27/03/2017

:00:00. > :00:00.people of working age. I will have to look at the details of this case

:00:00. > :00:09.if she will be in contact with me. Urgent question, Rebecca Long

:00:10. > :00:13.Bailey. Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to ask the Secretary of State for

:00:14. > :00:16.business, energy and industrial strategy if he will make a statement

:00:17. > :00:29.on the nuclear decommissioning authority's early contract

:00:30. > :00:31.terminations on one estate. The Secretary of State for business

:00:32. > :00:39.energy and industrial strategy, Secretary Doctor Greg Clark. This

:00:40. > :00:49.morning I informed the House that the nuclear decommissioning

:00:50. > :00:53.authority had terminated its contracts, a tender process resulted

:00:54. > :01:05.in 40 new contract being awarded in September 2014. A joint-venture

:01:06. > :01:08.between one British firm. Work began on September one, 2014 and then they

:01:09. > :01:15.started the consolidation process to show that the scope of the tender

:01:16. > :01:19.match the decommission. It became clear that there is a significant

:01:20. > :01:26.mismatch between the work is intended and the work carried out.

:01:27. > :01:30.It concluded that the conduct should be terminated on two years notice.

:01:31. > :01:36.The contract is no reflection whatsoever on their performance.

:01:37. > :01:38.Dealing safely, the UK nuclear legacy is fundamentally

:01:39. > :01:43.non-negotiable. Decommissioning work will continue for a further two and

:01:44. > :01:47.a half years. Arrangements will be made for a replacement structure to

:01:48. > :01:52.be put in place for when the current contract ends. The NDA has also

:01:53. > :02:00.settled outstanding claims against it by energy solutions in relation

:02:01. > :02:04.to the 2014 Magnox contract. The NDA was found by the High Court to have

:02:05. > :02:08.wrongly decided the outcome of the procurement process. It was clear

:02:09. > :02:13.that the 2012 tender process was deeply flawed. The NDA has agreed

:02:14. > :02:20.settlement claims with energy solutions, totalling ?76.5 million

:02:21. > :02:25.plus ?8.5 million costs and Whitbeck tell a $14.8 million plus costs of

:02:26. > :02:30.around ?462,000, approximately ?12.5 million in total. Very substantial

:02:31. > :02:36.costs which could have risen further if the case had proceeded. Taxpayers

:02:37. > :02:40.must be able to feel confident that public bodies operating effectively

:02:41. > :02:44.and securing value for money. Where this has not been achieved, such

:02:45. > :02:49.bodies should be subject to rigorous scrutiny. I have therefore

:02:50. > :02:53.established an independent inquiry into the original procurement

:02:54. > :02:56.process and why 2014 contract proved unsustainable. These are separate

:02:57. > :03:01.issues that need to be examined thoroughly. I've asked Mr Steve

:03:02. > :03:07.Holliday, former chief executive of National Grid, to lead this inquiry.

:03:08. > :03:10.It will take a cradle to grave approach, beginning with the NDA's

:03:11. > :03:14.procurement and ending with the contract termination. The inquiry

:03:15. > :03:20.will set out the lessons learned and recommend any further actions it

:03:21. > :03:24.sees fit including any disciplinary proceedings that may be appropriate.

:03:25. > :03:29.The inquiry will report jointly to me and to the Cabinet Secretary and

:03:30. > :03:34.his report will be available to this house and the select committee. Mr

:03:35. > :03:36.Speaker, this was a defective procurement with significant

:03:37. > :03:41.financial consequences and I am determined that the lessons to be

:03:42. > :03:44.learnt should be exposed and understood, that those responsible

:03:45. > :03:50.should be properly held to account and it should never happen again.

:03:51. > :03:53.Rebecca Long Bailey. Thank you. The NDA has withdrawn its appeal against

:03:54. > :03:57.the judgment handed down in late July last year. Commerce Secretary

:03:58. > :04:03.therefore confirm why this decision has been taken now, while -- can the

:04:04. > :04:07.secretary confirm why the matter was brought to appeal and whether the

:04:08. > :04:11.actions of the former sanctioned by the secretary or his predecessor.

