01/03/2017 House of Commons

authority and the Government does not intend every area be covered by

one but this does not mean the Government should prevent those

non-combine authorities from improving bus services solely on the

basis they are not combine authorities.

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. The point he is making

is particularly appreciated in Newcastle where we do not have yet a

combined authority and do not seek to have a mayor but have long sought

better control of our bus services which are critically important in

Newcastle and I have received so many complaints and concerns about

the bus services provided. Will he urged the Secretary of State to

ensure Newcastle and Tyne Wear can finally control its own bus

services? No hesitation whatsoever in urging him to do exactly that.

Newcastle has a proud history and focusing on delivering the best

services for its people and to be excluded because it does not fit the

devolution model currently on offer is to deny localism to shoot parts

of our country, which cannot be the intention of any sensible Government

-- to shoot parts of our country. Has he made an assessment of what

authorities would want to take up these opportunities? The Labour

Government in 2000 brought in a contract scheme it described as

similar to franchising is not a similar authority has used it since

2000. Where is the evidence authorities want these powers? He is

referring to the contract services and quality partnership services

labour brought in but he is highlighting in interesting points,

because it is up to local authorities to make that decision

for themselves and that is how it should be. It is not the question of

people here telling local authorities what to do, they should

have options made available and the way this bill will be amended it

sounds like that will be denied to them.

I fight my honourable friend. Have you agreed to insert free bus passes

for 16 and 17-year-olds in our next manifesto, well my honourable friend

also agree to insert into the manifesto we will allow local

authorities to set up their own municipal bus companies? It is a

matter of ideology which is why we had deregulation in the first place

and that is why the Government is refusing to allow those local

authorities that wish to establish the order bus companies, why should

they not be allowed to do so -- establish their own bus companies.

It is right local authorities should have that freedom and a restrictive

in this way as the Government propose to do is to basically say

you can have devolution in England but you will have it only on our

terms, as long as we agree with what you are doing.

I am grateful to him and is one of the few MPs who made a living as a

bus driver I welcome this bill but my honourable friend is extolling

the virtues of localism, can I caution Hemel localism is all well

and good as long as there is money to go with it -- can I caution him.

There is a huge imbalance between the money spent on public transport

in London and elsewhere. Part of the decent public transport works better

in London is because of non-deregulation but it is also

because of much better funding so well the Labour Party commit itself

to adequate funding for this localism of bus services? I think I

am being invited to write our manifesto at the dispatch box. She

is absolutely right to highlight the gross imbalance in spending in this

country were in my own area it is about ?220 per head compared to

1900. The imbalance is there and that has to be corrected if we will

ever rebalance our economy so I wholeheartedly agree. Of course, it

is interesting this denial of the opportunities to embrace or start up

a municipal company flies in the face of some of the most successful

ones in the country and so why on earth would people do not want to

consider that as an option? There is no suggestion there will be a mad

rush of every authority in the country wanting to do this, they

will want to do what is best for their locality and why on earth the

Government want to deprive them of making that choice is beyond me, or

perhaps it isn't. Can't I warmly welcome the announcement he has just

made that he supports the view of many rural MPs on the site -- can I

warmly. Transport spending should be redistributed to the regions. Bus

the mayor of London I agree with him? I am sure the mayor of London

acknowledges other parts of the country outside London need to have

the benefit of investment but it does not have to be either or. It is

a question of regulating your priorities and making sure you do

not ignore large parts of the country. We won an amendment to

extending powers to re-regulate bus services to all areas in the report

stage in the other place and I hope the Government and its stated

commitment to devolution is not restricted to those areas who have

struck deals for combine authorities was elected mayors. We were

successful in removing clause 21 was banned local authorities from

forming their own bus companies and replicating the success of existing

municipal companies and as the minister is aware municipal bus

companies often outperform their rivals. Nottingham city transport,

for example, achieved 97% overall satisfaction score in the most

recent transport focus survey when none of the big five operators broke

90%. Removing the incentive to profit from operations can allow a

greater focus on the social and economic purposes of bus services,

meaning bosses can better cater for the social and business needs of a

particular geography. Labour did not introduce a clause mandating

municipal operators but simply removed a clause prohibiting them.

