:00:00. > :00:00.authority and the Government does not intend every area be covered by
:00:00. > :00:08.one but this does not mean the Government should prevent those
:00:09. > :00:11.non-combine authorities from improving bus services solely on the
:00:12. > :00:18.basis they are not combine authorities.
:00:19. > :00:22.I thank my honourable friend for giving way. The point he is making
:00:23. > :00:27.is particularly appreciated in Newcastle where we do not have yet a
:00:28. > :00:33.combined authority and do not seek to have a mayor but have long sought
:00:34. > :00:38.better control of our bus services which are critically important in
:00:39. > :00:45.Newcastle and I have received so many complaints and concerns about
:00:46. > :00:48.the bus services provided. Will he urged the Secretary of State to
:00:49. > :00:54.ensure Newcastle and Tyne Wear can finally control its own bus
:00:55. > :00:59.services? No hesitation whatsoever in urging him to do exactly that.
:01:00. > :01:03.Newcastle has a proud history and focusing on delivering the best
:01:04. > :01:08.services for its people and to be excluded because it does not fit the
:01:09. > :01:13.devolution model currently on offer is to deny localism to shoot parts
:01:14. > :01:17.of our country, which cannot be the intention of any sensible Government
:01:18. > :01:27.-- to shoot parts of our country. Has he made an assessment of what
:01:28. > :01:32.authorities would want to take up these opportunities? The Labour
:01:33. > :01:36.Government in 2000 brought in a contract scheme it described as
:01:37. > :01:40.similar to franchising is not a similar authority has used it since
:01:41. > :01:48.2000. Where is the evidence authorities want these powers? He is
:01:49. > :01:52.referring to the contract services and quality partnership services
:01:53. > :01:58.labour brought in but he is highlighting in interesting points,
:01:59. > :02:01.because it is up to local authorities to make that decision
:02:02. > :02:05.for themselves and that is how it should be. It is not the question of
:02:06. > :02:10.people here telling local authorities what to do, they should
:02:11. > :02:13.have options made available and the way this bill will be amended it
:02:14. > :02:21.sounds like that will be denied to them.
:02:22. > :02:26.I fight my honourable friend. Have you agreed to insert free bus passes
:02:27. > :02:32.for 16 and 17-year-olds in our next manifesto, well my honourable friend
:02:33. > :02:36.also agree to insert into the manifesto we will allow local
:02:37. > :02:41.authorities to set up their own municipal bus companies? It is a
:02:42. > :02:46.matter of ideology which is why we had deregulation in the first place
:02:47. > :02:48.and that is why the Government is refusing to allow those local
:02:49. > :02:54.authorities that wish to establish the order bus companies, why should
:02:55. > :03:00.they not be allowed to do so -- establish their own bus companies.
:03:01. > :03:03.It is right local authorities should have that freedom and a restrictive
:03:04. > :03:07.in this way as the Government propose to do is to basically say
:03:08. > :03:13.you can have devolution in England but you will have it only on our
:03:14. > :03:20.terms, as long as we agree with what you are doing.
:03:21. > :03:27.I am grateful to him and is one of the few MPs who made a living as a
:03:28. > :03:30.bus driver I welcome this bill but my honourable friend is extolling
:03:31. > :03:33.the virtues of localism, can I caution Hemel localism is all well
:03:34. > :03:40.and good as long as there is money to go with it -- can I caution him.
