young people will no doubt be rehearsed over the next two or three years, and it will be a political decision in the end. I will not press the Minister on this, because I am sure he does not have the figures on the number of people benefiting from the 16 to 19 bursary, but I get no sense from my FE college and others that that has been a successful of way of addressing that problem. The Opposition will come forward with what I hope will be a much more attractive offer to young people at the next general election. On that basis, I will press the motion to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Ability to make adjustments for disabled passengers.

“Insert new section 6AA into the Transport Act 1985—

“(1) A condition for registration of a local bus service in England is that the operator has policies in place to ensure that it is able to conform to its duty under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 to make adjustments for any disabled passenger on the bus.

(2) This condition will be enforced by the Traffic Commissioner.”.”.

This new clause would make it a condition for registration of bus services in England that bus operators have in place policies to ensure that they are able to make adjustments for any disabled passenger on the bus. This comes following the Supreme Court decision First Group v Paulley.

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.”.”.

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.

New clause 9—Accessibility policies for bus passengers.

“(1) After section 181 of the Equality Act 2010 insert—

“Chapter 2A

Bus Services

181E Accessibility policies for bus passengers

(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of facilitating travel by disabled persons, make regulations requiring operators of local services to put in place and publish policies for making their services accessible.

(2) The regulations may make provision about—

(a) what is to be included in the policies;

(b) how and where the policies are to be published.

(3) The regulations may, in particular, require an operator of a local service to make provision in the policy about—

(a) passenger information;

(b) fares, tickets and reservations;

(c) facilities and assistance on the vehicle;

(d) priority seating and wheelchair and scooter space;

(e) connections to local services and transport interchange;

(f) diversions, disruptions and alternative accessible transport;

(g) contact details, feedback and complaints;

(h) staff training.

(4) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) specify ways of making the policies available, including different media and alternative formats;

(b) specify standards and guidelines relevant to the policies or means of publication;

(c) specify requirements for reviewing the policies.

(5) Regulations under this section may make different provision—

(a) as respects different descriptions of vehicle;

(b) as respects the same description of vehicle in different circumstances.

(6) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Welsh Ministers;

(b) the Scottish Ministers.

181F Exemptions etc

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for securing that the provisions of regulations under section 181E do not apply or apply subject to such modifications or exceptions as the regulations may specify to—

(a) public service vehicles of a prescribed description;

(b) operators of a prescribed description;

(c) local services of a prescribed description.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may, in particular, make provision by reference to an operator’s size.

(3) Regulations under this section may also make provision for securing that the provisions of regulations under section 181E do not apply or apply subject to such modifications or exceptions as the regulations may specify to—

(a) a prescribed public service vehicle;

(b) public service vehicles of a prescribed operator;

(c) a prescribed local service.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) or (3) may make the provision subject to such restrictions and conditions as are specified in the regulations.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) or (3) may specify the period for which provisions of those regulations are to have effect.

(6) Regulations under subsection (1) may make different provision for different areas.

(7) Section 207(2) does not require regulations under this section that apply only to—

(a) a prescribed public service vehicle,

(b) public service vehicles of a prescribed operator, or

(c) a prescribed local service,

to be made by statutory instrument; but such regulations are as capable of being amended or revoked as regulations made by statutory instrument.

(8) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Welsh Ministers;

(b) the Scottish Ministers.

181G Guidance

(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the duties imposed on operators of local services by regulations under section 181E.

(2) The Secretary of State—

(a) must review the guidance issued under subsection (1), at intervals not exceeding five years, and

(b) may revise it.

(3) Before issuing the guidance or revising it in a way which would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, result in a substantial change to it, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Welsh Ministers,

(b) the Scottish Ministers,

(c) the Passengers’ Council,

(d) such organisations representing disabled persons, including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the committee established under section 72 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, as the Secretary of State thinks fit,

(e) such organisations representing operators of local services as the Secretary of State thinks fit, and

(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued or revised under this section to be published in a way the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

181H Interpretation

(1) In this Chapter—

“local service” has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985;

“public service vehicle” means a vehicle that is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981;

“stopping place” has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985.

(2) For the purposes of this Chapter, a local service (“service A”) is a connecting local service in relation to another local service (“service B”) if service A has a stopping place at, or in the vicinity of, a stopping place of service B.

(3) References in this Chapter to the operator of a passenger transport service of any description are to be construed in accordance with section 137(7) of the Transport Act 1985.”

(2) In section 207 of that Act (exercise of power to make orders and regulations), in subsection (5), after “174(4)” insert “, 181E(5), 181F(6)”.

(3) In section 208 of that Act (procedure for orders and regulations), in subsection (5) (statutory instruments subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (f) insert—

“(fa) regulations under section 181E or 181F (accessibility policies for bus passengers);”

(4) In section 26 of the Transport Act 1985 (conditions attached to PSV operators’ licence), in subsection (1), after paragraph (bb) insert—

“(bc) the operator has failed to comply with a requirement of regulations made under section 181E of the Equality Act 2010;”

(5) In section 155 of the Transport Act 2000 (sanctions), after subsection (1ZD) (inserted by Schedule 4), insert—

“(1ZE) Where a traffic commissioner is satisfied that the operator of a local service has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a requirement of regulations made under section 181E of the Equality Act 2010, the traffic commissioner may make one or more orders under subsection (1A)(a) or (d).”

(6) In section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 (penalties), in subsection (1)—

(a) omit the “or” following paragraph (b);

(b) after paragraph (c) insert “; or

“(d) failed to comply with a requirement of regulations made under section 181E of the Equality Act 2010,”.”.”.

This new clause inserts new sections into the Equality Act 2010 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring bus operators to publish accessibility policies for disabled passengers, and to give the Traffic Commissioners powers to enforce them. It reflects similar requirements on train companies.

[Daniel Zeichner]

New clause 3 would require all bus drivers, as well as staff at bus terminals, to complete approved disability, equality and awareness training. That training should include mental and physical disabilities, including hidden disabilities, and make particular mention of those on the autistic spectrum.

An EU regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers came into force in March 2013, and its chapter 3 relates to disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility. We are aware that the UK legislated to provide certain exemptions to the regulation’s requirements, including from the article 16(1) requirement for disability awareness training for personnel of carriers and terminal-managing bodies. In 2014, the then Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), said:

“This exemption was applied in line with Government policy on adopting any EU legislation, to make full use of any derogation that would reduce costs to business. This policy ensures that UK businesses are not put at a competitive disadvantage compared with their European counterparts.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 173WH.]

Put as bluntly as that, it rather sounds as though the Government’s view is: “Stuff passengers, stuff safety; all that counts is cost to business.” I am sure the Minister will be able to set me right on that.

The UK’s five-year exemption from the EU directive requiring bus drivers and terminal staff to go undergo disability awareness training runs out in 2018. Given that the future status of such protections and exemptions is uncertain, we think it would be helpful to introduce clarity around mandatory disability, equality and awareness training. We understand from the guidance that the Government intend to do that, but given that the exemption is likely to still be running when the so-called great repeal Bill is brought forward, we believe it should be put in the Bill to ensure that it actually goes forward.

In 2014, the Government reviewed the exemption under article 16(2) to see whether drivers were receiving adequate disability training. The published responses showed, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the bus industry thought it was doing enough overall, while disabled people thought that it was not. My colleagues in the other place submitted an amendment but withdrew it following assurances from the Government Benches that

“there will be means other than this Bill to address any need to ensure that these requirements continue to apply to bus operators in the UK once we leave the European Union…We recognise the importance of driver disability training and are developing guidance to help implement it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2016; Vol. 774, c. 665.]

