Oral Answers to Questions

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, Lilian Greenwood.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The ticketing information in which passengers are most interested is the price. Since 2014, commuter rail fare increases have been capped to the retail prices index, but in an answer to me yesterday, the rail Minister said that that fares policy is “under review”. Next month’s inflation figures will determine the cap for January 2018. If the Department reverts to the old formula, fares could rise by 5% or more, pricing many off the railways. Next week, when the Secretary of State announces his investment plans for control period 6, will he pledge that the improvements that passengers need will come at a price they can afford?

[Paul Maynard]

I suppose that I should start by welcoming the hon. Lady to her new position, although she has started to prognosticate already about what may or may not occur in the future. We have no intention of seeking to raise fares in the way that she describes, and it is not an appropriate path to go down. We always seek to put passengers first. We are continuing to maintain the cap at the moment, but we keep policies under review at all times. She should not read more into that than is actually there.

Road Infrastructure

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on securing this important debate. We heard about the need for improvements to the A21 and the A259. Given that the road investment strategy is reaching a critical phase, this is a timely discussion.

Improving road infrastructure is a priority for many of our constituents. I was proud to be part of a cross-party campaign to secure the widening of the A453—the main trunk route between Nottingham and the west midlands. The project has improved the lives of thousands of my constituents.

I want to focus on two of the immediate issues confronting the Department for Transport: the delivery of the road investment strategy and the condition of local roads. The investment strategy was launched to significant fanfare. More than £15 billion was promised for investment in motorways and major A roads. Unfortunately, two years on, the progress report is decidedly mixed. Highways England is failing to meet its target for maintaining road conditions, as the Office of Rail and Road warned in February. The pledge to resurface 80% of the strategic road network, which was so widely trumpeted, is also set to be missed. I hope the Minister will update hon. Members on what the actual figure is likely to be.

Most seriously, the delivery of new capital investment schemes worth £11 billion is also in doubt. Many hon. Members might be familiar with Network Rail’s current problems. Major projects were committed to at an early stage in their development when there was a limited understanding of their costs and deliverability. I am concerned that a similar story looks to be playing out on our roads. In the ORR’s February update on capital planning, the regulator warned that there are significant differences between the initial cost forecasts and the latest estimates, and that the investment strategy

“is not fully demonstrated to be affordable”.

There is currently an £800 million gap in Highways England’s capital works budget, on top of the £140 million of extra funding that the Department granted last year. Those overruns are at least partly due to headline-grabbing claims taking precedence over realistic pledges. I therefore suggest that those who are dusting down their bids for a bypass do not start to celebrate just yet.

Internal Highways England minutes that I obtained through the Freedom of Information Act blamed the cost increase on a

“lack of focus on affordability in an environment where an emphasis has been placed on the imperative to deliver as quickly as possible”.

Given that 60 projects—more than half the total—are due to begin construction in the final year of the road investment period, there will be an exceptional strain on Highways England and external contractors. The regulator said that there is “limited evidence” that the construction timetable is “deliverable or efficient”. That could have a knock-on effect on investment in the roads investment strategy, too, so we need to look at which projects are priorities within the strategy.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

Prioritisation is very important, but, moving away from Highways England, does the hon. Lady agree that local authorities find it difficult to allocate funds to produce feasibility studies and business cases to move projects forward? There has been a problem in my constituency with moving forward the York outer northern ring road, which is regularly congested—many constituents call it a car park. Does the hon. Lady agree that if the bypass fund is properly targeted, it might allow local authorities to move some of those long-term projects forward?

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind Members that interventions should be short?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will come on to the role of local authorities, but there needs to be certainty about costs and affordability.

To return to the national network, there was a clear case for ending spending on removing the hard shoulder from more than 500 motorway lane miles. Those proposals were taken forward despite an inadequate evidence base, safety fears, concerns from the emergency services, and drivers’ unwillingness to use the former hard shoulder lane, as evidenced by Atkins’ recent review, which the Department commissioned.

It was reported last week that the Transport Secretary has ordered changes to the roll-out of the scheme, including the fitting of more refuge areas. Will the Minister confirm that those reports are accurate? If so, will there be a formal statement to the House? What is the expected cost of those changes? The Transport Committee raised that issue and suggested that

“the proposed schemes be replaced by schemes based on the M42 Active Traffic Management design.”

It may be slow, but we know it will be safer.

The priority for many drivers is the fixing of damaged local roads, not the strategic network. Potholes do not just impair the quality of driving, extend journey times and damage vehicles; they are a real safety risk for drivers and cyclists. Everyone is a road user, so tackling the poor condition of our local roads should be a national priority.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is projected that by 2020 the spending on roads will be £86 per head, whereas the spending on cycling will be reduced to just 72p per head. Does my hon. Friend think that, when we are talking about road infrastructure, we should include cycling, which the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for cyclists. Of course, when planning investment in our roads, we should consider the needs of all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

According to the Department’s own data, spending on routine maintenance has fallen by 30% in real terms since 2010, and the situation is set to get even worse. We have to consider the amount of funding available, especially in the light of the emerging problems on some of Highways England’s projects. It is time for Ministers to look again at whether we have the right mix of national capital spending and local revenue allowances.

I am conscious of time, so I will just mention a couple of things. This is not just about spending more; it is about being smarter—that relates to the point made by the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). With annualised budgets, councils are forced to adopt a rather limited patch-and-mend approach, with the result that the busiest roads often receive temporary repairs over and over again. In the longer term, that is a highly inefficient approach to maintenance. The Department should look at the case for granting local authorities their highways budget up front for a period of five years, which would enable the entire resurfacing of the worst affected roads. It should not be in the business of writing blank cheques, but that mechanism could allow longer-term planning to take place.

Before I finish, I will say a quick word about suicide prevention, which has perhaps not received widespread attention but which should be prominent on the Department’s agenda. Obviously, every death is a private tragedy, and the recovery stage can be a traumatic process for staff. With about 1,000 suicide attempts on the strategic road network every year, we urgently need a national road suicide prevention strategy. We know from the railways that we can be effective and make a difference, but the best time to incorporate changes into new infrastructure is at the design stage. The Highways England health and safety five-year plan commits the organisation to establishing a suicide prevention group and developing an action plan by March 2018, but that is three years into the investment strategy. That is not good enough and I urge the Minister to prioritise the issue and to instruct Highways England to bring the work forward.

Many challenges confront road infrastructure in this Parliament, and on some important points the Department needs to change course. I appreciate that many hon. Members are waiting to speak, but I hope the Minister will address the points I have raised when he replies to the debate.

Working Conditions in the Private Hire Industry

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the regulation of working conditions in the private hire industry.

I am immensely pleased to introduce the debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I hope that the Minister can be more accommodating on this issue than his colleague was in the previous debate. Indeed, I shall begin by buttering him up, if I may, although I realise that there is a limit to what buttering up will do in the House of Commons, particularly of this Minister. During our parliamentary lives, we have often debated, and debated well, across the Chamber, and I know perfectly well that if he is able to make or clarify the Government’s position before the Taylor review is published, he will do so. However, I also know that he is a loyalist and will probably be the last Minister standing who believes in collective responsibility, so the buttering up must be accompanied by a sense of reality about how far Ministers can go in helping to clarify Government policy.

My aim in this debate, as I hope the Minister knows, is not to have a preview of the Taylor report—although if he wished to give one, that would be wonderful—but to ascertain whether he can help the transport executives to clarify the powers that they have to give licences to companies such as Uber. I shall dwell in a moment on where I see Uber both contributing positively and being a destructive force for many people’s living standards.

I begin the debate with a reference to a report on Hermes, “Wild West Workplace”. That and two subsequent reports have my name on them, but also that of Andrew Forsey, who works with me. The truth, as MPs know, is that it is often the other name on the report who has actually done the work, and I pay tribute to Andrew for the extraordinary way in which, among all his other activities as chief of staff in my office—including steering me away from elephant traps and helping me to make as positive a contribution as I can to the House of Commons—he can take on work of this nature.

The second report, “Sweated Labour”, was on Uber, and the third one, which will be published tomorrow, is “A new contract for the gig economy”. I want to record in this debate that when Andrew and I—it was very much Andrew—completed the first report, “Wild West Workplace”, we wrote to the Prime Minister, and we said that the circumstances that we had described had shocked me and my guess was that they would shock her. They were certainly at variance with her statement when she became Prime Minister about the sort of society that she wished to create and the protections that she wished to extend to those who were weakest.

If we look at any of the three reports—if people would like copies of “A new contract for the gig economy”, which is published tomorrow, they can by all means have them—we see that four forces are pushing down wages in this area. Let me explain what I am not saying, and I hope the Minister will accept this. Nothing I have ever said or published does not admit that Uber-type conditions certainly serve a large part of consumers’ wishes for quick and cheap transport, or that perhaps many Uber workers are very content with their lot, as shovelled out by Uber under what I think is a bogus self-employed contract. I am talking about people who regularly write to Andrew and me, giving more examples of how bogus the self-employed contract that they are forced to work under is, and of the appalling conditions that those employers get away with. As we know, they not only get away with paying incredibly low wages to some workers; they do not pay their fair share of taxes, so I would hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be on the Minister’s side. If we are interested in VAT, national insurance and income tax returns, we should be rather keen on what the Minister says today and what the Taylor review will come up with, I hope, next week—perhaps the Minister will be able to give us a date for its publication.

