Bus Services Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, while it is clearly right to explore these issues, I strongly urge the Minister to resist these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned London, but she will know that London is almost a city state. The circumstances are very different, and with very different funding arrangements. She mentioned the lower profit available to operators in London, but the reason for that is that they are taking less risk than in a non-regulated service.
This is all about accountability. If we are not careful, we might well find ourselves hurtling down the same avenues as we did during the debates on the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill last year. Combined authorities with elected mayors, or any other local authority with an elected mayor, are very different beasts from local authorities that have not gone down the route of having an elected mayor. The appointment of a directly elected mayor provides those authorities with a considerable battalion of powers where they have agreed devolution deals with the Government. That of course includes the power to franchise local bus services.
Authorities with agreed devolution deals already have the necessary consent to pursue their new bus franchising powers and will be allowed to do so when the relevant parts of this Bill are brought into operation. However, I do not believe that that should be the case for other local authorities. They have not been through the process of acquiring what could be said to be a higher status in terms of local accountability. It is a fact that those authorities with elected mayors and agreed devolution deals already have the powers by virtue of that process. We know that the process is not necessarily straightforward and requires hard-fought agreement between the authorities that comprise those areas.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Earl emphasised mayoral combined authorities and mayoral powers. Why, then, has Cornwall—which is not going for a mayoral model—been promised franchising powers?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I do not know that, but I expect the Minister will tell us.
The agreement between the authorities that comprise those areas is hard fought. Some tough battles are still extant where devolution deals just could not be worked through. Through their earlier legislation, the Government have established a process for a new kind of local authority, which has wide-ranging powers but first has to satisfy the Government that the right kind of structures and accountability are in place. The amendments would give the same wide-ranging powers to local authorities that have not taken those brave and often difficult political steps.
I am afraid therefore that I disagree with those noble Lords who say that this Bill treats local authorities without elected mayors or an agreed devolution deal differently from those who have. There is no unfairness here. It is a simple fact that authorities with elected mayors and agreed devolution deals already have government approval to introduce bus franchising; other local authorities do not. What would be unfair, I believe, is allowing any local authority access to bus franchising powers without having gone through the democratic process of electing a mayor and acquiring government agreement to a devolution deal. I am not at all convinced by the arguments put forward for these amendments and the Minister has my full support should he ask the Committee to resist them.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the amendment to which I have added my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to decide what other local authorities, along with mayoral authorities, may have franchising powers. The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee states that it is,
“puzzled by the implication in the memorandum that mayoral combined authorities have expressed an interest in pursuing a franchising approach, given that there are currently no combined authorities with a mayor”.
Although an order has been made preparing Greater Manchester for this situation, its mayor will not be elected until 2017. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on exactly what the provision in the Explanatory Memorandum refers to. Does it refer to Manchester or other areas? Even more fundamentally, why should a mayor be any better at running bus services than a designated executive member within a transport authority? After all, the previous Mayor of London did not have a glorious record when running the buses. A great deal of resources were wasted on the “Boris bus”, and the fact that London buses run very well is down to the experience and expertise built up over many years by Transport for London. Compare the record to which I have just referred with that of Reading, which has an excellent municipal bus service run on a traditional civic structure, and has had the wisdom to invest well in its bus services over the years and maintain its municipal service operating at arm’s length from the council.
I give another example: the Mayor of Liverpool, in his wisdom, shut all the bus lanes. I do not think those are examples of mayors’ wonderful wisdom trumping other forms of local government organisation. I am puzzled about the position in which this Bill puts Cornwall, because, as the noble Lord said, Cornwall was promised franchising as part of its devolution deal but now, according to the Bill, has to get the Secretary of State’s permission to go ahead with franchising. Previously in Committee, My noble friend Lady Scott referred to Jersey as an excellent example of how franchising can work, even with small authorities. Jersey has 80 buses and a population of 100,000, but has increased bus passenger usage by 32% since it had franchising, saved more than £1 million a year in public subsidy, added five routes and increased the frequency of its buses. That is an example of franchising working in a very small locality. Therefore, I very much hope that the Secretary of State will accept our arguments, agree to look at this issue and consider whether the need for the Secretary of State to intervene can be removed from the Bill. I hope the Minister can give us hope in this regard.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I agree that there is no distinction, really, in accountability terms between a mayor and a councillor who is considering these matters. I strongly agreed with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about London and London franchising. I live in London and I can certainly attest that what she said about that is entirely correct. London buses are, frankly, marvellous. Whether you congratulate Boris—poor chap, he is receiving rather a bad press at the moment so I might as well praise him for his new buses—or Thomas Heatherwick, who actually designed them, they are absolutely superb. Whether you praise Thomas Heatherwick, Boris Johnson or Ken Livingstone, London really works from a bus point of view. In fact, my wife said to me the other day, “You’re becoming a bus junkie”. I actually took a bus to go one stage because the bus routes give you priority over cars, et cetera, so it really does work. Therefore, I am emphatically in favour of the Bill, which tries to extend franchising to the rest of the country, which I think badly needs it.
However, I am, frankly, horrified by Clause 4, which submits everything—apart from the one aspect of mayors with combined authorities—to the requirement that the Secretary of State should process it. It means that a council which wants to put on a new bus service from, let us say, Little Dribbling to Nether Wallop has to take it to the Secretary of State. That is absolute nonsense. I was a Minister of Transport in a Labour Government a long time ago and this system does not work. You need to get somebody who knows the situation locally, understands it well and can take a decision. Okay, there are always a few problems and occasionally things go wrong, but pushing it up to a civil servant and then to a Minister, who probably has no knowledge of the situation you are talking about, does not work. All it does is congest the Government at the top level.
I saw the other day that Prime Minister David Cameron was complaining that in comparison with Angela Merkel, he had much more to do because he had to take decisions about education, transport, the NHS and so forth and she did not; in Germany it was all farmed out to the Länder. This is why. We are taking all these absurdly detailed decisions at government level. Although my experience is quite different from that of the noble Lord, Lord True—his is extensively in local government, mine is not—from the point of view of a government Minister, it is nonsense, frankly. It simply does not work.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, tried his best to give a reason, which was about accountability. There is no difference between the accountability of an elected mayor and that of an elected councillor. It is a simple fact. They are both elected; they are both responsible to the local electorate. There is no distinction that I can see. I am not surprised that the Delegated Powers Committee said that there was no adequate explanation. I looked through the Explanatory Notes, hoping to find some rationale for this procedure, and there is none. Therefore, we have a real problem here and the Government really have to think again.
Another difficulty is that quite apart from overcentralisation, the British Civil Service seems to go in for too much complexity. If we raise the bar too high, either because things have to be processed up or because we put in a lot of regulations, which are sometimes unnecessary—they are no doubt sensible in some ways and no doubt advisable; none the less there is more and more regulation—it becomes likely that lots of local authorities which could use these powers will simply say, “Oh, it’s too much trouble. We don’t want to bother with all that. We won’t do it”. There are easy ways to get out of it and then blame the Government. When people ask, “Why isn’t there a decent bus service here?” they can say, “Because the Government made it so complicated”. It is an easy way out for them.
Therefore, while, like my noble friend Lord True, I am in no way criticising my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has his job to do and who does it extremely well, I believe that between now and Report in September the Government should look at this and extensively modernise it. If they do not, I do not think, frankly, that they have much chance of getting it through this House.
Earl Attlee
My noble friend Lord Horam observed that the Explanatory Notes do not justify the policy, but my understanding is that that is not the purpose of Explanatory Notes. Explanatory Notes, as I understand it, tell us what the Bill does and how it works and do not seek to justify the policy.
Lord Horam
It is not just that the Explanatory Notes, which should explain what each clause does, do not explain why this does what it does; the overview, which we also get, does not explain it either.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken in today’s Committee debate, I declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.
The two amendments in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. As regards franchises and enhanced partnerships respectively, they would require operators to set out how they will seek to increase passenger representation. As I said in previous debates, this Bill is very technical in parts but the issues we are talking about today, and that of buses in general, are about people and delivering a reasonably priced local service which delivers for them and their local communities, and keeps places alive and vibrant by connecting communities with other communities and enabling people to travel to work, go to school and enjoy leisure activities. For all that to happen in a responsive manner, we need mechanisms in place to hear the voice of the passenger at a local level. I am fully aware that we have a body—Passenger Focus—which provides a voice for England outside London, but I am talking about what happens at a very local level. It is important that people and communities are able to discuss their experiences face to face and say what they want. That can include working with Passenger Focus at a local level or perhaps other arrangements.
Operators and local transport authorities often carry out surveys and other work and meet local councillors and MPs. That is always very welcome. However, what is proposed in these amendments is the need to ensure that the views of passengers are taken into account, and to make provision in the Bill for the planning of these services. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I shall try to be brief. These amendments are what are often termed “no-brainers”. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, explained, the purpose of these amendments is to ensure greater participation and involvement with passenger groups in the process for developing a franchise scheme and the consultation and throughout the life of an enhanced partnership scheme. During Second Reading, a number of noble Lords commented that there was little mention of passengers in the Bill, so these amendments address that point.