I see no reason why the Bill should not be the means to address mandatory disability awareness training for bus workers—after all, it is a Bill about buses. We hope for a positive response.

The Government’s amendment on audio-visual systems, which I will return to, is linked to buses in a similar away. It seems fitting that an amendment on disability awareness training could be included in the Bill to put our minds at rest. The draft regulations say that the Government are developing best practice in delivering disability awareness training, but to me that sounds like the training would still be optional and not nationally mandated. Particularly concerning is the comment that:

“Britain will in due course be leaving the EU. Until we do so we will meet our legal obligations.”

That sounds like a minimalist approach, and the Opposition believe that we need to do better.

As I mentioned earlier, we are keen that disability awareness training also covers hidden disabilities such as neurological conditions. The Government funded national training for bus drivers as part of the Think Autism strategy, but we would like to see that go further in its scope and for the Secretary of State to ensure that training meets the needs of passengers with all forms of hidden disabilities.

In December 2015, when the then Secretary of State for Transport was asked if he would consider encouraging bus companies to give their staff more disability awareness training, he said:

“I will certainly give encouragement—not that they should need it—to the bus companies to make sure that facilities for disabled people are available and that their staff know the right way of making those facilities available to them. That is incumbent on all bus companies.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1136.]

However, in 2014, the Government estimated that only about three quarters of all bus and coach drivers had completed some form of disability awareness training.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend welcomed the Government’s change of heart on the provision of audio-visual indicators. However, many examples show why that is not sufficient and why we need the wider disability awareness training. I saw a piece by Patrick Robert, who travels with his guide dog. He said:

“I have had…some bad experience with bus drivers not stopping at the bus stop but a few metres away. Obviously if a bus driver does not stop in front of me, it makes it impossible for me to discuss with them and check the bus number.”

Does that not precisely show the mismatch? If bus drivers do not have sufficient disability awareness training, even if there is an audio-visual system on the bus, they might not even stop to allow a person with a visual impairment to get on.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example, which clarifies the point. I doubt whether there is any disagreement on wanting better standards among drivers and on ensuring that they are properly trained to spot all these issues. In the end, the way to drive up standards is not to rely on voluntarism. We all know from our own experiences that many good employers will do that, but some will not. A level playing field where good employers are not disadvantaged is all we seek. This is a chance to offer the good employers a helping hand.

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

Further to the point about the difficulties there can be in understanding where disability exists, I met locally with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and with Guide Dogs to hear about the difficulties people who are blind or partially sighted can face in hailing buses. Even knowing when the bus is likely to arrive can present a difficulty. If bus drivers were given greater training so that they knew to look out for people who may find it difficult to hail buses, I am sure we would all welcome that. Bus drivers do a good job, but it is difficult day to day. That bit of greater understanding would make a real difference to people who find it quite difficult to access public transport.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. I doubt whether there will be much disagreement with the Minister about wanting to improve standards. The question is how we do it. I suspect all Members have constituents bringing similar examples to them.

New clause 4 would insert a new section 6AA into the Transport Act 1985 and make it a condition for registration of all buses in England that the operator has policies in place to ensure that it is able in every circumstance to conform to its duty to make adjustments for any disabled passenger on the bus. The condition would be enforced by the traffic commissioner, who already has responsibility for bus registration. The new clause comes following the Supreme Court decision in FirstGroup v. Paulley.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

[The Chair]

Those are bogus points of order, but because they flatter people, we allow them. I add my thanks to the Clerks and Hansard, and to all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and on Front and Back Benches, for how they have conducted themselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

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

Amendment 5 agreed to.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 4, page 15, line 24, at end insert—

“(6A) The terms as to standard of service that may be specified include terms about bus punctuality and bus journey speeds.”

This amendment specifies that a local service contract may require bus operators to meet standards of service including terms about bus punctuality and bus journey speeds.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 20, in clause 4, page 15, line 45, at end insert—

“(12) A local service contract may require that new vehicles delivering local services are equipped with Wi-Fi if the vehicle comes into service after 1st April 2019 and that existing vehicles are equipped by 1st April 2022.”

This amendment specifies that a local service contract may require new vehicles delivering local bus services to be equipped with Wi-Fi after a specified period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I have already referred to the fact that although the Bill is welcome, there are many issues that affect our bus services that it does not address. Our amendment 19 specifies that the standards of service that a local service contract may require bus operators to meet should include certain levels of punctuality and journey speeds.

As we all know, the resources available to traffic commissioners, who are currently responsible for enforcing punctuality, are woefully inadequate. Despite their honest endeavours, it would be hard to argue that the current system works. One of the highlights of my relatively short time as a Member of Parliament was visiting my local traffic commissioner. I am not sure whether other hon. Members have made the same journey, but meeting a traffic commissioner is an extraordinary thing, because they are relatively invisible to the wider public. They do a difficult job with very limited resources. Although, obviously, my traffic commissioner believes the system works perfectly, I think many independent observers would say that it does not do all that it is expected to do. It is not just those observers who think that; the industry clearly believes that congestion is a major problem and a key challenge.

There is compelling evidence, some of it compiled by Professor David Begg and Greener Journeys, that congestion is actually getting worse and journey times are increasing. That of course leads to greater cost, because more buses are needed on the road to maintain service frequency. What is worse, because journey times are longer, passengers quite rightly get increasingly frustrated—we even see that in London, I am afraid—and as frustration rises, people vote with their feet and turn to other modes of transport. All that of course leads to higher costs, which in turn lead to higher fares, which potentially lead to a spiral of decline.

There is absolutely no doubt that journey times and punctuality are really important. We believe that the Government should address that serious issue, but we are not convinced that the Bill does so effectively. Greener Journeys suggests that the Bill should set guidance encouraging local authorities and bus operators to set targets for average bus speeds by making them a requirement of schemes. Reducing journey times would have the twin benefits of reducing congestion on our roads and improving bus reliability, with positive knock-on effects for both our environment and bus patronage. If buses run more quickly and are more punctual, more people want to use them. It is a virtuous circle—the opposite of the spiral of decline that I just alluded to. It is that simple. We believe it is important that that goal is specified in the Bill.

Although the draft regulations recommend that authorities consider trends in journey speeds when assessing their business case for a franchising scheme, there is no mention in the Bill of journey speeds or punctuality. The Bill does specify that

“a reduction or limitation of traffic congestion”

should be a likely outcome of both advanced quality partnership schemes and enhanced partnership schemes, but strangely that aspiration is not included in clause 4 for franchising schemes. We assume that is an oversight.

We are pleased that the Government amended the Bill to specify that the standards of service that may be specified in all schemes—advanced quality partnership schemes, franchising schemes and enhanced partnership schemes—include requirements about emissions or types of fuel or power, but we do not believe that that goes far enough to tackle declining bus journey speeds in this country.

Amendment 20 deals with free wi-fi access. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport recently—in fact, on the very day that the Bill received its Second Reading—released its digital strategy. Regrettably, that document is rather short on ambition for our digital infrastructure, and it is revealing about the lack of a connected approach across Government that the strategy lacks creativity about how that infrastructure can be delivered and how we can drive change. That lack of a connected vision was criticised as recently as December by Lord Adonis, who chairs the National Infrastructure Commission. That is why we have tabled the amendment, which I hope will improve passenger experiences and provide a step change in public access to free wi-fi. The benefits of public internet access are abundantly clear—indeed, they have been clearly stated by the Government in their digital strategy, which said:

“The UK’s digital infrastructure must be able to support this rapid increase in traffic, providing coverage with sufficient capacity to ensure data can flow at the volume, speed and reliability required to meet the demands of modern life.”