Wages have been pushed down for those who suffer worst in this gig economy in four ways. The first is the very low fares, which have been cut in recent years, which some people think is great fun because they can get home cheaply. Second are the high rates of commission demanded by the company, which now vary clearly between newer workers trying to make a decent living out of being a driver, and older drivers, who—thank God—are more protected, although now that I have made that statement, perhaps that image will be challenged by people who contact us after the debate. Third is the cost of renting a vehicle that meets Uber’s very strict requirements, and fourth is the cost of refuelling and maintaining those vehicles. Those are the downward forces in the economy that make it very difficult for people to make a decent living and, indeed, as I shall argue, to make a living in which they are covered by the statutory minimum wage.

I welcomed it when George Osborne initiated the minimum wage strategy in the previous Parliament. It is very important to try to cover and protect people at the bottom of our society. I saw the then Chancellor of the Exchequer’s move as a very welcome one, but we know that it is failing by the way Uber and other companies get round regulations on how people earn, what they earn, the hours that they undertake, and their employment status.

The Government responded to Andrew’s report by establishing the Taylor review, which is to report soon. We hope that it will accept the main recommendation on which Andrew and I have been campaigning, which is that the definition of hours of work is immensely important in this area and that, on the basis of a satisfactory definition of hours worked—satisfactory to the workers rather than to Uber—the minimum wage should be applied on an hourly basis.

That brings me to the real kernel of the debate—the part to which I would love the Minister to respond. Uber and similar companies are registering in London, Leeds, Liverpool and Glasgow, getting the necessary licences from those areas’ transport executives. Is it because the legislation is uncertain or difficult to interpret that these transport executives are not saying, “These are the minimum conditions that you, the company, must meet if you wish us to grant you a licence to operate in our area”? I would like to hear the Minister’s view, but I think the position is quite clear.

It would take just one transport authority to say, “This is the interpretation.” We have not heard any of them say that, although, thankfully, here in London Sadiq Khan has said that he is unsure about Uber and is giving it a very short licence to continue to carry out its business while this essential issue is debated. Is the Minister in a position to give us a clearer ruling on the encouragement that he might give to transport authorities to recognise that they do have powers, and to such companies to behave within the culture that the Prime Minister spoke of when, perhaps unexpectedly, she became Prime Minister?

Before I conclude, I shall be more than happy to let any hon. Member make an intervention.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend has touched on some troubling issues in the current employment market, particularly in relation to private hire vehicles. The Law Commission looked at some of those issues in its 2014 report, but new factors have since emerged, including Uber’s increased share of the market and the Deregulation Act 2015. Does he agree that there is a clear case for looking again at the regulation of the taxi and private hire sector more generally, even as we await publication of the Taylor review?

[Frank Field]

Yes, I do. I am grateful that I gave way, because my hon. Friend has put it better than I could have and has raised another question for the Minister.

Let me conclude. There have been two great movements in our recent history as a country. One was the movement of people from the countryside into towns. When that happened, decent people sought to find out what was happening to their fellow citizens, because they were horrified by the exploitation that they suffered. There were local statistical societies in all our towns, and the theme was taken up by the House of Commons in Select Committee reports, by the House of Lords, by royal commissions, and by the Government, who set up a national statistical service.

The second big movement, which has occurred in our lifetimes—one is sometimes unaware of just how big it is—has been the falling away of the bottom of the labour market. We are now in a situation that I would have thought inconceivable when I first came into the House in 1979. People are scrambling around for jobs. When I was growing up, there was the idea—almost a law of nature—that our economy would produce jobs that gave people wages that allowed them to marry and begin their families securely. For an increasing number of our fellow citizens, that world has long since passed.

I will not be controversial, as the previous debate was, but what has been happening at the bottom has been much affected by what the Government call welfare reform, but I prefer to call welfare cuts. However, in the spirit of the Minister—who I know is one of those Tory Members who has a sense of what the human spirit is about and why we are here—I ask him to help us in just one small area: the protective role that transport authorities could play.

I also hope that the Minister will reply in the spirit of the Prime Minister’s pledge to throw a new form of protection over the bottom end—the vulnerable tummy—of English society, which has lost out so greatly from the changes documented to us by our constituents. If we cannot be moved only by a wish to extend human dignity or to make a further commitment to the Prime Minister’s pledge, I hope the old money—the till—will play some part for the Chancellor. The way in which these companies are constructed means that they are fiddling: they do not pay their dues in VAT, national insurance or income tax, which means the rest of us have to pay for them. They are now registering returns on their very limited capital that are out of this world and should be tamed. In the west, with our democratic traditions, we usually look to government as one of the instruments for taming the wildness of wild capitalism. I happily turn over to the Minister.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

What a delight to respond to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field)! He knows that I admire him almost as much as I admire Lord Birkenhead, F. E. Smith, whom we have discussed from time to time and who said that

“glittering prizes”

were available

“to those who have stout hearts and sharp swords.”

The right hon. Gentleman has both those qualities, as he has illustrated once again by bringing these important matters to our attention.

I had a long speech prepared for me by my civil servants, whom I hold in very high regard, but I am never inclined to deliver speeches written for me by anyone else, and I am certainly inclined to try to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s specific points. It seems to me that Westminster Hall debates have to fulfil a greater purpose than simply parroting what the Government have already thought or said. They have to move policy on, do they not? At least, that is how they should operate. We will try to make sure that that happens today.

In a way, the right hon. Gentleman has already set the scene for me, but perhaps it is worth affirming some of what he said. I am aware of concerns about the changing character of the landscape for taxis and private hire vehicles. He is right that technology has played a big part in that, and technology has a consequent effect on consumer expectations and demands. Supply changes to meet those demands but it stimulates changing demands, too, and that is precisely what has happened in this area.

Taxis play an important part in the life of London. I use taxis a lot, as do my family. My son, who is in the Public Gallery today, is a devotee of London cabs, like many others before him and, I hope, after him. London taxis are iconic. One thinks of London—indeed, the whole kingdom—in terms of certain totems and emblems. One of those emblems is the London black cab. The right hon. Gentleman described my concern for the human spirit, but I also have a profound concern for aesthetics, inasmuch as they are part of how we perceive the world: how we come to terms with our own consciousness of reality. London cabs are a part of that.

London cabs provide a vital service, not just to tourists but to Londoners. It is true that the tourist looks to the London cab for the reasons that I have given—they see them as iconic. If a tourist comes to London, they want to ride in a black cab just as, if they went to New York, they might want to ride in a yellow one, but cabs also provide valuable utility.

The history of London cabs is that people know what they are going to pay, they can be confident of the driver’s ability to get them where they want to go as quickly as possible and London cabs have a good record on safety and security, which of course are important matters when one gets into a vehicle with a driver one has not previously known and perhaps not even met. Those things are of profound and lasting importance.

None the less, requesting a vehicle via an app, whether a taxi or a private hire vehicle, is increasingly popular with the public—and unsurprisingly so. The desirability of being able to call up a vehicle as required is obvious, and that is having a quite significant effect on the market, as the right hon. Gentleman described. The difference, as I am sure those in the Chamber know, is that in addition to dealing with pre-booked journeys, a taxi can ply for hire in the area in which it is licensed. That cannot be done by a private hire vehicle.

These things lead to different models of ownership and employment, as the right hon. Gentleman said. The emergence of a different set of protocols, if I can put it in those terms, in that area is also significant. He mentioned the various reports—I have read them all, by the way, including “Sweated Labour” and the Select Committee report. The Committee did a great service in looking at these matters closely, in respect of not just taxis and private hire vehicles but more widely.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of all those reports, as I am, and of the ongoing legal case regarding the employment status of drivers in the private hire vehicle sector. He made it clear at the outset that his expectations of me were set very low—I do not know if you noticed that, Mrs Moon; I thought a bit too low, given what I will say later—and made it clear, in his usual spirit of fairness and reasonableness, that there is a limit to what I can say. I certainly cannot say anything that might prejudice that legal case, which is ongoing.

What I can say is that the emergence of so-called disruptive businesses—I use the term in its strict sense; I hope it will not be misinterpreted—through the application of new technologies enables new ways of working and creates new products and services. As I said, it is a different relationship between supply and demand. That has an appeal to certain consumers and provides a service that perhaps has not been provided before. However, those benefits must be balanced against the impact on those who work in these new ways. Greater flexibility in working arrangements can increase employment opportunities for those who have other commitments or aspirations, but we must equally be aware of the negatives. Nor must we regard the traditional private hire vehicle driver and operator relationship through rose-tinted spectacles and perceive it as some sort of ideal where operators work solely in the interests of drivers.

I am aware of the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman and others about the risks in respect of employment. Let me lay my cards on the table: I take a very strong view about the rights of workers. I am proud to be a member of a trade union. My father was a shop steward. I have enjoyed very close relationships with the trade unions throughout my time in each of the six Departments in which I have been a Minister, and continue to do so in the Department for Transport.

One problem with this sector is that because of the character and nature of employment in it, significant numbers of people may well be under-represented or not represented at all by any body that can make a case on their behalf. That puts people at a considerable disadvantage. They may not even have reasonable expectations of what their entitlements ought to be. They may not know that they are being underpaid if they do not have the opportunity to express through the kind of collective arrangement that a trade union brings their entitlements—I hesitate to use the word “rights” for philosophical reasons that I will not go further on about today, because we do not have time.