:03:41. > :03:45.There is a huge imbalance between the money spent on public transport
:03:46. > :03:49.in London and elsewhere. Part of the decent public transport works better
:03:50. > :03:53.in London is because of non-deregulation but it is also
:03:54. > :03:58.because of much better funding so well the Labour Party commit itself
:03:59. > :04:03.to adequate funding for this localism of bus services? I think I
:04:04. > :04:09.am being invited to write our manifesto at the dispatch box. She
:04:10. > :04:14.is absolutely right to highlight the gross imbalance in spending in this
:04:15. > :04:21.country were in my own area it is about ?220 per head compared to
:04:22. > :04:29.1900. The imbalance is there and that has to be corrected if we will
:04:30. > :04:35.ever rebalance our economy so I wholeheartedly agree. Of course, it
:04:36. > :04:38.is interesting this denial of the opportunities to embrace or start up
:04:39. > :04:43.a municipal company flies in the face of some of the most successful
:04:44. > :04:48.ones in the country and so why on earth would people do not want to
:04:49. > :04:52.consider that as an option? There is no suggestion there will be a mad
:04:53. > :04:56.rush of every authority in the country wanting to do this, they
:04:57. > :05:00.will want to do what is best for their locality and why on earth the
:05:01. > :05:06.Government want to deprive them of making that choice is beyond me, or
:05:07. > :05:10.perhaps it isn't. Can't I warmly welcome the announcement he has just
:05:11. > :05:17.made that he supports the view of many rural MPs on the site -- can I
:05:18. > :05:24.warmly. Transport spending should be redistributed to the regions. Bus
:05:25. > :05:30.the mayor of London I agree with him? I am sure the mayor of London
:05:31. > :05:34.acknowledges other parts of the country outside London need to have
:05:35. > :05:42.the benefit of investment but it does not have to be either or. It is
:05:43. > :05:46.a question of regulating your priorities and making sure you do
:05:47. > :05:52.not ignore large parts of the country. We won an amendment to
:05:53. > :05:59.extending powers to re-regulate bus services to all areas in the report
:06:00. > :06:02.stage in the other place and I hope the Government and its stated
:06:03. > :06:07.commitment to devolution is not restricted to those areas who have
:06:08. > :06:12.struck deals for combine authorities was elected mayors. We were
:06:13. > :06:16.successful in removing clause 21 was banned local authorities from
:06:17. > :06:21.forming their own bus companies and replicating the success of existing
:06:22. > :06:25.municipal companies and as the minister is aware municipal bus
:06:26. > :06:31.companies often outperform their rivals. Nottingham city transport,
:06:32. > :06:36.for example, achieved 97% overall satisfaction score in the most
:06:37. > :06:49.recent transport focus survey when none of the big five operators broke
:06:50. > :06:51.90%. Removing the incentive to profit from operations can allow a
:06:52. > :06:54.greater focus on the social and economic purposes of bus services,
:06:55. > :07:00.meaning bosses can better cater for the social and business needs of a
:07:01. > :07:04.particular geography. Labour did not introduce a clause mandating
:07:05. > :07:09.municipal operators but simply removed a clause prohibiting them.
:07:10. > :07:14.We believe there is not a one size fits all model for running bus
:07:15. > :07:19.services and indeed there are a number of solutions for different
:07:20. > :07:23.areas and it follows given the success of existing municipal bus
:07:24. > :07:28.companies, localities may judge municipal model is best suited for
:07:29. > :07:33.their area and may wish to attempt to replicate that success. If the
:07:34. > :07:37.secretary of state is committed to devolution and believes devolved
:07:38. > :07:44.authorities should be allowed to choose the best model to meet their
:07:45. > :07:47.needs, I do hope the Government will accept the option of municipal
:07:48. > :07:49.operations should be preserved and clause 21 should not be
:07:50. > :07:58.reintroduced. We have an opportunity with this
:07:59. > :08:01.bill to make significant improvements to bus services and as
:08:02. > :08:06.a consequence the social and economic life of much of our country
:08:07. > :08:10.but Labour wishes for these opportunities to be available across
:08:11. > :08:15.England, not just some areas, and to be available to the fullest extent
:08:16. > :08:20.possible. We are happy to support this bill but ask the secretary of
:08:21. > :08:25.state that he listens to the forthcoming arguments on both sides
:08:26. > :08:32.of the house, no doubt, and turns -- commits to transforming bus services
:08:33. > :08:39.in England for the better. I warmly welcome this opportunity to debate
:08:40. > :08:42.bus services in the chamber. We too seldom have the opportunity to
:08:43. > :08:48.reflect on the importance of the bus network for millions of people and I
:08:49. > :08:52.think this gives us an important opportunity to acknowledge the
:08:53. > :08:56.crucial role that bus services play in our public transport system. As
:08:57. > :09:01.has been acknowledged already by both frontbenchers, buses provide a
:09:02. > :09:08.crucially important lifeline for many -- millions of people, not just
:09:09. > :09:12.people who choose not to drive a car but those who cannot afford to drive
:09:13. > :09:16.a car and I think it is particularly important to recognise the
:09:17. > :09:20.importance of buses for the elderly, many of whom feel that they no
