Monarch Airlines

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That concern has been raised by the Opposition as well. The first thing to say is that our aviation sector is very strong. If people visit our airports, as I do, they will find that virtually every one will say that this has been a record year in terms of the number of passengers carried and that there have been record days in their history. Passengers are not stopping flying—more and more passengers are flying, and I am confident that that will continue.

I am also confident that we have good airlines that are growing fast: look at the success of easyJet and Jet2. Tour operators are also doing well. I am confident that the sector will grow and develop; there is demand for slots and runway space and there are acquisitions and new investments in new centres such as Jet2’s investment in Stansted. We should be confident about the sector. We can never rule out problems in the future or be certain that no airline will ever run into difficulties again. That is why we have to think through whether we need to take steps to make sure that there is proper protection for consumers. But we should be confident in our sector.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend, his Department and the CAA for delivering the largest ever peacetime repatriation. As he will be aware, the UK insolvency framework does not allow insolvent airlines to continue flying, unlike what happened with Alitalia in Italy and Air Berlin in Germany. Will my right hon. Friend consider looking at the insolvency framework again in that light?

[Chris Grayling]

We will certainly give some thought to that. It is very noticeable that other airlines have been able to carry on flying in administration. The risk, of course, is that an aircraft could easily be impounded by an international airline. One of the reasons we sought to hire our own fleet was to remove that risk. If we had used the Monarch planes, there was a danger that, if they arrived at an airport and a local creditor decided to take action, the plane might have been unable to return. That is something we always need to weigh in the balance. We need to look at what happened with Air Berlin and Alitalia and see whether there are lessons to be learned, but first and foremost our task should always be to protect passengers whose journeys might otherwise be at risk.

Road Infrastructure

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered road infrastructure.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I am conscious that many right hon. and hon. Members are in the room; I shall try to give way as much as I can and leave time for other Members to make speeches.

It is somewhat fortuitous that this debate is taking place today. According to the front page of The Times—I am sure it can, as ever, be believed—today is the day when the transport investment strategy for the next decade is to be announced, which will include a £1 billion per year fund to allow local authorities to bid for bypass projects. Can I be the first hon. Member in this House to make an oral application to the Roads Minister—for bypasses for Little Common, off the A259, and for Hurst Green, off the A21? I am sure I will not be the last applicant today.

Both those roads are busy, single-lane A roads that cause congestion and danger through two villages in East Sussex. They have the misfortune to be managed by Highways England. If the Roads Minister came and visited both roads—he would be absolutely welcome—he might be surprised that they are part of the Highways England portfolio. The reason is that they are deemed to be trunk roads, off the A27 and M25 respectively. The villages badly need to be bypassed, but Highways England naturally focuses its resources on the motorway or dual carriageway network within its portfolio.

As my colleagues here today will be aware, there are only 11 km of dual carriageway in the entire county of East Sussex. My ask is that the new fund should be accessible for local authorities to deliver bypasses, even if that bypass would be off a Highways England road. It is a misfortune for the two roads that I mentioned that they are controlled by Highways England—it is illogical—but my concern is that the new, £1 billion fund is available only to local authority-managed roads. That would be an obstacle for those two roads. I ask the Roads Minister that the issue of qualification should be type of road, rather than the entity managing it.

The A21 is a trunk road that runs from the M25 through Kent, then through East Sussex and down to the coastal town of Hastings. Highways England is continuing the dualling from Tonbridge to Tunbridge Wells in Kent, but it thereafter turns to single file when it enters East Sussex—a bit of discrimination, I would say, that benefits Kent. Some miles further on, the road goes through the heart of the village of Hurst Green in my constituency. In 2014, the A21 was deemed by the Road Safety Foundation as the most dangerous road in the UK—so much so that one section of dual carriageway that we do have in East Sussex has been closed and coned off as a single carriageway due to the dangers of speeding.

A bypass for Hurst Green was in the pipeline and homes were purchased by Highways England, but it was postponed in the 2010 spending review. Now those homes are being resold. Last year, Highways England announced that it would introduce average speed limits on to the A21, from the end of the new works at Tunbridge Wells all the way down to Hastings. Although that would not improve or remove the congestion, or decrease travel times, it would perhaps do something about the appalling safety record.