:04:12. > :04:16.The judgment confirmed that the NDA hadn't acted properly in the tender

:04:17. > :04:19.process and that the NDA was acutely aware that an unsuccessful bidder

:04:20. > :04:25.might challenge the outcome of the competition. The court also stated

:04:26. > :04:29.that the NDA had fudged the evaluation to achieve a particular

:04:30. > :04:33.outcome. What's more worrying, the judge also confirmed that the NDA

:04:34. > :04:37.attempted to get rid of information that might have been detrimental to

:04:38. > :04:41.it. That included reference to shredding notes.

:04:42. > :04:46.Will the Secretary of State ensure the House there'll be full public

:04:47. > :04:52.disclosure of investigations and a public hearing? Does the secretary

:04:53. > :04:55.also agree that the future operation of the NDA has been called into

:04:56. > :04:59.question as a result of this case and will he confirm what structural

:05:00. > :05:06.changes are necessary and when? Can he offer any assurances to workers

:05:07. > :05:10.going forward and finally, the secretary's written statement

:05:11. > :05:14.confirms that it's become clear to the NDA that there's significantly a

:05:15. > :05:19.mismatch between the work specified in the contract as tended in 2012.

:05:20. > :05:23.Can the secretary therefore confirm when he or his predecessor was first

:05:24. > :05:27.aware of this mismatch and whether this would have been apparent from

:05:28. > :05:32.the work that was already being carried out by previous contractors?

:05:33. > :05:36.Thank you Mr Speaker. The honourable lady is quite right to ask the

:05:37. > :05:39.question and I hope she will agree that the written ministerial

:05:40. > :05:43.statement I've made today is thorough and comprehensive and I'm

:05:44. > :05:48.very happy to have conversations with her and the Select Committee

:05:49. > :05:53.over the weeks and months ahead. She asked some specific questions about

:05:54. > :06:00.the term nation of the contract and the litigation. In terms of the

:06:01. > :06:05.litigation, there was indeed a judgment hering of the court in July

:06:06. > :06:10.last year and another in December that the NDA has reflected on. On

:06:11. > :06:15.1st March of this year, a Fu weeks ago, a new Chief Executive and chair

:06:16. > :06:21.of the NDA took office and it seemed to me appropriate that a new set of

:06:22. > :06:26.eyes should consider these matters and a course of action rather than

:06:27. > :06:28.those people who were responsible and involved in the procurement

:06:29. > :06:36.exercise. In answer to her question, it was a

:06:37. > :06:40.decision for the NDA board, that is how it's constitutionally

:06:41. > :06:44.established but its decision required ratification by me, the

:06:45. > :06:49.Chief Secretary to the Treasury and by the accounting officer in my

:06:50. > :06:53.department. She raises some very important questions about the

:06:54. > :06:58.conduct of the original procurement and its management. This is exactly

:06:59. > :07:02.why, it seems to me, we need to have an independent figure, independent

:07:03. > :07:06.of Government, independent of the NDA, to report to this House, make

:07:07. > :07:11.the report available to this House, to me, but also to the Cabinet

:07:12. > :07:17.Secretary. Not only to learn the lessons to make sure things cannot

:07:18. > :07:21.happen again, but if there is fault and an error has been made, then the

:07:22. > :07:28.recommendation of disciplinary action can follow from that. She

:07:29. > :07:35.quite rightly raises the question of the workforce for whom this will be

:07:36. > :07:39.a difficult day. I'm happy to confirm to the House there is no

:07:40. > :07:43.question of the good performance operationally of the contract. It

:07:44. > :07:48.was a question of the terms of letting the contract. Good progress

:07:49. > :07:53.has been made. The workforce that has employed -- is employed in the

:07:54. > :07:57.decommissioning contract will continue as planned and when the

:07:58. > :08:02.report is made available, lessons will be learnt about the structure

:08:03. > :08:08.of the NDA as well as any particular procedural aspects.

