27/03/2017 House of Commons

people of working age. I will have to look at the details of this case

if she will be in contact with me. Urgent question, Rebecca Long

Bailey. Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to ask the Secretary of State for

business, energy and industrial strategy if he will make a statement

on the nuclear decommissioning authority's early contract

terminations on one estate. The Secretary of State for business

energy and industrial strategy, Secretary Doctor Greg Clark. This

morning I informed the House that the nuclear decommissioning

authority had terminated its contracts, a tender process resulted

in 40 new contract being awarded in September 2014. A joint-venture

between one British firm. Work began on September one, 2014 and then they

started the consolidation process to show that the scope of the tender

match the decommission. It became clear that there is a significant

mismatch between the work is intended and the work carried out.

It concluded that the conduct should be terminated on two years notice.

The contract is no reflection whatsoever on their performance.

Dealing safely, the UK nuclear legacy is fundamentally

non-negotiable. Decommissioning work will continue for a further two and

a half years. Arrangements will be made for a replacement structure to

be put in place for when the current contract ends. The NDA has also

settled outstanding claims against it by energy solutions in relation

to the 2014 Magnox contract. The NDA was found by the High Court to have

wrongly decided the outcome of the procurement process. It was clear

that the 2012 tender process was deeply flawed. The NDA has agreed

settlement claims with energy solutions, totalling ?76.5 million

plus ?8.5 million costs and Whitbeck tell a $14.8 million plus costs of

around ?462,000, approximately ?12.5 million in total. Very substantial

costs which could have risen further if the case had proceeded. Taxpayers

must be able to feel confident that public bodies operating effectively

and securing value for money. Where this has not been achieved, such

bodies should be subject to rigorous scrutiny. I have therefore

established an independent inquiry into the original procurement

process and why 2014 contract proved unsustainable. These are separate

issues that need to be examined thoroughly. I've asked Mr Steve

Holliday, former chief executive of National Grid, to lead this inquiry.

It will take a cradle to grave approach, beginning with the NDA's

procurement and ending with the contract termination. The inquiry

will set out the lessons learned and recommend any further actions it

sees fit including any disciplinary proceedings that may be appropriate.

The inquiry will report jointly to me and to the Cabinet Secretary and

his report will be available to this house and the select committee. Mr

Speaker, this was a defective procurement with significant

financial consequences and I am determined that the lessons to be

learnt should be exposed and understood, that those responsible

should be properly held to account and it should never happen again.

Rebecca Long Bailey. Thank you. The NDA has withdrawn its appeal against

the judgment handed down in late July last year. Commerce Secretary

therefore confirm why this decision has been taken now, while -- can the

secretary confirm why the matter was brought to appeal and whether the

actions of the former sanctioned by the secretary or his predecessor.

The judgment confirmed that the NDA hadn't acted properly in the tender

process and that the NDA was acutely aware that an unsuccessful bidder

might challenge the outcome of the competition. The court also stated

that the NDA had fudged the evaluation to achieve a particular

outcome. What's more worrying, the judge also confirmed that the NDA

attempted to get rid of information that might have been detrimental to

it. That included reference to shredding notes.

Will the Secretary of State ensure the House there'll be full public

disclosure of investigations and a public hearing? Does the secretary

also agree that the future operation of the NDA has been called into

question as a result of this case and will he confirm what structural

changes are necessary and when? Can he offer any assurances to workers

going forward and finally, the secretary's written statement

confirms that it's become clear to the NDA that there's significantly a

mismatch between the work specified in the contract as tended in 2012.

Can the secretary therefore confirm when he or his predecessor was first

aware of this mismatch and whether this would have been apparent from

the work that was already being carried out by previous contractors?

Thank you Mr Speaker. The honourable lady is quite right to ask the

question and I hope she will agree that the written ministerial

statement I've made today is thorough and comprehensive and I'm

very happy to have conversations with her and the Select Committee

over the weeks and months ahead. She asked some specific questions about

the term nation of the contract and the litigation. In terms of the

litigation, there was indeed a judgment hering of the court in July

last year and another in December that the NDA has reflected on. On

1st March of this year, a Fu weeks ago, a new Chief Executive and chair

of the NDA took office and it seemed to me appropriate that a new set of

eyes should consider these matters and a course of action rather than

those people who were responsible and involved in the procurement

exercise. In answer to her question, it was a

decision for the NDA board, that is how it's constitutionally

established but its decision required ratification by me, the

Chief Secretary to the Treasury and by the accounting officer in my

department. She raises some very important questions about the

conduct of the original procurement and its management. This is exactly

why, it seems to me, we need to have an independent figure, independent

of Government, independent of the NDA, to report to this House, make

the report available to this House, to me, but also to the Cabinet

Secretary. Not only to learn the lessons to make sure things cannot

happen again, but if there is fault and an error has been made, then the

recommendation of disciplinary action can follow from that. She

quite rightly raises the question of the workforce for whom this will be

a difficult day. I'm happy to confirm to the House there is no

question of the good performance operationally of the contract. It

was a question of the terms of letting the contract. Good progress

has been made. The workforce that has employed -- is employed in the

decommissioning contract will continue as planned and when the

report is made available, lessons will be learnt about the structure

of the NDA as well as any particular procedural aspects.

Will my right honourable friend join me in paying tribute to the

workforce at Brattedwell who're doing a brilliant job in

decommissioning that power station and will he confirm that nothing in

that statement will prevent the work going forward -- Bradwell. Will he

listen to the concerns about the pensions entitlements and the cap on

exit payments? I say to my right honourable friend

that I certainly join him in paying tribe yew to the workforce there. --

tribute. Good progress has been made in Bradwell in terms of

decommissioning the site there, as he knows, with if underground waste

vaults containing intermedial level waste having been cleared and decome

Tam negotiated, that is a reflection of the hard work there --

decontaminated. In terms of pensions, there is a sbrat set of

discusses and consultation that is going on surrounding that, that is

not related to today's announcement. Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for

His response and the Shadow secretary for securing this urgent

question. This debacle shows the UK Government cannot even manage its

current nuclear project which comes at great cost to the taxpayer,

leaving its case for a nuclear energy future more thread-bare than

ever. We we take into account the bare and ill logical system to

leave, there is rights to be concerned, we are right to seek

assurances that decommissioning will not lead to standards deteriorating.

What assurance can the secretary give today? This should be a wake-up

call. The UK's deterrent... This will only burden the next generation

with unprecedented, economic, environmental and security

instability and risk. The Tories should do the responsible thing and

scrap the nuclear obsession in favour of investment in renewable

energy and carbon capture technology. Scottish Renewables

recently reported one in six renewable energy jobs in Scotland is

under threat in the next year. Will the Government acknowledge that its

energy policies need to be reviewed to allow the Scottish Government to

continue with its competent and ambitious vision of a prosperous

green future and finally, when can we expect full details of the

timetable of this investigation into this matter?

I would say to the honourable lady that a little humility might be

appropriate here because the Scottish Government's provided

oversights of this procurement as part of the NDA competition

programme board and I'm sure that the lessons to be learnt will apply

to the Government in Scotland as well between 2012 and 2014. I'm sure

the people of Scotland, as well as those of the whole of the United

Kingdom, whatever their view on future new nuclear power, would want

the existing nuclear power stations to be decommissioned safely and to

have arrangements in place that that can be done reliably. In terms of

the independent review which I hope she welcomes, I have asked Mr

Holliday to give interim findings by October of this year. Thank you, Mr

Speaker. I'm sure my right honourable friend paid no attention

whatsoever to the bizarre considerations of the SNP spokesman

but I hope that in asking Steve Holliday, a person in whom we have

considerable confidence to do this review, he will seek to bring the

review himself to a reasonable conclusion very soon after the

report in October so we can get to the bottom of this and make sure, as

he rightly says, that it will not repeat itself in future years.