The villagers and I were therefore dismayed to find out last year that Highways England had decided that that work would not be forthcoming and that better options are available. None of those options has been given to us. I am afraid it just compounds our issue in East Sussex: that Highways England does not appear interested in our road network.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a dual carriageway where one lane is closed off because of speeding. Does he have any views on average speed cameras, which the Scottish Government have installed on some roads in Scotland? They meet a bit of resistance from drivers but have been proven to make roads safer and they control speeding on those roads.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. The project put forward by Highways England was to have average speed cameras all the way down through the village—there is a primary school in the heart of the village. The A21 was modelled on a road in Scotland—it may be the one he referred to—which apparently reduced the traffic accident rate by 80%. We were very excited to copy that fine example from Scotland, so were dismayed when the scheme was cancelled. I very much take the point and I hope Highways England will do so as well.

My second example is the A259. Again, that road is managed by Highways England, unfortunately for us. It runs along the Sussex coast and takes over from the A27, which itself is in bad need of dualling, as championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and others. As the A259 approaches Bexhill at a village called Little Common, it acts as a dangerous bottleneck. Again, the village was due to be bypassed, as part of the Highways England south coast trunk road, which was due to come from Devon all the way to Dover and give us a much better transport system. That was scrapped in 2001.

Fortunately, a new link road was built by East Sussex County Council and our local enterprise partnership, with Government funding, and has opened between Bexhill and Hastings. It opened last year and has delivered not just improved journey times, but 50,000 square feet of land for a business park and 2,000 new homes—it is as much a business road as a transport system.

East Sussex County Council and our local enterprise partnership are now building a second road off that new link road, so we are effectively now two-thirds through bypassing a town of 40,000 residents. The last remaining section is for a bypass around the remainder of Little Common, which would deliver a bypass for the entirety of Bexhill and make it easier for the Sussex coastal towns to join up.

I have asked my local authorities and the local enterprise partnership to consider whether the housing infrastructure fund—the £20 billion fund announced by the Chancellor last year—could be tapped for Hurst Green and Little Common. The issue is that, having delivered the link road with its room for 2,000 houses, the local authorities rightly feel that they have already delivered housing and do not need any further. I will certainly be asking them to apply for the new bypass fund, but we first need clarity from the Roads Minister that they will be allowed to apply, given that the road is managed by Highways England.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On housing, would he agree that particular consideration needs to be given to key arterial routes that link major motorways, such as the A5 in my constituency, which connects the M69, M1 and M42? It is already under huge pressure, and will be even more so due to proposed housing and the development of High Speed 2.

[Huw Merriman]

I agree. Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree with me on some of the points that I will come on to talk about with respect to Highways England and some of the problems that many hon. Members may have had in facing that agency.

At the A21 reference group, which I sit on with my right hon. Friends the Members for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), we asked Highways England representatives what we could do to dual the rest of the A21 all the way down to Hastings: how we could commission an economic study and what boxes that study would need to tick in order to meet Highways England’s programme. I am afraid to say that the Highways England reps before us displayed a lack of dynamism and a “no can do” attitude, which is caused, in my view, by the fact that it has no competition on its strategic road network programme for building.

The link road that I described was delivered by a small outfit called Sea Change, in conjunction with the county and our local enterprise partnership. They were able to deliver that road to time and cost. I ask the Roads Minister whether it is possible to let counties, LEPs and their agencies put tenders together to bid for Highways England- managed roads. I put that proposal to the chief executive of Highways England during a sitting of the Transport Committee, on which I sit, and he claimed he is confident that Highways England cannot be beaten on value for money. Let us put that to the test and allow others to tender for the work.

Time does not allow me to speak for much longer, because I want to let others in, but I want to open up the debate by talking about a few more points. This is about not just building more roads, but ensuring that the roads we currently have are moving for traffic. To that end, I would like traffic enforcement provisions to be moved from the police to the local authority for moving traffic offences. I would also like there to be some form of compulsion to ensure that local authorities that still rely on the police to enforce parking on the highways take responsibility for that. There are only 15 remaining, and two of those districts are in my authority. As a result, it is a free-for-all when it comes to parking and blocking up space.