Pioneering cities such as Newcastle and Sheffield are offering free public wi-fi, the uptake of which is proving the old maxim that, if you build it, they will come. We need not look far to see other examples of success on our bus network. Award-winning Nottingham City Transport buses already offer free wi-fi, helping people to stay connected and definitively proving that, with a vision and a strategy, it can be done. It is not only the provision of free wi-fi that is so encouraging to see but the capacity that has been provided for users. It makes available 50 to 100 megabytes per device, which is far above the Department for Transport’s stipulated requirements for the rail network.

Those forward-looking councils have realised that ubiquitous connectivity will become an essential requirement of modern infrastructure in years to come, and are helping to build that infrastructure in creative ways and provide it free of charge to citizens, recognising that the net benefits outweigh the initial outlay.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend mentioned the free wi-fi on Nottingham City Transport buses. It may be useful to say, if he did not already know, that free wi-fi is installed on 100% of its fleet. Does he agree that, as the Government have made it a condition of rail franchises that wi-fi should be provided on future franchises, it would be even-handed were a similar requirement to be placed on bus operators? Rather than it just being something enjoyed by rail passengers, it should also be something that bus passengers have the opportunity to use.

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, my hon. Friend is both wise and prescient, because that was just about the next point I was going to make. She is absolutely right. In fact, we do not need only to look at councils to see arguments in support of the amendment; the arguments have effectively been inadvertently made by the Government themselves. They argued in the digital strategy that commuters expect good connectivity; of course, they were referring to the rail network, but the same surely applies to buses. We know that more journeys are taken by bus each day than by train. It seems odd to exclude those commuters who travel by bus from the roll-out of free wi-fi that is taking place as rail franchises come up for renewal. The roll-out is slow and has been rightly criticised for not matching the data requirements that all rail commuters need, but it is welcome that it is taking place at all.

Buses reach a different demographic from trains—particularly the young and those in education, who happen to be the demographics that use data most of all. Recent Ofcom research found that young people spend 24 hours a week online—it may seem like 24 hours a day, but it is per week. They consume data and take on information at a phenomenal rate, so there can be little doubt that the amendment will serve a purpose. In an answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), the Government admitted that they do not yet collect data on free wi-fi available on buses. However, it is clear that provision is patchy at best, in spite of the clear public benefits.

I anticipate a number of the arguments the Minister may make in defence of the status quo. The first may be that the increasing speed and access to 4G is rendering the need for public wi-fi less important. However, that argument falls down on two key fronts. First, ubiquitous access to 4G is far from a reality for many millions of consumers in urban and rural areas alike. Secondly, patterns of data usage prove that consumers overwhelmingly prefer to use fixed wi-fi to access and consume their data requirements. Yes, mobile data has seen a 600% increase since 4G technology came into public use, but interestingly, the “Connected Future” report by the independent National Infrastructure Commission found that 80% of data usage is still consumed over wi-fi.

On the go, we access data for our emails, to conduct video conferencing via emergent apps and to stream TV, radio and Netflix—in short, to go about our daily business on what has become the fourth utility: internet connectivity. That means that by the end of the month many of us have to top up our data and spend yet more money on what should be considered an essential. However, in many areas even that ready access to data remains a luxury, as 4G coverage in Britain remains in the international slow lane, behind countries such as Albania and Latvia. Lord Adonis said that coverage needs to be meaningful, and by coverage he meant access in the home, at work and on the go. The current binding commitments will not deliver that ubiquitous level of data coverage for quite some time.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are consistently arguing the same points here about the relationship between the centre and the localities. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton makes a very strong point about the lengthy nature of the guidance. You need to be a pretty dedicated person to work your way through it—of course, some of those present have done exactly that, I commend them for it and I can say that it is good reading if you can get through it. However, the level of detail that will be required is such that it makes it very hard to imagine, in some cases, that local authorities will want to take on the opportunities that the Minister earlier extolled as being the way forward. That seems to be a curiosity to me.

Despite what I said earlier about the need to centrally lay out some key points, that seems to be the nub of the argument here: set out what it is that the Government want centrally—in our case, it was things like wi-fi, low-emission zones and punctuality—but do not get into these lengthy, endless, detailed, tortuous discussions that try to second-guess every single issue at a local level. I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend’s attempt to improve the legislation at this point. Even if the Government are not amenable to agreeing to the amendment today, I rather hope that, as they go away and work on the guidance, they realise that many more volumes of that kind will only make the process slower.

I also reiterate my hon. Friend’s query about the number of officials who will end up administering this process from the centre at the end of it. What does the Minister actually envisage?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 4, page 16, line 30, at end insert—

‘(3A) An award of any new franchise or contract shall not be made on the basis of labour costs estimated by the potential franchisee or contractor assuming labour costs for new employees at less than the labour cost of workers who are covered by TUPE protections in accordance with section 123X transferring to the new franchisee or contractor.”

This amendment would ensure that any new franchise or contract will not be awarded on the basis of estimated labour costs being lower for new employees than the labour cost of workers covered by TUPE protections.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 25, in clause 4, page 32, line 47, at end insert—

“123Y Employees not covered by TUPE protections

Employees of local bus service providers who are not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE.”

This amendment would ensure that employees working under local service contracts not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE.

Amendment 26, in clause 4, page 32, line 47, at end insert—

“123Z Effect on employees of introduction of local service contract

(1) Where, either before or after the introduction of a local service contract following an assessment under section 123B, any employee of an operator in the area to which the scheme relates is dismissed, that employee is to be treated for the purposes of Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the introduction of the relevant local service contract.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee in question was part of an organised grouping of employees principally connected with the provision of local services, under section 123X(4).

(3) Where section 123X(4) applies, a new operator may not engage employees or workers on terms and conditions less favourable than those of the employees whose employment transferred from the former operator.”

This amendment would make dismissal of an employee for the sole or principal reason of the introduction of a franchising scheme automatically unfair dismissal.

Amendment 29, in clause 9, page 60, line 16, at end insert—

“138T Employees not covered by TUPE protections

Employees of local bus service providers who are not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE.”

This amendment would ensure that employees working under enhanced partnership schemes not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

The amendments all relate to employment protection, the first three to franchising and the fourth to enhanced partnerships. We believe this group of amendments would strengthen the employment protections in the Bill.

We are pleased to see that the parts that apply TUPE to franchising largely reflect the concessions that were won in the Local Transport Act 2008 in respect of quality contracts schemes, and are broadly similar regulations to those set out in the Quality Contracts Schemes (Application of TUPE) Regulations 2009. However, we believe changes could be made to ensure that those parts are stronger still. It should be noted that no TUPE transfer ever took place under the terms of the 2008 Act because no quality contracts were ever successfully formed; so this approach is untested and could be subject to further examination.

It has been suggested that operators under the regulated system in London have in the past won contracts by reducing their employees’ terms and conditions. The trade union Unite believes there needs to be a commitment to a minimum rate for bus workers across a franchise and enhanced partnership if members’ pay is to be protected.

That development of what is called a two-tier workforce is something that I hope the Government will consider and address. I believe my amendment will stop the development of that two-tier workforce, as well as the related management and industrial relations problems that that can bring.