Lawful entitlements to fair treatment are at the heart of what good employer-employee relationships are all about, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman has once again implicitly advocated by bringing the matter before us today.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

I will. It is good to see the hon. Lady, who is now becoming such a regular feature in my transport life that I would have been disappointed had she not been here.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about employment rights. Does he agree that because of the nature of mobile applications, there can be a temptation for employees, who feel under undue pressure, to work excessive hours? That can have a severe and detrimental impact on not only their health and wellbeing but, potentially, the health and wellbeing of other road users.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady is right. The relationship between the app or gig economy operators and their drivers is very different from what we have experienced previously. She is right, too, that that brings challenges and may even bring significant risks. I do not want to say too much, because a legal case is ongoing and the Taylor report, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is also awaited.

What the House needs to know is that I am very conscious of this matter. I do not come to it with any prejudices, apart from the prejudice that I have described, which is that people should be treated fairly in their place of work. I have always believed that and will do all I can to ensure it happens.

Chris Gibb Report: Improvements to Southern Railway

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I know that there are colleagues who are yet to speak whose constituencies have borne the brunt of the appalling state of Southern rail so I will do my best to be brief. I would like to say a few words about the impact of the Southern situation on my constituents and some of the wider issues raised by the Gibb report.

It might surprise hon. Members to hear that delays on Southern can impact on trains in Nottingham, but the linear nature of the rail network combined with forthcoming changes to the Thameslink timetable could have a hugely damaging effect on inter-city midland main line services. The Gibb report rightly states:

“Sometimes funding availability has prioritised elements of the system, without considering the welfare of the overall system.”

This appears to be the case on the midland main line, where Thameslink, long distance and freight services share the same track south of Bedford.

The December 2018 timetable change will increase the service frequency through the Thameslink core to 24 trains an hour. On paper, that is a welcome improvement for passengers, but, in an indictment of disjointed and fragmented railway planning, the new timetable is not integrated with the east midlands franchise. The intensity of the new timetable will impair the ability of operators to recover after periods of disruption. As the Gibb report points out, this problem is compounded by GTR’s theoretically efficient but brittle rostering practices. This means that a single service disruption in Brighton can cause reactionary delays that travel up the line and on to the wider network, paralysing trains hundreds of miles away.

It has been reported in the technical press that there could be a nine-minute journey time penalty for services operating from Nottingham to London St Pancras, and a 12-minute penalty for journey times from Sheffield. That is obviously a real concern for passengers and the business community in Nottingham. I understand that it is not too late to make amendments to the timetable and I ask the Minister to commit to addressing the issue.

The Gibb report is long, technical and in places contentious. There are many issues arising from it that could be discussed, but I want to say a few words about the section on level crossings, which are a continued source of delays on the Southern network. The legislation that governs the closure of dangerous level crossings is archaic and hugely inefficient. It is therefore welcome that the Gibb report says that the recommendations of the Law Commission should be adopted as a new Bill. The issue has a long history and I have pressed Ministers on it in the previous two Parliaments.

Dangerous level crossings are the main cause of external risk on the railways and a major contributor to delays. The issue was referred to the Law Commission by the Government in 2008, and the commission’s recommendations were published in September 2013. In January 2015, the then Liberal Democrat Minister of State, Baroness Kramer, said in another place that the Government wanted to bring forward legislation as soon as possible. Two and a half years later, however, and nothing has changed. On the back of this report, will the Minister give a commitment today to finally bring forward this necessary legislation?

Finally, we need to talk about the lack of transparency that has characterised the Government’s approach to the prolonged period of exceptionally poor service on Southern. As the Transport Committee said in October:

“Until”—

it—

“recently managed, after several attempts and considerable time and effort, to extract information from the Department, GTR’s contractual performance benchmarks, and data relating to GTR’s performance against them, were entirely opaque.”

There are questions about the transparency of the report itself. We know that the final version was submitted to Ministers on 30 December, so the claim that the document could not be released until June because of purdah is, frankly, unconvincing.

In the minutes of the rail national taskforce meeting held on 23 November, it is recorded that Peter Wilkinson, the Department’s franchising director, said that the

“Gibb report had been drafted but was not yet signed off”

by the Secretary of State. The meeting was also told by an individual with the initials “NB”, who may be Nick Brown, GTR’s chief operating officer, that

“GTR had had a lot of input to the review.”

When the final version of the report was published, its sweeping statements about the general state of rail industrial relations and the undesirability of direct operations surprised some observers, especially as several hon. Members on both sides of the House had backed some form of state intervention. We need to know what Govia’s involvement was in the drafting of the report and whether it extended beyond the provision of factual information. We need to hear why first the approval of the draft report, and then publication of the final version, appears to have been delayed. It is vital that the travelling public can place trust in these reports, so will the Minister give the House a specific and unqualified assurance that the Department did not seek to pressure, amend or otherwise influence the report in any way to politicise its content?

The situation on Southern has complex causes, but the imperative must be to end the years of misery that passengers have endured. The Government have a role to play in ending it, and part of that role must be to generate less heat and more light in the months ahead. We do not have to endorse the Gibb report in full to acknowledge that it has made some sensible and practical suggestions. It is vital that Ministers now take all reasonable steps to get the Southern rail network moving again.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

First, I apologise for ascribing Luton airport to the constituency neighbour of the hon. Gentleman, and not to him. As he will know, in a previous ministerial job, I was able to visit Luton South and to enjoy his hospitality there alongside the local authority. Luton is playing a bigger part in this debate than we may have expected; both Luton Members have contributed to it. As he will know, the fund is administered by the CAA, with trustees appointed by the Secretary of State. It builds up and is invested accordingly.

As we speak, there is about £140 million in the fund. If a major holiday company collapsed, it would be essential that there were sufficient moneys in the fund to cover that collapse. That could happen more than once in a short period; that is not inconceivable. The critical thing is that the fund is never short of money. The guarantee is that we will protect consumers and get people home safely from perhaps far-flung destinations and that they will not lose out as a result of things that they could not have anticipated or affected.

If it is helpful, I will be more than happy to provide the whole House with a further note on how the fund has changed and grown over time. I have mentioned what it is comprised of. I think it would be helpful for me to make available to the Library, and therefore to the House, more details of the kind the hon. Gentleman has asked about. It will help to inform further consideration of these matters as we move from Second Reading.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Minister is right to say that there is cross-party support for greater protection of consumers, but he also mentioned safety. Could he take this opportunity to tell us whether Transport Ministers intend to introduce legislation to deal not just with the dangers posed by laser pens, but with the dangers posed by drones, which we have heard about again today?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady will know that that, too, was raised in our discussions on what was originally known as the modern transport Bill—or at least apocryphally known as such—and became the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. She will also know—because of her keen interest in transport matters and her enthusiasm to take those matters further with an election, to which I will not refer more than obliquely—that we are consulting on those matters; the consultation has finished and we will bring our conclusions to the House and elsewhere very shortly. However, she is right to say—I am happy to put this on the record—that that is a matter of some concern. Existing legislation provides some protection. For example, if a drone were interfering with military aircraft or a secure site, existing legislation would cover that to some degree, but there is a case to do more, which is why we have consulted on the matter. I know that she will give the results of the consultation and our response to it her close attention, as she always does.

Let me move on; as I said, I do not want to prolong this exciting speech too much. As I said, the scheme also acts to compensate consumers who might be caught up in a failure. I have talked about the fund which is administered by the CAA to ensure that consumers are returned home, and since the 1990s the ATOL scheme has been the primary method by which the UK travel sector provides insolvency protection under the UK and Europe package travel regimes. Today the scheme protects over 20 million people each year, giving peace of mind to holidaymakers in Luton and elsewhere.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

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

[John Pugh]

The right hon. Gentleman might be surprised to learn that EMA was mentioned in my notes, but for some reason I omitted to mention it just then. He has drawn attention to it, and I dare say it was a factor.

Another anomaly in the system—this is where new clause 2 comes into its own—is that while we all accord parity of esteem as between the academic route and the technical route, and the apprenticeship route is now being sold fervently by almost all Government Members, apprentices do not really get a look in: an apprentice aged 16 to 18 gets a bare £4 minimum wage. We want to make the apprenticeship route more attractive, and there is some evidence that where schemes are introduced, they are highly successful. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the MyTicket scheme in Liverpool city region improved attendance quite appreciably. Developing transport in line with the apprenticeship system is very much a part of the city region agenda, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) touched.

The aim of my new clauses is relatively modest. They would not change the character of the Bill, which I broadly support. Essentially, they oblige local authorities to take a broader view of the environmental and educational impacts of transport policy.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that while the Government make huge cuts to local authority funding, even where authorities want to provide concessionary fares they are in many cases being forced to withdraw them? We heard evidence to that effect from Nexus, which said that, as much as it would like to support young people, the point was being reached in the north-east where it would no longer be able to do so.

[John Pugh]

Desperate times call for desperate remedies, and the financial situation in most local authorities at this moment is desperate, as is evident from the Audit Commission’s recent study of local authorities’ financial sustainability. Whether the Government accept that point or not, I think they will accept that there is a case for joined-up policy. The Government need to link the apprenticeship opportunity agenda with real-time transport problems and impacts. That is where new clause 2 comes into its own, and if I am supported, I will happily press it to a vote unless the Minister can assure me that all these things are within his frame of reference for the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

Some of the grant is already devolved to bus operators, but the key reason not to devolve it further is that it goes direct to bus operators, which very frequently operate routes that cross council boundaries. Council boundaries and bus routes are not the same thing. Transport to work has nothing to do with a local authority’s geography, so it would potentially be a bureaucratic nightmare to change the system.