I agree with my right honourable friend. It's important quickly to

learn the lessons and to apply them. This is very important work. The

work has been and is being carried out to a high standard, but lessons

need to be learnt and applied. May I thank the Secretary of State

for His courtesy call to me on this matter this morning. The Select

Committee will challenge hard but work constructively with him and

Steve Holliday on this important issue. Will he clarify whether the

inquiry will be confined to the procurement process which led to

this specific contract. Will it consider other contracts such as

that to decommission to the same consortium that won the other

contract. Will he confirm the inquiry will be broad enough to

consider whether the governance and management arrangements have always

been and will continue to be fit for purpose. I'm grateful to the

honourable gentleman. I can confirm what he said which is that the

governance and management arrangements of the NDA are very

much in scope. I put the terms of reference into the library of both

Houses of Parliament. It's open to Mr Holliday to go to where the

evidence is. The particular concern is about this contract but if he

feels he needs to look at other aspects of the NDA's management,

he's absolutely free to do so. I welcome the characteristic candour

and openness with which the Secretary of State has approached

this issue. Can he reassure me and the house that in the context of the

scope of this inquiry not only will it look at the NDA but will be able

to, as I think he just alluded to, to look at the role, if any, of UK

Government departments and the Scottish daft in this process as

well? I will indeed. The terms of

reference with my written statement make it clear that it applies to the

NDA and to Government departments as well, that is absolutely right and

proper and from the beginning of the procurement in 2012 to the

conclusion of the litigation and the termination of the contract.

Under current plans, the power station will lose most of its jobs

in under ten years. The Government is in a position to commit to

decommissioning as recommended dithe Welsh Affairs Select Committee. When

will he publish plans and will he agree with me to discuss the future

of the site? I will certainly meet with the honourable lady and I'm

grad she's given me the opportunity to do so. Work is ahead of schedule

in the plant that she mentions. I will, in the light of that, will

meet with her to update her on the latest timings.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This was clearly a defective procurement with

quite serious financial consequences and I welcome the Secretary of

State's determination that the reasons for it will be exposed. But

will he assure this House that where people are found to be responsible

are at fault, they will be bought to account.

Mr Speaker, I can confirm to my right honourable friend that the

terms of reference makes it very clear that the inquiry can make any

recommendations it sees fit, including as to any disciplinary

investigations or proceedings that may in its view be appropriate as a

result of its findings. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could the

Secretary of State please confirm that the thousands of people waiting

for an outcome on their pensions will not be ripped off? Yes, Mr

Speaker, there have been constructive discussions with the

representatives of the workforce. They're continuing the consultation

and it continues. Of course we want to bring them to a satisfactory

conclusion. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The NDA

settlement payments are substantial. Can my right honourable friend

confirm that whilst the payments were made without accepting

liability, that the cost has potential to rise much further had

they gone to court. My right honourable friend is

absolutely right and we have a duty to consider the further risks to

public money which is why my accounting officer and the Chief

Secretary to the Treasury and I on advice accepted that however painful

it is and these are very significant sums of money, as my right

honourable friend said, that we should be preventing those sums of

money being even greater. Given the cost problems with this

NDA decommissioning contract, how can the Secretary of State have any

confidence whatsoever in the cost figures for Hinkley point C which

will itself need decommissioning, especially given the farce of the

massive cost overruns and huge time delays in building the EDF Sister

reactors in Finland and Normandy, neither of which has opened years

later at a massive cost overrun. This is about a procurement process

that was misspecified around decommissioning, not against the

bill cost of a future reactor. When we have the report off Steve

Holliday, if there are wider lessons for the industry, we'll be sure to

take them. Thank you, Mr Speaker. There's much

that all public sector organisations can learn from procurement process

and public private initiatives as the 3,700 per minute spent by the

NHS on PFI would attest. Would the Secretary of State assure me that

all public sector organisations will be given the opportunity to benefit

from the review? It's important when there is such a serious set of

consequences for public money that the conclusion should be publicly

available, available to this House and including for other Government

departments that may want to reflect on that.

Can the Secretary of State confirm the holiday enquiry will have

reached its final conclusions and issued its final report in time for

any lessons to be learned, to be taken into account before the new

contract process begins? I've asked Mr Holliday to make a report by

October and so that I can happen. I will meet with him in the coming

days as he sets out the scope. But that is one key reason for the

report and I'm sure he will want to make his recommendations available

for the new process. What were the terms of the payoff,

he has not mentioned it? I have mentioned the settlement, it is

nearly ?100 million for the settlement of the litigation. Under

chief of the NDA has come to the end of his contract. -- and the chief.

Order. I will come to other honourable members in a moment. On a

point of ratification, Mr Andrew Bridge. Following a report made on

the 14th February by the commission of standard I would like to

apologise to house the failure to disclose a financial interest in a

debate on HS2 on the 25th of March 2000 15. I should have declared that

due to a court order caused by my divorce I was in the final act of

selling my house to a shift to under the extreme hardship scheme. I would

point out to the House that I did declare an interest in the previous

HS2 debate on the 20th of January 2013, 20 6th of June 2013 and a pull

the 28th 2014. On reflection I should have declared an interest

when I submitted a written question to the Transport Secretary Mo 9th of

October 2030 and when I spoke in the preparations debate on the 31st of

October 2000 13. I also attended meetings with HS2 and responded the

consultation were in hindsight for purposes of clarity I should have

declared an interest. Mr Speaker sought to cooperate with the

Commissioner for standards throughout this enquiry and have

never made any secret of how close HS2 was running to my then property

in North West Leicestershire. This in no way clouded my view of the HS2

Project, a project I opposed before road was announced. I thank you for

the opportunity to put this on my record and apologise to the House

profusely for any omissions I may have made. I think the honourable

gentleman for what he said. Point of order, Mr Blackford. I would like to

raise the issue of correspondence between myself and the Minister of

State for the University of science office and the Minister for energy.

I first wrote to the Minister of State for the University of science

to request a meeting for a business in my constituency, the underwater

Centre on the 14th of November. It took some time to get a reply from

the government department. I finally received a reply on the 22nd of

December with an apology for the lack of response. With an

unwillingness to meet and suggested I taken up with the Minister for

energy and industrial supply. That I did on the 22nd of December last

year and I have chased the office on several occasions both by e-mail and

telephone and we have yet to receive an e-mail indicating that I would be

raising this as a point of order. I would like advice as to what a

member can do when an office seeks to ignore the request for a meeting.

Persist, I say to the honourable gentleman. That is the advice I

give. His attempted point of order has opened an interesting window

into his life. The diary commitments to which of the subject and I'm sure

the House is immensely grateful to the House is immensely grateful to

him. But I do not think we can take the matter any further. My advice

will always be to persist. For he is nothing himself is not a dogwood

terrier. Point of order, Maria Miller. In the last few days there

have been almost 1000 people arrested, beaten or imprisoned in

Belarus, a country still under an effective dictatorship here in

Europe. How can we show our solidarity to those in Belarus who

are fighting for democracy, fighting for freedom of speech, fighting for

the rule of law? I struggle immediately to see how the

observations of the honourable lady constitute a point of order. That

said, I recognise and respect the seriousness of the consent and I

acknowledge on the floor of the House her long-standing track record

of support for the Belarus free theatre. My initial answer to her is

that I think that by persistence and the good fortune of the ballot, she

has probably secured her own salvation and possibly an

opportunity to press for the salvation of those who need it more

intensely and immediately because she has questioned nine if memory

serves me correctly at the Foreign Office questions tomorrow. It would

be very unfortunate if we did not get to number nine. And I think I

can say with some confidence that we will. Right honourable lady speaking

on behalf of those people who need her help and will value it, we'll

have a chance. What is more if she expresses herself with her usual

force and eloquence, she might motivate other honourable and right

honourable members to spring to their feet in supplementary

questions following her own. And if so I will be all eyes and ears.

Point of order, Mr Chris Bryant. At four o'clock the deadline past in

Northern Ireland and I do not want to make any accusations against the

government by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is making a

statement in Another Place about what he now expects to happen. I

just wondered if you had any notification of a statement to the

House so that the House can express a view. I'm very grateful to the

right honourable gentleman. The short answer is that I have not

received any indication that the Secretary of State is minded to come

here. From the record, of dealing with this secular state and this

particular right honourable gentleman, I can say he has always

been fastidious in wanting to come to the House, often telephoning me

and trying to make contact. Indeed I am advised that he has sought to

make contact with me by telephone. However I have received no written

communication from him at all and no indication of an early statement. I

think one would have been forthcoming anyway and in light of

my exchange with the right honourable gentleman I feel even

more confident that it will be. Point of order, Mr Jessye Norman.