I know that bus operators do a huge amount of work to ensure that they engage with the people who actually use their services. After all, who are they providing their services for? They are for passengers. On what basis would bus operators, and local authorities for that matter, not want to seek the views and opinions of the people who will be using their services?
Organisations such as Bus Users UK exist for the very purpose of giving passengers a voice, and do great work with operators, including holding local bus surgeries where passengers can engage directly with operators. Together with operator and local authority open days, these events are invaluable. Passengers are able to give solid feedback to those actually running the services, and in turn operators can inform and explain their decisions. Those decisions may not always be popular, but to my mind people are much more likely to accept a decision if the reasons for it are helpfully and properly explained.
I hope that my noble friend has a piece of paper in front of him marked: “Agree to consider”, or something similar. Even if he cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendments in the form that we see them today, I hope he will agree with the sentiment and spirit in which they have been brought forward so that we might see some government amendment which would achieve the same effect, at a later stage.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
That is very helpful. I am very happy to get involved in discussions on an amendment that we are all happy with and can work with, and which delivers the aim expressed across the Committee today of making sure that passengers are properly involved. However, what I do not want to see at the end of those discussions is a note in guidance, because, importantly, that does not have the same strength as something in the Bill.
Earl Attlee
Will the Minister take great care to make sure that everyone who has an interest in the Bill is included in these discussions? Sometimes it is possible for people to fall out of the loop and not be fully involved.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I give my noble friend that assurance. I will go further and say that I never forget my noble friend when it comes to such discussions. He has made a very valid contribution throughout this debate and I am sure he will continue to do so in debates going forward. Any noble Lord has an open invitation to meetings, as I have said, as we look to strengthen the provisions of the Bill and the services it provides.
Bus Services Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to my Amendment 60. My two amendments would make a rather significant change to new Section 123I of the Transport Act 2000: they would prevent a franchising authority from revisiting a failed franchise proposal for a period of five years.
One of the things that any business dreads is uncertainty. Consider the current situation in the UK: it adversely affects investment plans, recruitment decisions and the conduct of everyday activities. Bus operators are understandably concerned that through the measures in the Bill they could find their businesses under threat and, in the worst-case scenario, eliminated.
I will avoid rehearsing the arguments against franchising. My amendments seek to ensure that if a franchise proposal fails, for whatever reason, or if the franchising authority decides not to progress its plans—again, for whatever reason—the franchising authority must wait for five years before revisiting the issue and seeking to bring forward a new scheme. I am not necessarily wedded to the five-year period but the point I am making is that there must be a sensible gap before the process can start again, and five years seemed as appropriate a period as any other, particularly when the kind of investment decisions and long-term planning that transport providers make is taken into account. Most authorities do not change their political complexion very regularly but, in those areas that do, it is important that bus operators’ commercial decisions are not adversely affected.
The amendments would give some certainty to bus operators, and would allow them to continue to develop and improve their services, invest in new technology, innovate and react to changing and growing passenger needs. While quality contracts have been possible for the best part of 16 years, the process for bringing forward a franchise will be less onerous, and we know that these powers could be used as soon as they are brought into operation. So the threat would be very real and would be a constant dark cloud hovering above operators’ heads, even if a proposal had just been found to be unviable.
It may also be that authorities in scope might secretly welcome the amendments. The burden on local authorities grows and they are under huge pressure to deliver an enormous range of local services, from bin collection to care for the elderly to keeping the street lights on, with ever-dwindling financial resources. Having spent considerable time, energy and money on a franchise scheme that in the end was not progressed, authorities may value a legal reason that they can offer for why they cannot revisit the issue despite pressure to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
I rise to speak to Amendment 61A in my name and to Amendment 66 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. On Amendment 61A, although the franchising authority should seek to enforce breaches of registration requirements by reference to the traffic commissioner, there are circumstances where that will not provide a swift, effective remedy. The right to request a court to exercise its discretion to grant an injunction is a more appropriate and proportionate measure for use in urgent cases to prevent serious breaches of the registration requirements.
The amendment is based on a similar provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A reference to the traffic commissioner would result in an investigation, followed by the possible imposition of sanctions, including a financial penalty and compensation. However, the process might require weeks to complete, during which an operator could continue to run services in breach of the registration requirements. The ability to apply for injunctive relief would allow the franchising authority to safeguard the franchise scheme in critical circumstances. It is anticipated that it would be used only in rare and specific circumstances, but it would give the franchise extra protection.
The purpose of Amendment 66 is to ensure that the franchising authority should not be obliged to issue a service permit where it would have an adverse effect on the financial and economic viability of the wider bus franchising scheme. It should not have to provide one if, for example, it would adversely affect tram, light rail or heavy rail services within the area. The service permit regime in the Bill is the way in which, first, cross-boundary services can be provided—in other words, services that go in and out of a franchised area—and, secondly, services can be provided where no service has been provided for in the franchise contract. The franchising authority has to grant permission for such permits, but the Bill prevents operators using these provisions to cherry pick and, in doing so, to undermine the wider franchise by enabling the franchise authority to refuse a permit where it would have an adverse effect on any service provided in the franchise.
Amendment 66 would extend the safeguard explicitly to include consideration of any impacts on the wider economic and financial viability of the bus franchise scheme. It would also enable consideration of wider public transport services. There would otherwise be a loophole whereby an operator could undermine other forms of public transport by, for example, running a bus service in parallel with and in competition with a bus rapid transit system or a light rail system, both of which currently operate within the Greater Manchester footprint. This could undermine the wider integrated public transport network, of which the bus franchise forms a part, by undermining its economic position and its fully integrated nature. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these points.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for all contributions from noble Lords. I said that I was not wedded to the five-year period, but noble Lords may have drafted their comments before they had heard what I had to say. Amendment 59 might be defective, but it was intended as a precursor to Amendment 60. I can understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but the five-year period—or whatever period it was—would encourage local authorities considering franchising to make sure that they got it right first time rather than have a half-hearted attempt at it.
I am grateful for the positive response of the Minister both to my amendments and to those from other noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, subject to the usual caveats.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 71 and 72 in this group. Amendment 71 is fairly simple but none the less deals with an important matter. Its purpose is to ensure that local authorities which have acquired what will doubtless be highly sensitive company information for the purposes of preparing a franchise scheme may use that information only for the sole purpose for which it was provided. At Second Reading I expressed my concerns about the provision of this type of information to local authorities. I am not convinced that it is right that bus operators should be under a legal obligation to provide what could be highly sensitive information about such things as revenue received from the running of a particular service, employment, staff details and so on. It is quite a list.
I am certain that it is important that, having been given the information, local authorities be restricted from using it for any purpose other than that for which it was intended. They should not be able to use it willy-nilly. They should not be able to dip in and out or, even more important, to pass that information on to a third party. In that case, who knows where the information would end up? It is not inconceivable that it could end up in the hands of a competitor, and that simply cannot be allowed to happen. This is a serious issue and my amendment is intended to give some assurance to bus operators that, having provided the information, it will be protected and used for one purpose only.
The purpose of Amendment 72 is to require local authorities to pay local bus operators for the information that they must provide to assist in the assessment of a franchise scheme. This follows up on a point I made at Second Reading. I find it unacceptable that bus operators should be under a legal obligation to provide what could be highly sensitive information absolutely free of charge. Information of the type sought is part of the good will of the company, and anyone in business knows that good will is built up over many years and is hard fought for. Operators work extremely hard to develop their services and to provide the best possible journey experience for their passengers. That is what they do and it is why they are in business: to provide a decent product that people want and that they will buy. It is the same with a bus service. So to expect operators to hand over all the operating details to the very organisation that is looking to take the business off them—thank you very much—seems quite odd. It simply would not happen in any other business transaction.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Earl is asking that bidders be paid by the franchising authority for submitting information in preparing a bid. Is that what happens with London buses? Does TfL pay bidders in order for them to produce a decent bid? I am asking the question because I do not know the answer.
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord will know that London bus operations have been regulated for some time, so the issue does not arise in London. It is a new situation.
Under any other circumstances this practice would be prohibited under the provisions of the Competition Act, so why is it okay in this case?
I remind the Committee that when the passenger transport executives sold their bus operations after deregulation in the mid-1980s, such data were a huge factor in the price they sold those businesses for in the private sector. That slightly answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. However, 30 years on, such data appear to have no value and local authorities can get back for nothing what they originally sold for rather a lot of money, with operators providing the means to determine their own execution.