:09:21. > :09:25.longer want to deal with the risk of driving a car or can no longer
:09:26. > :09:29.afford it so for all sorts of reasons we, in this house, need to
:09:30. > :09:34.do all we can to support our bus networks around the country. I would
:09:35. > :09:38.like to pay tribute to all of the people involved in delivering bus
:09:39. > :09:43.services and helping us get to where we need to be. I am enthusiastic
:09:44. > :09:49.about much of this Bill but I do have worries about clause four and
:09:50. > :09:53.also the changes made to the bill in the other place. I can warmly
:09:54. > :09:58.support the provisions in clauses seven and eight to facilitate the
:09:59. > :10:01.delivery of smart ticketing technologies which, as has already
:10:02. > :10:07.been acknowledged, can do so much to make bus travel easier and more
:10:08. > :10:14.convenient and attractive as an option. I also welcome clauses one
:10:15. > :10:18.to three and nine and 15 on partnerships. Partnerships between
:10:19. > :10:22.local authorities and private sector bus operators can be a highly
:10:23. > :10:25.effective way of improving bus services for passengers. There are a
:10:26. > :10:29.long list of successful examples from around the country, including
:10:30. > :10:34.places such as Sheffield and Bristol. The extension of the
:10:35. > :10:36.statutory partnership structure beyond the provision of
:10:37. > :10:41.infrastructure to include general bus improvement measures makes sense
:10:42. > :10:46.as an important part of the bill. It is also, I think, a welcome step
:10:47. > :10:51.forward to enable statutory partnerships more easily to cover
:10:52. > :10:55.large areas and have a more joined up approach between different
:10:56. > :11:01.operators and I think also it is helpful to make the Competition and
:11:02. > :11:05.Markets Authority statutory consultees. Its current status of
:11:06. > :11:08.the powerful but unpredictable status outside the partnership
:11:09. > :11:13.process can be a barrier to ambitious measures which perhaps
:11:14. > :11:17.both the operator and the local authority may sincerely believe are
:11:18. > :11:21.the right way forward, giving it a more formal role internal to the
:11:22. > :11:25.process can help to generate the certainty needed to support
:11:26. > :11:32.investment in measures to improve bus services for passengers. I am
:11:33. > :11:36.worried about the effect of Klaus four and the proposals to grant
:11:37. > :11:43.local authorities the right to specify bus services. It is
:11:44. > :11:45.certainly true that we have heard a lot about the comparison between
:11:46. > :11:50.London and the rest of England and it is true in London that bus
:11:51. > :11:54.routes, timetables and fares are specified by TFL and tended out to
:11:55. > :11:58.the private sector bus companies for delivering under contract but I
:11:59. > :12:03.think London has unique circumstances. There are a range of
:12:04. > :12:06.factors in London which contribute a comparatively high levels bus usage
:12:07. > :12:11.which is simply not present in most of the rest of the country. It is
:12:12. > :12:18.the scale and density of the population, relatively low ownership
:12:19. > :12:21.compared to other areas, millions of visitors, very high costs for
:12:22. > :12:25.parking in central London, a pretty aggressive approach by successive
:12:26. > :12:28.mayors to bus priority measures and a congestion charge which generates
:12:29. > :12:34.very significant sums to support the bus network. I am just going to make
:12:35. > :12:38.some progress and I will give way in a moment. Whilst I don't see any
:12:39. > :12:41.need to change the regulatory system that operates in London I don't
:12:42. > :12:46.accept that expanding that system to other parts of England will deliver
:12:47. > :12:53.the same high levels of ridership in places where these circumstances are
:12:54. > :12:59.simply very different. Indeed the regulated bus network in England
:13:00. > :13:02.before privatisation in 1986 would simply not deliver great services
:13:03. > :13:05.for the customer or a thriving bus industry and it would be a mistake
:13:06. > :13:12.to look back on it with too much nostalgia. I the Honourable Lady for
:13:13. > :13:16.giving way and I wonder if she is aware of the experience in Jersey
:13:17. > :13:21.where it franchise to bus services to a social enterprise just two
:13:22. > :13:25.years ago and has achieved savings of ?800,000 a year, introduced new
:13:26. > :13:29.routes and increase passenger numbers by one third. What does she
:13:30. > :13:35.think that shows for the opportunity for franchising to perhaps work in
:13:36. > :13:40.other places? I have not looked at the Jersey example but my sanity is
:13:41. > :13:42.that essentially rolling back the clock and renationalise the
:13:43. > :13:47.re-regulating the bus network could ultimately mean that we lose the
:13:48. > :13:50.investment we have received from the private sector into bus services
:13:51. > :13:57.over the last decade and Mikey worry here is the effect of the provisions
:13:58. > :14:01.introduced by clause four would be to enable local authorities who 30
:14:02. > :14:06.years ago sold their bus operations at a commercial place -- commercial
:14:07. > :14:10.price, now effectively to confiscate those same services. The inevitable
:14:11. > :14:13.impact of this clauses that companies large and small who might
:14:14. > :14:17.have spent many years of a great deal of money and energy and effort
:14:18. > :14:20.and innovation building up their business could find themselves
:14:21. > :14:25.barred from operating in the event they lose the franchise contest.