Further to to the point of order raised by the SNP, I was not clear

whether it was me to whom he referred but I would be delighted to

meet the gentleman to discuss the issue that he raised. I'm grateful

for the clarification. Just to be clear,... No additional clarity

required. The honourable gentleman is a cheeky fellow, a simple nod of

the head would suffice. In my experience the honourable gentleman

is as courteous as members in This Place come. And I think we will

leave it. That they will get together possibly over a cup of tea

and discuss these important matters. We will that therefore now. If there

are no further points of order, the clerk will now proceed to read the

orders of the day. Bus services Bill, to be considered. We begin

with new clause number one, also new courses number two and three. I call

the Shadow Secretary of State for Transport. No indeed, he's being

substituted by Mr Daniels. I rise to move new clause one in my name. It

would require that the secular state for transport publish a national

strategy for local bus services within 12 months of the day on which

the act is passed setting up the objectives, targets and funding

provisions for buses over the next ten years. It also require that a

national funding strategy included consideration of a reduced their

concessionary scheme for young people aged 16 to 19. New clause was

two and three in the name of the honourable member for Southport also

relate to young people's concessionary fares and bus funding.

Clause number two would require a report before Parliament setting up

possible steps to support local transport authorities providing

concessionary bus travel to apprentices and new clause three

would require that local transport authorities assess how creating an

authority wide travel concessionary scheme for those in full-time

education would affect how the students use the bus services. So it

is clear long-term national discussion from central government

on the funding of the bus industry is long overdue. Since the bus

market in England outside London was disastrously deregulated in the

1980s by Conservative government, the way in which public support for

bus services has been provided has been far from transparent. The

effects of deregulation have been stark. With my honourable friend

agree with me that the drop in passenger journey numbers in

Yorkshire by more than half since 1985 is no coincidence but is down

to deregulation. I very much agree. And I will return to other examples

of the failures of deregulation in a moment. It is not just the number of

services because the Paris have also risen faster than inflation,

patronage has fallen by more than a third overall and bus market

monopolies have become the norm in too many places. Back in October we

noted the 30th anniversary of bus deregulation but it was far from a

cause for celebration. 30 years of bus users being ripped off by a

handful of big bus operators who have carved up the market into

chunks and they go largely unchallenged in their territories.

Would he agree with me that for people on low incomes in rural areas

and indeed some urban areas as well it is almost impossible to job out

and seek employment without a decent bus service. Once again I agree with

my honourable friend, too many parts of the country have become difficult

for people to get to and from work. for people to get to and from work.

Of course through those 30 years, the fares have shot up even at times

when fuel prices have been falling. So we've seen 30 years of passenger

decline in the rest of England while patronage in the still regulated

capital have increased. This month campaign for better published its

latest report and the organisation made over 100 Freedom of information

requests to local councils to get a full picture of recent bus cuts.

They found funding for the buses across England and Wales has been

cut by 33% since 2010 and by almost ?30 million in just the last year. I

was in Somerset last week were support for the county council will

fall by another 19% next year. Across the country over 500 routes

were reduced or completely withdrawn in 2016. But despite this seemingly

endless round of bus cuts that has been going on and on the government

seems reluctant to look at anything that can be done to improve the

current system of bus funding. The argument is well rehearsed, the bus

industry is a private industry, and has nothing to do with central

government or central government money. But that is just not the

case, around half the bus industry funding comes from the public press.

In 2014 total public support for buses accounted for 41% of overall

industry funding. In the past that figure has been higher. Over 46%. So

I think asking the government to publish their strategy regarding the

funding for buses in a single document is asking that much. We

just want to have some clarity around a system that has become

convoluted and confusing. The strategy will set out, the plan and

objectives for public money going towards local authority supported

bus services, the reimbursement of bus operators for trips made by

concessionary pass-holders and the payment of the bus service operators

grants to bus operators. Public money is being spent on buses, yet

the government has no strategy and we believe that needs to change. As

I've raised before, we are in a situation for operators are being

reimbursed by public money for trips being made by concessionary

pass-holders yet they're able to cut services and groups. The public have

no say. That means in some situations we have the bizarre

situation where people may have the concessionary bus pass but there's

no bus on which to use it. That is not a good deal anyone. Nobody have

national strategies for road and rail and were told the cycling and

walking investment strategy is imminent. Buses are being singled

out within the transport family. The new clause one would reduce that in

the bring buses in line with other modes of transport. We also believe

government needs to do more to support young people at afford the

cost of bus travel. That why we're asking for the government to include

as part of a national strategy consideration of a young person's

concessionary fare scheme. Young people now have two stay in school

or training until they're 18 and many use buses to get there. We

think is quite right that the government look at how to reduce the

financial burden on those young people who are only trying to get to

their school, job or apprenticeship. While some local authorities still

provide concessionary fares for young people, many not. Local

government is already under huge financial pressure and hence the cut

to supported bus woods and services that the campaign identified.

Unfortunately the number of local authorities able to provide a path

has dropped from 29 to just 16 since 2010. So we want the government to

publish a national strategy for buses and good in that proper

consideration of a concessionary scheme for young people.

Can I tell my right honourable friend, young people in Greater

Manchester have told me that it's cheaper for them, for four of them,

to get an Uber than it is to travel on buses in Greater Manchester

sometimes given the cost of travel. How on earth can that possibly make

sense and how on earth can that lead to anything other than complete

gridlock on our roads? My right honourable friend is right.

We need a second reading. A number of cases across the country

experience this, to travel locally, it's bad for congestion and

employment and bad for social justice. Mr Speaker, the way buses

are funded in this country is clearly not working. We need to see

a proper Governmental strategy to address these funding issues and

allow the country to have the national conversation about buses

that is long overdue and much-needed. I therefore urge the

Government to accept our new clause one and I perhaps could helpfully

suggest later in the discussion we'll press that to a division.

Thank you. New clause one, national strategy.

THE SPEAKER: The question is that new clause one be read a second

time. Maria Miller? Thank you, Mr Speaker. New clause one calls for a

national strategy that sets out various targets and objectives and I

feel sure that the honourable gentleman speaking for the

opposition may see one of those targets as being the need for

accessible for all when it comes to buses -- accessibility. I understand

the Government's already considered this particular issue in committee

and I feel sure they'll have very valid reasons for not going forward

with a national strategy. I think the honourable gentleman does read a

number of important issues by tabling this new clause which I just

would like to touch on very briefly. Particularly the need for some

consistency when it comes to certain issues and I do, Mr Speaker, welcome

the Government's amendment to their own Bill with regards to the

information for bus passengers. I think this's something that will

help all of our constituents and I would particularly like to note the

constituents that have contacted me on the importance of having

information available for passengers when they're on buses about the

routes that they're taking, something that's not only important

perhaps for partially sighted or blind passengers, but also for my

constituent who contacted me who has autism and special needs, that won't

particularly help that individual as well as a broader group. As Baroness

Campbell pointed out in the other place when this Bill was debated,

there are other issues which are also nationally important to people

who use buses that might I think fall under the national strategy the

honourable gentleman's talking about. Perhaps around wheelchair

priorities or access policies more generally. In terms of wheelchair

priority, comments made by the Government when this was discussed

in committee, I think a very heartening Mr Speaker, the setting

up of an advisory committee following the Pooly case is very

important. It's important to confirm whether he's thought about the

composition of that group. Does he intend to involve the Equality and

Human Rights Commission in that group? I think very important that

he'd consider that carefully, Mr Speaker. Also the disabled people's

transport advisory, the minister when he spoke about this in

committee didn't touch upon that detail, perhaps it hadn't been all

worked through at that stage. But perhaps the minister could take the

opportunity about this debate today to assure us of the discussions that

he's had subsequent to that committee debate. I'll give way to

the honourable lady in a moment. And perhaps he can assure the House that

the discussions that are had as part of that advisory group will be acted

upon and acted upon quickly and that all of the relevant people will be

involved. I give way to the honourable lady.