My amendment does not put a monetary value on the data simply because they will be different in each case; I am suggesting that operators and the authority should come to an agreement on their worth. I am under no illusion—such agreement is not likely to be easy and may not actually be achievable at all. In that vein, I hope that my noble friend the Minister does not regard this as a wrecking amendment. That is certainly not my intention and I will not be seeking to test the views of noble Lords on this point at any stage. However, I hope that he will be able to give some words of comfort to bus operators. Intellectual property must surely have a value, as does good will.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 74 tabled in my name. Before I address it specifically, I will say that we are supportive of Amendment 70. It deals with air quality data, which I have addressed on several occasions in discussions on previous amendments. However, we would certainly not be supportive of the noble Earl’s Amendment 72. For a start, it is about information that any reasonably good operator will have at their fingertips. We are not asking operators to do a great deal of work to find these data; they are all easily available. Secondly, the noble Earl states that this is a reasonable request but this information is publicly available as regards the railways, for example, and there is no reason why we should have this level of information about the railways but not about bus services.
Earl Attlee
Does the noble Baroness agree that if, without the benefit of the legislation, one operator shared this information with another operator, it would be in serious difficulties with the competition authorities?
Baroness Randerson
That is a separate issue. The issue here is enabling local authorities to make a reasonable judgment in order to produce a good franchising scheme. I accept that there are separate issues to be addressed in relation to competition.
I turn to Amendment 74, on the power to obtain information about local services and franchising, and the handling of that information. This is purely a probing amendment designed to investigate the unevenness within the Bill. I have referred to the uneven approach to the three types of schemes and simply wish to point out to the Minister that on page 58 of the Bill appear identical words to those in my amendment, which set out the circumstances in which information could be disclosed in the case of enhanced partnerships. However, in the case of franchising, on page 33 there are no such caveats or restrictions on the use of the information. I am interested to find out from the Minister the legal reason behind this—or is it just chance that there is a long list of things that one can and cannot do with that information in the case of enhanced partnerships, but which are not included in the list on franchising?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my Amendment 71, which he obviously understands. I admit that Amendment 72 was slightly tongue in cheek. I said that I would never press it to a vote. However, it is important that the Committee understands that operators will be giving valuable commercial information to the authority.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to Amendment 69A and the other amendments in my name. I recall that he said that he would write to my noble friend Lord Bradley in connection with Amendment 69. Given that Amendments 69A, 72A, 72B, 73 and 74 all have time-related issues, I wonder whether he could extend his letter to cover those as well. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Bus Services Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 34 is proposed by me and my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It would require the franchising authority or authorities to give consideration when drawing up a scheme to how the not-for-profit sector could be involved, the purpose being to contribute to the long-term sustainability of the franchising scheme, which, one hopes, will give local people a better bus service than they enjoy at present. The not-for-profit sector is thriving in a variety of areas. Expanding this model in the delivery of bus services is one way to contribute to ending the decline in bus services and routes that we have seen over many years, especially outside London, and which has been the subject of discussion during consideration of this Bill. It can complement other providers and deliver on a smaller scale bus routes that really benefit local communities and that can boost the local economy, connecting people with jobs, shops, schools and other services that they may not have had access to in recent years. Our amendment would require any assessment to include such proposals.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, does not have “resist” in his notes against this amendment. He has been very responsive today and in our previous day in Committee, and I hope he continues in that vein. Perhaps he will say to us that the amendment is not necessary, or suggest that it might be included in guidance. Of course, it could be in guidance, but as I hope he can see, that would not have the weight of its being clearly in the Bill.
We all want to see better bus services, and this Bill is a very positive step forward, but we need to go a little further to strengthen the proposals in some areas, as this amendment would certainly do. It would make it easier for different models of service to come into play and give a better bus service for all. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, not-for-profit bus services, or community transport, cover a wide spectrum of services, including those operated by charities. I am the first to praise the extraordinary work the sector does for people who need a lot of support in their daily lives—drivers who walk users to their door to make sure they have not lost their keys and then carry their shopping into the hall are local heroes. The sector can also plug a few gaps in services for the general public where there are not enough passengers to make a route a commercial proposition and the hard-pushed local authority does not have sufficient resources to fund a standard bus service.
However, I urge my noble friend the Minister to resist the amendment. Community transport services are not subject to the same regulatory regime as local bus services. Their drivers are not subject to the same stringent training regime as those driving registered services, nor do they need to satisfy many of the other compliance requirements set down by the traffic commissioner.
Services operated under Section 19 of the Transport Act 1985—it is mainly this type of service we are talking about with this amendment—are exempt from many safety and fair competition rules so long as they are not provided to the general public. So how on earth can they contribute to the success or otherwise of a franchise?
The whole issue of services operated under Section 19 and indeed Section 22, permits has been a bone of contention for many years with the EU. If community transport operators were required to enter the local bus market and operate under the same rules as operators of registered services, it would be a different matter, but they are not. There is no level playing field and, at the moment, community transport operators are able to operate more cheaply but without the regulatory safeguards in place for other operators. I therefore urge my noble friend to resist the amendment as gently as he can.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, in contrast, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his amendment, because I believe strongly that there is a valuable role for community transport and not-for-profit operators. That role is particularly important in rural areas. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the very useful letter that I received today, which gives great detail about the Government’s approach to rural areas. I regret that the information is not in the formal impact assessment; nevertheless, it is now publicly available and useful to us all.
It is important not just that not-for-profit operators work in rural areas but that we look at the widest possible range of community-based schemes in urban areas as well. I give as an example Hackney Community Transport, which operates commercial services for Transport for London, and Ealing Community Transport, which runs buses in Dorset with Go-Ahead. Those are urban examples that have spread out from the area where they started, but the point I am making is that community-based and not-for-profit transport services are part of a flexible mix. If we are truly to improve bus services, we must have more variety: we must have an alternative to the big five bus companies which effectively run the vast majority of bus services outside London. Although they compete, in most cases they do not do so on the ground—they rarely compete against each other service to service. We need an alternative to that if we are to have a flourishing bus service throughout Britain.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I support the comments of my noble friend. I had not intended to speak, but the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, slightly provoked me into it when he commented that not-for-profit services “plug a few gaps”. I can tell him that in areas such as mine, in Suffolk, they are the service. Almost all rural areas in Suffolk now have no bus service.
I agree with the noble Earl that I would not want community transport schemes to be tied up in a whole plethora of red tape, but nor would I want emerging franchising models to ignore the opportunities provided, in the way that my noble friend Lady Randerson has described, or inadvertently to disadvantage smaller community services. It is easy to see how you could do that—by cherry picking parts of their routes and not linking with others, you can affect their viability. Whether it is an urban or a rural area, but particularly in the rural area I know, it is important to understand and get the ecology of the bus industry right: to understand that something you do to one part is going to impact on another.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if I can stimulate a contribution from the noble Baroness, I have done the Committee a great service.
Earl Attlee
“(g) whether the proposed scheme would be more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses would be wholly or partially expropriated by the scheme.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, this amendment is all about compensation for loss of business, and its purpose is to make it a requirement on a franchising authority to factor in the cost of compensating bus operators as part of the assessment of a proposed franchise scheme.
I can anticipate the Minister’s response, but I would still like to explain my concerns. If the state needs to remove something from a person for the public good, then the state should compensate that person. It is quite simple: if land is purchased under compulsory purchase power, the owner of that land gets paid for it. I am fully aware that compensation would not have been payable under a quality contract scheme, although the days of quality contracts are severely numbered, and that when toes were dipped in that particular pool of water it ended rather badly, but it does not make it right, which is why my party was not keen on it.
The cost of compensating a bus operator who has to close his business, having failed to win a contract bid, could well run into millions of pounds, taking into account the physical assets—vehicles, depots and land—and the good will that the business enjoys. In one of our previous debates, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked what would happen to garage premises in the city centre, and would they be redeveloped and lost, and about all sorts of complications. I will speak about good will again when we reach Clause 5.
If that is not bad enough for the large plcs which would have to redeploy—hopefully—their staff and assets, we should consider the position of SME operators. These businesses will have been established on the back of solid hard work and with considerable financial risk and energy on the part of private individuals, who will have invested their life savings to see their company grow. They stand to lose all that not because they have performed badly, not because they are bad companies and not because their passengers have decided they no longer want to use their services. They stand to lose it all simply because they lost out on a bidding process for the franchise. Apparently, all their endeavours are worth nothing.
The Bill is currently silent on the matter of compensation, which I believe is wrong. I was really quite alarmed by the comments made by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham at Second Reading, when he said that foreign owners of bus companies, but not British ones, might be entitled to compensation under the TTIP agreement, currently being negotiated at European level. I suggest that the whole issue of compensation needs to be revisited. Is it right that a foreign company could be paid millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, because its local authority has decided to take control of its local bus services, while a British company is left high and dry with no business and no compensation? The Minister will have to answer this point. I hate to say it, but this all sounds rather unconservative.