For the visually impaired—I have some sympathy, having undertaken a guide dogs test in a blindfold—we have to ensure that it is an offence to park on the kerb outside London, as it is inside London. We have to change the situation. I would also like new roads and existing roads to encourage cycling. London does a great deal for cyclists, and I would like that practice to be adopted throughout the country. I will finish my speech now to allow others to make their own cases.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I thank you, Mrs Gillan, and all colleagues for making this such a fascinating debate. I also, as I should have done earlier, welcome the Minister responsible for roads to his place. If I continue as a member of the Transport Committee, I shall look forward to spending more time with him.

If I may, I will mention my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who did not have an opportunity to speak. She is my constituency neighbour and has worked tirelessly to get the A27 upgraded. She has fantastic ideas, which we were not able to hear today, but we are, and will continue to be, led by her to get the A27 upgraded, and it will be to her credit, on this particular side of the geography, if that occurs.

I absolutely welcome the extra investment from the Government announced today. I perhaps should have welcomed that a bit more strongly when I opened the debate. It is interesting that so many Government Members are in the Chamber today. That suggests that they are working hard on behalf of their constituents. There are fewer Opposition Members, which suggests either that all the money was spent in their constituencies or perhaps that they are not as interested in this issue as we are. However, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I look forward to more bypasses being built across the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered road infrastructure.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

No. The hon. Gentleman has had a go. He can sit down.

The buck stops with the Government. The Tory Ministers who designed and awarded the franchise are responsible for the shambolic delivery of enhancement works and have directed this unnecessary industrial dispute.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the point of safety?

[Andy McDonald]

I am happy to.

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I took a Transport Committee group to view the video operation. It was entirely clear to us that a passenger getting on or off the train is visible. Ultimately though, it does not matter what I think or what he thinks; it is the independent rail safety regulator who has confirmed that the system is safe.

[Andy McDonald]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, which I will address shortly.

We know all too well the Secretary of State’s idiosyncratic approach to workers and unions, but even so, the handling of industrial relations in the case of Southern has been especially appalling, and relations are not helped by the antagonistic behaviour of GTR, the Department for Transport, and Ministers. In February 2016, a senior civil servant at the DFT, Peter Wilkinson, director of passenger services, told a public meeting in Croydon:

“Over the next three years we’re going to be having punch ups and we will see industrial action and I want your support... I’m furious about it and it has got to change—we have got to break them. They have all borrowed money to buy cars and got credit cards. They can’t afford to spend too long on strike and I will push them into that place. They will have to decide if they want to give a good service or get the hell out of my industry.”

Does the right hon. Gentleman honestly believe that threatening to drown ordinary workers in credit card debt is the right way to go about implementing staffing change?

The Transport Secretary has repeatedly attempted to distance himself from industrial action, claiming that it was a matter for the company, despite the unusually close relationship between him, his officials and Govia Thameslink Railway. That has never been a credible claim and the Gibb report confirmed the suspicions that the Transport Secretary was deeply involved in the industrial dispute despite his claims otherwise. Gibb said that the Secretary of State is

“already determining the strategic direction of this dispute.”

In similar disputes on the TransPennine Express and Scotrail, agreements were reached that avoided further disruption and prevented industrial action.

[Huw Merriman]

On Scotrail, the technology is there, but even in exceptional circumstances, a driver cannot operate the train despite 30% of the network operating in that manner. What kind of deal is that? New technology is there but it cannot be used.

[Andy McDonald]

It demonstrates what can be achieved when we sit down and have an intelligent conversation with people.

Where there is a willingness to talk on all sides, it is clear that agreements can be reached that benefit passengers. To put it simply, the Secretary of State’s militant anti-worker, anti-trade union stance has significantly worsened industrial relations and had a devastating impact on passenger services. While I am at it, he must come up with evidence for his allegation that the leader of the Labour party conspired in the way that he said he did because it is a complete and utter fantasy. He knows it and he should not come to the Dispatch Box and just make things up that he knows are not right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what Labour party policy is: to ensure that there is a second safety-critical trained member of staff on that train. [Interruption.] It means that they have the appropriate training and are not outsourced or sold short on training, which is exactly what the Government want to do.