I thank the honourable lady for giving way. Does she agree that the

message she's now discussing is part of the national strategy would give

bus services to status that they deserve and recognise the fact so

many more people actually travel on buses and have bus journeys than

they do on trains which are more widely recognised in national

policy-making. I think the honourable lady makes an

interestings point about the difference between the way trains

and buses are treated and whilst I don't necessarily agree that there's

a need for a national strategy to put them on in terms of parity, I do

think that the point she raises is important, there shouldn't be undue

differences in the way that we treat bus operators and train operators,

particularly when it comes to disability issues. I'll just perhaps

take that point one stage further before I finish, Mr Speaker. As my

Noble Friend, the Baroness Campbell said when this Bill was also

discussed in the other place, there is a need for an accessibility

policy which has teeth, Mr Speaker, to ensure that it's effective. There

is, as the honourable lady's just said, a real contrast between the

way the Government treats buses and trains when it comes to disability

access and the conditions of licences for those that operate

these important Public Services. It's a condition of a train

operator's licence that they have to comply with disabled people's

protections policy and have one in place and state how they'll protect

the interests of disabled customers which is enforceable not only by the

regulator but it has fines associated with it if there is a

lack of compliance. So why is it not the case for bus operators that

perhaps in the absence of a national strategy that there could be a

condition put in place to make sure that there are such provisions for

bus operators that disabled passengers who use buses for whom

there'll be an important way of getting about to work, to social

engagements and to be part of the community that such provisions are

also put in place for bus operators, so that we ensure there is parity

between the way train operators support people and train operators

support people, disabled people. Of course I'mth I'll give way. The

distinction she's making between buses and trains is an interesting

one, but surely the point here is that the policy initiatives that the

Government can take, like access for dis disabled people don't mean a

national strategy is going to take away from the requirements of a

local strategy which is what the buses are based on. I thank

manufacture for his intervention and I'm not arguing against having local

strategies, but there appear to be a number of issues which have national

resonance when it comes to the provision of services. The

Government has themselves identified this through the provisions they've

put into their own Bill around the information that's available to bus

passengers whilst they're on buseses. That's nationally

applicable. So I'm simply asking the minister today if he could confirm

to the House what further thoughts he's given to making sure that what

is good enough for train operators is also good enough for bus

operators when it comes to disability access.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker... Sorry, I apologise. What a terrible

mistake! I did not mean to demote you, Mr Speaker.

I do apologise. I rise to support this amendment.

And to reflect on the fact that in the Bill committee on this issue,

there was a huge amount of consensus from both sides. We were divided on

a number of issues, but it was a relaxed committee and the minister

gave reasoned answers. I think that represents a change in... That's a

first! I think that represents a change in attitude towards buses so

that this Bill is the first step towards it, it's a Bill that was

brought about following negotiations between the then Chancellor of the

Exchequer and different metropolitan areas that came to a deal that if

they had elected Marys, they could then sort out the buses. I hope it's

the first step, Mr Speaker and what I would ask the minister to do is

reflect on this because I think it's a developing situation. The new

Prime Minister's brought in an industrial strategy. We have a

strategy, as has just been mentioned, on the railways. We have

a strategy for aviation. It is difficult to think, and quite

rightly so, of areas where we spend large amounts of public money where

it is not the responsibility and the right of the Government Anderlechted

representatives to define -- and elected representatives to define

the objectives of what that money should provide. Of course I'll give

way. He mentioned just before a connection between directly elected

mayors and bus deregulation. Does he see a sensible connection between

the two or why the two should go hand in hand?

I see that it was a pragmatic decision taken by the then

Chancellor and the combined authorities in the metropolitan

areas, but obviously it isn't a rational basis to decide to have a

different bus system in Greater Manchester than in Southampton -

what would be the rationale there? There clearly isn't one. The point I

was making, that now is the time, having made that first accept, not

in a consistent way, but in a sensible way in the Metropolitan

areas, to look for a strategy and to get rid of what really is a relic of

ideological Thatcherism from the early 1980s, in the 1985 Transport

Act which deregulated the buses. Because the absence of a strategy in

actual fact is saying that we don't care - I don't know how many

billions of pounds have gone into the bus industry since 1986 when the

bus act came into force - but I would think it's a large chunk

without any policy direction whatsoever given to how that money

is being spent. So what we have been left with is a rather sterile debate

where one side says well buses are declining and they would have

descliened anyway over this period -- declined anyway over this period.

Well, those of us who think that dechain was not necessary have said,

actually if we had not on-road competition which has failed, if we

had the competition at tender stage and actually decided what services

we wanted and what bus fares would be charged, we'd not have lost as

many bus routes, we'd not have lost as many bus passengers as we have

done. Not to have a strategy is actually saying, over the last 31

years, that it doesn't matter that two thirds of bus passengers have

disappeared in Greater Manchester and bus fares have gone up by

considerably higher than the rate of inflation. It does matter. As the

honourable lady said, and my right honourable friend on the frontbench

has said, the vast majority of the people we represent, particularly

poorer people, people who don't have access to a car, rely on buses to

get to work, to get to hospitals, to see relatives at weekends, which

after deregulation often those bus routes and buses don't exist. How

can we not have a strategy? How can we abandon... Of course. Thank you,

Mr Speaker. I think one of the other things about a strategy to follow on

is the need for making sure that we have better records on bus safety

and I would ask the minister to actually look again at what

record-keeping we have. Of course we publish the killed and seriously

injured figures, but actually there are a large number of other injuries

on buses caused by buses, particularly obviously I can only

speak from a London experience and I think it would be really helpful

when putting together our overall plans for transport that we do think

of some way of both recording both the minor and major incidents in

order that we can give everybody insurance or assurance needed on the

safety of buses. The honourable lady makes a

pertinent point on this issue. But of course, a buses strategy would

cover all those issues from personal safety to disabled access to fares,

to where buses were running. I think both from the experience in the

committee and the interventions and speech made from the opposite

benches both here today and in the committee, it is clear that that is

where the centre of the views of this House lie.

I think that will be the direction even if this amendment is not

accepted now. I want to finish on this point. There will be a

bare-knuckle fight in this because it is not just about having a

rational look at how best it is to provide bus services. Because there

has been no accountability of that money, a small number of people who

have set up more or less monopoly situations in our great conurbations

have made a huge amount of money. Have become the owners of, the

owners of stage coach had become billionaires. I'm not against people

who make a profit, I'm not against people who innovate. But I am

against people who are parasitic on public money without the people

whose responsibility it is to look after that public money is saying

what should happen. So this amendment may well not be accepted

today but I think in the fairly near future, as this bill becomes an act

and the benefits of regulation are seen that we will move to regulation

throughout the country. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. He

makes an important point. Duffy recalled that the transport select

committee over three parliaments has investigated bus deregulation on

five occasions and De Ceglie this reinforces the case is making that

fundamental reform starting with the bill we have today is what is

required. I do indeed recall the times and the effort spent with my

honourable friend on those reports. And they show that competition does

not take place, that is amiss and we have left the public purse

vulnerable to parasites like Brian Souter who have taken the money out

of the public purse while they have been putting up prices and reducing

the service. So that is going to be a rearguard resistance from those

people who have benefited from the system. But as parliamentarians and

people who have a duty to look after taxes, we should move towards the

consensus I believe there is an espoused to having a bath strategy.