It is vital that when a local authority pursues a bus franchising scheme, the process, including a detailed assessment of the scheme, must be as robust as possible. The assessment must look at every single aspect of the proposed scheme, including whether the franchise scheme stacks up financially and represents good value for money because whose money will it be? It will be local taxpayers’ money, so the compensation to bus operators who are put out of business must be an important part of the mix. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am interested in the noble Earl’s comments about the poor small investor who has put their life savings into a bus company which is then put out of business because exactly the same thing happens on the railways, where most passenger services are franchised. I suppose the difference is that it is usually large bus companies making the bid. Some of them are owned by foreign state-owned enterprises, which means that the Government allow foreign state-owned enterprises to bid and operate train franchises but they do not allow British state-owned franchises to do the same. However, that is a slightly different matter.
Surely this is a question of which end of the telescope you are looking at. If it is question of small shareholders running a bus company in an area, they may well be worthy of sympathy in a different way from what might be called the big multinationals, but either way, experience on the railways shows that while the top management does not usually remain when a franchise changes, everyone else generally retains their job if they want it. In some cases there may be TUPE arrangements in place, but they may not be appropriate here. However, I am not convinced that the arguments for and against franchises are particularly affected by this because in practical terms many members of the workforce of a franchise of, say, a small bus company might think that they are losing their jobs, but they might well be taken on by the people running the franchise because they have local knowledge, they live locally and so on.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend tabled an amendment and it is right that we have a discussion in Committee. I hope that through the provisions in the Bill that I have highlighted—for example, the requirement to give ample notice—his fears are allayed as regards compensating a business franchise that goes out of operation. The Bill contains proper provisions in relation to, for example, giving notice. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I are on the same page on this.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if I have brought both Front Benches together, I have achieved something. Some noble Lords talked about disreputable operators. If, as a result of a franchising scheme, a disreputable operator goes out of business, no one would be happier than me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, picked up on the fact that local authorities are currently putting services out for bid and that operators are either successful or unsuccessful. Noble Lords are right but the difference here is that an operator can be sure that, so long as he has a good commercial model and keeps his customers happy, he can stay in business. However, if he gets hit by franchising, he will be out of business through no fault of his own.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made an interesting comparison with the railway industry, but he will know that that is on a different scale and people in the railway industry know that that is the name of the game. They will bid for the franchise and amortise all the costs of their investment over the length of the franchise, whereas the operators that I am concerned about at the moment have no risk of being put out of business by franchising because that simply cannot be done. It is therefore a new situation that they could not have planned for.
No noble Lord has explained away my TTIP problem. Regarding facilities for operators, franchising may well provide efficiencies because perhaps fewer workshops and garages are needed. The problem is that someone ends up holding redundant facilities that they used to have a commercial use for. I am not convinced by the response of my noble friend but I will read Hansard carefully and, subject to the usual caveats, I will come back on this. Oh, the Minister wants to have another go at me.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I would never dream of having a go at my noble friend; I am merely thankful that he has given way. It was remiss of me not to mention the TTIP issue. I understand that investor-state dispute settlement does not prevent a current or future Government who act in accordance with due process changing their laws or policies. My noble friends Lord Attlee and Lord Young referred to this point and it is my understanding that this element is still being negotiated between the European Union and the US.
Earl Attlee
I thank my noble friend for that response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, subject to the usual caveats.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I have four minor amendments in this group and wish to say a word or two about each of them. My Amendment 45 would include the Competition and Markets Authority in the list of consultees. This goes back to a point I made on Second Reading and in the private meeting organised with the Minister from another place.
In the days when I had much more to do with transport, the Competition and Markets Authority writ large across the operation of the bus industry, to the extent that, when I tried to deal with buses in Suffolk, I could not get two operators to sit in the same room with me because they had been told by their lawyers that that could be regarded as collusion and therefore anti-competitive. As noble Lords can imagine, that made trying to run a coherent bus network in Suffolk very difficult. We have dealt with that very effectively now—because we have very few buses. We need to really think about the point at which the Competition and Markets Authority is involved with this. The last thing we want is a very lengthy and expensive process of tendering, consultation and agreement, only to find at that point that the authority has a problem with it.
Amendment 49 tidies up the question of modification. At the moment, it is not at all clear what a modification means. You would not need to re-consult for a relatively minor one, but it is possible to imagine fairly major modifications to a franchising scheme where reconsulting would be a good idea. Amendment 52 comes back to the question of oversight. The Bill mentions “a summary of” the consultations. Given the questions about oversight and robustness, it is really important that we have all the information required. It is not going to be favoured reading among large sectors of the general public, but it is important that those involved in oversight have full information. The same goes for Amendment 53, which is about publishing all the responses so that everyone can see what everyone else has said. That is an important part of good governance and robust oversight.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is very difficult to find anything to argue about with these amendments on consultation, particularly Amendment 48. As noble Lords have said, they are very much in the vein of ensuring that all those likely to be affected by either a franchise scheme or enhanced partnership scheme are consulted in a timely fashion and that the documentation—which I am sure will be quite lengthy—will be in accessible formats. It stands to reason that there is no point in consulting if you do not allow adequate time, or provide the material in a way that people can easily access it.
We have already debated similar amendments about passenger representation at an earlier stage. However, I can see one potential problem, which is how long the timescale should be for people to comment. I suspect it is impossible to answer: as human beings we always tend to leave things to the last minute—just look at the mad rush to register to vote in the recent referendum. No matter how much time you give people to do something, it will never be enough. I suspect that, like me, many noble Lords get briefings for Committee on the day it takes place, long after we have drafted our notes and determined our position.
Can my noble friend assure the Committee that there are strict guidelines that public authorities have to follow when it comes to the format et cetera of consultation documents? These amendments may not be necessary—although the point is desirable—and the issues that they seek to address may already be an established and well-known requirement, but it does no harm to reinforce the point.
I turn to Amendment 51. The bus industry was shocked and, quite frankly, appalled when the Chancellor first gave oxygen to the idea of local bus franchising some 18 months ago. Bus operators, from the large plcs to small family-run businesses, feared for their livelihoods. Time has moved on and the industry has, of course, regrouped—dare I even say, calmed down?—and engaged constructively and helpfully with the Government in developing the policy that we now see enshrined in this Bill. I sympathise with all bus operators and recognise their very real concerns. The large plcs have much to lose and need their eyes on market share and their corporate standing. They will be battered and bruised by the franchising process and we must not underestimate the effect this will have. However, small and medium-sized operators are in a different position. As I have already explained, if they lose a franchise, assuming they have the resources to bid in the first place, their business is gone. They will not be able to tread water for a few years and be in a position to bid when the franchise comes up for renewal. Their business will no longer exist, their depots and vehicles will be sold and their staff quite possibly lost to the industry or to competitors.
I know that the plight of SME operators has weighed heavily on the minds of Ministers. More than once I have heard the Secretary of State commend the work of the SME operators and say how he is keen to help protect their enterprises, so this amendment may well find favour with my noble friend. “Fairness” and “level playing field” are terms I hear used frequently in our deliberations and I am in no doubt that I will use them again before we send the Bill on its way. The processes put in place by the Bill must be fair to all operators regardless of their size.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure that these are sensible and valuable amendments for the Committee to consider. However, they are “Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List”. That means that they must have been tabled on Friday, which means that there is no time for officials to consider a response for the Minister and no time for the Minister to consider the advice of officials. It is a little bit rich for the Opposition Front Bench to tease the Ministers for tabling their late government amendments when it tabled its amendments on Friday.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The point I was making was the government amendments that were tabled seemed to be making little drafting corrections, inserting odd words. For a Bill that has been in the planning for nearly a year, that seems to me to be remiss.
Bus Services Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister for that answer. Of course no Bill is perfect. I accept that entirely. If it can be improved then we want to improve it. My point was more about the procedures in getting here. Most Bills that come here start in the other place. They have had a pretty good going over there and we give them a good going over here. Your Lordships’ debates highlight issues that the departments then reflect on. Here there has not been not much reflection but clearly, between the moment you published the Bill and coming here today, you found that there are some issues. I am glad that you have spotted them, but that says to me that maybe the procedures are not as good as they should be.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord needs to be quite careful because he does not know what is going to happen in a few years’ time. He may find himself in my noble friend’s position, dealing with exactly the same problem. Then I will enjoy teasing the noble Lord.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I hope that very much. I am not so sure how long I shall be here at the present time but I am sure, if the position were reversed, I would probably give a very similar answer to the one the noble Lord has given.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment with great pleasure. I have no particular interest to declare with regard to national parks except as someone who visits them and loves them, and I want to make sure that everyone else has those same opportunities as far as possible. I was thinking on the way here about the Peak District National Park, which has, within an hour’s travelling time, very many millions of people who live close to it and for whom access to it is an important part of their lives. I would hate to think about that being an opportunity that is available only to people with cars. That would be a great inequality issue. If we are sensible about this, we should remember that there are people who live in cities who would rather not have a car, so it helps cities too. It would be ridiculous to punish people by not providing access to a treasure that is on their doorstep.