Having said that, we are considering how to reform the BSOG operation. The grant pays a flat 34.57p a litre in subsidy, which is why it used to be called the fuel duty rebate. We are considering how to incentivise better practice, rather than just rewarding bus operators for using fuel, which is not good practice.

[Lilian Greenwood]

It feels as if the Minister is trying to devolve all responsibility for the state of our bus services. It was announced in the 2015 local government settlement that core central Government funding to local authorities would fall by 24% in real terms, which is partly why local authority support for buses is falling. Does he not take any responsibility for the impact that is having on bus services and on people’s ability to use the buses?

[Andrew Jones]

Of course I recognise that the pressures on local government finance are quite acute. In fact, I was in charge of my local council’s financial affairs throughout the financial crash in 2008-09, so I am fully aware of that. At the same time, it does not change the requirement to recognise that buses are a local service and should be determined locally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to have that national discussion, involving not only passengers but the industry and the local authorities, about the most sustainable way to fund buses? As local authorities develop different emissions standards as part of their own partnership and franchising schemes—the Campaign for Better Transport has said this—would a national strategy not provide some certainty for the UK’s bus vehicle manufacturers as well? There are many advantages to doing this, are there not?

[Daniel Zeichner]

As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has raised the important issue of air quality, which is clearly becoming more important in many of our cities across the country. I just suggest to the Government that having a national framework within which to discuss these things might be extremely helpful, for a whole range of reasons. I fear that we are not going resolve or agree on this issue, so we will press new clause 1 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. I remember asking him questions in past times, when he was a Minister and I was on the Opposition Benches, and we have engaged in debates in Committee. I assure him that I do not intend to do what he has suggested. I think that small and medium-sized enterprises and the smaller bus companies will support the amendments.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the very fact of having the opportunity to take franchising powers enables local authorities to put pressure on operators, not all of which are small and medium-sized companies—in fact, most of them are very large—in order to bring them into partnership arrangements? If a local authority does not have the potential to develop franchising schemes, many operators will not seriously enter into negotiations on either advanced quality or enhanced partnerships.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

I was under the impression that authorities had those powers anyway, but the Minister will obviously have heard what the hon. Lady has said. It is up to the Minister to listen to what we have said, and then to make a decision.

I now want to say something about amendment 28. I will be brief, because I have already taken up a fair amount of the House’s time. The amendment would allow fares structures to be specified as part of an enhanced partnership scheme only if all the operators involved agreed. The key issue is the ability of commercial bus operators to set their own fares, which is an important feature of a deregulated market. Of course fares structures are set competitively. In the same way, a commercial enterprise looks at what its competitors are charging, and structures its own charges accordingly. The competition authorities have introduced important safeguards to ensure that bus companies do not collude to stitch up the market and set fares at levels that disadvantage passengers. There are checks and balances, and that is extremely important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

rose—

[Lilian Greenwood]

rose—

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).

[Lilian Greenwood]

Is not one reason that Ministers have given for objecting to municipal operations that they would prevent the market from operating effectively? When we look at the latest bus passenger survey, is it not interesting that Nottingham City Transport has the highest value for money of any single operator in the country?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend consistently makes the case for Nottingham. That is made far easier for her by the excellent local services she has. People from my city of Cambridge have gone to Nottingham to see how to do it. Part of the lesson is that a municipal can do it really well, but according to the Bill, that will not be possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Ellman]

I rise to support amendment 1, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). This is all about devolution and local transport authorities deciding what is best for their areas. No good reason has been put forward for not permitting new municipal operators as an option. The Government have expressed concern about possible conflicts of interest, but that cannot be taken seriously. We need look no further than the experience in Nottingham, as cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and in Reading to see that there is the perfect ability—this has already been done in those areas—for the proper distance to be established between the local authority as a local authority and the transport operator as an operator in terms of letting out franchises. The Bill is about giving more local choice, and it is entirely unjustifiable to remove from local authorities the option of having a municipal operator. The Department has found a way to put forward complex regulations on franchising and if it still has concerns about this topic, regulations could also be introduced on setting up municipal bus operations. I therefore urge the Government to think again.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I support amendment 1, and we had a long discussion on this issue in Committee. I spoke then and on Second Reading about the success of Nottingham’s municipal operator, and so, much as I love Nottingham City Transport, I will restrain myself and not repeat myself.

I continue to question the Government’s motivation for their determination to ban local transport authorities from establishing new municipal bus companies, as Ministers have simply not made the case for such a ban. The Transport Committee, chaired so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), describes it as a “disproportionate response”. Clearly, this measure is anti-localism and it prevents councils from acting in the best interests of their residents. In Committee, the Minister said that there should be a split between the commissioning and the provision of bus services. I do not disagree on that, but this ban goes far beyond that. As was noted in Committee, local authorities with municipal operators have proved themselves very capable of managing just such a split when tendering for supported services.

In Committee, the Minister also suggested that the existence of municipal bus operators

“could easily deter investment from the private sector”.

When I asked him what evidence he was drawing on in making such an assertion, he admitted

“of course we do not have any evidence for it. I am just looking at what the risks may be.”––[Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 67.]

The Minister’s risk aversion is simply unnecessary and can be shown to be such. Nottingham has an excellent municipal operator, but it does not deter private sector investment; as the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) mentioned, we have excellent private sector operators in Nottinghamshire, such as trentbarton. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will rethink their commitment to what I can only describe as an ideological obsession, and take this opportunity to end their unreasonable position and accept amendment 1.

[Andrew Jones]

This amendment, tabled by the hon. Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), proposes to remove clause 22. We debated this at length in Committee and I wish to reiterate that the several existing municipal bus companies, including Nottingham City Transport and Blackpool Transport, which serves the area of the rail Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—deliver a high standard of service, and I will expect that to continue. Their ability to provide that is not affected in any way by this clause. The franchising and enhanced partnership tools in the Bill will provide authorities with more influence over bus services than they have now, and striking that right balance between local authority influence and the role that the private sector bus operator can play is important. Our view is that passengers will see the most benefit where the commissioning and provision of bus services is kept separate. As such, we do not think that authorities should be able to set up new bus companies.

We have seen encouraging innovations from the private sector—although not exclusively within that sector—such as the introduction of smartcards, the installation of wi-fi and increased accessibility in our bus network. Those improvements have all been delivered through private sector investment and they show overall that the industry is always innovating and delivering a good deal for its passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

Well, I will call it a partnership Bill, if that makes my hon. Friend feel a bit more at ease. It is certainly a rare example of common sense breaking out on both sides of the House.

I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). As she said a moment ago, she has consistently spoken of the damaging effects of bus deregulation—the free-for-all, the decline in the quality of services and the increase in fares. She has been consistent, and she is vindicated tonight as the Bill finally goes through the House. So, too, is my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who made the same argument throughout the years, including under the Labour Government, and who has waited a long time to see this Bill come to pass.

To be successful in the new role that I seek, I will seek to use the powers in the Bill for the benefit of the travelling public in Greater Manchester. For 32 years, we have had a bus service that has been run for private vested interests rather than in the public interest. Only last week, a whole new series of service alterations were announced that will decrease the quality and coverage of services across Greater Manchester, with no real ability for communities to challenge those decisions. Well, that way of running bus services is coming to an end.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am very much enjoying my right hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) said, the Bill seeks to enhance competition and the role of the private sector by having really effective competition off the road? On-road competition has not delivered for passengers.

[Andy Burnham]

That is absolutely the point. If we construct a franchise process that really puts the public interest first, and we then ask the private sector to meet that public interest, that will be a much better system; indeed, it is the system the right hon. Lady’s constituents benefit from in London. The question I was going to ask her was, why, if she thinks that is okay for her constituents, is she seeking to deny it to ours? That is not an acceptable position for her to take.

Aviation Security

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We have extensive conversations with the Egyptians and we have kept the situation in Sharm el-Sheikh under constant monitoring. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in the Home Office have regular contacts and discussions about these issues, as does my Department. Fundamentally, although I would love to see us resume flights to Sharm el-Sheikh at the earliest opportunity, we can do so only at a point where we are confident about the security and safety of our own people. I have no doubt that as soon as we have that confidence we will want to try to resume those flights.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Government are of course right to act swiftly in response to intelligence regarding terror threats, but a number of important questions remain. As the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) noted, some passengers from the countries listed will change planes in third countries. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his counterparts in other countries about the implementation of these restrictions for transfer passengers?

[Chris Grayling]

As of yesterday, when we took the decision, we had already had contacts at both ambassadorial and ministerial level in some places with our counterparts in other countries. They will each take their own decisions about what is necessary, but we are clear about what is right for our citizens. Those countries elsewhere in Europe and in the world will now be contemplating what the best steps are in terms of their own citizens.

Future of Rail (Passenger Experience)

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Marion Fellows]

Yes, I shall do—I apologise, Sir Edward. It is important for the Minister to understand that it is possible to improve things and move them forward. As part of the process of making things better on the English railways, if I can put it that way, he may also want to look at taking powers to nationalise them again, as we did in Scotland, so that Government organisations and national organisations could bid for franchises. That happened on the east coast main line, and it ran very well.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I want to come back to the hon. Lady’s point on further fragmentation of the rail network. How does she feel the passenger experience of travelling on the railways would improve if the management of the infrastructure were further fragmented by having part of it devolved to Scotland, even though many franchises operate in both Scotland and the rest of the UK?