The amendment would mandate that the award of a franchise should not be made to a company on the grounds that it intends to pay its future workforce less than the current workforce. We believe it is important to set that out clearly on a statutory basis. By the Department’s own admission, the application of TUPE to either a franchising or enhanced partnership scenario is likely to be complex but I believe these amendments can be simply understood.

The amendments apply to after a franchise contract has been awarded to a bus operator by a local authority. They would ensure that new employees of local bus service providers, who were not covered by TUPE protections, may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE. That aims to avoid the development of a two-tier workforce: the situation where workers doing identical jobs for the same employer are on different terms and conditions, solely as a consequence of when they started employment.

The amendments would also ensure that any employee dismissed for the sole or principal reason being the introduction of the relevant local service contract will be treated as unfairly dismissed.

I note that recently the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, introduced a minimum pay rate for London’s 25,000 bus drivers, with a £23,000 per annum minimum salary. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the potential of a similar policy being rolled out nationally. At the very least, a minimum salary rate should be a condition of a franchise and enhanced partnership to prevent the undercutting of wages and the risk of a race to the bottom.

I was slightly concerned by the Government’s arguments against similar amendments that were introduced in the other place. They argued that the Bill is devolutionary and gives

“considerable flexibility regarding the nature of the contracts to be awarded by those authorities taking forward franchising and, potentially, enhanced partnership schemes”.

The Minister also said:

“Any authority contracting for services will need to consider a number of factors when assessing bids for contracts, and the Bill will require it to consult and engage with employee representatives at an early stage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 2016; Vol. 776, c. 16.]

Considering a number of factors will not be enough to prevent the race to the bottom that could occur following the initial application of TUPE when employees are transferring. It would not necessarily prevent the two-tier workforce we are warning against but the amendments would, which is why we have brought them forward today.

[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.

[Lilian Greenwood]

While we have never tested the TUPE protections in the current Transport Acts, we have experience in the provision of other public services where a two-tier workforce ensues. One group of employees protected by TUPE is working alongside another which has probably been employed on lower terms and conditions to derive more profit from the contracting out.

My concern is twofold and I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares it. First, it is bad news for the employees who are being exploited in that way, but more important is the ability to continue to provide a service. When people are employed on lower terms and conditions, the operator is often unable to fulfil the contract or to recruit and retain people and the quality of provision goes down. I have seen that on many occasions in local authorities and the health service. That is why I share the same concerns about this scenario in relation to buses.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, my hon. Friend is prescient —I was about to make a similar point. The Minister suggested that it might be difficult to do, because people might well be on different terms and conditions. At the time of the transfer, there will be a going rate for that employer and we would want to establish that as the benchmark. The worry throughout, exactly as my hon. Friend has said, is that, in this situation in other public services, we have seen a race to the bottom.

The Government have rightly identified this as one of the key social challenges that we face, hence their long-overdue conversion to the idea of intervening in the labour market, and hence their support for a national living wage—the Opposition would not call it that, but they have rebadged their proposal as a national living wage—and recognition that workers in the market are vulnerable. We are offering an opportunity to strengthen the current position of this workforce, who are relatively low-paid in much of the country. Some areas, of course, have recruitment issues—in some cases, market forces ought to be working to drive wages up, but clearly that is not always everybody’s experience. We want to ensure that the workers in those situations are properly protected, and we think there is an opportunity. We will not be pressing the amendments to a vote, but we hope the Minister hears what we are saying, engages with those who represent this vulnerable workforce, and ensures that people are not made more vulnerable by the changes.

We have not talked much about the people who are employed in the industry, but there is concern in parts of the country where there is the prospect of franchising. It creates an element of the unknown. People do not know what might happen in the future. While we are very positively explaining the possible benefits of a franchising system, that is not always the way it will necessarily feel to a workforce that are suddenly confronted with change. We want to take those people with us because we think it can produce better outcomes for passengers, but it must also produce secure outcomes for those employed. I can see that the Minister is listening attentively. I suspect we are not that far apart on this and we may be able to explore it further in future. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 36, in clause 4, page 16, line 35, at end insert—

‘(5A) In preparing guidance, the Secretary of State must ensure that it is not over-burdensome on the authority.

(5B) The guidance shall specify that the authority may decline to assess a potential scheme if the bus operators have previously proved unwilling or unable to implement similar schemes.

(5C) The guidance shall specify that the ultimate decision to go ahead with any scheme will rest with the authority.”—(Graham Stringer.)

This amendment would prescribe some of the content of the guidance on preparation of an assessment of a proposed scheme.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

See the explanatory statement for amendment 8.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I will be brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South has covered most of the points I wish to make. A reading of proposed sub-sections (1) and (2) shows that new clause 1 is not only disproportionate but authoritarian and ideological. The provision states:

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

That is extraordinary. It goes on to state:

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

The assumption behind the proposal is that, in some way, the private sector market is working perfectly and competition is leading to a provision of services everywhere. That is simply not the case. The measure is tying the hands of local authorities that think that they can make a business case to provide a municipal bus company, either on their own or with a private sector partner. That is simply an ideological act. I can see the case that the Minister made, and I would concede that a franchising authority should not be able to award a contract to a bus company that it owns. However transparent the process, that would look strange to anybody outside. I accept that, but there are parts of the country—the shires, for example, and Hartlepool is often mentioned—where bus services are poor and many remote communities do not get a service. Why should the local authorities not get together and provide a municipal bus company where the private sector is failing?

An argument is often used in these cases. If the system we had in this country—and we hope this is the first step in moving away from it—worked so well and provided services efficiently, effectively and economically to people who needed them, why has nobody copied it? Can the Minister show us anywhere in Europe that has said, “Wow! What a wonderful deregulated system you have. We will immediately copy it and we will get rid of all our publicly owned bus companies and invite the private sector in to have a free-for-all. We think that will be a better way to do it.”? I cannot think of anywhere in Europe but perhaps the Minister knows better than I do; that is possible.

There are other arguments in favour, not of telling local authorities they must do it, but of allowing them to do it where there is a need. It would do one other thing: it would provide a benchmark for how bus companies should and could operate, as Directly Operated Railways provided a useful benchmark for the rest of the rail system.

The Minister has praised municipal bus companies. Can he explain why, if something is working so well, we should not replicate it? We probably invent too many different ways of delivering service in this country. When things work, why do we not simply replicate them where there is a need? In debates over the years on franchising, I have argued the case for quality contracts or franchising, and Government Members have said there are excellent bus services in Brighton, Oxford and Norwich, and round the country there are. There are places where the bus service works. There seem to be two factors that make those bus services good while those of us who live in Manchester, Newcastle, Hartlepool and South Yorkshire have seen a dramatic decline in bus services. Those areas are usually historic cities where there has been a restriction on cars, often, but not always, allied with a municipal bus company, so that there has been control and a very good service provided. Will the Government, like any sensible one, allow things that work to happen again?

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is a pleasure to follow both my hon. Friends, who have made their points very well. The new clause proposal has become the cause célèbre of the Bill, doubtless dropped in to wind up people across the country. To that extent it has been successful. We have had thousands of emails from people who are concerned about it. We have seen many representations from councils. We have had exciting photo opportunities outside the Department for Transport. I am sorry Ministers did not feel about able to join them—they would have been very welcome.