After all we have strategies all the rest of the way through the

transport system. I also sat on the bus Bill committee and I was pleased

to make a contribution in what was very much a consensual discussion

and well piloted through by the Minister. I was also grateful to him

for sending through a double-decker chocolate bar through the internal

mail! Sadly due to the mail system it looked more like a Bentley bus by

the time it was opened. With respect to new clause number one, there is

much within that which is attractive. The 1.I would make with

respect to the strategy is that with the newly improved local data

requirements through this bill, it should be possible to fix that

strategy on a local basis rather than needing some form of government

top-down approach. In a way the essence of the bill is to bring in

more localism. His right honourable friend made an important point that

a national strategy or consistency would help disabled people who may

travel to a different part of the country and not know what to expect

in terms of the public transport system. Basic minimum standards in

areas like disability access or ticketing would be really helpful to

people as they travel across the country and use different public

transport systems. I can certainly can see the attraction of that but I

think there was a danger that if there is a feeling from local

authorities that government will deliver the strategy then local

authorities do not put anything perhaps in place themselves. The

other mechanism through the bill is that it will make it easier for

local authorities to get more involved in the policy of how this

bill will be implemented, how partnerships should operate. So I

would state that rather than talking about a national strategy, the bill

has some excellent points that should assist the strategy at local

level. Where I really want... I can understand the point is making and

have a huge amount of sympathy for wanting to make sure we have a local

approach to services. Does he agree with me that we need to make sure

that the law through the equality act has more teeth that individuals

are able to make the law work for them when they encounter problems

like discrimination against them because of their disability. My

right honourable friend is correct indeed. Perhaps the laws do need to

be tightened up. So I agree with the point she has made. Moving to

subsection number two... We only discussing new clause number one,

two and three in this group. I think the causes that he wants to speak

on, 16 and onwards, are in the next group. So he could think about those

when the next group comes up. Thank you for your guidance. I was

referring to subsection two of you", the reduced their concessionary

scheme for those aged 16 to 19. With respect to the falls, in terms of

considering this scheme, I see the advantages. -- this clause. I serve

rural constituency where it is difficult for young people in

particular to travel by bus. I also would like to extend the point that

in my view this relates to our desire to increase social mobility.

If we cannot have young people accessing work perhaps at weekends

because it is too far for them to travel, they cannot afford motor

insurance premiums which we know are incredibly expensive, then there's

something to be said for a lack of social mobility. So I am attracted

to the idea that this should be looked at. Of course we need to make

sure that we cost those measures up and that is a matter of that would

give me concern. If we increase the national debt with policies like

this it would have a negative impact on young people as they are the ones

likely to be paying it back in the future generations. Perhaps one

consideration could be the overall cost of concessionary travel. And

whether it is time for concessionary travel perhaps for those aged over

65 to be given purely to those who really cannot afford it. So more

looking at means testing than perhaps giving concessions to those

who can well afford it. And perhaps therefore would like to share that

benefit over to the 16 to 19-year-olds who after all are

required to stay in education and training and therefore need some

assistance. Does he accept it may not be necessary to just throw money

at this, the powers in this bill could be used cleverly to extract

value for instance if longer term franchises were given to bus

operators, on condition, they could then give free travel to those aged

16 to 18 because then if they become regular bus users the bus operators

would capture the upside of that. So this could be done cleverly if more

areas were given the ability to use these powers. That is absolutely

right and anything that can be done to get young people onto the buses

and stay on them as much to lend itself to. I'm also conscious this

sub clause talks about consideration of a reduced fare. So indeed perhaps

a mission for government should be that money that can be saved or

perhaps reinvested will actually go towards this measure which I believe

would help young people and help social mobility. I rise in support

of the amendment in my name, new clause number two and three and also

in support of new clause number one. Both the amendments I brought

forward are basically about coherence. Neither is about

dictation to local authorities as was mischievously suggested during

the second reading of the bill. I'm not trying to dictate to local

authorities what they should do. Both of them are about concessionary

travel for young people which has been a thorny issue throughout the

whole process of the bill. So far as young people are concerned, the

situation is both variable and actually worsening. Since 2008

50,016 to 18-year-olds had free transport withdrawn. I think a 42%

drop. Two thirds of local authorities no longer provide free

transport to 16 to 18-year-olds. And bus passes for 16 to 18-year-olds

are incredibly variable across the country, ranging from under ?30 to

over ?1000. Transport authorities used to offer wide concessions but

the number has also dropped since 2010 from 29 concessionary

authorities down to 16. And ten authorities have no arrangements at

all. That benefit the older age groups. Including that those that

offer no concessionary fare for young people, Cheshire West,

Lincolnshire, Nottingham, Bracknell Forest, Portsmouth, and Slough. So

the situation is scarcely good. And the impact is fairly obvious. Impact

on educational progress, according to the Association of colleges, one

fifth of students would consider dropping out during the course

because of transport costs. Or transport difficulties if the cost

is not foremost in their minds. There is an impact on students, and

NUS survey showed further education students, two thirds of them paid

more than ?30 a week which is a lot more than ?30 a week which is a lot

of money for a young person. There is a clear impact on traffic

congestion and pollution, the honourable member mentioned that, as

more young people try to get cars may be earlier than they should or

rely on other forms of transport affecting congestion at all the

wrong times in most towns. And there is clearly a choice on educational

choice. I would emphasise the point made by the honourable member that

the worst affected are people in rural areas by students generally.

They are the worst affected. And within the system there are clear

anomalies that need to be cleared up because we raised the age for

compulsory education but local authority obligations on transport

remain very much as they wear. I agree with everything he is saying,

pointing out the withdrawal of concessionary support for young

people. But would you concede that the withdrawal of the Education

Maintenance Allowance under the coalition government made these

problems a lot worse for young people. Well that Education

Maintenance Allowance was in my notes but for some reason I did not

mention it there. I dare say it was a factor. The other anomaly in the

system is that we all recognise we have academic roots,

apprenticeships, but apprentices do not really get a look in. Those aged

between 16 and 18 get about ?4 minimum wage. And clearly we want to

make the apprenticeship route even more attractive. There is some

evidence that where schemes are deduced they are successful. The my

ticket scheme in Liverpool city region anecdotally is supposed to

improve attendance quite appreciably. And developing

transport in line with the apprenticeship system is very much

part of the city region agenda touched upon by the honourable

member for Manchester. So my amendment is trying to achieve

something relatively modest. It does not really change the character of

the bill which broadly speaking I support. Basically the amendments

are trying to urge local authorities, to oblige them ready to

take a broader view of the impact of transport policy in the wider

environmental and educational sense. Does he share my concern that

actually one this government is cutting and usually the funding for

local authorities, even where they want to provide concessionary fare

is, in many cases they're being forced to withdraw them and

certainly that was evidence we heard from Texas who said they are getting

to the point in the north-east word much as they would like to support

young people, they got to the point where they felt they would no longer

be able to do so. Desperate times call for desperate remedies and most

local authorities are in a desperate situation at the moment.

friend, The government will accept there is a case for joined up policy

and the government needs to link up the apprentice ship agenda with

real-time transport problems and impacts. That is where new clause 2

comes into its own and if I'm supported, I would be happy to move

that to a vote. Unless the minister can assure me these things are

within his frame of reference at the moment. Thank you. It will be useful

for me to cover all of these in one hope any detailed set of replies.

New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to develop and publish a

national bus strategy. We discussed this is in committee. Glad it was

considered reasonable and helpful. Also for the consideration of a

reduced fare scheme for young people aged 16 to 19. New clause 2 requires

the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out steps to support

local transport authorities to provide concessionary travel to

apprentices aged 16 to 18. Well the Government fully appreciates the

importance of public transport for young people, particularly those

living in more isolated areas. We also recognise that the cost of

transport can be an issue for some young people, including those taking

part in apprentice ships. One reason for the intro-- introduction of this

was to support young who need help with education and training costs

and evaluation showed nearly 400,000 young people were being supported.

The statutory responsibility for transport to education and training

rests with local authorities. This enables them to make decisions that

best match local circumstances, with many authorities and operators

already offering discounts for passengers in this age group. Both

of thesish use relates -- these Esh use relate to funding. This bill is

not about funding, but providing with new tools to help improve their

services in the way that best suits their areas. As part of spending

review my department is protecting the bus service operator's grant at

current levels for the period to 2021. This provides security of

funding for services without the strategy the member proposes. This

funding is provided to local authorities and to bus operators, it

is not broken into category of service or by route. Attempting to

do this would be a burdensome exercise that could embroiling

central Government in the fine detail of local provision. That is

the at the heart of the question about a national strategy. It is

about local services, not about a national plan. Bus are local by

definition and that is why we are seeking to support local councils

with more powers. So a national plan isn't the answer, more powers for

local authorities is part of answer. That is what this bill does. I think

one of the things we disagreed on during the committee is what should

be determined locally and what should be determined nationally.

That was one of the few disagreements. Doesn't he think when

the Government is spending billions per year on bus services, that they

should have an interest in saying that there should be more bus

passengers, more bus miles, and an interest in what the fares should be

what. Is the difference between buses and trains in this respect?