:08:09. > :08:13.Will my right honourable friend join me in paying tribute to the

:08:14. > :08:16.workforce at Brattedwell who're doing a brilliant job in

:08:17. > :08:21.decommissioning that power station and will he confirm that nothing in

:08:22. > :08:25.that statement will prevent the work going forward -- Bradwell. Will he

:08:26. > :08:29.listen to the concerns about the pensions entitlements and the cap on

:08:30. > :08:33.exit payments? I say to my right honourable friend

:08:34. > :08:37.that I certainly join him in paying tribe yew to the workforce there. --

:08:38. > :08:42.tribute. Good progress has been made in Bradwell in terms of

:08:43. > :08:46.decommissioning the site there, as he knows, with if underground waste

:08:47. > :08:50.vaults containing intermedial level waste having been cleared and decome

:08:51. > :08:54.Tam negotiated, that is a reflection of the hard work there --

:08:55. > :08:59.decontaminated. In terms of pensions, there is a sbrat set of

:09:00. > :09:05.discusses and consultation that is going on surrounding that, that is

:09:06. > :09:10.not related to today's announcement. Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for

:09:11. > :09:14.His response and the Shadow secretary for securing this urgent

:09:15. > :09:17.question. This debacle shows the UK Government cannot even manage its

:09:18. > :09:23.current nuclear project which comes at great cost to the taxpayer,

:09:24. > :09:28.leaving its case for a nuclear energy future more thread-bare than

:09:29. > :09:35.ever. We we take into account the bare and ill logical system to

:09:36. > :09:38.leave, there is rights to be concerned, we are right to seek

:09:39. > :09:42.assurances that decommissioning will not lead to standards deteriorating.

:09:43. > :09:50.What assurance can the secretary give today? This should be a wake-up

:09:51. > :09:56.call. The UK's deterrent... This will only burden the next generation

:09:57. > :09:58.with unprecedented, economic, environmental and security

:09:59. > :10:03.instability and risk. The Tories should do the responsible thing and

:10:04. > :10:07.scrap the nuclear obsession in favour of investment in renewable

:10:08. > :10:11.energy and carbon capture technology. Scottish Renewables

:10:12. > :10:16.recently reported one in six renewable energy jobs in Scotland is

:10:17. > :10:19.under threat in the next year. Will the Government acknowledge that its

:10:20. > :10:23.energy policies need to be reviewed to allow the Scottish Government to

:10:24. > :10:28.continue with its competent and ambitious vision of a prosperous

:10:29. > :10:33.green future and finally, when can we expect full details of the

:10:34. > :10:38.timetable of this investigation into this matter?

:10:39. > :10:41.I would say to the honourable lady that a little humility might be

:10:42. > :10:46.appropriate here because the Scottish Government's provided

:10:47. > :10:49.oversights of this procurement as part of the NDA competition

:10:50. > :10:56.programme board and I'm sure that the lessons to be learnt will apply

:10:57. > :11:00.to the Government in Scotland as well between 2012 and 2014. I'm sure

:11:01. > :11:05.the people of Scotland, as well as those of the whole of the United

:11:06. > :11:10.Kingdom, whatever their view on future new nuclear power, would want

:11:11. > :11:13.the existing nuclear power stations to be decommissioned safely and to

:11:14. > :11:20.have arrangements in place that that can be done reliably. In terms of

:11:21. > :11:29.the independent review which I hope she welcomes, I have asked Mr

:11:30. > :11:36.Holliday to give interim findings by October of this year. Thank you, Mr

:11:37. > :11:43.Speaker. I'm sure my right honourable friend paid no attention

:11:44. > :11:47.whatsoever to the bizarre considerations of the SNP spokesman

:11:48. > :11:51.but I hope that in asking Steve Holliday, a person in whom we have

:11:52. > :11:54.considerable confidence to do this review, he will seek to bring the

:11:55. > :11:58.review himself to a reasonable conclusion very soon after the

:11:59. > :12:02.report in October so we can get to the bottom of this and make sure, as

:12:03. > :12:05.he rightly says, that it will not repeat itself in future years.

