Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 12th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

Like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I live in a rural area. I travel on the bus every day and I have noticed that, for the bus services in the county of Oxfordshire that have been cut and which the county council has decided in future not to subsidise, the people who were using the bus services concerned were mostly concessionary fare holders. I could get on a bus with 16 or 17 people yet nobody was paying a fare. But those 16 or 17 people valued that bus as a contact with civilisation. I am quite clear that these are not people who have a car; many do not have access to a car, but they formed the staple part of the bus route. The bus operator was able to extend the day somewhat in the knowledge that he would receive a subsidy and a reasonable concessionary fare for carrying the people using the bus.

I know that the Government are not likely today to spray money at the problem, but I ask them—and I have put this in Amendment 114, which we are not discussing today, because it seems to me that there is a case—to make concessionary fares weighted in favour of deep rural areas. The gearing is such that a fraction of a penny on major bus services, if targeted at deep rural services, would solve the problem without the Government having to spend any more money. There are problems, but I do not believe that they are insuperable. I know that operators have to be no better off and no worse off. That is very difficult to tell, but we can assume that if an operator has the subsidy withdrawn and its concessionary fare level is kept low, the natural result will be that it is worse off.

There will also no doubt be some obstruction from those operating bus services in urban areas, but I am talking about taking a very thin top-slice off the concessionary fares that are used in urban areas and devoting those to deep rural buses, where subsidy has been withdrawn and where this appears to be the only way of maintaining a decent bus service. Otherwise, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said. I too have some doubts about whether the beleaguered local authorities will have the resources to undertake the survey, but it should be among their duties to look after not just the core of their county but the peripheries as well.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who I thought made an excellent case for Amendments 1 and 113 in his name and, in so doing, I should say that I am the vice-president of the Local Government Association. I simply add a little for the Minster to take away, because the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked a great deal about the importance of bus services for employment opportunities and for training purposes.

In the consultation that is talked about—a huge amount of consultation will take place on this Bill, not just in terms of this amendment—one type of organisation that should be automatically consulted is employers’ organisations. There can be huge problems for people who often are on a low income, live in remote places and have no access to a car and who, therefore, need to be able to get to employment and training opportunities, often at unsocial hours, by public transport. Therefore, it is important to consult those people. Proposed new subsection (4)(d)(iv) in Amendment 1 refers to,

“organisations, or types of organisation, specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument”.

I hope very much that employers’ organisations and jobcentres will be included in that list.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution to the discussion on Report of the Bus Services Bill, I refer noble Lords to my register of interests: I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I should also say that, generally, we on these Benches welcome the provisions in the Bill.

Bus use in London has grown while outside it the picture has been very different. We are hopeful that when the Bill passes into law, it will help to halt the decline in bus use outside London, particularly in rural areas. The two amendments in this group are in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. As we have heard, Amendment 1 seeks to place a duty on county councils in non-metropolitan areas to consult on the needs for local bus services. It would require them to issue a consultation document and, following the consultation, to issue an assessment on the need for local bus services in the county and, further, to seek to secure the provision of bus services that address the needs identified that would otherwise not be met, as my noble friend outlined. The amendment is very focused and requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to assist county councils in making sure that they have properly responded to the outcomes of the consultation. The amendment goes further in setting out what the consultation must address and who, at a minimum, must be consulted. I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about ensuring that employers’ organisations are properly consulted. However, the amendment gives considerable scope to the Secretary of State to set out and shape the consultation to be undertaken.

Amendment 113, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, would place a requirement on the Government and the Secretary of State to issue a national strategy document within 12 months of the Act coming into force. Noble Lords will recall that that was discussed in Committee. As we have heard, there is no need for the bus industry to be the poor relation of other transport services. I fully support this amendment’s objective of requiring a proper national strategy. As we have heard, this document will set out the objectives, targets, plans and funding mechanisms for the delivery of bus services over the next 10 years. That is a very welcome idea. We have heard and seen the decline in bus services outside London. The Bill is an attempt to halt that decline. It seems sensible for the Government to pull those things together into one document. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 14, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, returns to a key part of the Bill raised both at Second Reading and in Committee. Under the Bill, only mayoral combined authorities can automatically opt for a franchise scheme if they believe that that is right for their area. All other categories of authority have to seek the permission of the Secretary of State to go down that route; that in turn would need to be approved by the affirmative procedure.