In particular, we have to remember that national parks are not museums. They are areas of the countryside where people live and work, and there is a really interesting tension for the national park authorities themselves between wanting to encourage visitors and managing the impacts of that, such as congestion; we have all seen problems where people park and cause damage and so on. There is a very difficult balancing act for national park authorities. On the whole, they do it extremely well and they act as very good brokers between the people who live there and the people who want to visit. It could only make their job more difficult if they were to be ignored and not consulted when some of these important decisions about local transport are made. They know their area best.
The other point about national parks is that they do not entirely conform to the same rules as some other areas. Bus services on Sundays, for example, are often seen as unimportant, whereas in a national park Sunday is the most important day that you need to provide transport for.
Finally, there is the question of jobs. The briefing that I received said that something like 68,000 jobs are dependent on tourism to national parks. We want people to have access to the jobs as well, and if people without cars want to have access to them, we need to manage public transport too. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it is much more powerful to have something like this in the Bill rather than in guidance.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I declare an interest as I live near a national park and am affected by its presence. I see no harm in these amendments; in reality, local bus operators can and do work with whomever they need to in devising high-quality bus services. Our national parks are to be treasured. They contain some of the most beautiful and stunning scenery that our country has to offer. We want people to be able to access and enjoy it, and buses can play a vital role in this regard, especially for those without access to a private car. We must not forget that there are many people who do not drive or use a car and so rely on buses for tourism purposes.
I want to see many more people walking in national parks. I do not see enough people walking at home. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made an important point about the need for bus services on a Sunday. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, there are already a number of local bus services serving national parks, so in a way collaboration and co-operation between authorities and bus operators is already happening.
Governments of all political persuasions tend to shy away from lists in primary legislation on the basis that they can become overly prescriptive: the more you add to a list, the more you exclude. But the Minister has already succumbed to the persuasion of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this evening. Nevertheless, I suspect that the Minister still has the word “resist” on his brief in view of the legal and technical reasons. Yet as I said at the start of my short remarks, I know that bus operators will work with national park authorities, and indeed any authorities, in pursuit of meeting the needs of their passengers to enable them to enjoy the delights of our national parks by bus.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this next group of amendments, which are proposed by my noble friend Lord Judd and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Lady, Baroness Scott of Needham Market, concern national parks authorities in England and how they need to be involved in any proposals for advanced quality partnership or franchising models.
This whole issue was raised by my noble friend Lord Judd and others at Second Reading of this Bill on 8 June. My noble friend told the House then, and again today, that it was puzzling and not right that transport authorities had a duty to consult relevant local authorities but that did not include national park authorities. Many national parks have seen bus services decline, and that brings problems of people wanting to visit these wonderful, natural and beautiful places by other means of transport. I lived in Nottingham many years ago, not far from the Peak District National Park, and traffic congestion in the summer months was, and still is, a huge problem around the towns of Matlock, Matlock Bath, Ashbourne and Bakewell and many other beautiful places there. I think the bus service in the Peak District could be better. It would add to people’s enjoyment and reduce car use, which is a huge problem, particularly in the summer months, and causes problems for all sorts of people.
To make all that happen, we have to have these authorities properly involved and consulted on what is proposed and how they can work with the authorities to deliver real benefits for the area. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, all public bodies have a statutory duty to take account of the potential effects of their decisions and activities on national parks. Of course, that is not always monitored and enforced effectively, and the greater risk here is that these large and combined transport authorities will not get involved in that and that it will not happen. These amendments, by putting that into the Bill and not into guidance or any other sort of regulation will ensure that there is proper consultation. I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, will give a positive response tonight and that we can get these amendments into the Bill.
Bus Services Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 5A, which is in this group. When I reread the Second Reading debate and reflected on the amendments which have been tabled, it struck me very forcefully that a huge number of them relate in some way or other to the question of accessibility, whether that is accessibility of ticketing and information or in terms of proper provision for people with disabilities, in rural areas or of different age groups. That led me further to think that perhaps the fact that so many amendments are being tabled about accessibility suggests that there is something fundamentally missing in the ambition of the Bill. I have tabled this amendment because it is important sometimes to have aspiration and to say right up-front that this is not just about stopping the decline, as my noble friend said earlier, but about something more than that and about actually improving the standards of services. That is why I have tabled this amendment. Otherwise, there is a danger that it becomes primarily a sort of regulatory and financial Bill that is not underpinned with aspiration.
I am particularly concerned about rural bus provision—coming from a rural area, I guess that that is inevitable. As I said at Second Reading, I can understand why tiny villages like mine no longer have bus services, but we are now in the position where quite sizeable communities no longer have bus services after, say, 6 pm, or at all on Sundays. Some quite large villages now have no bus services at all. The community transport network has, to a large extent, stepped in to meet that provision, but in Suffolk and other local authorities that is under threat, too. I am disappointed not to have received a written response from the Minister’s department to the points I raised at Second Reading, specifically to one which has emerged in Suffolk, where the retendering of community transport in the Mid Suffolk area, where I live, has resulted in passengers no longer being able to use their concessionary bus passes. The noble Lord is an imaginative man, and I am sure he can understand how much distress this has caused people locally. I would like to review this issue in the regulations which say that a nine-seater vehicle cannot be eligible for the use of bus passes. I did raise this, and I would like him to respond—not today probably, but in writing.
My understanding was that we would also have something about rural proofing in time for this stage, and we have not received that either, unless it is in the impact assessment, which I have not had time to read in detail. I have had a look through and have not spotted very much—my noble friend is now indicating there is very little. I think that means there may be some rural issues that we will have to return to on Report, as we clearly cannot deal with them now.
This franchising approach can really deliver for rural areas if we get it right, so I am very positive about the general provision. I have been in contact with people in Jersey, where they brought in a franchising system. They have 80 buses serving a population of 100,000; yet, in that very small pool, they have had an increase of 32% in passenger numbers in the last three years, and, significantly, they have saved £1 million in public subsidies. This shows that this is not just about scale—you can have a win-win situation of saving money and improving accessibility. I do think that, if we get this Bill right, we can deliver that for our rural areas.
I asked the Minister at Second Reading about links with home-to-school transport, which is again significant in rural areas. It is not just about access to education—although, goodness knows, that is the most important reason for the provision of transport to young people—because there is a close relationship between the provision of education bus services and the normal services. However, it goes deeper than that, because local authorities spend a significant amount of money on public transport for pupils, particularly those with special education needs. Young people and children with special educational needs are encouraged to use public transport as a way of preparing them for leading full lives later. Indeed, the Children and Families Act 2014 specifically encourages the giving of bus passes to young people with SEND. Yet in rural areas there are increasingly no buses on which to use the bus passes. For example, Surrey currently spends £25.5 million a year on SEND transport. If we can find a way of bringing some of this together, we can get much better value and improve the services. But there is a fear among community transport and smaller operators that the Bill as drafted is just there for larger companies, and will not help them.
Finally, there is one way I think this might be dealt with. It came to me rather late, and I apologise for that—otherwise, I might have tabled a separate amendment. We do have the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which includes transport services. I wonder whether the Minister could undertake to include reference to this in the guidance to remind local authorities that, using the social value Act, they can take a broader view of the services they provide in terms of placing a value on social as well as financial outcomes.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, asked my noble friend whether he is confident that the Bill will pass. I hope that my noble friend can be rather more definitive than I can, but I see no reason why it will not pass, although obviously we will want to look at it closely.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked about impact assessments. I find it a little odd in government—I am talking generally here—that one has a gem of a policy idea, one consults internally within government, publishes a Bill, puts it before Parliament and then publishes the impact assessment. Surely you should have a gem of an idea, then make an impact assessment and use that to inform discussion internally in government. Of course, as the policy develops, the impact assessment may need to be revised, but having it turn up at the last moment devalues having one at all. That is very much a general point, not a criticism of my noble friend.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, on reflection, I think that this Bill—and I have now studied it a lot—is really nothing to do with the quality of bus services generally. It is a device which has been drawn up by officials because the Chancellor promised to devolve the operation of bus services in certain areas which elect a mayor so that they can go for franchising. If you read the Bill carefully, I think you will find that it will be very difficult for them to achieve that, because there are a lot of obstacles in the way of any franchised service.
My main concern is for areas outside metropolitan areas. The bus service is in a terrible state. All sectors are now recording declines in services. They will get worse, because cuts are being made all the time. When I spoke at Second Reading, I said that more money must be found from somewhere. I realise that the Government are not willing to spend any money and that therefore this is about redirecting the money which is spent. At Second Reading, the Minister drew my attention to the fact that bus service operators grant was to be devolved to local operators. This is a very particular question: is bus services operators grant to be devolved only to the areas that get franchising? Will rural areas get any share of that money? Will it be ring-fenced if it is devolved? Because if not, if it is added to various block grants, it will be absorbed in meeting the Government’s underfunding of all sorts of other services for which local authorities are responsible.