The proposal is a sop to those who cannot abide success in the public sector, to those who cannot get over the fact that, year after year, the municipals demonstrate that they can combine efficiency, good value and top-quality service and regularly walk away with all of the awards. As has been said, the proposal flies in the face of the evidence. It is a mean-spirited proposal that 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. In short, it is a ban on new municipal bus companies.

We have made it absolutely clear that we completely disagree with this punitive measure, which also contradicts the Government’s supposed commitment to localism. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South about the fantastic reputation and performance of one of those municipals. We could speak about others, but the point has been well made. Sadly, the Government now plan to take this option for local authorities off the table, despite the fact that in a number of areas they have proved that they are successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes the point very powerfully, and I absolutely agree with her last point. I expect the Minister and I were both local councillors a number of years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton made the point that having an in-house competitor keeps the market honest, as was explained to me early on in my council career in housing. That is the role that municipals can play in this case.

The Government should be a little more confident about the ability of local government, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South has explained, to get the best for their citizens, as anyone rationally would. If a private bus operator offers a local authority a better service, and if the bid from a private bus operator meets passengers’ needs better, why would a local authority not award it the contract?

It is fair to say that municipals do not always have to please shareholders and are not driven by profits and shares, and that local authorities are far more likely to pick the operator that can genuinely best serve the needs of the passengers. If a local authority considers bids for a contract and finds that its own arm’s length company is the best one to do the job, why should not it award that company the contract?

Contrary to the Conservatives’ belief, we are speaking up for municipal companies not for ideological reasons but for the practical reason that it would make things better. We want local authorities to continue to have the choice to form municipal companies should they want to do so. As we have heard, there is no evidence of a massive rush to form municipals, so to some extent a straw bus company has been set up to be knocked down. There is not a great rush, but why make it impossible for such companies to be set up in future? We want local authorities to continue to have the choice to form municipal companies, partly because there are so many good examples of their being successful.

The Conservative party is supposed to be in favour of the free market and to dislike regulation and impediments to fair competition. That is their long-held proud view, so why are they attempting to impose arbitrary barriers on the market to contrive to stop municipal bus companies competing fair and square? In our view, local authorities should be able to form their own bus companies and have them compete with private bus operators in areas introducing franchising schemes as well as areas without them. The attempt to ban local authorities from forming municipal bus companies suggests that Conservative Members are afraid that the municipals might just do better than the private bus companies they so venerate. Surely they are not afraid of a little competition.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am reminded of the example given earlier about Directly Operated Railways. My hon. Friend will remember that, when the contract for the east coast line was awarded, the Opposition argued that the incumbent operator, East Coast, should be allowed to bid. It was prevented from doing so. It is interesting that, since that service has been operated in the private sector, passenger satisfaction scores have gone down. Surely there was an argument for allowing it to compete to show that sometimes the public sector can do better.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again my hon. Friend makes the point strongly. It seems that the evidence is entirely stacked up on our side, and I hope the Minister and his colleagues reflect on it. The question should be about the best interests of passengers and the public, not an ideological obsession with stopping good public services being provided directly, when that can be shown to happen successfully.

The Competition Commission has been mentioned obliquely once or twice in the debate. Its report noted that the fact that municipal operators are not required to deliver commercial rates of return might lead them to take actions that non-municipal operators might not, such as providing services that a non-municipal operator would consider uneconomic. The commission did not see evidence to suggest that that would have any significant distorting effects on competition. In other words, things can be done for the wider public benefit, which of course is also part of the franchising approach.

I suggest that we are moving in a slightly different direction from the ideological experiment with the free market of the past 30 years, and should perhaps move with the times. As my hon. Friends have suggested, perhaps international examples will show us that others have not chosen to follow that experimental path, for good reason.

[Bridget Phillipson]

To continue with the discussion of differences in approach, in Tyne and Wear the Metro was, until recently, operated by DB Regio. That contract ended—the decision was taken not to extend it. It has now come back under the control of Nexus, which directly operates it. It is working well. It is an option that was available because the contract was not working as well as it could with DB Regio. It seems strange to me that, in the case of the Metro, Nexus can take action to take control where a service is failing, but there is not that backstop with bus franchising.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Huw Merriman]

Surely the concept of devolving power involves devolving responsibility. It would be an incredibly curious situation to devolve the power and, at the same time, have the local authorities ask for a guarantee all the way back not just from central Government, but from all taxpayers who live in local authorities that do not have the same power.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Much of the discussion today has been about the balance of responsibility between the centre and the locality. Much has been said about the very prescriptive nature of the rules set out by the Government for allowing franchising authorities to make proposals, particularly those that do not come through the combined authority and mayoral route. The question in the end is where the risk should lie. Our view is that the risk is a consequence of the legislation. That is why the Government should bear it.

[Bridget Phillipson]

Further to my hon. Friend’s point, there was much talk about what would happen in Tyne and Wear. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton asked whether an infringement of human rights could lead to a challenge under European law if the quality contract board allowed the scheme to proceed. My understanding is that that would have been a matter for the Government to defend, and not a matter for individual local authorities pursuing franchising schemes. There is an important principle here. This is not simply about devolution; it is about the legislation and the Government defending the principles that underpin this important scheme.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That point goes to the crux of whether the legislation will work in practice. We will not press the amendment to a Division, but I hope the Minister takes careful note of what has been said and ensures that, as authorities consider introducing schemes, they feel reassured that they will be able to do so and not face the risks we have described. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 5

Power to obtain information about local services

[Graham Stringer]

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 5, page 33, line 8, at end insert—

‘(1A) The franchising authority may require the operator to provide information about services run by the operator under existing franchises or in non-franchised markets outside the franchising authority’s area.”

This amendment would ensure that all operator data about operational performance in markets outside the franchising authority’s area is available to them for the purpose of developing a franchising scheme.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I may return to amendment 33 on Report, along with a number of other items. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am reassured by the Minister’s comments on amendment 37, about pensions. That is helpful and clarifies the situation.

I am less reassured on the other two amendments. It is not my experience that authorities have this information. A lot of this information is held by the operators. They are running their businesses and quite clearly need it to run their day-to-day operations. Potential franchising authorities do not necessarily have that information. As I suggested earlier, my visit to my local traffic commissioner confirmed what I already rather suspected—that the responsibilities of traffic commissioners are not matched by the resources at their disposal. I am certainly led to understand that the old system whereby people used to be sent out to check on reliability and so on are long gone. I will not press the amendments any further, but I am not convinced on that point.

Finally, I think the Minister is being a touch naive to think that all the major operators will necessarily want to co-operate in that way. Having a fixed timeframe is absolutely right, possibly with an exemption for smaller operators. We should not be under any illusions: some of these processes will not be as smooth and amicable as we would all wish.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Further amendments: franchising schemes

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Huw Merriman]

Having been involved with pubs in this way, I found the proposal, on the face of it, quite attractive. However, given that the Bill provides more data and therefore a greater ability to see whether it would be worthwhile to take a route on, and the fact that anyone can apply to run a bus service, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, on balance, the amendment would put operators off starting a route in the first place and could, therefore, be counterproductive?

[Daniel Zeichner]

There is a risk of that, of course. Equally, if we ask ourselves, “What are we going to do to help protect local communities?”, we have to make a judgment on the balance of the risk. In most areas, our biggest problem is not lots of new services being suppressed by the threat of their being declared an asset of community value. Generally, the threat is the other way around, with services gradually being eroded.