Our amendment, and Amendment 25 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would put the whole question of franchising on a level playing field. We support the Bill in general, as I have said, and there are many good measures in it which we believe would improve bus services outside London. We have evidence that franchising works here in London and, where an authority thinks that that is the right model for it, we want it to be able to take it up, improving the number of passenger journeys and driving up standards.

With the change of government, I hope that there has been and continues to be a period of reflection on the whole question of mayors and the exclusivity of powers under the Bill that can come only when having a mayor. If an area wants a mayor, that is fine; if it does not, that is fine too. I hope that we can move away from effectively forcing authorities down a certain path if they want to have certain powers to a much more consensual approach, where it can be determined locally what is the best model for a locality and the full suite of powers be available, no matter what model is chosen.

Amendments 24, 26 and 27, also in my name in this group, are complementary, although in my opinion Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, works better. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley]

I support this group of amendments. The issue is whether a distinction should be drawn between the powers of a mayoral combined authority and an ordinary combined authority, the difference between which is only whether an elected mayor chairs the authority’s meetings. A second issue is whether a distinction should be drawn between a mayoral combined authority and a county council or an integrated transport authority.

It is very difficult to see why the Government are drawing the distinction they are. It is also very difficult to see why other bodies with transport responsibilities are being excluded from an automatic right to propose a franchising scheme without the Secretary of State’s agreement. Devolution of power implies devolving that power and devolving responsibilities associated with it. I would be content with the right to propose franchises to be extended to authorities other than mayoral combined authorities.

My concern relates in part to a later amendment, Amendment 28, about the independence of the audit function. If we have a robust audit system in place to examine proposed franchising schemes, it is much easier to allow other authorities, beyond mayoral combined authorities, to propose the franchising route. If a local transport body feels that franchising is right for it, and if it is subject to that rigorous independent scrutiny, it should be allowed to proceed.

There is an issue about the future of elected mayors where some combined authorities have turned into mayoral combined authorities and others have not. There could well be a change of heart within the Government anyway about the application of elected mayors—whether they will be compulsory in areas with substantial devolved powers. We are writing now into legislation that the extra powers that go with the right to franchise can go only to mayoral combined authorities, when not all combined authorities may end up being mayoral.

I hope that the Minister will look carefully at this because there is a very strong case to extend the power to franchise to authorities other than just mayoral combined authorities.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, I am a very strong supporter of the Bill and, like the previous speaker, I do not see why its benefits should be confined to mayoral combined authorities—why other authorities such as county councils cannot automatically invoke a franchise in the same way as mayoral combined authorities. That argument, which was stated at some length in Committee, has only been added to in the intervening time. First, we have Brexit, which means that there is far more for the Government to do than was ever envisaged when the Bill was first thought of; and, secondly, there has been a change of government, which means that there is perhaps less drive for the mayoral combined authorities, as opposed to other authorities, then under the previous regime. For both those reasons, we should think again about this proposal and widen it as far as possible so that everyone has the opportunity to franchise. After all, we all want bus services to be better, and this is a way to do it.

I hope that the Government will think again, either here or in another place, about taking a more relaxed attitude to the clause.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, Amendment 28 returns to the question of an independent audit of proposals for new franchising schemes. I thank the Minister for meeting me in September to discuss this matter and for his subsequent letter. The purpose of the amendment is to provide the House with an opportunity to look again at the question of an independent audit and for the Minister to elaborate and build on the letter that he sent me.

The issue here is protecting the public against the careless use of local taxpayers’ money. I have always believed in devolution; indeed, I have long thought it was a scandal that our major cities constantly have to go cap-in-hand to government whenever they want to undertake a capital programme. But I am also a great believer in democratic accountability, and there is a real problem in mayoral models in that the very concentration of power in the hands of one individual that makes it such an attractive option to government also runs a significant risk of poor decision-making because it is untested by debates in traditional committees or through effective scrutiny.

The Public Accounts Committee published a report in July in which it said:

“There has been insufficient consideration by central government of local scrutiny arrangements, of accountability to the taxpayer and of the capacity and capability needs of local and central government as a result of devolution”.

The committee went on to talk more about its concerns about capacity issues, particularly financial and technical skills, which have been exacerbated by budget cuts. Providing a requirement for a mayor to give information that proposed new schemes, potentially worth millions of pounds, have been independently audited is an important safeguard. The auditor usually engaged by a local authority may very well have their independence compromised by their wish to hold on to the contract.

Equally importantly in terms of public confidence is that the audit should be seen to be independent. The Public Accounts Committee had this to say:

“Robust and independent scrutiny of the value for money of devolved activities is essential to safeguarding taxpayers’ money, particularly given the abolition of the Audit Commission … Currently, local auditors focus on individual bodies’ financial statements and arrangements for securing value for money, rather than assessing value for money itself”.