Well, I'm happy to agree that butses are a critical part of - buses are a

critical part of any local transport mix. I'm a great champion of bus

travel that. That was clear Mus my work. Through my work. I made the

joke one of the great truths of business is that I'm from head

office, I'm here to help. I was going on to say that actually I

often was that person from head office and it often wasn't so

welcome. This should be about local transport needs, not a national

strategy. Is the Government neutral? No, that is why we have brought

forward a bill and have protected the bus service operator's grant.

But this about local authorities working with bus oeptors to deliver

-- operators to deliver the right services for their areas. If it is

about local decisions, why then will he not devolve the bus service

operators grants to local authorities. Some of the grant is

already deinvolved. Volved. The key reason it goes directly to bus

operators and they operate routes that cross council boundaries.

Transport to work is nothing to do with a local authority's geography.

So it would be I think a potential bureaucratic nightmare to change the

system now. Having said that, we are looking at how we can reform the

operation. It pays a flat 34. 357 pence per litre in subsidy. That it

is why it was called the fuel duty rebate. We are looking how we can

incentivise better practice. I will give way to the honourable lady and

then they think. The honourable gentleman. It feels as if he is

trying to devolve all responsibility for the state of our bus services,

in the 2015 local Government settled it was announced Government funding

to local authorities will fall by 24%. That is part of why local

authorities support for bus is falling. Does he not take any

responsibility for the impact that is having on bus services and

people's ability to use the buss? Of course I recognise that the

pressures on local government finance are acute and I was in

charge of a local government financial affairs and my local

council throughout the financial crash in 2008/9. So I'm aware of

that. But that doesn't change the requirement to recognise this is a

local service and should be determined locally. Hasn't my

honourable friend just exposed a major contradiction here, he is

saying he wants local delivery, but when it comes to cross border issues

he said Whitehall knows best. The position should be for maximum

devolution. I'm not saying white hall knows best, but the grant is

best delivered to operators running those services. And then taking it

from there. So it is not a question of white hall knows best. We are

keen to see more support for buses and more routes available. The way

to achieve long-term sub stainable growth is to have more passengers.

My honourable friend raised the issue of the case that went through

the legal system and took five years to reach a High Court. Well,

specifically, we are going to be inviting the equalities and human

rights commission to attend our working group meetings. We have got

some progress made here. What we are seeking to do is have a small

working group that will look at the practical implication of the Paulie

case. The members invited are the disabled person's transport advisory

committee, to hear the voice of disabled group. We also want the

voice of bus operate. We want the voice of passengers and Transport

Focus have been invited. I would hope me will see the equalities and

human rights commission. In terms of timing, I would hope we would get

this under way next month. Could I take him back with regards to the

cross border issues. Even in areas which don't have landscape drawn out

for elected mayors, local authorities have for the last three

decades been working in partnership with each other. And I just don't

understand the point that the minister's making about devolving

that to the bus company and not to group of local authorities who work

in travel to work areas. Well, the devolution of this funding goes

straight to local authority bus companies. We are looking to see how

we can reform this and I will take the honourable gentleman's point ps

as a sort of contributory suggestion within that. But I don't want to

make a change to this system, unless we are clear it is going to keep

more routes operational. We have no guarantee unless we ring fence the

funding that if we grant devolution of this to a local authority that it

will be used to support buses. It could go into other forms of

transport. I want to keep this focussed on buses. But I will take

his point further as we think about how to take this forward. If I may

just answer my honourable friend's questions more fully here. This

needs to be a work group, which is action-orientated. The High Court

encountered practical challenges in dealing with disabled access. We

need to get the balance right and have space for this space which is

used for wheelchairs could be used for parents with children who need

assistance. I want to protect everyone's needs here. The issue of

disabled transport plans, these are important in providing confidence

and consistency for disabled people to use transport and I have much

sympathy with the underlying reason behind my colleague's suggestion

here. We are going to take forward a recommendation in the guidance

supporting the bill that authorities ensure information is made available

to passengers and that might be in a form of provided by the authority or

by individual operators. We have been working on this again with an

organisation who have developed a template. So I expect us to make

some progress in this area that will assist my honourable friend. Do you

want me? She does. Can I welcome the minister's clarification on that

point with regard to the guidance being made available to passengers.

Could I gently remind him when it cops to rail passengers, there is

not only a regulator breathing down the neck of providers, but there are

fines for not compliance. How can he give this real teeth? My honourable

friend makes a very interesting point, but I'm not sure there is a

read across from rail into buses. There are 30 or so rail companies,

there are a thousand plus bus companies. So we need to have

something that is proportionate. For the larger groups it could be

appropriate. For the smaller companies, something more as we are

suggesting would be clearly more appropriate to provide information

to disabled passengers that is our joint objective here. If I may turn

to clause 3, which was tabled by the member for South port. This requires

local authority s who do not provide a concessionary scheme for 18 to

16-year-olds in education to produce a report. This report would set out

the impact on this group of young people and on local traffic of not

providing such a scheme. As I have said, the legal responsibility for

transport to education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds rests with

local authorities. Who are free to put in place appropriate

arrangements. These arrangements don't have to be free, but we expect

authorities to make reasonable decisions based on the

infrastructure and their available resources. Local authorities already

have a duty under the education Act to publish a transport policy each

year and the arrangelets for young people -- arrangements for young

people. The effect of this would be to replicate this duty. So in short,

I do not believe clauses 1, 2 and 3 will add anything of value to the

delivery of a bus service on a local service or benefit passengers. I

hope the members will not press their new amendments. Thank you. Can

I say that I think again this has been a constructive exchange and I

think particularly the points around disabled access are welcome and will

be pursued. Much like in committee, much of the discussion has hinged on

the issues of localism. And my honourable friend made the points

very well as did my honourable friend for Leigh in terms of what we

see as many see as the failures of systems is over the last 30 years.

In committee we discussed the values of a national framework. And

listening closely to contributions from the other side I did not hear a

large amount of opposition to that. In fact many contributions suggested

they could also see the benefits. But the minister stuck to the script

heroically and clearly does not wish to go down that route at the moment.

Although I have to say as we come to in future discussed the way funding

for the bus services, whether concessionary fares or the operators

grants, clearly there is a debate to be had. And that would seem... .Ca

agree with me that it would be helpful to have that national

discussion, not only involving passengers but also the industry and

local authorities about what is the most sustainable way to fund the

buses. And ask local authorities, as they develop different emissions

standards, as the campaign for better transport said, a national

strategy would provide some certainty for the UK bus vehicle

manufacturers as well. There are many advantages to doing this. As

always my honourable friend is right and she has raised a very important

issue of air quality which clearly is becoming more important in many

cities across the country. I would suggest that the government is

having a national framework, that might be helpful for many reasons. I

fear this issue will not be resolved and so we will be pressing for

division from our side. The question is that new clause one he read a

second time. As many as are of that opinion said aye. Division, clear

the lobby. The question is that new clause one

B read a second time. The term... The noes to the left

278. The eyes to write 193. So the noes

have it. The noes have it. Unlock. Doctor John Pugh, the question is

that new clause number to be read a second time. As many as are of that

opinion say aye. Add to the contrary know. Division. Clear the lobby.

To be read a second time. As many of that opinion say aye. Of the

contrino. Order. Order. The ayes to the right,

193. The noes to the left 277. The ayes to the Wright were 193 the noes

277. The noes have it. Unlock. We now come to new clause 4 with which

it will be convenient to consider the amendments listed on the

selection paper. Who moves to move new clause 4. Could I move new

clause 4 and amendments, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Could I also

declare an interest in as much as that I am chair of RMT Parliamentary

group and vice chair of Unite Parliamentary group. Both of which

unions have members in the bus industry. Madam Deputy Speaker, the

transport sector is a safety critical environment and the sector

involves carriages travelling at speed, individuals working long

hours on repep it the it is a -- repetitive tasks. And hard lessons

have been learned following a series of fatal road and rail crashes in

the 80s and 90s, continuing financial pressures, declining

support from government through the bus operator's grant and the

commercially orientated initiatives to reduce staff could also threaten

safe working practices and bus drivers are aware of where corners

are being cut. In theory they can use the whistle blowing policies to

speak out, but in practice, workers that do so are frequently subject to

all sorts of pressure and have been known to be dismissed for whistle

blowing. This leads to a situation where serious safety failings are

ignored and not investigated adequately or the results are not

acted upon by the bus companies. So to counter this dysfunction a

confidential reporting system was introduced, this system has been

successful in enabling workers to have their concerns ventilated.