I certainly do not suggest that the proposal is a panacea or an answer. My concern is that, all too often, by the time people have got together and responded to the possibility of a change, it is too late, and once the service has gone people basically give up—we are often dealing with relatively small numbers—and do what people have always had to do, which is turn to an alternative, whether that be buying a motorbike or forking out for a car, even though that might be difficult. That is what, in the spirit of this discussion, we are trying to prevent. The scale is obviously different from that of the problems in our major conurbations, which have rightly occupied much of our discussion today, but the amendment would be a positive contribution that would help people in other parts of the country.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I listened to the concern voiced by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, but surely, where a new route had been set up, the traffic commissioner would not be minded to allow it to be designated as an asset of community value, because it would not be sufficiently long standing for that to be appropriate. Much as I understand his concerns, I do not think that they are well placed in this context.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will withdraw the amendment, but I will make one observation. I am not entirely sure why this is different from declaring the last pub in a village an asset of community value. As far as I can see, exactly the same considerations apply. If it is good enough for the pub, why is it not good enough for the bus service?

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Mark Spencer.)

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

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

[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 ---

I believe that the Bill needs to strike the right balance between giving authorities the right tools for the job and not being too prescriptive about how improvements are to be achieved. Decisions on the need or otherwise for low-emission vehicles to be specified in a scheme are best made locally, rather than determined on the face of the Bill. That is the objective of Government amendments 2, 6 and 11.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Huw Merriman]

Just so that I am clear on this: the hon. Member is expecting that local authorities would consult with the employees of an organisation where they are already employed by a non-local authority employer. This is not relating to municipals on that basis. If that is the case, surely that opens up a Pandora’s box: whenever a local authority wishes to change a contractor for refuse services, it has to talk to all of the employees of all of the refuse companies. Where does this end? Where does this link to the desire to make the process simpler for local authorities? If this amendment were to be accepted it would make the process incredibly cumbersome.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I would not disagree that the processes are complicated. Our point is that if you are looking to redesign local services, who better to talk to than those that are actually involved in delivering them? I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that it does raise other issues, and I would agree that talking to the people providing those services gives us a better chance of getting the end system better, whether it is the provision of refuse services or any other services,.

[Huw Merriman]

Is there not a danger that you spend a lot of time talking at great cost and actually delivering very little, which is exactly contrary to what we are trying to do with this Bus Services Bill?

[Daniel Zeichner]

When we are redesigning services that are going to have a major impact on people across a local area, it is certainly worth talking to people. Quite often, we are talking about representatives of people. It is a question of having one or two extra consultees, so I am not sure that it is a huge extra burden. My worry is that people who have the knowledge are being excluded from those discussions. My practical experience on the ground, as I already intimated, is that very few people know about these partnerships. The involvement of many more people would lead to a better outcome.

Amendment 27 refers to

“appropriate representatives of any affected employees”.

That means representatives of recognised trade unions or employee representatives who have been appointed or elected by the affected employees. The amendments effectively make trade union representatives statutory consultees when a local authority makes enhanced partnership schemes. That is already provided for elsewhere in the Bill—local authorities bringing in advanced quality partnership schemes or franchising schemes must consult with “appropriate representatives”. There is no reason why that should not also be the case for enhanced partnership schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Gloria De Piero]

May I make a point about rip-off bus fares from private companies? I have a constituent who travels from Eastwood to West Bridgford, which is a journey of about 11 miles. She works in administration and earns about £15,000 a year. It costs her £9 a day to get to work and back. That sort of rip-off bus fare is why it is important that local politicians have some say over the bus services that companies are providing.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We heard a series of examples on Second Reading from across the country. That might come as a surprise to people who live in London, where we can travel across the city for a flat fare. Even though it went up considerably under the previous Mayor from a decade ago, it is still extraordinary value compared with the rest of the country.

I have to pay far more to go one stop when I am in Cambridge in an unregulated area than I do in London. That is why the London scheme has attracted people for so long. The opportunity to regulate the system has produced a better outcome. It is no wonder that citizens across the country are demanding parity.

[Bridget Phillipson]

On Second Reading, an unhelpful distinction was made at times between urban and non-urban areas. In an area such as mine, which is largely urban, albeit with some semi-rural areas, the bus service is appalling and holds back jobs. It affects people getting to work, businesses and a range of investment across the region. Government Members appear to think that everything is rosy in all urban areas. In a lot of urban areas, the service remains very poor with high fares. As is the case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, it can be very expensive for people who are often on low wages.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why there is so much hope attached to the Bill and to the idea that we can go back to having a comprehensive local public transport system that delivers for people. The truth is that we have had a 30-year experiment with an unregulated market, the end result of which is exactly as my hon. Friends describe. This a chance to move forward. In some areas the Government are responding, but in many other parts of the country, it looks as if the hurdles will be too high.

The Minister talked about local decision making and accountability, saying that the Bill is about enabling new opportunities and giving local authorities new choices on how to improve their services. However, as has been said, taking the decision out of the hands of local communities and putting it squarely in the Secretary of State’s hands does not seem like localism to us. It seems particularly peculiar that a local authority must seek consent before taking even the preliminary step of preparing an assessment of a potential franchising scheme. How on earth can a local authority present a compelling case to the Secretary of State to gain approval if they are prohibited from even assessing a scheme?

We understand the Government’s point that strong governance and accountability are key to making franchising a success, along with a commitment to improving transport and to a coherent economic geography. However, we do not understand—my hon. Friends have made this point well—why the Government believe that those things can only be achieved with an elected Mayor. Why are Mayors seen to be more accountable than other elected local authority leaders?

I turn again to my personal experience, because for some reason Cambridgeshire seems to be at the heart of many of these issues. In my area in a few weeks, we will have elections on the same day for a Mayor of Cambridgeshire, who will have powers to franchise buses, and for a county council for Cambridgeshire, with a leader who does not have powers to franchise buses. A great irony is that the current county council leader put himself up for selection for Mayor and made the final shortlist. Therefore, in a few weeks’ time we could have had the same person being elected on the same day to two roles, one of which one would be deemed sufficiently accountable to franchise whereas the other would not. I am not going to tease the Minister by pressing for a reasonable explanation.

[Julian Knight]

The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that all the power rests with the Mayor. In the West Midlands combined authority, the Mayor is effectively first among equals. The leaders of all the councils who make up the authority have a say in decision making.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Surely that is the case in other places as well. In my area the leader of the county council, who is a Conservative, has been elected and the choice will be made again in a few weeks’ time—however, we shall see what happens in the local elections. I think the local electorate are confused about the situation, based on my experience of what we are seeing on the doorstep, but I think the Minister can see the point. For many people it seems irrational to have so much invested in the mayoral issue.

In reality, we all know what is going on: franchising is being used as a bargaining chip to convince some combined authorities to accept a Mayor that they do not necessarily want as part of their devolution deal. Without going into the chequered history of those negotiations over the past year or two, one could say that they have not always been easy or straightforward. We think that the approach being taken is wrong, which is why we oppose it. Beyond that—this goes back to the points being made by my hon. Friends—the trouble is that what is happening denies bus passengers in many areas the prospect of better services.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

In Cornwall, the proposals are seen as very positive. Our local authority have made positive noises about the opportunities that they could present. The hon. Gentleman talked about some of the mayoral authorities in Manchester but in areas such as Cornwall, the bus network has degraded over a number of years, and this presents us with a real opportunity to provide a proper rural service.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We do not disagree, but we do wonder. The hon. Gentleman will say that Cornwall is very special, and clearly something very special has happened. Some authorities seem to get different treatment from others. Our point is that everyone should be able to take advantage of the possibilities that such a system brings.