In his letter to me, the Minister referred to the guidance on the matter that he had agreed to develop, and I would be grateful to hear more about that today. He referred to the availability of freedom of information as a means of achieving transparency. I wonder whether he can confirm today that such freedom of information requests will not be met with commerciality exemptions. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, to which my name is attached. My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market said that it related to the protection of the public, and I agree entirely with all that she said. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the context is not the same as it was when we debated this matter in Committee, because an amendment was agreed on day one of Report extending franchising powers to all relevant councils and local transport authorities. I supported that in the Lobbies but I have always believed that it must be accompanied by a robust and thorough audit and full scrutiny of any proposal for franchising.

Detailed audit and scrutiny processes exist within mayoral combined authorities because this House wrote into the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act much more comprehensive arrangements for audit and scrutiny than had originally been planned. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market made clear, it is not as much as we wanted, and many feel that it is not enough—but it is, nevertheless, more than is proposed in the Bill for non-mayoral combined authorities.

I hope that the Minister will give much further consideration to the proposal that there should be full scrutiny and audit of any franchising plan proposed by a council or local transport body which is not a mayoral combined authority. My noble friend Lady Scott received a letter from the Minister dated 5 October which expresses much agreement on the need for the audit process to be credible and open to public scrutiny, and accepts that there must be robust evidence and analysis. Indeed, on page 2 the letter accepts that the process should be independent, and one in which other people will have the right to challenge the report. Clearly the process must be seen to be transparent.

We need an auditor with appropriate professional standing who is clearly independent of the contractor and also has professional knowledge of audit, finance and, crucially, transport. I suggest to the Minister that it will be a rare person indeed who, as auditor to a council or a local transport body, has all those skills. It is my view that a specific appointment should be made.

I accept that this matter could be subject to further discussion during the passage of the Bill and then in the production of guidance—but, now that the House has extended franchising powers to non-mayoral combined authorities, having a robust and independent audit system has become increasingly important.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the views put forward by the two previous speakers. Under previous legislation, there were five main tests for franchising. I do not propose to go over them, but they were fairly stringent. Attempts by local authorities to introduce franchising previously failed those tests.

We are in uncharted territory with the Bill. It does not seem inherently fair that the authority that wants to set up a franchising scheme can be judge and jury for that scheme, which appears to be the current situation. We need a degree of independence in judging the merits or otherwise of such a franchising proposal. Common fairness demands some sort of independent scrutiny of the proposals.

I do not know the Minister’s intention, but I hope that he will see the common sense and fairness behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. If an independent element is not introduced, one can just imagine the number of judicial reviews that will be held—from one end of the country to the other—if bus companies feel that they have been unfairly treated by the franchising authority acting as judge and jury. So the amendment is eminently sensible and I hope that the Minister will act on it.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

Why not run them more efficiently in the first place? Public ownership can be very cost effective and much more so because it caters to the needs of the people that it represents. People are saying to councils, “This is what we want”, and private bus companies often do not give it to them.

Limiting the power of local authorities to help their communities, as the noble Earl suggests, is a very undemocratic thing to do—perhaps that is not surprising in an undemocratic House. Clause 21 spoils what is a laudable and well-intentioned Bill. I beg the Minister to ignore what he has heard from behind him and to listen to this side of the House. It is a case of representing people and giving them fuller lives, which private bus companies, because they are in it entirely for profit, just do not see. I beg the Minister to accept the amendment.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with those who have spoken in support of the removal of Clause 21 from the Bill. The Bill is 83 pages long and the relevant paragraph is two lines long. It says simply, in a clause headed “Bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England”:

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

The Minister needs to explain to the House—I agree with my noble friend Lady Randerson that he did not do so satisfactorily in Committee—why this clause needs to be in the Bill, what its purpose is and what problem it seeks to solve or prevent. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, gave us one reason. He forecast wholesale competition through the franchising route from local authorities; I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. He was good enough to say that local authorities run bus services extremely well in the limited number of cases where that occurs.

I hope the Minister might explain what the problem actually is that the Government are trying to solve, because five years ago, the Localism Act 2011 increased the powers given to councils alongside their general power of competence, and they have a right to undertake new duties and introduce new policies that are not excluded by existing legislation. Of course, that explains why these two lines are in the Bill; otherwise, councils would have the power to form those companies to provide a local service.