[Marion Fellows]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I could speak of a personal constituency issue: there were real difficulties with the electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh line. Transport Scotland was responsible for part of it, but some of the issues were being dealt with down here with Network Rail. That made it difficult to get real accountability. The Scottish Government wanted to be accountable for everything, but they could not be because Network Rail is not devolved. That is why we ask for it to be devolved.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Lady is being generous with her time in giving way. When we consider some of the services that operate on the west coast main line and the east coast main line that cross the border, does she not accept that it would be even more difficult to operate a seamless passenger experience if those operators had to deal with both Network Rail in England and a separate network rail in Scotland?

[Marion Fellows]

I see where the hon. Lady is coming from, but no, I would not agree with that; at the moment it is working well. I see no reason why the Scottish Government would make life difficult for Network Rail in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with her on this occasion.

I will end there, Sir Edward; thank you for the opportunity.

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Jones]

I suspect we are going to have a further outburst of Tuesday’s agreeing with each other. Helping passengers with information on how bus services in their areas can meet their transport needs will put more passengers on to buses. That is fundamental to what the Bill is about and why the clause is central to the Bill.

Amendment 12 agreed to.



Amendments made: 13, in clause 18, page 74, line 22, after “routes,” insert “stopping places,”.

This amendment and amendment 14 ensure that information about stopping places is included in the types of information that can be required by regulations under new section 141A of the Transport Act 2000.

Amendment 14, in clause 18, page 74, line 23, at end insert “stopping places,”.—(Andrew Jones.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 13.

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Variation or cancellation of registration: service information

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 19, page 76, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

This amendment would specify that regulations will require, rather than may require, operators to provide prescribed information.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 32, in clause 19, page 76, line 13, leave out from “application” to end of line 14.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 31.

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is a pleasure to be back in the Bill Committee and serving under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I hope the Minister will accept the amendments as being helpful and seeking to improve the Bill.

I will begin by explaining the background. The Competition Commission completed an investigation into bus markets in 2011 and recommended that the Government give local transport authorities powers to obtain revenue and patronage information for de-registered services and the right to disclose that information to potential bidders for subsequent tenders. It also recommended a 14-day pre-notification period preceding formal service registrations, variations and withdrawals, which I think was partly aimed at curbing undesirable operator behaviour—bus wars—but was also relevant to its recommendation regarding supported services, specifically in relation to the provision of revenue and patronage information. However, it was not specific in its report about whether those data should be provided by default, or whether the onus should be on local transport authorities to request it. I contend that providing those data should be the default, rather than it having to be requested every time.

Fundamentally, the amendment is about efficiency—the efficient operation of the tendered bus services market and the efficient administration of that market, both of which have clear implications for public funds. It would not be a significant burden on operators to provide the data by default because a competent operator would already have the data to hand, as they would have been vital in informing their decision to withdraw or vary the service.

Nowadays, data are available in electronic form, so it would be fairly straightforward for the local transport authority to agree with operators a standard format for the provision of data. Many have already done so for financially supported services. Service changes where the provision of data is not necessary—for instance, normal frequency increases or minor time changes—can be specified in the regulations, making it clear what data the local transport authority is entitled to.

On the contrary, it would be an administrative burden, both for local transport authorities and operators, for the data to be requested and provided on an ad hoc basis. If the data were provided at the start of the pre-notification period, the local transport authority could make initial preparations for whether and how to replace most effectively the commercial service and, if appropriate, challenge the operator’s intention. That could result in either the operator continuing to provide the service commercially or amending the variation, so that less public sector service support was required.

Provision of the data to all potential bidders would encourage more and better-informed bids, which would result in more competitive prices, a lower risk of successful bidders being unable to sustain the service and, therefore, a lower risk of the need to retender the service, with associated administration costs and potential disruption to passengers. It would, of course, reduce the ability of operators to game the system by withdrawing or reducing a profitable service in the expectation of regaining the service when it was put out to tender.

In summary, having information available as quickly as possible is essential for supporting efficient passenger services and minimising disruption. The amendment seeks to address concerns raised by the Competition Commission and to implement its recommendations most effectively. Making provision of information the default and automatic removes unnecessary bureaucracy. Any draft regulations should align with the provision, making it clear that when an operator applies to vary or cancel a service registered under section 6, the operator should automatically disclose the information to the authority.

[Andrew Jones]

I will speak to amendments 31 and 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham South. They would require operators to provide the prescribed information automatically, without the local authority having to request it. The purpose of clause 19 is to improve competition in the supported services market by putting all bidders on an even footing, which is clearly positive.

Where an operator chooses to reduce or withdraw a service, the clause should help prevent incumbent operators from having an unfair advantage when preparing a bid, if the local authority decides to tender for a replacement service.

Not all local authorities will want to provide a subsidised service. If the requirement to provide information were automatic, it could present an unnecessary burden on both the operator and the council when there is no intention to proceed. They would simply be required to provide information to the local authority, even if no one intends to make use of it.

There is nothing in the provisions to prevent a local authority whose default position is always to consider tendering for replacement service from reaching an agreement with operators in their area for the information to be provided automatically, but compelling such activities regardless of need seems unnecessary and a bit excessive.

I hope that explanation and the reassurances are helpful to the Committee and that the hon. Lady feels able to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

It is addressed by the fact that the local authority can request, at its instigation, data from the bus operator to prevent that from happening. It will have transparency on that. I am aware of such things happening in theory—the case was made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South—but the system is there to prevent that from happening. The question is whether the information is given at the request of the local authority or automatically, regardless of need.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does the Minister not think that it could reduce bureaucracy if operators knew that they would always have to provide that information, rather than the local authority having a limited period to request the information and the operator then having to go away and find it? If it is readily available, as it must be if the operator has considered withdrawing or amending a service, surely it would be simpler if operators always provided that information.

[Andrew Jones]

The information will clearly be available, because the operator will be making a commercial decision, based on information. However, if the authority has no intention of taking it forward, do we need to go ahead with this proposal, or is it excessive? If sufficient interest in doing so is expressed in the current consultation, I am happy to consider adding a mechanism in the draft regulations under the clause to allow a local authority to notify operators if it wishes always to receive such information, but otherwise I think that it is excessive.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for that assurance. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Andrew Jones]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 19, page 76, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) In this section “local transport authority” has the meaning given in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000.”’

This amendment adds a definition of a term, “local transport authority”, which appears in the clause.

Clause 19 provides powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations that enable local transport authorities to request information on the revenue and patronage of commercial bus services that are being withdrawn or reduced, and to disclose that information to bidders for subsequent tenders. Amendment 15 is a little dry and technical. It basically adds a definition to the term “local transport authority” to clarify that it has the same meaning as in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000. It is necessary because otherwise there would be no clarity about the definition of a local transport authority in proposed new section 6C of the Transport Act 1985.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England

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

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether the relevant authority is acting alone or with any other person.

(3) In this section—

“company” has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the Companies Act 2006);

“form a company” is to be construed in accordance with section 7 of the Companies Act 2006;

“local service” has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985 (see section 2 of that Act);

“Passenger Transport Executive”, in relation to an integrated transport area in England or a combined authority area, means the body which is the Executive in relation to that area for the purposes of Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968;

“relevant authority” means—

(a) a county council in England;

(b) a district council in England;

(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(d) an Integrated Transport Authority for an integrated transport area in England;

(e) a Passenger Transport Executive for—

(i) an integrated transport area in England, or

(ii) a combined authority area.”—(Andrew Jones.)

This amendment prohibits county and district councils in England, combined and integrated authorities in England and passenger transport executives in England from setting up companies to provide local services.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

New clause 3 would require all bus drivers, as well as staff at bus terminals, to complete approved disability, equality and awareness training. That training should include mental and physical disabilities, including hidden disabilities, and make particular mention of those on the autistic spectrum.

An EU regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers came into force in March 2013, and its chapter 3 relates to disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility. We are aware that the UK legislated to provide certain exemptions to the regulation’s requirements, including from the article 16(1) requirement for disability awareness training for personnel of carriers and terminal-managing bodies. In 2014, the then Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), said:

“This exemption was applied in line with Government policy on adopting any EU legislation, to make full use of any derogation that would reduce costs to business. This policy ensures that UK businesses are not put at a competitive disadvantage compared with their European counterparts.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 173WH.]

Put as bluntly as that, it rather sounds as though the Government’s view is: “Stuff passengers, stuff safety; all that counts is cost to business.” I am sure the Minister will be able to set me right on that.

The UK’s five-year exemption from the EU directive requiring bus drivers and terminal staff to go undergo disability awareness training runs out in 2018. Given that the future status of such protections and exemptions is uncertain, we think it would be helpful to introduce clarity around mandatory disability, equality and awareness training. We understand from the guidance that the Government intend to do that, but given that the exemption is likely to still be running when the so-called great repeal Bill is brought forward, we believe it should be put in the Bill to ensure that it actually goes forward.

In 2014, the Government reviewed the exemption under article 16(2) to see whether drivers were receiving adequate disability training. The published responses showed, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the bus industry thought it was doing enough overall, while disabled people thought that it was not. My colleagues in the other place submitted an amendment but withdrew it following assurances from the Government Benches that

“there will be means other than this Bill to address any need to ensure that these requirements continue to apply to bus operators in the UK once we leave the European Union…We recognise the importance of driver disability training and are developing guidance to help implement it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2016; Vol. 774, c. 665.]

I see no reason why the Bill should not be the means to address mandatory disability awareness training for bus workers—after all, it is a Bill about buses. We hope for a positive response.