:14:26. > :14:29.They could see their operations in the particular town or city
:14:30. > :14:34.disappear overnight, leaving them with buses, staff, depots and
:14:35. > :14:38.equipment they cannot use. I am particular it about the impact on
:14:39. > :14:43.smaller bus operators who provide important services in many parts of
:14:44. > :14:47.the country. Those with a successful business serving a relatively small
:14:48. > :14:50.area and a range of routes might find it very difficult to tender for
:14:51. > :14:56.a big local authority contract and they might also find a tender
:14:57. > :14:58.process for running services to be complex and expensive and require
:14:59. > :15:02.costly and professional advice. If the process is anything like rail
:15:03. > :15:10.franchising complexity can be truly daunting. I give way. I think people
:15:11. > :15:14.would struggle to believe -- agree with the London centric point, that
:15:15. > :15:18.it is completely different to the rest of the country. Nor will they
:15:19. > :15:21.accept about the poor companies that she seems to be talking about. She
:15:22. > :15:25.is making an argument for them rather than the travelling public,
:15:26. > :15:29.wouldn't she accept that the bus companies in the last 30 years have
:15:30. > :15:34.made considerable and in some cases excessive profits at the same time
:15:35. > :15:48.as receiving a public subsidy? My goal here is to improve services for
:15:49. > :15:50.passengers and I believe that private sector investment in our bus
:15:51. > :15:53.networks has had a positive impact on the passengers and I don't
:15:54. > :15:57.believe that reversing that is going to produce better outcomes for
:15:58. > :16:00.passengers. One only has to look back on the pre-1986 system and how
:16:01. > :16:05.ridership plummeted and it is not ridership plummeted and it is not
:16:06. > :16:12.the case that there was a golden era before 1986 for bus services. I
:16:13. > :16:15.think the trouble is that if we create a system where we'd
:16:16. > :16:20.discourage private sector investment in the bus network can we create
:16:21. > :16:25.uncertainty in the bus industry, we will discourage investment and that
:16:26. > :16:29.will mean that we'll have a negative impact on passengers, which is what
:16:30. > :16:37.I am worried about. I think we need to bear in mind... I have given
:16:38. > :16:41.way... In competing with local authorities -- local operators for
:16:42. > :16:45.contracts, they may be up against large transport groups owned by our
:16:46. > :16:48.overseas governments with deep projects -- pockets and I am
:16:49. > :16:52.concerned that the amendment from the other place could mean that bus
:16:53. > :16:55.operators could find themselves having to contest with contracts
:16:56. > :16:59.alongside a company owned by the franchising authority that is making
:17:00. > :17:03.the decision to award the contract, giving rise to an obvious and I
:17:04. > :17:07.think unacceptable conflict of interest. I fear that clause four
:17:08. > :17:11.would inevitably mean that a number of bus companies go out of business
:17:12. > :17:15.and I think that would be bad for passengers and I am concerned that
:17:16. > :17:20.local authorities keen to take over provision of bus services will find
:17:21. > :17:27.that taking on revenue risk could be a very costly exercise. That would
:17:28. > :17:30.deplete the funding available to support those crucial non-commercial
:17:31. > :17:36.routes that don't generate enough passengers to cover their costs. It
:17:37. > :17:41.is the case that no local authority has introduced a quality contract to
:17:42. > :17:47.re-regulate bus services, despite their having been on the statute box
:17:48. > :17:50.-- books since the early years of this century. I acknowledge there
:17:51. > :17:55.are different reasons for that but one of them is that taking over bus
:17:56. > :18:00.operations is inevitably a very expensive project for local
:18:01. > :18:02.authorities. To those who think that passing greater financial authority
:18:03. > :18:07.for investing in the bus network from the private sector to local
:18:08. > :18:12.councils is a great idea I would point out that this means that
:18:13. > :18:15.investment in buses and bus services will have to compete with pressing
:18:16. > :18:19.priorities like social care, libraries, waste collection and all
:18:20. > :18:24.of the rest and it is likely to suffer as a result and passengers
:18:25. > :18:29.are likely to suffer as a result. We all know there has been a vigorous
:18:30. > :18:32.and lively debate ever since 1986 on the effect of deregulating bus
:18:33. > :18:33.services