:12:06. > :12:10.I agree with my right honourable friend. It's important quickly to

:12:11. > :12:15.learn the lessons and to apply them. This is very important work. The

:12:16. > :12:22.work has been and is being carried out to a high standard, but lessons

:12:23. > :12:26.need to be learnt and applied. May I thank the Secretary of State

:12:27. > :12:31.for His courtesy call to me on this matter this morning. The Select

:12:32. > :12:35.Committee will challenge hard but work constructively with him and

:12:36. > :12:39.Steve Holliday on this important issue. Will he clarify whether the

:12:40. > :12:43.inquiry will be confined to the procurement process which led to

:12:44. > :12:51.this specific contract. Will it consider other contracts such as

:12:52. > :12:55.that to decommission to the same consortium that won the other

:12:56. > :13:01.contract. Will he confirm the inquiry will be broad enough to

:13:02. > :13:04.consider whether the governance and management arrangements have always

:13:05. > :13:10.been and will continue to be fit for purpose. I'm grateful to the

:13:11. > :13:15.honourable gentleman. I can confirm what he said which is that the

:13:16. > :13:19.governance and management arrangements of the NDA are very

:13:20. > :13:24.much in scope. I put the terms of reference into the library of both

:13:25. > :13:33.Houses of Parliament. It's open to Mr Holliday to go to where the

:13:34. > :13:39.evidence is. The particular concern is about this contract but if he

:13:40. > :13:47.feels he needs to look at other aspects of the NDA's management,

:13:48. > :13:50.he's absolutely free to do so. I welcome the characteristic candour

:13:51. > :13:55.and openness with which the Secretary of State has approached

:13:56. > :13:58.this issue. Can he reassure me and the house that in the context of the

:13:59. > :14:03.scope of this inquiry not only will it look at the NDA but will be able

:14:04. > :14:06.to, as I think he just alluded to, to look at the role, if any, of UK

:14:07. > :14:09.Government departments and the Scottish daft in this process as

:14:10. > :14:16.well? I will indeed. The terms of

:14:17. > :14:22.reference with my written statement make it clear that it applies to the

:14:23. > :14:26.NDA and to Government departments as well, that is absolutely right and

:14:27. > :14:31.proper and from the beginning of the procurement in 2012 to the

:14:32. > :14:37.conclusion of the litigation and the termination of the contract.

:14:38. > :14:41.Under current plans, the power station will lose most of its jobs

:14:42. > :14:47.in under ten years. The Government is in a position to commit to

:14:48. > :14:51.decommissioning as recommended dithe Welsh Affairs Select Committee. When

:14:52. > :14:55.will he publish plans and will he agree with me to discuss the future

:14:56. > :14:58.of the site? I will certainly meet with the honourable lady and I'm

:14:59. > :15:11.grad she's given me the opportunity to do so. Work is ahead of schedule

:15:12. > :15:15.in the plant that she mentions. I will, in the light of that, will

:15:16. > :15:22.meet with her to update her on the latest timings.

:15:23. > :15:27.Thank you, Mr Speaker. This was clearly a defective procurement with

:15:28. > :15:31.quite serious financial consequences and I welcome the Secretary of

:15:32. > :15:36.State's determination that the reasons for it will be exposed. But

:15:37. > :15:42.will he assure this House that where people are found to be responsible

:15:43. > :15:46.are at fault, they will be bought to account.

:15:47. > :15:49.Mr Speaker, I can confirm to my right honourable friend that the

:15:50. > :15:54.terms of reference makes it very clear that the inquiry can make any

:15:55. > :15:57.recommendations it sees fit, including as to any disciplinary

:15:58. > :15:59.investigations or proceedings that may in its view be appropriate as a

:16:00. > :16:08.result of its findings. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could the

:16:09. > :16:12.Secretary of State please confirm that the thousands of people waiting

:16:13. > :16:19.for an outcome on their pensions will not be ripped off? Yes, Mr

:16:20. > :16:23.Speaker, there have been constructive discussions with the

:16:24. > :16:26.representatives of the workforce. They're continuing the consultation

:16:27. > :16:32.and it continues. Of course we want to bring them to a satisfactory

:16:33. > :16:36.conclusion. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The NDA

:16:37. > :16:41.settlement payments are substantial. Can my right honourable friend

:16:42. > :16:45.confirm that whilst the payments were made without accepting

:16:46. > :16:47.liability, that the cost has potential to rise much further had

:16:48. > :16:53.they gone to court. My right honourable friend is

:16:54. > :16:58.absolutely right and we have a duty to consider the further risks to

:16:59. > :17:04.public money which is why my accounting officer and the Chief

:17:05. > :17:08.Secretary to the Treasury and I on advice accepted that however painful

:17:09. > :17:12.it is and these are very significant sums of money, as my right

:17:13. > :17:19.honourable friend said, that we should be preventing those sums of

