Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. This is one of these usual discussions that we have in this House on lists and on who should be included and who should not.

There are many similarities between the list on page 5 and that on page 42. Amendment 91, which my noble friend will probably speak to, makes the extraordinary suggestion of adding in the customer or the customer’s representative. That is missing from both lists. It is quite extraordinary that stakeholders and their representatives—whether it is any of the bus passenger representative groups, local or national—are not included. As my noble friend said, they might be,

“such other persons as the authority or authorities think fit”,

but I think that we all know of instances where authorities have chosen not to consult a particular body of stakeholders because they do not like them for some reason. That is not a good reason, but it happens and I have plenty of experience of it happening. It would therefore be good to include the two amendments in my noble friend Lord Whitty’s name and the two similar amendments to do with stakeholders’ involvement.

While I am on my feet, I might say that it is interesting that paragraph (d) in both lists refers to “a traffic commissioner”. If I lived in Cornwall, it would be no good consulting a traffic commissioner for the south-east of England. He or she as a traffic commissioner would probably not know much about the area. Given that the subsequent paragraph in each list states,

“the chief officer of police for each police area covering the whole or part of that area”,

it seems to me that the traffic commissioner should be relevant to wherever the services will run. I have not put down an amendment on this, but perhaps the Minister will consider it for the next stage.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Amendments 16 and 46, in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, and Amendment 92, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would require consultation on an advanced quality partnership or franchising scheme to include recognised trade unions or other representatives elected or appointed by employees affected by the proposals.

Both Section 113G(3), on page 5, and Section 123E(4), on page 17, list who should be consulted. It is both surprising and disappointing that the recognised representatives of the employees are not included in this list. These amendments seek to correct that, and I hope that the Government will give their full support to this, since why would we not want to hear from the employees? They have an absolute wealth of knowledge and experience that would be very valuable to the company in putting these schemes together, and it seems obvious that we would want to include them. I am in full agreement with the comments of all my noble friends who have spoken in this short debate and I look forward to what I hope will be a positive response.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Berkeley]

17A: Clause 1, page 6, line 14, leave out from “or” to end of line 16

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee, because Amendments 17A and 17B should have been grouped. We have already discussed Amendment 17B: it is to do with standards and frequencies. I do not intend to repeat everything now, but if one took the two amendments together, the effect would be to remove sub-paragraph (iii) on page 6, line 15, and turn it into separate paragraphs (h) and (i), which would put frequency and service under the same level of specification as all the other items in that list.

I hope that I have explained that properly and put it on the record. I do not need to detain the Committee with it too much tonight, because when one gets a wet towel and looks at it, it will be obvious. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the proposals for an advanced partnership scheme include the ability for local authorities to impose standards of service on bus operators running services on routes included in the scheme. These standards are set out in new Section 113E(4) and (5) of the Transport Act 2000. The Bill does not currently require all those standards to be imposed at once when the scheme is made by the local authority. New Section 113H(2)(g) allows a local authority to phase in the requirements of the scheme. This might be because the local authority needs time to introduce certain facilities or measures—for example, new bus lanes, bus shelters or bus stops. For bus operators, it might be that they need time to procure new vehicles that meet a particular emissions standard or to recruit and train new staff. The amendment as tabled by the noble Lord would not allow the local authority to phase in the standards of service that apply to bus operators. They would be required to meet all the requirements when the scheme is introduced.

We believe that this would be an unnecessary restriction. As I have already explained, there may be very good reasons why some of these standards may need to be introduced after the scheme is made. The inability of a local authority to phase in standards may mean that those standards are not included in the scheme, or that some bus operators are forced to cancel services. I am sure that neither of these outcomes is the intent behind the proposals because neither would be in the interest of passengers. Therefore, it is right that local authorities should have flexibility to tailor the introduction of a scheme to suit local needs and circumstances. On the basis of the reasons I have stated, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation and shall read it with interest. For now, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 17A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, passenger transport executives are local government bodies responsible for public transport within large urban areas. They are accountable to bodies called integrated transport authorities or, where combined authorities have been formed, to those authorities. The Bill originally amended Section 162(4) of the Transport Act 2000 to provide that references to integrated transport authorities in specified sections of the Transport Act 2000 should be read as references to the passenger transport executive for the integrated transport authority concerned. After further consideration of whether provisions of this nature would be required for advanced quality partnerships, enhanced partnerships and franchising, we concluded that it was not necessary to make explicit provision. Therefore, this amendment removes the amendments to Section 162(4) of the Transport Act 2000.

In this group, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, whom I cannot see in his place, tabled Amendment 22 to make it clear that the executive of an integrated transport authority or combined authority must exercise the franchising functions on behalf of the franchising authority. For the record, I am sympathetic to the aims of the amendment; devolution is an important theme which has influenced the development of this Bill. I want to ensure that franchising is a realistic option where it makes sense locally, and I agree entirely that there will be different governance arrangements in different areas that must be accommodated.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, is not here, but I hope I have highlighted the Government’s intent.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bradley on Amendment 22. It is one of these odd arrangements when you have, in one group, the Minister moving a government amendment and then somebody else proposing an amendment, so the Minister answers before you have stated the case. But I do want to state the case. My noble friend is very apologetic.

The purpose of this amendment is to make it possible for a passenger transport executive to enter into a local service contract with operators once the ITA or combined authority has decided to implement a franchising scheme. New Section 123A(4) of the Transport Act 2000 sets out which bodies qualify as franchising authorities, but the list does not include passenger transport executives. In a number of metropolitan areas, the PTE continues to be the executive body for transport responsible to the combined authority. This amendment would explicitly allow a PTE to be the contracting body if that was judged most appropriate locally.

The amendment would also help to future-proof the legislation, given the way the Government’s arrangements continue to evolve in different ways in different areas. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister’s response to this. That is the message from my noble friend Lord Bradley.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, very briefly, first, we accept the case made by the Minister that Amendment 20 is a tidying-up amendment and that it is not necessary to make explicit provision in the Transport Act 2000 for advanced quality partnerships, franchising and enhanced partnerships. We are therefore content with this change.

We also support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Bradley, which would extend the prescriptive proposals on franchising authority functions to the executive of an integrated transport authority if needed. This reflects the reality of decision-making in a number of larger authorities and is therefore a more practical application of the Bill. We were very pleased to hear that the Minister has agreed to take that away and do more work on it. We look forward to hearing the outcome of those further deliberations.