We believe there is not a one size fits all model for running bus

services and indeed there are a number of solutions for different

areas and it follows given the success of existing municipal bus

companies, localities may judge municipal model is best suited for

their area and may wish to attempt to replicate that success. If the

secretary of state is committed to devolution and believes devolved

authorities should be allowed to choose the best model to meet their

needs, I do hope the Government will accept the option of municipal

operations should be preserved and clause 21 should not be

reintroduced. We have an opportunity with this

bill to make significant improvements to bus services and as

a consequence the social and economic life of much of our country

but Labour wishes for these opportunities to be available across

England, not just some areas, and to be available to the fullest extent

possible. We are happy to support this bill but ask the secretary of

state that he listens to the forthcoming arguments on both sides

of the house, no doubt, and turns -- commits to transforming bus services

in England for the better. I warmly welcome this opportunity to debate

bus services in the chamber. We too seldom have the opportunity to

reflect on the importance of the bus network for millions of people and I

think this gives us an important opportunity to acknowledge the

crucial role that bus services play in our public transport system. As

has been acknowledged already by both frontbenchers, buses provide a

crucially important lifeline for many -- millions of people, not just

people who choose not to drive a car but those who cannot afford to drive

a car and I think it is particularly important to recognise the

importance of buses for the elderly, many of whom feel that they no

longer want to deal with the risk of driving a car or can no longer

afford it so for all sorts of reasons we, in this house, need to

do all we can to support our bus networks around the country. I would

like to pay tribute to all of the people involved in delivering bus

services and helping us get to where we need to be. I am enthusiastic

about much of this Bill but I do have worries about clause four and

also the changes made to the bill in the other place. I can warmly

support the provisions in clauses seven and eight to facilitate the

delivery of smart ticketing technologies which, as has already

been acknowledged, can do so much to make bus travel easier and more

convenient and attractive as an option. I also welcome clauses one

to three and nine and 15 on partnerships. Partnerships between

local authorities and private sector bus operators can be a highly

effective way of improving bus services for passengers. There are a

long list of successful examples from around the country, including

places such as Sheffield and Bristol. The extension of the

statutory partnership structure beyond the provision of

infrastructure to include general bus improvement measures makes sense

as an important part of the bill. It is also, I think, a welcome step

forward to enable statutory partnerships more easily to cover

large areas and have a more joined up approach between different

operators and I think also it is helpful to make the Competition and

Markets Authority statutory consultees. Its current status of

the powerful but unpredictable status outside the partnership

process can be a barrier to ambitious measures which perhaps

both the operator and the local authority may sincerely believe are

the right way forward, giving it a more formal role internal to the

process can help to generate the certainty needed to support

investment in measures to improve bus services for passengers. I am

worried about the effect of Klaus four and the proposals to grant

local authorities the right to specify bus services. It is

certainly true that we have heard a lot about the comparison between

London and the rest of England and it is true in London that bus

routes, timetables and fares are specified by TFL and tended out to

the private sector bus companies for delivering under contract but I

think London has unique circumstances. There are a range of

factors in London which contribute a comparatively high levels bus usage

which is simply not present in most of the rest of the country. It is

the scale and density of the population, relatively low ownership

compared to other areas, millions of visitors, very high costs for

parking in central London, a pretty aggressive approach by successive

mayors to bus priority measures and a congestion charge which generates

very significant sums to support the bus network. I am just going to make

some progress and I will give way in a moment. Whilst I don't see any

need to change the regulatory system that operates in London I don't

accept that expanding that system to other parts of England will deliver

the same high levels of ridership in places where these circumstances are

simply very different. Indeed the regulated bus network in England

before privatisation in 1986 would simply not deliver great services

for the customer or a thriving bus industry and it would be a mistake

to look back on it with too much nostalgia. I the Honourable Lady for

giving way and I wonder if she is aware of the experience in Jersey

where it franchise to bus services to a social enterprise just two

years ago and has achieved savings of ?800,000 a year, introduced new

routes and increase passenger numbers by one third. What does she

think that shows for the opportunity for franchising to perhaps work in

other places? I have not looked at the Jersey example but my sanity is

that essentially rolling back the clock and renationalise the

re-regulating the bus network could ultimately mean that we lose the

investment we have received from the private sector into bus services

over the last decade and Mikey worry here is the effect of the provisions

introduced by clause four would be to enable local authorities who 30

years ago sold their bus operations at a commercial place -- commercial

price, now effectively to confiscate those same services. The inevitable

impact of this clauses that companies large and small who might

have spent many years of a great deal of money and energy and effort

and innovation building up their business could find themselves

barred from operating in the event they lose the franchise contest.

They could see their operations in the particular town or city

disappear overnight, leaving them with buses, staff, depots and

equipment they cannot use. I am particular it about the impact on

smaller bus operators who provide important services in many parts of

the country. Those with a successful business serving a relatively small

area and a range of routes might find it very difficult to tender for

a big local authority contract and they might also find a tender

process for running services to be complex and expensive and require

costly and professional advice. If the process is anything like rail

franchising complexity can be truly daunting. I give way. I think people

would struggle to believe -- agree with the London centric point, that

it is completely different to the rest of the country. Nor will they

accept about the poor companies that she seems to be talking about. She

is making an argument for them rather than the travelling public,

wouldn't she accept that the bus companies in the last 30 years have

made considerable and in some cases excessive profits at the same time

as receiving a public subsidy? My goal here is to improve services for

passengers and I believe that private sector investment in our bus

networks has had a positive impact on the passengers and I don't

believe that reversing that is going to produce better outcomes for

passengers. One only has to look back on the pre-1986 system and how

ridership plummeted and it is not ridership plummeted and it is not

the case that there was a golden era before 1986 for bus services. I

think the trouble is that if we create a system where we'd

discourage private sector investment in the bus network can we create

uncertainty in the bus industry, we will discourage investment and that

will mean that we'll have a negative impact on passengers, which is what

I am worried about. I think we need to bear in mind... I have given

way... In competing with local authorities -- local operators for

contracts, they may be up against large transport groups owned by our

overseas governments with deep projects -- pockets and I am

concerned that the amendment from the other place could mean that bus

operators could find themselves having to contest with contracts

alongside a company owned by the franchising authority that is making

the decision to award the contract, giving rise to an obvious and I

think unacceptable conflict of interest. I fear that clause four

would inevitably mean that a number of bus companies go out of business

and I think that would be bad for passengers and I am concerned that

local authorities keen to take over provision of bus services will find

that taking on revenue risk could be a very costly exercise. That would

deplete the funding available to support those crucial non-commercial

routes that don't generate enough passengers to cover their costs. It

is the case that no local authority has introduced a quality contract to

re-regulate bus services, despite their having been on the statute box

-- books since the early years of this century. I acknowledge there

are different reasons for that but one of them is that taking over bus

operations is inevitably a very expensive project for local

authorities. To those who think that passing greater financial authority

for investing in the bus network from the private sector to local

councils is a great idea I would point out that this means that

investment in buses and bus services will have to compete with pressing

priorities like social care, libraries, waste collection and all

of the rest and it is likely to suffer as a result and passengers

are likely to suffer as a result. We all know there has been a vigorous

and lively debate ever since 1986 on the effect of deregulating bus

services