:17:20. > :17:24.money being even greater. Given the cost problems with this

:17:25. > :17:29.NDA decommissioning contract, how can the Secretary of State have any

:17:30. > :17:32.confidence whatsoever in the cost figures for Hinkley point C which

:17:33. > :17:35.will itself need decommissioning, especially given the farce of the

:17:36. > :17:43.massive cost overruns and huge time delays in building the EDF Sister

:17:44. > :17:48.reactors in Finland and Normandy, neither of which has opened years

:17:49. > :17:55.later at a massive cost overrun. This is about a procurement process

:17:56. > :18:01.that was misspecified around decommissioning, not against the

:18:02. > :18:05.bill cost of a future reactor. When we have the report off Steve

:18:06. > :18:10.Holliday, if there are wider lessons for the industry, we'll be sure to

:18:11. > :18:15.take them. Thank you, Mr Speaker. There's much

:18:16. > :18:20.that all public sector organisations can learn from procurement process

:18:21. > :18:25.and public private initiatives as the 3,700 per minute spent by the

:18:26. > :18:30.NHS on PFI would attest. Would the Secretary of State assure me that

:18:31. > :18:35.all public sector organisations will be given the opportunity to benefit

:18:36. > :18:40.from the review? It's important when there is such a serious set of

:18:41. > :18:43.consequences for public money that the conclusion should be publicly

:18:44. > :18:46.available, available to this House and including for other Government

:18:47. > :18:55.departments that may want to reflect on that.

:18:56. > :19:02.Can the Secretary of State confirm the holiday enquiry will have

:19:03. > :19:07.reached its final conclusions and issued its final report in time for

:19:08. > :19:16.any lessons to be learned, to be taken into account before the new

:19:17. > :19:22.contract process begins? I've asked Mr Holliday to make a report by

:19:23. > :19:26.October and so that I can happen. I will meet with him in the coming

:19:27. > :19:32.days as he sets out the scope. But that is one key reason for the

:19:33. > :19:35.report and I'm sure he will want to make his recommendations available

:19:36. > :19:42.for the new process. What were the terms of the payoff,

:19:43. > :19:46.he has not mentioned it? I have mentioned the settlement, it is

:19:47. > :19:55.nearly ?100 million for the settlement of the litigation. Under

:19:56. > :20:03.chief of the NDA has come to the end of his contract. -- and the chief.

:20:04. > :20:10.Order. I will come to other honourable members in a moment. On a

:20:11. > :20:15.point of ratification, Mr Andrew Bridge. Following a report made on

:20:16. > :20:18.the 14th February by the commission of standard I would like to

:20:19. > :20:24.apologise to house the failure to disclose a financial interest in a

:20:25. > :20:29.debate on HS2 on the 25th of March 2000 15. I should have declared that

:20:30. > :20:33.due to a court order caused by my divorce I was in the final act of

:20:34. > :20:38.selling my house to a shift to under the extreme hardship scheme. I would

:20:39. > :20:44.point out to the House that I did declare an interest in the previous

:20:45. > :20:50.HS2 debate on the 20th of January 2013, 20 6th of June 2013 and a pull

:20:51. > :20:54.the 28th 2014. On reflection I should have declared an interest

:20:55. > :21:00.when I submitted a written question to the Transport Secretary Mo 9th of

:21:01. > :21:05.October 2030 and when I spoke in the preparations debate on the 31st of

:21:06. > :21:10.October 2000 13. I also attended meetings with HS2 and responded the

:21:11. > :21:16.consultation were in hindsight for purposes of clarity I should have

:21:17. > :21:18.declared an interest. Mr Speaker sought to cooperate with the

:21:19. > :21:21.Commissioner for standards throughout this enquiry and have

:21:22. > :21:25.never made any secret of how close HS2 was running to my then property

:21:26. > :21:32.in North West Leicestershire. This in no way clouded my view of the HS2

:21:33. > :21:37.Project, a project I opposed before road was announced. I thank you for

:21:38. > :21:40.the opportunity to put this on my record and apologise to the House

:21:41. > :21:47.profusely for any omissions I may have made. I think the honourable

:21:48. > :21:50.gentleman for what he said. Point of order, Mr Blackford. I would like to

:21:51. > :21:55.raise the issue of correspondence between myself and the Minister of

:21:56. > :22:01.State for the University of science office and the Minister for energy.