We have seen that it can work in different circumstances. The experience in Jersey, for instance, has shown that franchising can be successful if, to use the terminology, it is applied to a relatively wide local geography. Jersey has seen impressive results from franchising, including a 32% increase in ridership since 2013. Customer satisfaction has also increased, and a partnership has developed between estates and the operator.

I know that some say that franchising destroys competition, but we say no. Far from it: it moves competition from on the road to off the road. As we all know, in too many areas of the country, competition has ceased to be meaningful. Over many years, powerful operators have driven others out. We understand why they do not want that situation to be challenged—it is perfectly rational from their perspective—but on behalf of passengers, we know that it must and should be challenged. This is a key way to make it happen.

Small operators have made strong representations to many of us. They are clearly concerned about the possibility of being squeezed out. I am not sure that there is any reason why a franchise system would not benefit from a range of operators, including small operators. If it is to work over time, it absolutely needs a range of operators, or we are back to where we started.

I understand why smaller operators feel alarmed, but they are vulnerable the whole time to much more powerful bigger operators—I think we know who I am talking about—that could move in on them at any point. We do not want to return to a system in which we have an ossified estate across the country with very little competition or choice, and where the poor person stuck at the bus stop in Nottinghamshire feels not only that there is nothing they can do but that there is nothing anyone else can do on their behalf to change the situation.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I would like to illustrate the point that my hon. Friend is making about the north-east. The then Competition Commission referred to geographic market segregation in the north-east. The competition that was promised to follow deregulation has never materialised. There used to be lots of small operators, but they have long since vanished, the big operators having pushed them off the road. The competition that we were promised does not exist in the north-east; it certainly does not exist in my community. We need only look at the routes offered by operators to understand the market segregation. Any improvement would be welcome.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with many of these arguments.

We reject the Government’s amendment to limit local councils’ powers to improve bus services for passengers. However, despite that—much of the debate on this clause has concentrated on the issue of whether franchising should be available to other parts of the country—I return to the positive point that we want those mayoral combined authorities that were promised franchising powers to have them at the earliest opportunity, just a few weeks from now. We are disappointed that the Government are seeking to overturn our extension of franchising powers to all authorities, but we will not frustrate the process or do anything that could delay the handing of those powers to the mayoral combined authorities that have been promised them.

[Bridget Phillipson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who speaks from the Front Bench, I welcome the Bill and the measures that it introduces. I have spent a lot of time in my seven years here campaigning on bus issues due to the local problems that we face. Any changes to the current system are to be welcomed. I wish areas well with the automatic powers, as they proceed in improving services for local people. Of course I want that for my community, too. Although I understand the Minister’s point that the steps that he described in the process are not intended to be hurdles too difficult to overcome, I hope that the Government will remain committed to delivering that.

Change has been a long time coming, and hopefully we are now getting there, but I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will see the measures through, particularly in areas such as the north-east. We have a combined authority covering seven local authority areas, with an integrated transport authority. We have Nexus, which the Minister will know has other powers, such as the operation of Tyne and Wear metro. We have an extensive network that in many senses works well. What we do not have is the powers we need to make sure that bus routes serve the needs of local people. That is not simply about making it easier for people to get around—although that would be wonderful, because it is not often very easy, frankly, to get around on local buses in my constituency—but if we are to thrive as a region and if we are to create the jobs and support the businesses and the growth that we all want to see, we need a transport network that allows that to happen. In too many parts of my constituency, where buses are the only means of transport, that is incredibly difficult.

To give one example, Doxford international business park in my constituency houses thousands of employees with many big international firms. I frequently visit businesses there, and employees, many of whom are shift workers, often tell me that it is incredibly difficult to get a bus after 8 or 9 o’clock. That holds back investment and makes it difficult to retain staff. Although the transport authority is looking at proposals to extend the Tyne and Wear metro, as I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge is well aware, in the short term we need bus services that will allow people to get to work readily and inexpensively, which is not currently the situation.

On Second Reading, many of us talked widely about the failure of deregulation and the fact that it did not deliver on its promises. I will not dwell on that, other than to say that, in the case of the north-east, on every test that was set out for deregulation back in the 1980s, deregulation has been an unmitigated disaster and has had the reverse effect to the one intended. More than 30 years on from all we were promised about greater efficiency, lower fares and greater passenger numbers, the opposite has happened in the north-east. We have got less competitive services that are less efficient, more expensive and less convenient for the people I represent. Of course, it has given operators the freedom to do exactly what they like, when they like, at a time when we put tens of millions of pounds into local bus services.

Operators receive significant taxpayer subsidy with little accountability, and when things go wrong and operators cut routes arbitrarily with little notice, often affecting the most vulnerable in our community, there is no recourse. We can have dialogue with the operators—I meet them regularly to make the case—but ultimately it is an entirely commercial decision over which local people have no say. It is a source of real frustration that when minor changes to routes can result in local people being cut off from hospital services, GP appointments and the ability to get to local shopping facilities or schools, the operators can say, “We’ve heard what you had to say; unfortunately, we are pressing ahead regardless,” and there is no opportunity for local people to influence that in any meaningful sense.

We are talking not simply about routes that are unprofitable, but usually about the fact that they are not profitable enough. Outside London, big operators such as Stagecoach have made considerable profits, far greater than they make in London. I do not seek to deny operators the right to make a profit. My point is that they make a decent profit in areas such as London under a regulated service; they could do the same in the north-east. The profit margins would perhaps not be quite as high and would not be the double digits that they are used to—no one would seek to stop them running a competitive or profitable service—but if we are going to give them significant taxpayer money, the least we can expect is that they take on board the concerns of local people and use that wisely.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

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

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

At last, at last—finally, the Bus Services Bill has arrived. We rejoice at its arrival and want to ensure that it does not disappoint. It is a bit like the experience that I expect many of us have had as bus passengers. We wait for a long time at the bus stop, finally spying a bus on the distant horizon, only for our hearts to sink as it approaches and we see the destination sign, because, after all that waiting, the Bus Services Bill is marked, “Franchising for mayors and combined authorities only.” For most of the country, it will be a long wait for better buses if the Government get their way and carry out their threat to reverse the improvements made to the Bill before it arrived here. We will revisit this argument in Committee, but I urge the Minister to consider leaving the Bill in its improved state so that everyone gains.

We have heard excellent contributions from both sides of the House. It is rare that we discuss buses, but we have done the subject justice today. As it happens, we have heard from a glittering array of former shadow Secretaries of State for Transport, with some very fine contributions. I am deeply conscious that almost everyone who has spoken is more experienced in the House than I am, so I listened to their wise counsel and have learned a lot.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who chairs the Transport Committee, rightly pointed out that it was disappointing that the Bill was not published alongside the vital guidance and secondary legislation. I should say in passing that I pay tribute to the officials who have worked very hard on the Bill. Obviously, an 18-month wait gives more scope for more work, so we have some sympathy, but the lengthy draft guidance did come rather late, which has made it harder for everyone to scrutinise it sufficiently closely.