The changes proposed by the Secretary of State would be retrograde for disabled passengers, whose independence would be wound back. Without a guaranteed second member of staff on board, the ability of passengers with accessibility requirements to turn up and go is severely restricted, requiring passengers to make arrangements 24 hours in advance. Southern passengers have been left stranded on station platforms because, as there is no on-board supervisor on DOO services, there was no one to assist them so that they could get on the train.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—he has been very patient. Does not the requirement for disabled people to book 24 hours in advance relate to a completely separate service? A conductor cannot leave the train and get someone over or off the platform. The hon. Gentleman is confusing the matter completely.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman rather makes my point for me. Why on earth are we discriminating against disabled people, who want the same freedom as able-bodied people to turn up at a railway station and carry on with their journey?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I warmly welcome you to your place, and I warmly recommend and welcome the Gibb report on the performance of Southern rail. I thank Chris Gibb for posing some serious challenges for us all to consider this afternoon.

I wish to focus on a couple of those proposals before turning my attention to what the report outlines as the primary cause for the system integrity to fail: the industrial action, and the illogical position taken by the rail unions and their members. First, let me talk about the resilience in the system. Rail has been one of the great success stories of the past 20 years, but its success has caused the current problem, in that passenger numbers have doubled, but investment in trains and track has not. With 23% of all rail passengers using the Southern network, it only takes one ingredient to fail and the entire network goes down, as this report makes clear.

The report contains difficult sections for hon. Members to consider. It recommends that trains “non-stop” at more stations; that daytime closures occur to allow for engineering; that off-peak services are reduced to give more resilience and allow preparation for the challenge of the peak period in rush hour; that Gatwick station is transferred over to the airport operator; and that depots are transferred to reduce empty trains on the network. It is important that we focus on the big prize and recognise that that series of measures, taken together, could give the system the resilience it so badly needs.

Another recommendation is that some services be transferred from Southern to Southeastern. My right hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), has championed a project to extend High Speed 1 from Ashford to Bexhill, Hastings and Rye. With the innovation in train technology whereby expensive overhead electrification can be substituted by a system of hybrid trains that charge themselves over track, my right hon. Friend’s project looks within reach. As it would require the relevant part of the network to be transferred from Southern to Southeastern, we welcome that recommendation in the report and ask the Department for Transport, Network Rail and the train operators to make the necessary investment in extending High Speed 1. As the Gibb report notes, Southern’s Sussex coast line is at the bottom of the table for capacity, with only 52% of passengers satisfied that they have sufficient carriage space. We badly need to extend High Speed 1 to improve their experience.

I had a seat on the Select Committee on Transport in the last Parliament, I have a constituency reliant on Southern’s services to get people to work and college, and I have had a season ticket on Southern for the past 10 years, so I have witnessed the illogical and devastating impact the industrial action has caused. I say “illogical” because no drivers or second crew members are losing their job—indeed, as we have heard, 100 additional second crew members have been recruited, and trains will operate without a second crew member only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the crew member is stuck on another part of the line. Secondly, no employees will lose pay—indeed, train drivers are being offered a 23% increase to take their pay for a four-day 35-hour week to £60,000, and most would earn £70,000 by working the fifth day.

Thirdly, the crew are not being asked to do anything novel. The dispute is allegedly about a driver controlling doors, but as we have heard, 30% of our rail network has run in that manner for more than 30 years and many of the trains have no second crew member at all. Fourthly, this practice is deemed to be safe. The report by Dr Ian Prosser, the rail safety regulator, has been mentioned. When called on by the rail unions to confirm that the practice was safe, Dr Prosser did just that. In fact, it can be argued that the practice is safer than other modes of operation. A coroner looking into the death of a passenger who fell on to Merseyrail tracks recommended that the operations be focused in one person; that the driver should control both the doors and movement of the train. That links to another argument that driver-controlled doors are even safer. As I saw with the Transport Committee when I travelled in a train driver’s cab, when carriage doors are opening and closing, it is entirely possible to see on the video display unit what is coming in and out of the train. That is what the rail regulator has opined on, but the video can also run as the train moves through the station. At the moment, a conductor cannot see what is happening on the platform once the doors have closed. Unfortunately, that video capacity is not being used at the moment, but it should be. If it were, the system would be safer than current practices.