The Government’s amendment on audio-visual systems, which I will return to, is linked to buses in a similar away. It seems fitting that an amendment on disability awareness training could be included in the Bill to put our minds at rest. The draft regulations say that the Government are developing best practice in delivering disability awareness training, but to me that sounds like the training would still be optional and not nationally mandated. Particularly concerning is the comment that:

“Britain will in due course be leaving the EU. Until we do so we will meet our legal obligations.”

That sounds like a minimalist approach, and the Opposition believe that we need to do better.

As I mentioned earlier, we are keen that disability awareness training also covers hidden disabilities such as neurological conditions. The Government funded national training for bus drivers as part of the Think Autism strategy, but we would like to see that go further in its scope and for the Secretary of State to ensure that training meets the needs of passengers with all forms of hidden disabilities.

In December 2015, when the then Secretary of State for Transport was asked if he would consider encouraging bus companies to give their staff more disability awareness training, he said:

“I will certainly give encouragement—not that they should need it—to the bus companies to make sure that facilities for disabled people are available and that their staff know the right way of making those facilities available to them. That is incumbent on all bus companies.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1136.]

However, in 2014, the Government estimated that only about three quarters of all bus and coach drivers had completed some form of disability awareness training.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend welcomed the Government’s change of heart on the provision of audio-visual indicators. However, many examples show why that is not sufficient and why we need the wider disability awareness training. I saw a piece by Patrick Robert, who travels with his guide dog. He said:

“I have had…some bad experience with bus drivers not stopping at the bus stop but a few metres away. Obviously if a bus driver does not stop in front of me, it makes it impossible for me to discuss with them and check the bus number.”

Does that not precisely show the mismatch? If bus drivers do not have sufficient disability awareness training, even if there is an audio-visual system on the bus, they might not even stop to allow a person with a visual impairment to get on.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example, which clarifies the point. I doubt whether there is any disagreement on wanting better standards among drivers and on ensuring that they are properly trained to spot all these issues. In the end, the way to drive up standards is not to rely on voluntarism. We all know from our own experiences that many good employers will do that, but some will not. A level playing field where good employers are not disadvantaged is all we seek. This is a chance to offer the good employers a helping hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I rise to support new clauses 3 and 4 and to speak to new clauses 7 and 9. Let me begin with new clause 7. My hon. Friend mentioned the Supreme Court decision in the case of FirstGroup Plc v. Paulley, which attracted a great deal of interest and led to the need for further clarification, which new clause 7 seeks to provide. Perhaps it would be helpful to remind the Committee of the Paulley case, which gave rise to the need for a change.

What happened to Mr Paulley was typical of the experience of many wheelchair users who attempt to board buses. He was told that he could not get on a bus because the women whose pushchair was occupying the wheelchair space refused to move. Mr Paulley was successful in winning his case through the Supreme Court, which held that FirstGroup’s policy did not go far enough, and that the driver should have done more to assist in securing the space for Mr Paulley. FirstGroup was not under an obligation to have a priority policy for wheelchair users requiring that someone who unreasonably refused to vacate the wheelchair space had to leave the bus. Effectively, that means that a priority policy for wheelchair users lacks the teeth of enforcement. That is despite the fact that, under conduct regulations, someone who is eating smelly food or otherwise causing a nuisance and refuses to stop can be asked to leave the vehicle. That seems out of kilter.

The new clause addresses the issue of an enforceable priority for wheelchair users by enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations so that priority for wheelchair users means just that: if a person unreasonably refuses to vacate space, they may be required to leave the vehicle. They would be required to vacate the space only if it was reasonable. If, for example, they had a disability—for example, if they had a guide dog or a walking frame—and therefore required the wheelchair space, they would not be acting unreasonably by refusing to vacate the space. As a last resort, the new clause provides the power to require an individual who unreasonably refuses to leave the space to leave the vehicle. Other options could be considered before such action is taken, such as stopping the bus, which might be done when people refuse to make payment.

In considering that, Lady Hale, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, recognised that the duty to make reasonable adjustment is a duty owed only to disabled people. She said that

“service providers owe positive duties towards disabled people, including wheelchair users, which they do not owe to other members of the travelling public, including parents travelling with small children in baby buggies or other people travelling with bulky luggage...Disabled people are, for very good reasons, a special case.”

That does not mean that I do not recognise the sensitivities and complexities of the issue.

Despite the public awareness brought about by the Paulley case, many disabled passengers still struggle to use the bus regularly because of conflict over the space being occupied by a pram, buggy or bulky luggage. Transport for All has been incredibly effective in advocating change and in highlighting the impact that the lack of clarity has on its members as they try to go about their daily lives.

For example, Jeff Harvey of Camden says:

“I have missed trains, missed events, been late to work meetings and classes when I was a student, and had 3 buses in a row refuse to allow me to board because the space was occupied…Every time I try to board a bus, I feel stressed because I have to be ready for an argument with the driver and/or other passengers, ready to try to raise my voice enough to be heard from the pavement”.

Someone wanting to use a bus simply should not have to feel that way just because they happen to have a disability.

Mark Wilson, a power chair user, says:

“I have been left at bus stops many, many times because there was a parent with a child’s buggy using the wheelchair space and they would not move, and the driver felt unable to ask them, let alone compel them, to move. On average I cannot board a bus due to this buggy effect on one in nine journeys, which is a big number if you consider I might use the bus for four journeys in one day”.

That shows some of the issues that disabled people face.

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend raises some important points. We would all hope that common sense would come into those cases. Speaking as a parent who has ridden on buses with a pushchair, I would always give priority to someone using a wheelchair or who had a disability. Given that conflicts can arise and can be stressful for disabled passengers, greater clarity would make things easier for everyone using buses, and enable them to understand what is required of them.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is right. The amendment is not intended to put drivers into impossible situations. I recognise that they often try to deal with such matters helpfully. I would not want confrontations to arise between drivers and passengers who might be unwilling to move. However, the provision would arm drivers with legal backing, making it easier for them to pave the way for wheelchair users to get access to the space.

I recognise that many drivers in the industry receive disability awareness training and do all they can to help passengers with a range of disabilities to get on the bus, but that should happen everywhere, at all times, and the drivers should have the backing of the law in making sure that wheelchair users’ rights are protected. If guidance came from the Department, that would not be all. The issue is about raising public awareness, and about people understanding the impact. I hope such conflicts would then arise less often.

Bus operators could address the matter through their choice of vehicle design. There is a good argument for two spaces—one for a wheelchair user and a separate one for buggies and luggage. I have seen some buses with a large number of tip-up seats that could be used on routes where it is known that problems tend to arise. Nevertheless, back-up for drivers in dealing with situations could be important.

Under subsection (3) of the new clause, priority wheelchair spaces would mean that a wheelchair user has priority over a space unless it is not reasonable for passengers to move. Passengers must give up the space for the wheelchair user if it is reasonable to do so, and—this gives it the teeth of being required by regulation —a passenger who unreasonably refuses may, if necessary, be required to get off the bus. That has hopefully dealt with new clause 7.

New clause 9 would require operators to publish their accessibility policies. Essentially, it supports the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge requiring bus operators to have accessibility policies. It seems entirely right that, if they have them, they should also be required to publish them. Buses are a particularly important form of travel for disabled people, but standards of accessibility vary greatly among bus companies—some are really excellent and others leave something to be desired. Disabled people using public transport need to know in advance what provision is made, and should not face a postcode lottery.

The Government say they want an integrated transport policy. I am sure we would all agree with that, but we need consistency for that to happen. Without it, disabled people may not have the confidence to travel, especially when they have to cross different local authority areas or use different modes of transport. I have seen the experience of Claire Lindsey from Greenwich, who has talked about travelling on the tube as an autistic person. She says that she needs to have a fixed daily routine and know what is going to happen:

“This routine means always needing to travel the same way to and from places. When there are diversions, journey restrictions or cancellations, it doesn’t just irritate me, it can feel like the end of the world and it can cause an ‘autistic meltdown’—an extreme panic attack which causes me to pass out.”

For someone like Claire, using different modes of transport with different levels of protection and accessibility would be hugely problematic.

The proposal is not unreasonable—precisely the same requirements are made of rail operators. When the Bill was in the Lords, an amendment was tabled to introduce a system requiring bus companies to operate policies like the disabled people’s protection policy, which is used across train operators, and it seems reasonable to apply the same to bus operators. I have already mentioned audio-visual indicators. It is welcome that the Government acted on that, and in many ways this measure would simply extend it to all disabled people and the whole range of different disabilities. That should not be onerous, because it is good business and what any employer should be doing under the Equality Act 2010 in any event. Given that we have DPPPs for train companies, there is no reason why something similar could not be developed for bus companies.

The fact that bus companies are not responsible for bus stations and bus stops should not be a reason for not explaining what their policies are and what they are doing to make bus travel accessible. Government guidance for local authorities will help to bridge the gap and complement the requirements on companies. Finally, I hope the Minister is minded to accept my hon. Friend’s new clause requiring bus companies to put in place policies for making their services accessible. It seems entirely reasonable that where they have such policies, they should also publish them.

[Andrew Jones]

We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill, both here and in the other place, that bus services must work for the people they serve. We have heard examples from colleagues this morning about how important buses are for people with disabilities. We know that is the case, and that buses and taxis are the two main modes of transport for people with disabilities.