I, too, received the rural proofing in the impact assessment. It is absolutely pathetic. The document is huge, but the intellectual input into it is minuscule. All it says about rural proofing is, to summarise, that local authorities have to decide for themselves how the resources allocated to them are spent. If they want to spend them on bus services, they have to take that away from another cause.
I suggest that the Minister carefully considers the effects of isolation and loneliness on people living in remote rural areas—and there are a lot of them. I use buses every day. I travel on one some days, and there are a dozen old rural dwellers who I know are lonely. The only time they get out is when they go on a bus. I am sure they all voted for Brexit because they are of that generation, but that rather does not cover the point—I am not sure they would be grateful and would suddenly support the other side if they restored their service. Their service is vital; I honestly believe their lives would be hugely diminished without it.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I have my name to two of these amendments. I support what my noble friend has said. Let us remember that even in London, which probably has some of the newest and now cleanest buses in the country—even if they do not have any air conditioning, which does not seem to affect the emissions, luckily, but does affect the passengers—the then Mayor of London, who may even be our next Prime Minister, had to cover up the monitoring stations along Euston Road before the Olympics in order to keep the levels of pollution below those which had occurred in Beijing during its Olympics. With all the money that TfL had and has, it had to fiddle that. It was not a problem caused by buses but by other vehicles, but it was still a fact. It happens in many other cities and it is essential that some regulations or clauses such as those proposed by these amendments are included in the Bill.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the EU component of emissions standards. As a good Eurosceptic, I point out that economically you can only do it as a European standard. You cannot have each European state having its own standards. It just will not stack up. To balance that, I also point out that one needs to consider the business case for very low-utilisation buses because there simply might not be a business case for doing it, even if you considered the damage to health.
Bus Services Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, on this day last year your Lordships gave what is now the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 its Second Reading. That is the legislation that paved the way for the Bill before us today. My noble friend said that the overall aim of the Bill is to ensure that bus passengers get the best possible service. This Bill gives local authorities a few more tools in their arsenal to help in this regard, should they choose to use them.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, in his very clear speech, told us how franchising will make a very great difference in Greater Manchester, and I am sure that the whole House is very grateful for his contribution. The Government want a mosaic of arrangements up and down the country. There is no suggestion at all that the Government are looking to impose any one structure in any particular area. That is a good thing.
My noble friend the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in her excellent Front-Bench speech—I hope to see her making them for many years to come—observed that bus patronage has declined since deregulation. However, noble Lords will recall that the rate of decline in patronage of bus services was arrested post-deregulation.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to anticipate the sense of the Committee when we come to discuss AV annunciators. These are for the benefit not just of the disabled. They have tremendous benefit to all passengers.
I welcome most of the provisions of the Bill. However, I will concentrate my remarks this evening on three specific issues. First, on the proposals in the Bill to give local authorities powers to franchise local bus services, bus operators told me that this has been the dominant issue in the industry ever since it was first announced by the Chancellor in November 2014. It has consumed much more time and energy than the industry would have liked. To the industry’s huge credit, it has not taken its collective eye off the ball and continued to deliver for its passengers.
Regulation certainly did not provide for a thriving bus industry prior to 1986 so why should it do so now? London, of course, is a very special case, particularly with regard to funding and the fact that buses are absolutely essential lifeblood to London—as in Greater Manchester. My noble friend the Minister observed that the annual Transport Focus passenger survey consistently gives bus services an overall satisfaction rate of around 90%. Allowing local authorities to introduce a system of franchising or contracting may be consistent with the Government’s devolution policies but runs contrary to established Conservative Party policy for at least the last 30 years. That is a big change.
Some bus operators described this franchising element of the Government’s policy as business confiscation. I can see their point. Large operating groups could see their operations disappear overnight and would then have to redeploy staff, vehicles, depots et cetera if they were not taken on by the successful bidder. There would be a wider impact on their corporate position that could affect their share price et cetera. However, I am sure they will survive, albeit a bit battered and bruised.
The same cannot be said for smaller operators. They will stand little chance of winning a contract against a large operator, one of the plcs or even an overseas firm that enjoys access to cheap capital from its national Government. There is a real possibility that a family business, built up through hard work and dedication possibly over several generations, could be allowed to disappear overnight as a direct consequence of government action.
I am sure that the bus industry has pressed the Government to ensure that any franchising proposal should be subject to fair and open public interest and financial tests. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about some of the risks there. I am sure he will return to that at a later stage. It was reassuring to see that the Bill sets some pretty tough hurdles that local authorities must negotiate before they can proceed with their franchise scheme.
Like my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I believe it is also extremely useful for local authorities to have to benchmark, for want of a better word, their proposed franchise scheme against the routes and ticketing arrangements that might be offered under enhanced partnership schemes. This is absolutely crucial and would, I suggest, make any local authorities swallow very hard indeed. Surely if the same offer to passengers can be made under partnership arrangements, why would a local authority want to pursue a franchise scheme with all the additional costs in both resources and money?
I am also worried about the issue of bus facilities and premises. As I understand it, there is nothing to stop a bus operator selling off his depot to recoup some of the money he invested in his company before he loses the business to the highest bidder. Unless the outgoing operator decided to sell or rent his premises to the company that won the franchise, that transport facility could be lost for ever to redevelopment. Securing premises would be a huge challenge for those bidding for franchises. This was the subject of some debate during the passage of the Local Transport Act 2008.
I am sure that we will spend some time during Committee debating the finer points of the franchising proposals. My noble friend the Minister will have my full support in resisting any amendments that seek to dilute these very important tests which have to be satisfied before a franchising scheme can see the light of day.
The other issue on which I wish to comment is the proposal in the Bill to allow local authorities to delve into the business secrets of bus operators, requesting detailed and commercially sensitive information about employees, usage and revenue. At some point many business owners decide to sell up and realise the fruits of their labour. The value of a business will be composed of inter alia the stock, the assets and, most importantly, the good will. The kind of information that the Bill would allow local authorities to obtain free of charge and without compensation is part of the good will of the business. But, of course, unless you know what those data are, how can you say how much they are worth? It is hard to imagine any business sector that would welcome the right of a third party to look at the detail of its operations as a prelude to making a case to expropriate them. Businesses in all walks of life change hands at prices well in excess of their tangible assets. I include in this the price of the former passenger transport executive bus operating companies when they were sold off in the 1980s. Therefore, in essence, the Bill would allow local authorities to acquire for nothing something that they sold for millions in the past. This part of the Bill is deeply unwelcome for bus operators and I am sure that we will return to it during Committee. My question for my noble friend the Minister is this: does he think that these commercial data have a commercial value, or not?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I first refer Members to my declaration of interests and declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham.
As other noble Lords have said, the Bill is generally welcome and we want it to boost the bus industry outside London when it reaches the statute book, although it is disappointing that we have no regulations. If this is to be another Bill where regulations will not be available until after the legislation has passed, that will be most regrettable. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances that that will not be the case, as I think noble Lords will be very unhappy at that. It will hamper the progress of the Bill through this House if we cannot see the regulations. The regulations connected with the 2000 and 2008 transport Acts have proved too difficult to enable anyone to introduce bus franchising. We must avoid the same happening here and the welcome intentions in the Bill being lost in consequence.
The bus is an essential mode of public transport, reducing congestion and giving people access to jobs, education and leisure pursuits. Buses are also the quickest way of providing additional public transport. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, the number of bus journeys taken within the bus industry outside London has declined. That can be pinpointed back to the Transport Act 1985, which deregulated the bus industry outside London and allowed anyone, subject to minimum safety and operating standards, to set up a bus company. I also agree with my noble friend about the effects of the cuts in funding on bus services outside London. We have heard how different things are in London, where bus use has doubled, the industry was not deregulated and a two-tier system operates, with TfL specifying in detail what bus services are to be provided and private companies then delivering those bus services.
The Bill seeks to do a number of things, nearly all of which I support. One part of the Bill that we are unhappy about is Clause 21, which prohibits municipal bus companies being formed in the future. Some of the best bus services in the country are run by municipal operators: look at Nottingham City Transport, which has been UK bus operator of the year three times, the last time in 2014. Nottingham is a city I know very well and which my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch also mentioned. Reading Buses and Ipswich Buses, to name just three in all, also provide an excellent service, but this specific model is prevented from being replicated elsewhere. Why?
Moving on to the more positive aspects of the Bill, we support the franchising of bus networks for mayoral combined authorities. The Bill will allow these authorities to provide bus services as they are provided in London, with the public sector specifying the services and the private sector competing for the contracts. This will enable effective action to be taken to improve services for passengers and halt the decline. We support this although, as many noble Lords have said, we would have wished that there was no insistence on having a mayor to get these powers, with other authorities being allowed only to ask for these powers. We shall explore this further during the next stages of the Bill, as it passes through your Lordships’ House.