Although the lack of logic is frustrating, it is the devastating impact on individuals, families and businesses that distresses me the most. People have lost their job because they cannot get to or from work; they have lost earnings because many earning less than £49,000 a year cannot commute to London for higher wages; and they have lost precious time with their family, which they will never get back. The economy in my area, much of it based on travel and tourism, has lost £40 million. Public services have suffered because essential workers cannot get to hospitals and schools or will not relocate to our region because they will be unable to do so. As a result, tax yields go down as well. For people such as Labour Members to call for protection of and investment in public services while supporting their degradation via this strike is rank hypocrisy and a disgrace.

I welcome the report and its findings. I hope very much that we can implement the recommendations and that the unions will cease their pointless action.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Huw Merriman Excerpts

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

[Graham Stringer]

I do indeed recall the time and effort spent on the Committee’s reports with my hon. Friend. They show that competition does not take place on the road—that is a myth—and that we have left the public purse vulnerable to parasites like Brian Souter who have taken money out of it while putting up prices and reducing the service.

There will be a rearguard resistance from people who have benefited from the system, but we, as parliamentarians who have a duty to look after raised taxes, should support the consensus in favour of a bus strategy that I believe exists in the House. After all, there are strategies throughout the rest of our transport system.

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

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

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

[Andy Burnham]

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

[Huw Merriman]

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

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

[Mrs Miller]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Huw Merriman]

Of course: I will give way one last time and then move on to 16 to 19.

[Mrs Miller]

I understand the point my hon. Friend is making and have a huge amount of sympathy with his wanting to make sure that we have a local approach to our bus services. Does he not then agree with me that we need to make sure that our law, through the Equality Act 2010, has more teeth, so that individuals are able to make the law work for them when they encounter problems, such as discrimination against them because they are disabled?

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

My right hon. Friend is correct. Indeed, I had been going to retort that perhaps our laws need to be tightened up so that there is that combination. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend’s point, therefore.

Moving on to subsection (2)—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing only new clauses 1, 2 and 3 in this group. The amendments that I think he wants to speak to—amendments 16 and onwards—are in the next group. If he wishes to speak to them, he can do so when the next group comes up.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was referring to subsection (2) of proposed new clause 1, which talks about the reduced fare concessionary scheme for 16 to 19-year-olds. Am I within order?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes.

[Huw Merriman]

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

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

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

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

[Andy Burnham]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anything that can be done to get young people on to the buses so that they stay on the buses has much to recommend it. I am also conscious that subsection (2) of new clause 1 refers to “consideration” of a reduced fare scheme, as, indeed, do the points I am talking to. So perhaps a mission for Government should be that money that can be saved, or perhaps reinvested, could go towards this measure, which I believe would help young people and social mobility.

[John Pugh]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 2 and 3 in my name and also new clause 1.

Both my new clauses are basically about coherence; neither is about dictating to local authorities, as was mischievously suggested by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. I am not trying to dictate to local authorities what they should do. Both of them are also obviously about concessionary travel for young people, which has been a thorny issue throughout the passage of this Bill.

Support for young people’s transport is variable, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, and worsening. Since 2008, 50,000 16 to 18-year-olds have had free transport withdrawn—a 42% drop, I believe. Two thirds of local authorities no longer provide free transport to 16 to 18-year-olds, and the price of bus passes for 16 to 18-year-olds varies incredibly across the country, ranging from £230 to more than £1,000. The number of transport authorities offering concessions right across their area has dropped since 2010 from 29 to 16, and 10 authorities have no arrangements that benefit the older age groups. The roll of shame of authorities that do not offer any concessionary fares for young people comprises Cheshire West and Chester, Halton, Warrington, Lincolnshire, Nottingham, Peterborough, Bracknell Forest, Oxfordshire, Portsmouth and Slough.