Resulting in lessons being learned and accumulation of failings being

halted with serious harm prevented. Not all of the major rail companies,

many of whom own bus companies have signed up to this. So the first

group going ahead, Stagecoach and they all have interests in both bus

and rail and I should declare another interest, in as much as I'm

a frequent user of my local bus services in Gateshead, not owning a

car, but I have a very good service provided by the Go Ahead group. But

not all of my constituents can benefit from such great services.

The bus company do try their best and provide excellent bus services

during the peak hours, but as the evening goes on, those bus

frequencies dwindle. Bus workers outside of London should also be

able to access this and that would be the effect of this new clause,

where franchises or quality partnerships are introduced and this

was brought in responding to a spate of deaths and injuries on London's

roads involving bus. Transport for London has arranged for the system

to be extended to London and London has one of best resourced networks

with some of the newest buses. This supports the extension of the seem

to butt operators nationwide in line with other aspects of bill,

including matters unconnected to franchises, such as announcement and

a national approach is warranted and would be desirable. The cost of

membership is certainly not in any way, shape or form prehibitive.

It is based on the turnover of boss operating companies so a bus

operating company with a turnover of less than ?1 million would only have

a certain amount of money to pay worth as a big operator, if they

were in theory to have enough overnighting turnover of ?200

million VC would still only be the same so the fee are low, modest and

represent a serious obstacle and what I would ask the Minister is if

they are not willing to concede to this clause we hope the ministers

would agree to make regulations or at least guidance in this area or to

consult on all bus companies throughout the United Kingdom with

not just those who participated in those in a quality partnerships

cream, the consultation should indicate support for signing up to

Cyrus. On the amendment, there are a number of things in the amendment is

would like to refer to, ensuring employees working under local

service contracts would be not employed on terms and conditions

than those provided by a city, and there is also a concern that an

anticipation of changes in local provision bus operators... I might

actually curtail a route, and therefore the drivers or operators

on that route are made redundant and then another operator might start at

the same route only a week or ten days later but the way in which the

bill is -- instructed the drivers would have an automatic eg of

protection, although of course I'm sure that they have it unions would

be frightened for that. -- are fighting for that. Working condition

should be no rewards for the duration of the franchise and

employees must not be employed in worse terms than existing employees.

There are precedents for these type of illness leg-macro arrangements,

with government support for example the countries with public private

partnership with YouTube, and well protected. More recently ScotRail,

Antares, including four ferries and additional protections for the

successful bidder, making savings from reducing staff goats -- are not

making savings from reducing staff jobs, one amendment would protect

and age recruitment and retention and therefore a high-quality, stable

workforce within the industry which I know does right many franchise

areas and communicable I personally have been on many buses over the

duration of privatised franchises were frankly bus drivers did not

know the route they were travelling on, asking passengers, you know, the

route that they are having to travel on a particular journey. So it is

not beyond the bounds of possibility that we can actually legislate this

or regulate it out. More importantly, the amendment would

also prevent the further increase in short-term bus drivers, in an

industry which has affected services, and certain values of the

professional logistics and transport body have published findings from a

survey addressing the current driver sorted in the industry. The three

highest reasons cited as of 15 reasons were by some distance a

shortage of drivers, where poor pay and poor conditions, and industry

image were problems in terms of recruitment and retention. And if

the government are willing to concede the amendment in this

section I would hope that the ministers would agree to regulations

at least making some guidance to the industry about this. On amendments

ten, this amendment with the dismissal of a employee for the sole

principle of reducing the franchise scheme automatically unfair, and

unfair dismissal, and amendments 12 and 13 would make dismissal of an

employee for the sole principle reason of the award of a contract

and a partnership scheme automatically construing unfair

dismissal. There is concern about the potential or a company which has

lost a bid to run a franchise or which does not wish to participate

in the franchising process can simply abandon its route and it has

happened on numerous occasions. In order to do this they only need to

deregister the route by notifying the traffic Commissioner Emma and we

want the bus services built to protect workers and passengers from

company conducting itself in such a manner. We are also concerned about

things slipping outside the protective net of duty, but if the

company does abandon a franchise that means the passengers who rely

on that bus service day in, day out, are often left without a means of

just getting to and from their place of work and we have heard ministers

in the Department for Transport criticising rail unions over the

solution having an impact on people getting to and from work, but

equally they should be concerned about the scope of it bus franchise

owner actually a landing their own franchise for business reasons. The

amendment means... Given a particularly loose way in which the

bus sector is currently arranged them is elevated risk of this

occurring at the moment than the bill provide protection and the

point of transport, or earlier if the agreement is reached with the

successful bidder, and the amendments mean terminations for

very matter of employees in certain categories unfair. This will not

only protect jobs but help ensure continuity of service in the event

that the bus service operator seeking to provide a service or

reduced services because of the threat of franchise order because

they do not win the bid for franchise from withdrawing Fire

Service. The extract I will talk about now is from the Manchester

evening News of the 21st of March and it shows bus companies in

Manchester are already cutting services in readiness for the bus

bill and no doubt as a show of strength in negotiations and must

franchising. We have been reliably informed that the whole timetable

for this bill is being driven by Manchester as part of the coalition

deal. -- devolution deal. If the government are unwilling to concede

is amendments we would hope that ministers would agree to make

regulations were the least guidance to the industry in this area, and

that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish my piece. New clause four,

bus safety. The question is that new clause four be read a second time.

Adam Driver disfigure our rise in support of those amendments tabled

in my name and the name of other honourable and right honourable

colleagues, first Amendment 14, amendment cysteine-23, amendment 15,

amendment 24, amendment 25, 26, 27, and also finally amendment 20 eight.

If I can turn first of all in moving these amendments to amendment 14. As

a straightforward because it ensures the local transport authorities

cannot make transport schemes if benefits can be provided by equality

partnership, an advanced equality partnership or enhanced partnership

scheme. These are mainly drafting amendments but I think it is very

important that they franchising authority is satisfied rather than

just considering the issues in a franchising settlement. As has been

made clear and we have heard on many occasions in debates on this clause,

franchising should not be an easy option. A local transport authority

should not be allowed to take a simple punt at franchising without

full and detailed consideration of all options available. Of course

there are other options available not least partnership arrangements

but we looked at and will surely return to them again in the near

future. The filters contain stringent tests that I think it

would be easy for local authorities to say that it has considered

whether a proposed voucher scheme would the age to its transport buses

or whether it has the capability, resources to operate the scheme or

just as important to consider whether it can afford the scheme and

whether evidence value for money. In other words, for the constituents.

It is another matter to save the authority is satisfied that the

proposals will do the thing so surely the importance in taking a

franchise scheme is not too much to ask, but it is convinced that the

proposals will do exactly what those say on the tin, as it were, and that

is what the particular amendments tabled set aside to try and achieve.

I had an Deputy Speaker will move on to amendment 15 and what that does

is simply complement 14 although it basically look at it from a

different angle and as far as that is concerned I would say anything

about it except just to show that you can't have 14 without 15 because

what $15 is require a transplant satellite to specify the benefits of

passengers explained why they can be delivered by a partnership scheme or

the leader of any sort. I now move on to the most important amendment

in this collection and that is amendment 24, all about

compensation. I think the key here is to bring into play a degree of

fairness, because I think what is important is that the bill is

actually very silent on the matter of conversation which I think is

wrong. I know that he will say in his response that if you will go

along to the select committee, saying there was no case

compensation, and follow where that the conversation wouldn't have been

available under an equality under scheme but the days of policy

countries are severely numbered and I feel that there was no

compensation under the scheme does not mean that it isn't right to have

compensation in new arrangements. I think it would be bad enough for the

large PLCs, Madam Deputy Speaker, who have to redeploy their staff,

their assets, what about the smaller operators I will give way. Thank

you. Listening gavel to what he says, because he hasn't explained so

far, what basis would be compensation given when every bus

company could compete to run the buses via a franchising process? I'm

not an expert on this, I have a small and medium enterprises in my

constituency on buses, and if they established their businesses on a

lot of hard work, with lots of risk, one company came to see me to save

the directors have mortgaged their homes, and invested the life savings

to ensure the company grew, they would stand to lose not because they

haven't performed properly, not because there were about company,

not because passengers decided they didn't want to use them any more,

no, they stand to lose because they didn't win a bit, simply, to

continue to do what they have been doing successfully the years. I

suggest that this is a fair measure and I would ask the Minister to have

a look at it and I think there was a wider point here because what

message does it send to businesses looking to invest in the UK? We want

businesses to come to the UK to invest and we should be saying to

those businesses can write you come to the UK to invest but indeed

authorities take your business of view, there should be some

compensation. I think this particular measure does any

long-term represent good value for the taxpayer because it actually

shows that taxpayer's money is going to be put to a good use because if

businesses are put out of business because of measures in this bill

then surely there should be a caustic compensation. I will give

way. I thank him. He is rightly talking about the importance of

delivering value for money for the taxpayer. I say to him in the case

of the north-east as across many parts of the country there isn't

good value for the fact that I would have limited bus operators that

really have a monopoly over services as shown by the magician commission.