:22:02. > :22:05.I first wrote to the Minister of State for the University of science

:22:06. > :22:08.to request a meeting for a business in my constituency, the underwater

:22:09. > :22:13.Centre on the 14th of November. It took some time to get a reply from

:22:14. > :22:17.the government department. I finally received a reply on the 22nd of

:22:18. > :22:20.December with an apology for the lack of response. With an

:22:21. > :22:25.unwillingness to meet and suggested I taken up with the Minister for

:22:26. > :22:31.energy and industrial supply. That I did on the 22nd of December last

:22:32. > :22:34.year and I have chased the office on several occasions both by e-mail and

:22:35. > :22:47.telephone and we have yet to receive an e-mail indicating that I would be

:22:48. > :22:51.raising this as a point of order. I would like advice as to what a

:22:52. > :23:00.member can do when an office seeks to ignore the request for a meeting.

:23:01. > :23:04.Persist, I say to the honourable gentleman. That is the advice I

:23:05. > :23:16.give. His attempted point of order has opened an interesting window

:23:17. > :23:18.into his life. The diary commitments to which of the subject and I'm sure

:23:19. > :23:20.the House is immensely grateful to the House is immensely grateful to

:23:21. > :23:26.him. But I do not think we can take the matter any further. My advice

:23:27. > :23:32.will always be to persist. For he is nothing himself is not a dogwood

:23:33. > :23:36.terrier. Point of order, Maria Miller. In the last few days there

:23:37. > :23:41.have been almost 1000 people arrested, beaten or imprisoned in

:23:42. > :23:46.Belarus, a country still under an effective dictatorship here in

:23:47. > :23:50.Europe. How can we show our solidarity to those in Belarus who

:23:51. > :23:56.are fighting for democracy, fighting for freedom of speech, fighting for

:23:57. > :23:59.the rule of law? I struggle immediately to see how the

:24:00. > :24:05.observations of the honourable lady constitute a point of order. That

:24:06. > :24:10.said, I recognise and respect the seriousness of the consent and I

:24:11. > :24:16.acknowledge on the floor of the House her long-standing track record

:24:17. > :24:21.of support for the Belarus free theatre. My initial answer to her is

:24:22. > :24:29.that I think that by persistence and the good fortune of the ballot, she

:24:30. > :24:32.has probably secured her own salvation and possibly an

:24:33. > :24:36.opportunity to press for the salvation of those who need it more

:24:37. > :24:43.intensely and immediately because she has questioned nine if memory

:24:44. > :24:50.serves me correctly at the Foreign Office questions tomorrow. It would

:24:51. > :24:55.be very unfortunate if we did not get to number nine. And I think I

:24:56. > :24:59.can say with some confidence that we will. Right honourable lady speaking

:25:00. > :25:05.on behalf of those people who need her help and will value it, we'll

:25:06. > :25:10.have a chance. What is more if she expresses herself with her usual

:25:11. > :25:13.force and eloquence, she might motivate other honourable and right

:25:14. > :25:17.honourable members to spring to their feet in supplementary

:25:18. > :25:26.questions following her own. And if so I will be all eyes and ears.

:25:27. > :25:29.Point of order, Mr Chris Bryant. At four o'clock the deadline past in

:25:30. > :25:34.Northern Ireland and I do not want to make any accusations against the

:25:35. > :25:37.government by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is making a

:25:38. > :25:41.statement in Another Place about what he now expects to happen. I

:25:42. > :25:44.just wondered if you had any notification of a statement to the

:25:45. > :25:49.House so that the House can express a view. I'm very grateful to the

:25:50. > :25:54.right honourable gentleman. The short answer is that I have not

:25:55. > :26:00.received any indication that the Secretary of State is minded to come

:26:01. > :26:03.here. From the record, of dealing with this secular state and this

:26:04. > :26:07.particular right honourable gentleman, I can say he has always

:26:08. > :26:12.been fastidious in wanting to come to the House, often telephoning me

:26:13. > :26:17.and trying to make contact. Indeed I am advised that he has sought to

:26:18. > :26:22.make contact with me by telephone. However I have received no written

:26:23. > :26:25.communication from him at all and no indication of an early statement. I

:26:26. > :26:29.think one would have been forthcoming anyway and in light of

:26:30. > :26:34.my exchange with the right honourable gentleman I feel even

:26:35. > :26:38.more confident that it will be. Point of order, Mr Jessye Norman.