The situation is hardly good and the impacts are fairly obvious. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the impact on educational progress. According to the Association of Colleges, a fifth of students consider dropping out during their course, and often the reason is transport costs or, if the cost is not foremost in their mind, transport difficulties. There is an impact on students: a survey by the National Union of Students shows that two thirds of further education students pay more than £30 a week for transport—a lot of money for a young person. There is a clear impact on traffic congestion and pollution—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, too—as more young people get a car, perhaps sooner than they should, or rely on parental transport, which affects congestion at all the wrong times in most towns. There is also an impact on educational choice—I emphasise the hon. Gentleman’s point that the worst affected are probably residents of rural areas and poorer students generally.

Within the system are clear anomalies that need to be resolved. We raised the age of compulsory education, but local authority transport obligations remain very much as they were.

Car Insurance: Young People

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who chairs the Transport Committee, of which I am a member, and congratulate the lead petitioner and all the people who signed the petition.

I represent a rural constituency of 200 square miles, where the car is an essential way of life, particularly for the young, for whom getting out and engaging has never been more important, given the advent of social media and their ability to communicate while on their own in their bedrooms. It is vital that we do everything we can to let them get out and about and interact with the world around them. That is more important now than it was when I was young. We talk in this place, rightly, about social mobility. In rural environments where people’s ability to access public transport, let alone pay for it, is somewhat restricted by the loss of bus services and other difficulties, it is hugely important for our young people to be able to go out to work, earn money and get a foot on the ladder, because without that ability, they may be held back and not climb the ladder.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on leading off this debate. We ended up in a discussion about whether tests have become easier. As we get older, we tend to slip into the mode of saying, “It was much harder in my day.” When I learned to drive and took my test, I did not have to reverse into a space—I found that to be a drawback when I moved to London—and I was not required to sit a written exam, as our young people are, so I might argue that tests have actually got harder. I remember being asked by my examiner what green meant at a traffic light. If the test has got harder than that, things are getting better.

I shall focus on the need for the insurance market and perhaps the Government, through incentives, to ensure that premiums are based on specific risk rather than a specific class, which is how young people are currently grouped.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech—I hope that I can contribute to this debate—but premiums actually are not based solely on risk. It used to be the case, a while ago, that young men paid higher premiums than young women. Of course, we were told that that was discriminatory, but it actually reflected risk—that is what the statistics said. Sadly, a lot of young women’s premiums had to rise to ensure that everything was fair and equal. I do not think that premiums are always based on risk—other things sometimes come into play.

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I wholeheartedly agree. The Transport Committee and the Petitions Committee met jointly to hear evidence. We heard from the head of research at the RAC, who said that

“insurance costs are based on four main things: the cost of the vehicle; the likelihood of theft; the cost of available claims generally, if you were to make a claim; and the risk of the individual.”

It is absolutely clear that, on average, 17-year-old boys present twice the risk of 17-year-old girls, yet no price differential at all is offered. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there was such a differential, but prices had to be equalised as a result of the gender directive. Of course, in life, prices tend to go up rather than down. To a certain extent, she makes a point that I wanted to make—we should look at individuals’ performance risk and price insurance comparatively. In the United States of America, where the insurance market is much more tightly regulated, there is a requirement to look at specific risk rather than a class. Will the Minister consider whether the time is right to look at this issue from a regulatory perspective?

A 17-year-old new driver is 40% more likely to have an accident than an 18-year-old, yet I dare say that premiums do not fall by 40% in that year, because there is a tendency to look just at age. I received information from one of the telematics companies that seems to suggest that, by the time people reach 29, men and women present the same risk, and the curve drops dramatically.

At the moment, pricing is measured crudely for young people. Insurers tend to look at young people as students who live at home, drive small cars and have no driving experience, and therefore make no allowance for their performance. That is why telematics is such an exciting concept. The advent of telematics means that, rather than putting in place a cap that does not bear any relation to risk, insurers can reward good drivers and penalise people who do not drive so safely. With more telematics in place, 1,000 accidents involving death or serious injuries would be averted, so I dare to suggest that the cost to the Government would reduce. Telematics have developed to such an extent that the software can talk to emergency services to warn them of an event. We all know that early response to an emergency can save lives and, if we are crude about it, money, including for the state.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister about what we can all do and what the Government can do to incentivise the development of telematics. Given the cost savings that I mentioned, is there a case for insurance premium tax to be reduced for drivers who use telematics? VAT is charged on the box that is required to use telematics, which reduces the cost benefits, so, again, could some exemption be made as far as that is concerned?