There are two other forms of deregulated partnerships in the Bill: advanced quality partnerships and enhanced partnerships. Under the advanced quality partnerships, a local transport authority will commit to bringing in measures that will benefit bus services, such as priority bus schemes. In return, the bus operator must meet set standards for the services which benefit from those facilities. Enhanced partnerships go further, with the local transport authority and the bus operators working to manage the local bus market and seeking to get better outcomes for passengers. But there is, in effect, a veto for the bus companies if they do not agree to the proposal. When it comes to things such as vehicle specifications, ticketing structures and timetabling, this type of scheme could be a very useful tool for improving the services locally, although again the regulations here will also be important, so that what is proposed in the end does not become too difficult to deliver.
We also welcome the section of the Bill that introduces advanced ticketing schemes to enable multi-operator ticketing schemes to be broadened and built on. The sooner we can move on to smart ticketing schemes everywhere, the better. Making data available on bus fares, routes, timetables, tickets and bus company performances on all routes is very welcome and should give passengers, campaigners and transport planners very useful information. However, it needs to be made clear who will be entitled to access what data—I assume that will come with the regulations. I do not see that making the data available will cause the problems the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, spoke about. It will be a good way of helping consumers and the general public, and maybe the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, can clarify that further when he replies.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I was not referring to the real-time data—I think that would be highly desirable. My problem is with the data on historical passenger demand and so on.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Earl for that clarification. We will explore these things further as the Bill goes through the House. As I said, the provision and use of data will be vital in improving services for passengers.
We are very supportive of the campaign by the Guide Dogs association for audio-visual systems to be a requirement on all new buses. The noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, made a compelling case for the funds to be found quickly to ensure all buses are equipped with this facility. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, rightly spoke about the barriers disabled people face and how practical solutions to the problems are needed. Generally, we want to see disability provision on buses further improved and will explore measures to do that during the further stages of the Bill. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, regarding improved access to buses for people with disabilities.
Ensuring that buses run on the greenest fuel possible will help reduce greenhouse gas emission and generally improve air quality. New powers in the Bill to enable local transport authorities to specify emission standards to be met by local bus services are very welcome, although with the enhanced partnership scheme, there has to be sufficient support again from the bus operators.
As other noble Lords have said, the Bill hardly mentions passengers. We think that is wrong, as bus services should be all about passengers. I want to see an enhanced role for Passenger Focus and possibly something in the Bill concerning how passengers can be more fully involved and consulted locally about the services they rely on.
In conclusion, generally we welcome the Bill, but it can go further and can be improved. We look forward to working with the Government and noble Lords on all sides of the House to improve the Bill, to clarify and probe the intention of the Government, and to see it on the statute book making a real difference to people and communities locally by improving the bus services they rely on.
High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Adonis
If the Minister will forgive me, I am anxious to say this for the record because the record of this debate will now proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, clearly declared an interest in these matters. It is very important that proper attention is paid to precedence and it would be deeply damaging to the public interest if issues which had been considered by the Commons committee, in the context of additional provisions, were then reopened in this House. That would not only be contrary to precedent but, as he rightly said, lead to a big issue about this House seeking in a fundamental way to second-guess critical strategic decisions on the nature of the project that have already been taken by the House of Commons. So, in the interests of balance and for the record of this debate, it is very important, regarding those who have a clear interest in this matter—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has a very clear interest—that that is fully taken into account before any decisions are taken to breach established precedent in the consideration of hybrid Bills.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, my counsel on this matter is that we are pushing the Minister a bit far from what he should comment on. These are matters of procedure and of how we manage the business. We should be satisfied with what the Minister has already undertaken to do for us.
Lord Birt
Before the Minister moves on, the figures he quoted on investment are extremely welcome. I recognise that it may be difficult to respond to the question I asked earlier, but will he agree to provide an analysis of the investment not just in HS2 but in other forms of transport infrastructure as a share of GDP? Manifestly, the figures he quoted will be a very small percentage of GDP over the span of the project.
Driving Instructors (Registration) Bill
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the privilege and the opportunity to bring forward this Private Member’s Bill. This is a simple Bill which makes amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988 to simplify the registration of driving instructors. As part of my TA military service I qualified as an Army HGV driving instructor, and I have taught HGV driving both to military personnel and in civilian industry. I think I can safely claim that I know something about the subject. Nevertheless, I am under no illusions and I know that it would require a great deal of effort on my part to qualify as an approved driving instructor. Your Lordships should not underestimate the difficulty of becoming an ADI.
Put simply, the Bill will introduce two small deregulatory measures to update the current legislation to remove barriers that previously prevented driving instructors from voluntarily leaving the profession at a time of their choosing and returning to the profession when it is convenient for them to do so without having to retake their qualifying examinations.
As your Lordships may already be aware, professional driving instructors have been regulated since the 1960s to help ensure that people receive a minimum standard of training for taking the driving test. It is therefore unlawful for a person to conduct driving instruction for payment unless they are registered as an approved driving instructor. To become registered as an ADI, an instructor must take and pass a three-stage examination of theory, practical driving ability and, most importantly, instructional ability; and be a fit and proper person. Once qualified, ADIs are registered for four years.
Once their name has been added to the register it will remain there until registration expires at the end of four years or is extended. To get their registration extended, they must take and pass a standards check of their continued ability to deliver instruction. The only way that a person can currently be removed is if the registration runs out or if they are removed from the register by the registrar for conduct, competence or disciplinary reasons. Once an instructor has been removed from the register they can return only if they requalify by retaking the three-part examination.
The Bill provides two deregulatory measures to simplify the re-registration. The first simplifies the process for re-entry to the register of approved driving instructors if the registration has expired. It is proposed that those instructors who have been away from the profession for between one and four years, apart from those removed for conduct reasons, are allowed to rejoin the register by undergoing a standards check of their ability rather than to have to requalify via the three-part examination. This simplified process will make the return much quicker and more straightforward, as the time and effort for preparing for and taking repeat examinations can be used more effectively to get back into employment and earn a living. The simplified process will take on average around six weeks, as opposed to an average of 34 weeks for requalification.
ADIs operate mainly as sole traders and therefore fall under the micro-business definition of having fewer than 10 employees, so any cost savings will be beneficial. The proposals therefore accord with the Government’s commitment to help small businesses.
I want to assure the House that the Bill will not compromise standards. The standards check for rejoining the register is the same check as practising ADIs undergo to remain on the register and renew their registration.
The simplified route is not open to those have been removed from the register for disciplinary reasons. The Bill makes provisions to safeguard against any lowering of the standards and prevent misuse of the simplified route by instructors who would have been removed from the register to protect public safety. Those instructors will have to apply for re-entry via the existing route by undertaking the full, three-part examination.
The second measure allows a driving instructor to request voluntary removal from the register at a time of their choosing and to return at a later date under the simplified process. Current legislation allows only either for their registration to expire or for them to be removed for refusing to undergo a periodic standards check. If they refuse the standards check, it is recorded on their file as a disciplinary matter and could affect their joining the register at a later date. Allowing ADIs voluntarily to leave the register at a time of their choosing is only right. An ADI may wish to take a break from the profession for career, family or health reasons, and it is somewhat perverse that they are not able to do so without it being treated as a disciplinary matter if they have failed to attend the standards check because they are no longer practising.
There are examples where ADIs have contacted the registrar, who administers the register of approved driving instructors, to request voluntary removal from it as they are no longer practising due to raising a family or caring for an ill relative, or because they are unwell themselves. Being able voluntarily to leave and then return at a later date without having to requalify will remove barriers that are out of date with current work practices and help reduce any stress for the ADI concerned, especially if the break has been made necessary to undertake medical treatment.
I hope that I have set out the case today for adopting these two simple, deregulatory measures and that they will find favour with the House. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short Second Reading debate. Under the Private Member’s Bill procedure, it is a fine judgment as to whether a question is for me or for my noble friend the Minister, but I can assure the House that we work as a close team and we know how we will work together.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me about the benefits of voluntarily retiring from the register, given that you can get back on to it after a standards check by virtue of Clause 1. The fee is not an issue as it covers the four-year period of the registration. Subsequent four-year periods attract a further fee. The problem is the need for the standards check. The noble Lord also asked what stimulates a registrar into requiring a standards check.
I understand that there are two grades of pass for the standards check. If an instructor secures only a B-grade pass, he or she is good enough to practise but the registrar will want to ensure that the instructor has improved or is at least up to the required standard. Thus, another standards check will be indicated. The words “every few years” give the flexibility required. The registrar will also be aware of the instructor’s student pass rate and whether any complaints have been recorded against the instructor. This may also indicate a further standards check.