:26:39. > :26:45.Further to to the point of order raised by the SNP, I was not clear

:26:46. > :26:49.whether it was me to whom he referred but I would be delighted to

:26:50. > :26:57.meet the gentleman to discuss the issue that he raised. I'm grateful

:26:58. > :27:03.for the clarification. Just to be clear,... No additional clarity

:27:04. > :27:07.required. The honourable gentleman is a cheeky fellow, a simple nod of

:27:08. > :27:13.the head would suffice. In my experience the honourable gentleman

:27:14. > :27:16.is as courteous as members in This Place come. And I think we will

:27:17. > :27:20.leave it. That they will get together possibly over a cup of tea

:27:21. > :27:27.and discuss these important matters. We will that therefore now. If there

:27:28. > :27:32.are no further points of order, the clerk will now proceed to read the

:27:33. > :27:42.orders of the day. Bus services Bill, to be considered. We begin

:27:43. > :27:46.with new clause number one, also new courses number two and three. I call

:27:47. > :28:00.the Shadow Secretary of State for Transport. No indeed, he's being

:28:01. > :28:11.substituted by Mr Daniels. I rise to move new clause one in my name. It

:28:12. > :28:13.would require that the secular state for transport publish a national

:28:14. > :28:18.strategy for local bus services within 12 months of the day on which

:28:19. > :28:22.the act is passed setting up the objectives, targets and funding

:28:23. > :28:27.provisions for buses over the next ten years. It also require that a

:28:28. > :28:29.national funding strategy included consideration of a reduced their

:28:30. > :28:35.concessionary scheme for young people aged 16 to 19. New clause was

:28:36. > :28:40.two and three in the name of the honourable member for Southport also

:28:41. > :28:45.relate to young people's concessionary fares and bus funding.

:28:46. > :28:49.Clause number two would require a report before Parliament setting up

:28:50. > :28:54.possible steps to support local transport authorities providing

:28:55. > :28:56.concessionary bus travel to apprentices and new clause three

:28:57. > :29:03.would require that local transport authorities assess how creating an

:29:04. > :29:05.authority wide travel concessionary scheme for those in full-time

:29:06. > :29:11.education would affect how the students use the bus services. So it

:29:12. > :29:15.is clear long-term national discussion from central government

:29:16. > :29:19.on the funding of the bus industry is long overdue. Since the bus

:29:20. > :29:23.market in England outside London was disastrously deregulated in the

:29:24. > :29:28.1980s by Conservative government, the way in which public support for

:29:29. > :29:30.bus services has been provided has been far from transparent. The

:29:31. > :29:38.effects of deregulation have been stark. With my honourable friend

:29:39. > :29:44.agree with me that the drop in passenger journey numbers in

:29:45. > :29:50.Yorkshire by more than half since 1985 is no coincidence but is down

:29:51. > :29:56.to deregulation. I very much agree. And I will return to other examples

:29:57. > :29:59.of the failures of deregulation in a moment. It is not just the number of

:30:00. > :30:03.services because the Paris have also risen faster than inflation,

:30:04. > :30:07.patronage has fallen by more than a third overall and bus market

:30:08. > :30:12.monopolies have become the norm in too many places. Back in October we

:30:13. > :30:16.noted the 30th anniversary of bus deregulation but it was far from a

:30:17. > :30:21.cause for celebration. 30 years of bus users being ripped off by a

:30:22. > :30:24.handful of big bus operators who have carved up the market into

:30:25. > :30:30.chunks and they go largely unchallenged in their territories.

:30:31. > :30:35.Would he agree with me that for people on low incomes in rural areas

:30:36. > :30:40.and indeed some urban areas as well it is almost impossible to job out

:30:41. > :30:46.and seek employment without a decent bus service. Once again I agree with

:30:47. > :30:48.my honourable friend, too many parts of the country have become difficult

:30:49. > :30:53.for people to get to and from work. for people to get to and from work.