The competition that was meant to follow from deregulation hasn't

materialised, this isn't good value for the taxpayer and actually that

would allow smaller operators to break into the market where the big

boys at the moment has a stranglehold. I see the point that

she makes, and I don't need judgment to see what is going on in my area

but I hope what she has says that in taking on in the view of the

Commissioner. I in competition, smaller operators flourishing stop

certainly in Norfolk this small operators, like Norfolk Green for

example that are able to move in on two routes and bring into place a

new culture, a new service, a new ethic, and have done a quite

fantastic job and as a consequence, and I defer to the right Honourable

gentleman who knows a lot about this subject, have been happy to get more

customers onto these routes and to reopen routes that have previously

been closed down. It hasn't worked that way under the

current regime. The worry I have with what he is saying, he is

speaking for the bus companies rather than the travelling public,

that is what it sounds like to me. Can he assure me this is not a

wrecking amendment? That by fear of compensation, he is hoping that

local authorities will be persuaded to not even try and use the powers

in this bill because they would not be able to afford compensation

payments? I assure him I am not trying to wreck the bill or do

anything that is untoward. I'm simply trying to make sure that SMEs

are treated fairly. Moving on to amendment 25 which is again in my

name and of other colleagues. It ensures that any auditor appointed

by the franchising authority has no commercial interest or association

with the franchising authority that might create or could be perceived

to create, the franchise. It is recently anodyne but it is actually

quite important. I would urge him to look at it carefully indeed. As we

move onto the next one at the next two, 26 and 27, these two here are

again quite small amendments. But I think they are important. If a

franchising authority fails to make a case for a franchise scheme or

decide not to progress proposals, should have the measure to combat

the following year or the year after that, all within months. I suggest

it should not be able to do that. What these two amendments do is

prevent the authority coming back within five years with a fresh

proposal. I would like to quote what my right honourable friend the

Chancellor said in his Autumn Statement "I know how much business

values certainty and stability." I think he is right. The one thing

they dread is uncertainty. It can affect recruitment decisions and

investment plans. Particularly SMEs, how they conduct business. The

measures contained in this bill, they could find their businesses

under threat and in the worst case scenario, an authority coming back

time and again within that five-year period possibly. What we want to do

is create a situation where we have a workable franchise scheme and the

franchising authority can't keep chipping away at it. I would say to

the Minister that these amendments are not by any means vital but I

think they would help local authorities as well. We know do not,

Madam Deputy Speaker, that the burdens on local authorities are

growing the whole time. They are under massive pressure to deliver

better services and value for money from refuse collection to care for

the elderly and streetlights and planning with ever dwindling

resources. So for the local authority to have quite a lot of

pressure put on it by elected members were other bodies, to devote

time and energy to bringing back a franchise excise when it was not

progressed in the first place I think would be a mistake. I go away

again. I am grateful to him for giving way again. I want

clarification from him and reassurance on this point. It sounds

like the combined effect of these amendments is to open up some

confusion and possibilities for legal challenges that bus operators

can use. To actually tie the hands of the combined authority in greater

Manchester but other combined authorities elsewhere. Can he make

it absolutely clear that that is not what he is trying to do. It sounds

for all the world that that is the real intent behind these amendments.

Eremenko I have a lot of time for the honourable gentleman, and a

times in the past and he was a minister and I was asking questions

and we engaged in committee, it is not my intention to do what he is

suggesting. These are amendments that smaller bus companies will have

a lot of time for. With the honourable lady like me to give way?

Does he acknowledge that having the opportunity franchising powers

allows local authorities to put pressure on operators who are not

all small and medium-sized companies. Most of them are very

large operators. In order to bring them perhaps into partnership with

arrangements. If the authority does not have the opportunity and

potential of bringing forward franchising scheme is that in many

cases, those operators will not enter into serious negotiations

about partnerships, whether they be advanced or enhanced. They have

those powers anyway. But it will be listened to by the Minister and the

Minister will listen to what we have said and take a decision on that.

The other amendment I want to move, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be be

because I have already taken up the House's time. That is amendment 20

eight. The key to amendment 28, what this will do is specify that fares

and structures could only be specified as part of an enhanced

partnership scheme if all the operators agree. I think the key

here is the ability of commercial bus operators to set their own

affairs. A key part of a deregulated market. Prices will be set

competitively. Men and Speaker, the competition authority has safeguards

in place to ensure bus companies do not collude to stitch up the market

and set fares that disadvantage passengers. There are checks and

balances here that are extremely important. I will certainly give way

for the honourable member for Newcastle. I am grateful to the

honourable gentleman. I'm afraid to say that what he is outlining here

seems to suggest that the powers of the local authority or collection of

local authorities in the areas that he represents would be less than

those which are currently enjoyed by the voters of London in terms of

having oversight of the running of an integrated transport system. Why

should it be that the electors of all other parts of England should

have an inferior set of arrangements for an integrated transport system

than the voters of London? That is what would be the outcome of the

elements and amendments he is suggesting. I simply say to the

honourable gentleman, that I have a huge amount of respect for him, I

have listened to the bus operators in my constituency and listened to

the passengers in my constituency. We have compared, compared to 20

years ago, when the honourable member for Cambridge were standing

in a rural Norfolk seat and nearly winning that Norfolk seat in 1997,

Migno folk I think it was. We have added more bus services serving when

it communities and villages because of the way SMEs have come forward

and stepped up to the plate as it were. I have taken enough time of

the House this afternoon and I simply say to the Minister that I do

believe these amendments in my name and my honourable and right

honourable friends go a long way to improving this bill at, not

undermining sabotaging parts of the bill but making it, I think better

for the bus operators, the smaller bus operators but for passengers and

local authorities as well by providing important clarity. I beg

to move those amendments. I would like to make -- direct my remarks

that the clauses and amendments in relation to franchising. Including

amendments 14 to 23 and 26 and 27. The strength of this bill is in

devolution. And the proposal that decision-making on providing bus

services should be devolved to local transport authorities and should be

looking at what works best in local areas. In looking at that, it is

important to remember that this bill has come about because of

dissatisfaction from members of the public and people who want to use

buses about the way the current system operates. There have been a

number of opportunities to change the 1985 transport directly to

transport services but none of those efforts have resolved the problem.

This bill I think is an important element in have the public

experience and growing the private sector. I welcome the bill. The

transport select committee has looked at the bill in detail. We

looked at it from the perspective of passengers and the interests of

passengers. We did very much welcome the possibility of new entrants,

smaller entrance, being able to be involved in the bus market. My

concerns in relation to these amendments and clauses what to do

with looking at whether the proposed amendments will in fact stop

devolution as opposed to being able to take place. Two aspects, firstly

in relation to the areas where combined authority areas with

directly elected mayors will have the power to go forward with

franchising. There is a lack of clarity on what regulations will be

introduced or imposed to impede directly elected mayors from doing

that. It is not entirely clear from the amendments put forward whether

that would be an absolute right of directly elected mayors with

combined authorities to introduce franchising or perhaps complex and

unknown regulations would be imposed. I would like clarification

from the Minister on that. It addresses a fundamental part of this

bill. Secondly, the proposal of the bill is that transport authorities