Clearly, if an instructor appears not to be too keen on taking a standards check, the registrar will be particularly concerned and will draw negative conclusions. Failure to take a standards check is regarded as misconduct, as I think we have already covered. This is unfair if the instructor has decided to stop instructing for perfectly good reasons, such as the ones I suggested earlier. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Foreign Workers: Engineers
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
I do not know about that—obviously, the measure was not in place at that time or for their nationality. What I do know at this time is that we are investing heavily in science skills in this country. We have new science A-levels, new university technical colleges and a new science and technology baccalaureate, and the number of apprenticeships in science and manufacturing is up 74%. I think that that would be welcomed on all sides of the House and by Brunel and Pugin, if they were around.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the standing of a professional engineer in Germany is much higher than in the UK. What are the Minister and the Government doing to enhance the social standing of professional engineers in the UK?
Road Traffic Act 1988 (Alcohol Limits) (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Earl Attlee Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for so expertly moving the Second Reading of his Bill, although I have some difficulties with it. When the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, commissioned the North report, I assumed that he had identified the next step of our road safety programme, which would be to lower the blood alcohol level, or BAC, for drivers. I thought that the report was to provide the necessary evidence for the changes. In the UK, we have a very good road safety record because successive transport Ministers of all parties—one of them, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is in his place—have followed the evidence, expertly analysed by officials, rather than taking a populist course of action, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has suggested the Minister should do.
At the time, I thought that, if a BAC of 80 milligrams would damage the hospitality industry, so be it. However, I must tell the House that I cannot recall ever seeing an impact assessment on the effect on that industry. My understanding is that the Scottish Government had not done one before lowering their BAC limit. To this day, I have never received any briefing from that industry on this issue.
When my party got into government, I found that the advice from officials regarding North was rather more complex than I thought it would be. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Government have implemented all the significant recommendations in the North report, apart from lowering the BAC?
My first point is that any alcohol intake at all will cause a deterioration in driving capability and skills. The Grand Rapids report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, shows that the chances of having an accident increase alarmingly after 80 milligrams. However, there is no safe limit and the best advice is not to drink and drive at all. I hope my noble friend the Minister can confirm that this is his position.
Secondly, we have some data available from the STATS19 system and the coroner’s records. For those accidents where at least one driver was killed, a staggering 19% were over the limit of 80 milligrams. However, for these accidents, only 1.7% had at least one dead driver who was between the proposed new limit of 50 milligrams and the current limit of 80 milligrams. That is a very small slice. There are lies, dammed lies and statistics, but this rather suggests that the problem lies not with those who drive with an unwise and imprudent BAC level of between 50 and 80 milligrams, but rather with those drivers who are totally non-compliant. I refer to them as unregulated drinkers.
That is not to say that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is wrong. It is obvious that the Bill would reduce the BAC level of compliant drivers—a bit—which could produce a commensurate reduction in accidents. My fear is that the reduction will not be as great as hoped, since compliant drivers will already normally be driving with a BAC of less than 50 milligrams. If I am right, I do not think that it will take compliant drivers very long to find out that they do not need to reduce their intake much, if at all.
Thirdly, we have a problem with what I have termed unregulated drinkers. These people are often clinically dependent upon alcohol. They do not know how much they have drunk and they have no regard for the law, so the noble Lord’s proposal will have precisely no effect on them at all. They are also very hard to catch. I suspect that this is because they drive on minor roads for relatively short distances: my guess is three or four miles in a rural area and one to two in an urban area, but with a very high risk of having an accident. Noble Lords will realise that the window of opportunity for the police to detect such drinkers is very short, apart from in the event of an accident. If we have a formal Committee stage, I am tempted to run an amendment about permitting the police to instigate random breath tests, if that is what they want to do to solve their problems.
Fourthly, this change would have some resource implications. First, I am told that all the evidential breath test equipment would have to be recertified and recalibrated. I do not find this a convincing reason for not making the change. But secondly, and rather more persuasively, a considerable amount of police time could be tied up processing drivers who get caught by the new limit. Of course, this might not be the case if, in fact, even today few drivers drive with a BAC of between 50 and 80 milligrams.
My fifth point is looking around the corner. We are very careful not to let drivers know how much they can actually drink while remaining compliant. One good reason for this is that we know that there is no safe limit. Another is that, if drivers knew what their intake limit was, they might be tempted to go closer to it. This could mean that, on average, drivers would consume a bit more and therefore, on average, have more accidents. It is possible that law-abiding motorists might use their own breathalysers to ensure compliance with the new and lower limit. This could result in an increase in average intake and, therefore, the accident rate. I hope that I am wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed to lower limits in other EU countries, but, with the exception of Sweden, they do not have as good a road safety record as we do and in any case, as the noble Lord well knows, they have different penalty regimes. However, Scotland will provide us with an almost-perfect laboratory. There will be the same enforcement regime as in England because they cannot change the penalties, but a lower BAC. After three or four years we will get the stats and data from Scotland, which will tell us which way to go.
The Library Note suggests that compliance has improved by 12.5 %. I am bound to say that that is a rather disappointing figure, but unfortunately consistent with my analysis. It will take time for properly analysed statistics to be available, but if they show a significant improvement then we should consider following the Scots. In the mean time, my counsel to the Minister is to leave the BAC alone and concentrate on eliminating unregulated drinkers.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate and thank my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe for bringing forward the Bill. He has been a marvellous campaigner on this subject for a long time. It is a shame that the Government have not taken action, especially given what my noble friend said about their knowledge of the extra risks of people driving with a BAC between 50 and 80 milligrams.
We increasingly stand alone internationally by retaining the 80 milligram rather than adopting the 50 milligram figure. It is now just Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Malta in Europe that stick at 80 milligrams. In fact, four EU countries have a limit of zero. Indeed, proud Welsh girl that I am, I have to take my hat off to the Scots, who have done the deed—and the sky did not fall in. In fact, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, there has been a 12% drop in offences, while eight in 10 Scots believe that drinking any alcohol before driving is unacceptable.
This is always a difficult subject for me to discuss, as, a day short of my 10th birthday, I lost my mother because of a drunk driver. Who knows, she might have been saved and lived had she been wearing a seat belt. In those days, of course, they were not even fitted, much less compulsory. However, as a result of endless campaigning, and finally an Act of Parliament—in both of which my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen played a key role—the law was changed with regard to seat belts. Now, we would not think of driving without wearing one. That is what I want to see happening with regard to drinking and driving—I want it to be unthinkable. A step towards that is to reduce the limit because we know that that will reduce the number of accidents. I think we have done with campaigning—just as we did in relation to seat belts before we brought in the relevant law. It is time to make the change.
I pay tribute to those who have campaigned on this issue, not just my noble friend but organisations such as the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving—CADD—set up to help the families of those bereaved through drink-driving, the Livia Trust and others who campaign for safety on the roads. We owe it to them, to those who have lost loved ones, but also to those who have been injured through someone driving after drinking, such as the Paralympian, Simon Richardson, to make this change.
For myself, I could, being a moderate person, live with this measure being introduced gradually, perhaps initially for drivers under the age of 21—as we know, they are overrepresented among the fatalities—or, perhaps drivers in their first two years after passing their test, or while holding a provisional licence; but start we must. Fifteen per cent of deaths in accidents involve at least one driver over the limit. Those are tragic but avoidable figures. In 2013 there were 250 deaths and 8,000 injuries, 1,000 of which are very serious, due to somebody driving after drinking. Would we accept so many deaths due to any other cause and do nothing about it?
Clearly, as has been said, lowering the limit is not all that is needed. We also need enforcement and publicity for real change to be made. However, a reduction to 50 milligrams would make a difference. As my noble friend said, that reduction is supported by more than three-quarters of the population. We know that at 80 milligrams, drivers are six times as likely to die in an accident as those who have not drunk at all. This is partly because, even if they do not cause the incident, they are less likely to be able to avoid a dangerous incident after they have been drinking. We are well aware that there is a direct relationship between the amount that is drunk and the ability to function behind the wheel. Even between 20 and 50 milligrams, drivers increase their chance of an accident threefold. Up to 80 milligrams, the risk increases sixfold, and up to 100 milligrams, they are 11 times as likely to have an accident. Therefore, reducing the legal limit would lower the number of accidents and improve road safety for all of us.
We, of course, are not the first to call for this, nor are we the only people who support this change. My noble friend Lord Brooke reminded us of the North report of 2010, which estimated that a reduction to 50 milligrams would save 100 lives a year. That is two a week. Those are real lives: they matter. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that of the people who died, only one was between the 50 and 80 milligrams level.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, only 1% were between 50 and 80 milligrams, compared with the others.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It is even more than that in terms of people and human lives, and when you think of the families affected. Surely that makes the case for us to make this change. As has been said, the Local Government Association has said that about £300 million a year could be saved in police, hospital and ambulance costs. That is without taking account of the costs to families. However, it is not just a question of victims. When I started to campaign on this issue for obvious reasons a long time ago, I was worried about the organisations representing drivers. In fact, the AA, the RAC, the Chief Fire Officers Association, the Police Federation and the Road Haulage Association all support this change. Let us listen today to the victims and to my noble friend Lord Brooke and, for once, not take the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and give this Bill not just a Second Reading but our wholehearted support.