The insurers’ discount rate was changed from 2.5% to minus 0.7%. Although that happened after the petition was started, the petitioners would maintain that their insurance premiums were high enough as they were. Unfortunately for the Transport Committee, that change was a live issue for insurers when we heard evidence. I am pleased that the Government have decided to look again at that rate, but we made the point to representatives of the insurers and the Association of British Insurers that their attempt to state that the change would cause young people’s insurance premiums to double was rather crude given that they did not seem to have research to bear that out. Actually, I do not believe they have provided the research that they promised to the Committee. We should perhaps always go hard on insurers and work hard to ensure that the evidence for the claims that they put out—they always say they are based on evidence, yet we do not see that evidence—is in the public domain, so that pricing for young people is demonstrably linked to the risk that they pose as individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Blair Donaldson]

It is dark all the time—absolutely. In winter, it gets light after 8 o’clock in the morning and gets dark at about 4 o’clock in the afternoon. Not driving at night would be a real issue and prevent a lot of young people from working.

The constituency that I represent, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, has the second highest number of road deaths in the UK, for which there are a number of reasons. Councils, the police, the fire service and the Scottish ambulance service in Grampian run a programme called “Safe Drive Stay Alive”. It has been going for 11 or 12 years; it was certainly on when I was at school. It brings local schools together and shows them a presentation that, to be honest, is pretty horrific. It has graphic images of car accidents, speeches from people who have lost loved ones and speeches from people who have been paralysed by car accidents.

The programme has a huge impact on young drivers, and to some extent I think it is effective in scaring young people into realising that, when they are learning to drive and when they pass their test, they are in charge of a machine that can quite easily kill somebody. It is important to emphasise that learning how to pass a test is not the same as learning how to drive; I am still learning how to drive to some extent.

[Huw Merriman]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on curfews. The analysis seems to show that telematics companies that put curfew penalties in place were causing more dangerous driving, because young people were trying to get back in time. I applaud the move to give people hours on top—almost pay-as-you-go—as a reward for good driving, rather than curfews or things like that.

[Stuart Blair Donaldson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When I was at school, I had friends who were involved in serious car accidents, and somebody a couple of years above me was killed in a car accident. It is so important that, when educating young people, we strongly emphasise that driving is an incredibly important part of life, but that they need to take it seriously, be careful and show respect to other road users.

There are some other issues that do not pertain to young people. As one who comes from a rural area, I find Sunday drivers coming out to the country from Aberdeen incredibly frustrating. When people do not know how to drive on country roads it is incredibly dangerous; there can be really sharp bends, tractors or sheep on the roads. The issue is not all about young people; we need to look at this much more widely and consider all the options.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

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

[Andrew Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Huw Merriman Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

May I ask at the outset that any hon. Member wishing to speak will indicate that clearly by standing up, as they would in the Chamber? I want to include everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Jones]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

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

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

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

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

He also said:

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

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

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

[Huw Merriman]

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

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

[Huw Merriman]

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

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

Amendment 27 refers to

“appropriate representatives of any affected employees”.

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

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Huw Merriman Excerpts

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

[Andrew Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andrew Jones]

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

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

[Huw Merriman]

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

[Andrew Jones]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

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

[Huw Merriman]

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

[Andrew Jones]

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

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

[Huw Merriman]

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

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

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

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

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

[Huw Merriman]

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

[Daniel Zeichner]

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

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

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Huw Merriman Excerpts

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

[Andy McDonald]

I have no hesitation whatsoever in urging the Secretary of State to do exactly that. Newcastle has a proud history of focusing on trying to deliver the best possible services for its people. To be prevented and excluded simply because it does not fit the devolution model currently on offer is basically to deny localism to huge swathes of our country, which cannot be the intention of any sensible Government.

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

Has the hon. Gentleman made an assessment of which local authorities would want to take up these opportunities? In 2000, the Labour Government introduced a contract scheme, which they described as similar to franchising, yet not a single authority has used it. Where is the evidence that more authorities want these powers?

