Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Natascha Engel Excerpts

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 4, page 14, line 13, at end insert—

“(2A) A franchising scheme may not be made unless the franchising authority can demonstrate that the benefits for passengers could not be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.”

This amendment would ensure that a Local Transport Authority cannot make a franchise scheme if the passenger benefits can be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.

Amendment 16, page 15, leave out line 36 and insert—

“(3) A franchising authority or authorities shall consider an assessment and shall not proceed with the proposed scheme unless it is satisfied that—”

This amendment and amendments 17 to 23 would tighten the criteria against which an authority must consider a franchise proposal.

Amendment 17, page 15, line 37, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 18, page 15, line 43, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 19, page 16, line 1, at beginning insert “they know”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 20, page 16, line 3, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 21, page 16, line 5, leave out “whether”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 22, page 16, line 7, leave out “the extent to which”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 16.

Amendment 23, page 16, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.

This amendment is related to amendment 16.

Amendment 15, page 16, line 9, at end insert—

“(g) the specific passenger benefits that would result from a franchise scheme, with an explanation of why those benefits could not be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme.”

This amendment would require a franchise assessment to specify the benefits of the proposed scheme for passengers and to explain why these benefits cannot be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme, or an enhanced partnership scheme.

Amendment 24, page 16, line 9, at end insert—

“(g) whether the proposed scheme would be more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses would be wholly or partially expropriated by the scheme.”

This amendment would ensure that the value for money test of a franchise scheme must factor in the cost of compensation to bus operators who lose part or all of their business as a result of a franchise.

Government amendments 2 to 4.

Amendment 25, page 17, line 7, at end insert—

“(3A) A person may not act as an auditor under this section if the person or company for whom the person is employed has been an auditor for the franchising authority at any time in the previous five years or has had any other commercial relationship with the franchising authority at any time in the previous five years.”

This amendment would ensure that any auditor appointed by the franchising authority had no commercial interest or association with the franchising authority which might create, or might be perceived to create, a conflict of interest.

Government amendment 5.

Amendment 6, page 19, line 37, at end insert—

“(4A) An award of any new franchise or contract shall not be made on the basis of labour costs estimated by the potential franchisee or contractor assuming labour costs for new employees at less than the labour cost of workers who are covered by TUPE protections in accordance with section 123X transferring to the new franchisee or contractor.”

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

Amendment 26, page 20, line 24, after “(or further postponed)” insert “or cancelled”.

Amendment 27, page 20, line 24, at end insert—

‘(1A) If an authority or authorities decide to cancel a proposed franchising scheme under subsection (1) they may not initiate a revised or alternative franchising scheme until the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the decision to postpone the original scheme was taken.”

This amendment would provide greater certainty for bus operators and passengers by specifying that, if a franchising authority fails to make a case for a franchise scheme or decides not to progress its proposals, it should not be permitted to bring forward fresh proposals for five years.

Amendment 7, page 30, line 2, leave out “at the same time,”.

Amendment 8, page 30, line 14, leave out “at the same time”.

Amendment 9, page 32, line 27, at end insert—

“123Y Employees not covered by TUPE protections

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

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

Amendment 10, page 32, line 27, at end insert—

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 41, line 17, at end insert—

“(6A) The requirements that may be specified under subsections (4)(b), (4)(e) and (4)(h) in relation to fares and the prices of multi-operator tickets may only be specified if all operators party to the enhanced partnership scheme are in agreement with those requirements.”

This amendment would specify that fares structures could only be specified as part of an enhanced partnership scheme if the operators involved agree.

Amendment 11, page 57, line 3, leave out “at the same time,”.

Amendment 12, page 57, line 14, leave out “at the same time,”.

Amendment 13, page 59, line 42, at end insert—

“138T Effect on employees of introduction of enhanced partnership scheme or plan

(1) Where, either before or after the coming into force of an awarded contract in an area to which the relevant enhanced partnership scheme relates, any employee of an operator in the area to which the contract relates is dismissed, that employee is to be treated for the purposes of Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the introduction of the awarded contract.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether or not the employee in question was part of an organised grouping of employees principally connected with the provision of local services, under section 138S(4).

(3) Where section 138S applies, a new operator may not engage employees or workers on terms and conditions less favourable than those of the employees whose employment transferred from the former operator.”

This amendment would make dismissal of an employee for the sole or principal reason of the award of a contract under an enhanced partnership scheme automatically unfair dismissal.

[Ian Mearns]

I declare an interest inasmuch as I am chair of the RMT parliamentary group and vice-chair of the Unite parliamentary group, both of which unions have members in the bus industry.

The transport sector is a safety-critical environment. This is not a loose use of language. The sector involves carriages travelling at speed, individuals working long hours on repetitive tasks on repetitive routes, and people maintaining equipment at all hours of night and day. Hard lessons have been learned following a series of fatal road and rail crashes in the 1980s and 1990s. However, continuing financial pressures, declining support from Government through the bus service operators grant, and commercially oriented initiatives towards potentially reducing staff could threaten safe working practices.

Bus drivers are aware of where corners are being cut. In theory, they may be empowered to use their employers’ whistleblowing policies to speak out. In practice, however, workers who do so are frequently subject to all sorts of pressure and have been known to be dismissed for whistleblowing. This invariably leads to serious safety failings being increasingly ignored and not adequately investigated, or the results of an investigation not being acted on by bus companies.

To counter the dysfunction, a confidential reporting service known as CIRAS was introduced. This system, initially only for rail, has been successful in enabling workers properly to ventilate their concerns, resulting in lessons being learned and an accumulation of failings being halted, with serious harm prevented. All the major rail companies, many of which also own bus companies, such as FirstGroup, Go-Ahead Group and Stagecoach, have signed up to CIRAS.

I should declare another interest inasmuch as I am a frequent user of my local bus services in Gateshead, as I do not own a car. A very good bus service is provided by Go-Ahead Group in my locality, but unfortunately not all my constituents can benefit from such great services. The bus company tries its best and provides excellent bus services during the peak hours, but as the evening goes on, unfortunately, their frequency dwindles.

Bus workers outside London should also be able to access CIRAS. That would be the effect of the new clause, which would reproduce CIRAS in franchises or quality partnerships. In response to a spate of deaths and serious injuries involving buses on London’s roads, Transport for London successfully extended the CIRAS scheme to London buses. London has one of the best resourced bus networks and some of the newest buses anywhere in the country. CIRAS itself supports the extension of the scheme to bus operators nationwide. In line with other aspects of the Bill—including matters unconnected to franchising and partnerships, such as audio and visual announcements—a nationally mandated approach is warranted and would be greatly desirable.