My hon. Friend and her Committee also noted that the language used in the draft guidance is rather vague in a number of areas. We have heard the phrase “compelling case” mentioned a number of times today, but it is too vague. There should be no room for ambiguity or subjectivity in such important guidance, which is supposed to outline how the powers in the Bill will be put into practice. I hope the Minister, in his response, can give some clarification on those points.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) gave us an important historical account of how the Bill came about. He rightly reminded us that, although there was no golden age, things were very different 30 or 40 years ago, and people could actually get around. He was also the first to rightly query the barrier the Government are setting in terms of those offered franchising.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), in a very witty—almost Cantona-esque—contribution, queried the opportunities the Bill provides to improve the environmental friendliness of buses, and he made a good offer to the Government on behalf of Greater Manchester, expressing its willingness to prove that the model can actually work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in a powerful and passionate contribution, which absolutely showcased her detailed knowledge of the subject, sang the praises of her city. She persuaded us, as if we needed any persuading, that buses can be glamorous. She also explained how success had been achieved in her city through well-trained staff, good leadership and partnerships that work. She pointed out that that is slightly at odds with what some of us would see as the Secretary of State’s approach, which seems to be more concerned with not co-operating with Labour authorities than with putting passengers’ best interests first.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and a number of others pointed out the very high cost of bus travel at the moment. He did find it within himself to praise the London system, which must have been hard. He also pointed out that many other European cities operate such a system and that it can be very successful.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), with his customary gusto, reminded us that his city is much visited and that Manchester airport is in his constituency, as if anyone needed reminding. He, too, explained the very high costs faced in constituencies and warned that the guidance must not make this process unworkable. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) rightly pointed out that bus passengers must not be used as a bargaining chip in devolution discussions.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) reminded us of where all this came from: the ideological experiment that, in his words, has been inflicted on the public, and he is absolutely right to call time on it. He also raised important air quality issues, calling for a clean air zone. He, too, urged the Government to provide clarity on the term “compelling case”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) rightly reminded us of the cost for families, which has been a recurring theme in the debate. People in London would do well to remember that the relatively low cost of services enjoyed here is quite unlike the costs elsewhere, particularly for families. The examples that have been given of it being cheaper to get a cab are very telling. My hon. Friend, too, spoke strongly about the environmental issues. She also said that the funding issues have not been addressed by the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) stressed that it is the London model that is competitive at the moment, not the model elsewhere. She rightly praised colleagues in the north-east for their worthy and doughty attempts to get a quality contract. She also rightly concluded that, given that all that work has been done, the logic would be to continue and conclude it.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) made important points about open data. I note her comments about free wi-fi, and we will be pursuing that.

We are in the perhaps unusual but happy position of rather agreeing with the Government on much of this Bill, which was, in our view, much improved by the changes made during its passage through the other place. It now offers a step back from the problems created 30 years ago, offering an extension of the system that has worked well in London since then. However, for anyone concerned that competition is being taken out of the system, let us be very clear that it is not: it is being moved from on the road to off the road. The London system is highly competitive, ironically, unlike many other areas that have lapsed into near-monopoly status, with powerful operators able to see off competition from new entrants. We support the changes because they are a step forward and provide the opportunity of improving services for passengers, but we also know the risks of competition, and so we will be demanding strong safeguards, particularly in protecting workers from suffering a race to the bottom.

The Bill offers new forms of partnership, which we also support, because, put simply, one cannot run a bus service without the road space to do so, and we know how controversial that can be in many places. It is therefore vital that there is a constructive relationship between those who run the services and those who plan and maintain the road network and supporting infrastructure. We also know that in different places different kinds of relationships have grown up. We want to respect those differences and acknowledge where they are successful, so a range of different types of partnership makes sense. However, it is not clear that the Department has always had a good grasp of what is happening on the ground—a point rather admitted in recent answers to written questions—and better analysis would provide more confidence, because there is a danger of a plethora of poorly understood arrangements emerging. The one model that makes the most obvious sense—allowing elected local authorities to take a holistic approach and run the services themselves—is of course being deliberately ruled out by the Government. We believe they are wrong to do that.

We are pleased that the Bill now includes provisions on audio-visual announcements, environmental protection and passenger representation, but there are still certain aspects that we hope to amend, and I look forward to visiting those issues in Committee. We do not, for example, believe that the employment protection provisions are strong enough, and we would like to see something concrete on bus safety reporting and disability awareness training for bus drivers, not just reassurances from Ministers that those issues will be dealt with at a later date.

We welcome the data provisions in the Bill. Opening up data should lead to greater transparency and opportunities for innovation around transport apps, as we have heard from a number of hon. Members. It is particularly welcome for fares, the data on which are currently siloed, incomplete, and inconclusive. It is astonishing that in the 21st century any provider of a service should think so little of their passengers that they do not even tell them the price before the start of the journey. Just stepping back and thinking about this for a moment tells us all we need to know about the privatised bus market. It is a 30-year experiment that failed: 30 years in which operators could have pursued innovation and delivered the promises made by the Conservatives when they tore the national system apart, but in reality 30 years when services have declined, fares have risen, and passengers have been taken for granted rather than cherished. Passengers deserve much better, including better information. They deserve to know more, and we will press for more information on issues such as the publication of data on bus accidents.

We already have a roads investment strategy, a rail investment strategy, and, although we are still waiting for it, a cycling and walking investment strategy, so is it too much to ask that we see a proper, national conversation about, and a long-term plan for, bus investment? The Government say that the bus industry is a private industry and thus does not require an investment strategy, but, as we have heard, there is significant public funding going into it—about 40% of the revenue comes from the public purse. We need to have a proper think about how best to utilise that money to ensure that while bus operators have strong businesses, they also provide the best value for money for all bus passengers.

While we hear what the Secretary of State has said about this, I hope that he reconsiders his ambition to revisit several of the amendments made to this Bill in the other place. We have already removed an ideological clause banning local authorities from forming their own bus companies, because that not only seems antithetical to a Bill that has been repeatedly described as an enabling Bill intended to allow local authorities to pick a system of governance best suited to their local needs, but feels bolted on. Indeed, it was not mentioned at all in the original bus reform workshop documents. As others have pointed out, why on earth limit a model that works so well? Some of the best operators in the country, as we have heard, are municipals. That being the case, let us have more of them—let us have more success. That is the Labour way, and that is the route we will be pursuing in future.

Local authorities all over the country need and deserve greater control over their bus services, whether in rural areas, conurbations, or in between. It is positive that the Government have agreed as a condition of their city deals to give combined mayoral authorities London-style powers over their bus networks, and they must honour that promise, but what about the rest?

I fear that this patchwork approach will lead to inconsistency and leave many areas with no route to improvement at all. The partnership options in the Bill look promising, but in many areas bus operators with a monopoly of the local market might not be minded to enter a partnership agreement.

[Andy Burnham]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I have a great deal of sympathy with his points. I remind him that the Bill was a result of requests from Labour local government in Greater Manchester—I would say that it is a Labour Bill for that reason—and was part of the devolution deal that was demanded. Although we may have frustrations with the Government’s intentions to reverse some amendments, will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that no one on the Labour Benches will seek to prevent any of the legislation getting on to the statute books so that the powers can be used by metro mayors as soon as possible?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I quite understand my right hon. Friend’s point and I can assure him that we support the Bill, but we just want to make it better, and better for everybody. We think that local authorities need a full range of options on the table.

Bus reform is back on the agenda—better late than never—and there is clearly cross-party support for this measure. We all want to get the best deal for bus passengers, wherever they live. Anything less would do a disservice to all those people relying on bus services every day. As has been pointed out, more public transport journeys are taken by bus every day than by any other mode of public transport. Buses deserve more attention, bus passengers deserve more attention, and I hope that the passage of this Bill will start to correct the damage done more than 30 years ago and lay the foundations for the modern transport systems our country needs and deserves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.