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the quality partnership schemes that Labour brought in. Interestingly, what he says makes my point. It is up to local authorities to make the decision for themselves. It is not a question of people on the Labour Benches telling local authorities what they should or should not do; local authorities should have those options made available to them. From the way this Bill might be amended, it looks very much as if that choice will be denied to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for passing on his experience. That makes sense. In fact, the Department for Transport’s own figures suggest that the provision of audio-visual information would cost less than £6 million a year, which in terms of its overall expenditure is absolutely nothing.

The Government have previously suggested that phone apps might be the way forward. While apps have benefits, they cannot be the only solution. I was contacted by a company that gave me a phone to trial, so I handed it over to a constituent with a visual impairment. They told me that the app was fine as far as it went, but it could not be relied upon 100%.The app’s functionality also depends on the type of phone being used, so the Government cannot use that sort of technology as a way around the problem. We need audio-visual technology on buses.

[Huw Merriman]

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the Government on the change? When the Royal National Institute of Blind People gave its thoughts to the Transport Committee, the situation was that such technology would only be for new buses. This measure goes further, so will the hon. Gentleman give some credit where it is due?

[Alan Brown]

I think I have the usual problem here of people not understanding my Scottish accent, because I said in my opening remarks that I commend the Government and the House of Lords for bringing this measure in. I do commend the Government; I was just saying some “buts” as usual to put the message out that they must go forward and fully implement the proposal. That is why I was making some minor criticisms.

As part of the campaign that I was involved in, I also participated in a Guide Dogs for the Blind Association blindfold walk through Kilmarnock—my constituency’s main town. The drivers were excellent, but my experience reinforced the need for new technology. When I went on the bus, there was absolutely no way of telling where I was on the journey or where I could get off. Buses clearly do not call at every bus stop, so if there is no information, people have to rely on help from drivers or other passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

[Andy Burnham]

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

[Huw Merriman]

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Foster]

Torbay has a unitary authority and responsibility for transport partly lies with Devon County Council and partly with Plymouth City Council. Does my hon. Friend agree that combined authorities normally bring together a main urban area with its rural surroundings in a democratically accountable body?

[Huw Merriman]

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

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

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

[Andy Burnham]

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

[Huw Merriman]

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Of course I will. I have taken a close interest in the eastern leg, and I have been up and down most of the route myself. I am very keen that we deliver the economic benefits, but that we do so in the way that works best for local communities. I am happy to take a look at the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

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

It has been yet another week of misery for hundreds of thousands of passengers on Southern rail. Given that the unions have received guarantees on jobs, on pay and—from the independent rail safety regulator—on safety, would the Government now support Conservative proposals to limit strikes, or at least the impact of strikes, via legislation?

[Chris Grayling]

There is a lot of interest in the matter, and a lot of calls have been made for such measures to be taken. We are considering carefully how we approach future issues. Of course, nothing in legislative terms would solve the current dispute. I think my hon. Friend will join me in expressing the disappointment of Conservative Members about the fact that we have not heard from the Opposition today one word of regret or condemnation, and not one call for the unions to go back to work. They just do not care.

Southern Rail

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that even in inner suburban London, people are equally reliant on Southern rail. They will also be eligible for season ticket reductions, should they have annual, quarterly or weekly tickets, as well as Delay Repay 15 compensation from 11 December. That, to me, underlines the importance of ensuring that the network functions well for everybody, wherever they live on the Southern network.

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

The Minister has rightly referred to a letter that I received from the director of rail safety, specifying that this form of technology is not only safe but has been properly tested by Southern as safe. Given that the unions continue to use safety as the cloak for this dispute, will the Minister consider using legislation to stop unions striking on grounds of safety when the industry regulator has deemed the relevant issue to be safe?

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend has done the country a great service during his time on the Transport Committee in trying to nail the myth that DOO is in some way an unsafe means of driving trains. The language from the director of rail safety at the Office of Rail and Road was abundantly clear and it was examined closely at the most recent Transport Committee meeting. He could not have been clearer. It is now for ASLEF and the RMT to pay heed to his words and call off their unreasonable and disproportionate strikes.