New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, seeks to require bus drivers and other staff to complete disability awareness training. I am sure the Committee will be pleased to hear that there is much in the new clause that I agree with—I too have met campaigners and charities. Disability awareness training can help transport staff to provide the assistance that disabled people require, and I agree that we should all expect bus drivers to complete it. That is why we fully support the implementation of article 16 of EU regulation 181/2011, which from 1 March next year—a full year before the hon. Gentleman’s proposal would take effect—will require drivers to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

At the core of new clause 4 is a new legal requirement to comply with an existing legal requirement. In the light of the comments I have made, I cannot see the benefit of that.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I want to press the Minister a little further on that. I appreciate that there is already a requirement for bus operators to make reasonable adjustments but, frankly, the Paulley case would not have gone all the way to the Supreme Court if there was not a need for further clarity. If the Minister agrees that the wheelchair space should provide priority to the wheelchair user, rather than others who might wish to use that space, surely such legal clarity would be helpful to drivers who seek to ensure that that right is there for the disabled person. I am not sure I understand why the Minister is reluctant to provide that.

[Andrew Jones]

I will come straight to new clause 7, which the hon. Lady tabled. That new clause seeks to provide the means by which wheelchair users must be given priority use of the wheelchair space on buses. I fully recognise the comments that have been made about how difficult this is for bus drivers. That is clearly a fair and accurate comment. I recognise the challenges that wheelchair users face in accessing bus services. That was set out very clearly and powerfully in the written evidence to the Committee from Mr Paulley.

I have highlighted the work that we are doing to understand the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the provision of reasonable adjustments on buses and to identify what interventions might be required as a consequence. It is my intention that we should hear the advice of disabled people, wider passenger groups and communities, and bus operators themselves before we reach a conclusion on the best course of action.

I can see practical difficulties, as I think did the Supreme Court. We have to recognise that wheelchair users will not be the only passengers with a genuine need to use that space. Interventions should also protect the interests of parents with disabled children, those with walking frames and the owners of assistance dogs. This is a complicated issue and we have to take care to find the most appropriate solution.

We have already contacted people to ask them to join the group that we are pulling together. I recognise that there is a timeliness to this work. I assure the Committee that we will respond proactively to the Supreme Court’s judgment, where a need for Government intervention is identified. Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of our stakeholder discussions, I doubt that any new regulatory powers will be required. A range of existing powers, such as the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990, are available to us, should we need them.

Given that, and with my assurance that this is live work that I will continue to treat with great importance, I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham South will recognise that the new clause is a little premature. We need to work through all the implications, but the good will is clearly there to find a practical way forward for the industry.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I certainly welcome the assurances the Minister has given. I would not wish to prevent that work with stakeholders from being undertaken, but will he give us the likely timescale for that work? I recognise that he is being very helpful, but I think that there will be concern among the wider community, particularly those with disabilities, that this matter has been discussed for some time. Although I am mindful of what he has said, I would like some assurance about when the work will be completed.

[Andrew Jones]

It is right to raise the issue of timing. I think that it took five years for Mr Paulley’s case to go through our legal system. We have already started by making contact with the groups who would like to be involved in that work and we intend it to run during the course of the summer. I entirely recognise the timeliness of this and hope that that provides reassurance.

Finally, new clause 9, which also appears in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham South, would require bus operators to publish policies similar to the DPPPs produced by train and station operators, in order to protect the interests of disabled passengers. My colleague in the other place, Lord Ahmad, looked into this issue in some detail. I, too, have considerable sympathy with the underlying aims of the proposal. I have met campaigners on the issue, including Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. I know that for many disabled people, a lack of information on the accessibility of bus services may well prevent them from travelling at all.

Confidence among disabled people was highlighted in our debate this morning, and I entirely agree with that point. Lack of information may ultimately mean that they are prevented from accessing work or excluded from their local communities. We have, therefore, committed to recommend in the guidance that authorities ensure that information on the accessibility of bus services is made available to passengers. That might be in a form provided by the authority itself or individual operators, but we hope it will be of significant help to disabled passengers in making more informed travel choices.

We have been working on the issue with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has developed a template that we could use. I am keen to publish that as part of the guidance and to encourage all bus companies to use it. That will keep it simple and bring the information together in a presentable way. I thank DPTAC for that work.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South talked about the difference between guidance and mandation. We are seeing significant progress in our bus industry. More than 94% of buses in England now meet the accessibility standards. We want to make it 100%, but that is good progress. Mandatory disability awareness training will be introduced next year. Our work so far with the industry suggests that the vast majority of drivers have already had or are going through that training.

A requirement for all buses to be talking buses is in the pipeline, as we have just discussed, and there is a clear commitment to advise authorities of our view that disabled people must have the information they require. I believe that our bus sector is making significant progress in meeting the needs of all who wish to use its services.

There is a slight concern that a proposal of the kind made by the hon. Lady could lead to a cumbersome approach, although I recognise that was not her intention, as she made clear. I want companies to be focused on delivering for all passengers the services that they need. I am aware that DPPPs are in play in the rail sector. However, there are only 30 companies in our rail sector and more than 1,000 in our bus sector, so the read-across is a little difficult.

Given that and my clear and unambiguous commitment to make buses, and public transport in general, increasingly accessible for all passengers, including disabled passengers, I hope that the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Nottingham South will be minded not to press their new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Lilian Greenwood]

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

I will be fairly brief. As the Committee will be aware, bus service operators grant is currently paid as a rebate to bus companies. It is calculated based on the amount of fuel they use. It is therefore a direct disincentive to economising fuel consumption and/or moving to low-emission vehicles. The Department itself acknowledged that under the coalition Government in its “Green Light for Better Buses” document of 2012, which states:

“we were…concerned that a system which pays subsidy according to how much fuel a company uses cannot be right for the twenty-first century.”

They were right about that. Back in 2012, they began to devolve funding in some areas, which were known as better bus areas. The results were encouraging.

The new clause simply seeks to build on that work by terminating the payment of the bus service operators grant directly to bus companies, instead passing the money to local authorities, not least to promote the development of better partnership working, which is part of the thrust of the Bill. Where local authorities set up advanced quality partnerships or enhanced partnerships, it would be incredibly helpful if they could incentivise operators to meet the commitments they make under those partnerships. We could call that the carrot. Conversely, the stick would be to penalise poor compliance by limiting the payment of BSOG to operators, thereby helping them to adhere to the partnership work that had been set up. I am sure we would all recognise that sometimes we agree to do something and really do mean to do it, but we need a bit of a prod to remind us. Giving local authorities control over the bus service operators grant would enable them to do just that. It would be very helpful in enabling partnerships to operate effectively.

In 2012, the coalition Government considered further devolution of BSOG. There was a concern that it might lead to a loss of funding for bus services. That is why, in drafting the new clause, I was very clear that, as the funding passed to local authorities, it would be ring-fenced to be spent on local transport. BSOG needs to be used in such a way that passengers see a maintained or even improved local transport service. We would also like to encourage the bus to be greener and more efficient in the long run.

I hope the Minister will consider this a helpful new clause that follows on from other work he has done.

[Andrew Jones]

Each year nearly £180 million of bus service operators grant is paid to commercial bus operators that run local bus services. A further £40 million is paid to local authorities to subsidise socially necessary local bus services that are not commercially viable. In addition, a further £20 million a year is provided in incentives to bus operators, for example to encourage them to install smart ticketing machines or to use low-emission vehicles.

The new clause would abolish the bus service operators grant that is paid to commercial bus services. The funding would be transferred to be spent on local transport services. I simply do not think that would work effectively in practice. Commercial services often run across local government boundaries. If this approach were implemented, decisions taken by one local authority about funding buses could easily have adverse impacts on adjacent areas. Many of the passengers affected would have no way of making their views known at the local ballot box.

There would be no guarantee under the terms of the new clause that the funding would be used for bus services. It could be used on other means of supporting local transport. Nor does the proposal guarantee additional local authority funding for transport. An authority could simply substitute this funding for existing transport funding and divert that resource elsewhere. The proposal could therefore remove support for local transport entirely.

We are undertaking a review of how BSOG is spent in England and hope to publish details of our proposals later this year. We have already committed to devolve BSOG where franchising is implemented. Overall, I believe that it is right that the grant should generally continue to be paid to commercial bus service operators in a revised form. I hope the hon. Lady feels able to withdraw the new clause.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I have listened carefully to the Minister. I welcome news of the work that he intends to do further to consider how the money could be used more effectively to support the development of local services. Clearly, franchising devolution is welcome, and I hope he considers how devolved BSOG could better support advanced quality partnerships and enhanced partnerships. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

To help the Committee, there is an open-ended sitting this morning—we do not have a cut-off point at 1 o’clock. Both Front Benchers have agreed that we will continue with the remaining business rather than reconvene at 2 o’clock.

Clauses 22 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

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

[Andrew Jones]

I am happy to consider the commencement of these powers, but we have to go through a number of safeguards yet. I do not think that we are in a position to go any further. I am quite happy to keep this dialogue going, but the case has not been made in a way that has convinced me or other departmental colleagues. Indeed, I think that there are reservations across the House more broadly.

This is not about restricting powers; it is about granting powers to councils to enforce moving traffic offences. I know that they want them. These powers have been on the statute book for 13 years and not commenced. Our predecessors probably had some of the same reservations that I have had. I do not think that we can go any further than my commitment to keep talking and not to be against this in principle.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the report by Professor David Begg for Greener Journeys about the impact of congestion on bus passengers and the fact that bus journeys have been reducing by 10% each year. If that trend continues, will he look again at traffic management? Clearly, congestion hits buses harder than it hits other vehicles. If bus speeds are reducing, that can hit bus patronage. This goes against the very ethos of his Bill, which is to increase bus patronage and encourage the use of the bus as a means of transport.

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The heart of the Bill is more powers to get more passengers on to buses. That is what the Bill is for. I am certainly aware of the report by Professor Begg; I have read it and discussed it with him. Indeed, we have spoken at a couple of conferences together and discussed the matter. I have no doubt that congestion is a factor. At the same time, the Government are taking significant action to tackle it. Only last Friday morning we announced a further £110 million of schemes to tackle congestion and particular pinch points on the strategic road network.

We are aware of the impact on congestion and are taking action. I am aware of the concerns in the industry. I support, for example, the introduction of bus priority measures, where it is appropriate and when councils, as local highway authorities, take these actions. That still does not mean that we are in the right place to take this issue forward today.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

There are a few questions to deal with. Let me start with the underlying principles. I agree that devolution has not been tidy over the past few years, but it has generally progressed from the ground up. I am a great supporter of devolution; we should trust people to make local decisions wherever possible. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton suggested that the principle was a little arbitrary, but actually, it comes down to whether there is governance and some kind of control. If we can ensure that we have governance and control, I am happy to see devolution progress. A further point could be accountability, which we might come on to during our debate on franchising.

I am all in favour of consultation with employee representatives when there are material changes to people’s working conditions. A franchising scheme would mean that, which is why we put employee representatives in that proposed new section in the Bill. That is unlikely to be the case for the simple, more structured partnership arrangements, which are about local authorities and bus companies coming together to agree and put forward a set of consumer offers.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I wonder whether the distinction that the Minister is making is right. Employee representatives clearly have a role and need to be consulted on issues that affect the terms and conditions of their members, but does he not accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge? The people who deliver those services—the frontline workers in the bus industry—have valuable expertise, so there is value in consulting them and seeking their view on operational aspects and not just the bits that might affect their employee terms and conditions. Does he not accept that there is value in gaining their expertise as part of the process?

[Andrew Jones]

Yes, I do accept that. I worked in business for 25 years before coming to Parliament. If changes are going to be made or if a company seeks to improve, the best thing to do is to talk to people and take them with you. I fully recognise that; doing so is good practice.

I would expect any authority developing partnership schemes to talk very widely. The whole point of partnership schemes is to get people to come together to decide on a set of customer benefits and deliver those benefits to put more people on buses. The authority will be free to consult as widely as it wishes—that is fine, I am all for it doing that—but in areas where terms and conditions change, we need to go further and make it mandatory. That is the difference between us on the Bill; it is not a big difference.

Is consultation a good thing? Of course it is. Are employee representatives at the heart of that? Of course they are, but where terms and conditions are changing, we need to make it mandatory.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

It is not a case of one or the other. There will be different models in different places—I am quite relaxed about that. We cannot say that one is better than the other. I can see areas where there is a route to franchising; Manchester certainly feels that that would work for it. There are other areas where we have partnership working already and the decisions are made by bus companies that are seeing passenger growth. I want to continue to have innovative bus companies seeing markets and opening up routes to take advantage of those markets, marketing their services and developing a product that was not there before. I have seen that in my constituency. It is not one or the other, but a mixture of both. I see quite a complex market with different providers doing different things, but at the heart of that I see collaboration and co-operation, which effectively will be built into the partnership powers.

I was explaining the criteria that we will consider for franchising. The final one of the five is that the authority will need to demonstrate that it has effective decision-making and accountability arrangements for its decisions on franchising. That relates to a point that was made by my hon. friend the Member for Solihull. Those arrangements should be transparent to local people and a named individual should take the decisions—it could be the Mayor or a council leader. That is what is likely to demonstrate accountability most clearly.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I completely accept what the Minister says about local elected politicians having to take responsibility for their decisions, particularly if they move into franchising. However, will the Minister explain something that I do not understand? If Nottinghamshire County Council, for example, wanted to provide better bus services, why is that not a decision it could take? It is accountable to the electorate through county council elections and can make many decisions about the local authority services for which it is responsible. Why is the provision of bus services through a franchising model different from every other decision that the local authority might take and for which it is accountable in the normal, democratic way?

[Andrew Jones]

Moving to franchising is a fundamental change that will affect potentially hundreds of thousands of people. It is not something that can be entered into lightly. Any decision to move to franchising can only be reversed in certain circumstances. It is therefore right that people know exactly how the decision to implement franchising was taken and by whom, so that there is clear accountability for such decisions at the ballot box. The policy statement we have put out does not absolutely require a single person to take the decision to implement franchising. Authorities are free to suggest alternative approaches and explain why they believe that they offer sufficiently high levels of transparency to the public. We would, however, be likely to require some persuading that a complex structure would be an appropriate route. I am trying to keep things simple, with a line of accountability, rather than make anything more complex.

I do not want to give the Committee the wrong impression. The hurdles that we are talking about are not designed to be impossible. The Government are not seeking to put barriers in the way of authorities that wish to go down the franchising route. I am quite neutral about the different types of model they will have access to. This debate is about who has automatic access and who has a further set of questions to answer before they get the powers to do so. I have just been detailing the criteria for that.

I can see examples where franchising will work, but I am putting my thoughts into the views of local authorities, which is not exactly in the spirit of what the Bill is trying to do. I can also see areas where it will be inappropriate, which is again putting my views on the matter. That is not what the clause is about. It is about having a suite of powers so that local authorities and bus companies can come together to put more passengers on to buses, so that buses are no longer the Cinderella part of public transport that they have been, as Members have suggested today.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. What is the balance between a local authority choosing to go down the franchising route and a local authority taking completely the opposite view? I looked at the Campaign for Better Transport report yesterday, which shows the impact of some of the decisions that local authorities have taken. Local authorities can choose to remove all subsidy from all supported services, which seems to me a huge decision, but they can do that without asking the Secretary of State whether it is okay, yet if they want to introduce a system to improve bus services, they have to leap over the Minister’s five hurdles. It seems disproportionate that to improve services they have to leap over five hurdles, but to remove all subsidy from local authority provided bus services, no reference to the Secretary of State is required. How is that a fair balance?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. We all know that councils are under financial pressures. I was a councillor for eight years, which included financial responsibility during the financial crisis of 2008 and the years to follow, until I came here. The point is that where councils make investments to subsidise services, those will be targeted interventions, usually to meet a particular need. It could be to do with the village that the hon. Member for Ashfield highlighted, for example. We all know that that happens around the country.

However, if an area moves to franchising, it affects the entire market, not an individual route. It is a significant jump of enormous scale that affects hundreds of thousands of people, so we are looking at having greater controls before councils have access to those powers. That is all this is about. It is not about taking the view that they should not go down that route or putting up impossible hurdles. These are sensible measures that give authorities a realistic chance of effective delivery of a franchising model. They are simply sensible tests.

Amendments 17 and 18 will ensure that two cross-references in schedules 3 and 4 are correct. The relevant regulation-making power will be in new section 123A(4) of the Transport Act 2000. The amendments make that minor change and are technical in nature.

We have had a conversation about the principles of franchising and we have made the case very clearly that the Government support franchising as a model and recognise where automatic access is appropriate. We also recognise that such is the scale of the decision that further tests are required before authorities have access to those powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

The door will most certainly be open. We do not seek to put barriers in the way. The whole point about the Bill is that it is an enabling one. My last conversation with Cornwall suggested that it probably would not go down the route of franchising, so it may not seek to make an application to the Secretary of State. However, it has done something interesting with its bus market, which is why Cornwall gets a lot of attention. A partnership has been established with the primary local provider in Cornwall—FirstGroup, I think—which has changed networks and routes and co-ordinated services. We are seeing the company invest in a new fleet, and patronage on the bus network has grown and the market has become profitable. Cornwall is an interesting example of what can be achieved by working together, which is why the authority is often discussed and held up as a poster area for the marketplace. Interestingly, it is using some of the powers in the Bill before we have got to the Bill, but not necessarily in the franchising area.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does the Minister not believe that the fact that Cornwall would potentially have the use of franchising powers may have assisted it in the partnership negotiations? The very fact of having access to powers can be enormously important in assisting an authority, perhaps in getting a bus company to listen in ways it would not otherwise do.

[Andrew Jones]

That is a possibility, and it would, of course, be a possibility that would exist absolutely everywhere.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Not if there are no automatic franchising powers.

[Andrew Jones]

Cornwall does not have automatic franchising powers, but it could apply for them in the same way as all other authorities. That goes a bit towards the national versus local capability that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned.

My general view is that we should support localism. We stand a better chance of a good delivery of a service to solve a local problem if the decision is made as near as possible to the point at which the service is delivered. The service would be tailored to the local need. That should be a basic principle, but does it lead us to question the criteria? No, because the criteria for the introduction of franchising are significant—this is a significant step. They are safeguards; it is not about putting barriers in the way but about ensuring that everything is fit for purpose in order to proceed. The key point is that we do not want to stifle investment by the bus industry, and that could well happen if an authority attempted to pursue franchising under automatic powers without delivering it. Once a category of authority has the powers, there is a permanent risk of its deciding to use them, whatever a court may ultimately decide. It is a question of getting the balance right and getting the safeguards in place without making them onerous hurdles.

The hon. Member for Cambridge said that there is hope attached to the Bill. Yes, in some ways there is. People want buses. It is a good thing. I have to say that I have been pleased to see how the industry has received more retention, not just among the big operators but from some of the smaller ones—