:30:54. > :30:57.Of course through those 30 years, the fares have shot up even at times

:30:58. > :31:01.when fuel prices have been falling. So we've seen 30 years of passenger

:31:02. > :31:06.decline in the rest of England while patronage in the still regulated

:31:07. > :31:10.capital have increased. This month campaign for better published its

:31:11. > :31:15.latest report and the organisation made over 100 Freedom of information

:31:16. > :31:18.requests to local councils to get a full picture of recent bus cuts.

:31:19. > :31:26.They found funding for the buses across England and Wales has been

:31:27. > :31:29.cut by 33% since 2010 and by almost ?30 million in just the last year. I

:31:30. > :31:33.was in Somerset last week were support for the county council will

:31:34. > :31:39.fall by another 19% next year. Across the country over 500 routes

:31:40. > :31:44.were reduced or completely withdrawn in 2016. But despite this seemingly

:31:45. > :31:49.endless round of bus cuts that has been going on and on the government

:31:50. > :31:55.seems reluctant to look at anything that can be done to improve the

:31:56. > :31:58.current system of bus funding. The argument is well rehearsed, the bus

:31:59. > :32:02.industry is a private industry, and has nothing to do with central

:32:03. > :32:06.government or central government money. But that is just not the

:32:07. > :32:11.case, around half the bus industry funding comes from the public press.

:32:12. > :32:16.In 2014 total public support for buses accounted for 41% of overall

:32:17. > :32:24.industry funding. In the past that figure has been higher. Over 46%. So

:32:25. > :32:27.I think asking the government to publish their strategy regarding the

:32:28. > :32:31.funding for buses in a single document is asking that much. We

:32:32. > :32:35.just want to have some clarity around a system that has become

:32:36. > :32:41.convoluted and confusing. The strategy will set out, the plan and

:32:42. > :32:44.objectives for public money going towards local authority supported

:32:45. > :32:46.bus services, the reimbursement of bus operators for trips made by

:32:47. > :32:50.concessionary pass-holders and the payment of the bus service operators

:32:51. > :32:57.grants to bus operators. Public money is being spent on buses, yet

:32:58. > :33:02.the government has no strategy and we believe that needs to change. As

:33:03. > :33:05.I've raised before, we are in a situation for operators are being

:33:06. > :33:08.reimbursed by public money for trips being made by concessionary

:33:09. > :33:12.pass-holders yet they're able to cut services and groups. The public have

:33:13. > :33:17.no say. That means in some situations we have the bizarre

:33:18. > :33:20.situation where people may have the concessionary bus pass but there's

:33:21. > :33:27.no bus on which to use it. That is not a good deal anyone. Nobody have

:33:28. > :33:30.national strategies for road and rail and were told the cycling and

:33:31. > :33:35.walking investment strategy is imminent. Buses are being singled

:33:36. > :33:39.out within the transport family. The new clause one would reduce that in

:33:40. > :33:43.the bring buses in line with other modes of transport. We also believe

:33:44. > :33:48.government needs to do more to support young people at afford the

:33:49. > :33:53.cost of bus travel. That why we're asking for the government to include

:33:54. > :33:56.as part of a national strategy consideration of a young person's

:33:57. > :34:01.concessionary fare scheme. Young people now have two stay in school

:34:02. > :34:05.or training until they're 18 and many use buses to get there. We

:34:06. > :34:07.think is quite right that the government look at how to reduce the

:34:08. > :34:11.financial burden on those young people who are only trying to get to

:34:12. > :34:15.their school, job or apprenticeship. While some local authorities still

:34:16. > :34:19.provide concessionary fares for young people, many not. Local

:34:20. > :34:25.government is already under huge financial pressure and hence the cut

:34:26. > :34:27.to supported bus woods and services that the campaign identified.

:34:28. > :34:34.Unfortunately the number of local authorities able to provide a path

:34:35. > :34:38.has dropped from 29 to just 16 since 2010. So we want the government to

:34:39. > :34:42.publish a national strategy for buses and good in that proper

:34:43. > :35:05.consideration of a concessionary scheme for young people.

:35:06. > :35:09.Can I tell my right honourable friend, young people in Greater

:35:10. > :35:13.Manchester have told me that it's cheaper for them, for four of them,

:35:14. > :35:17.to get an Uber than it is to travel on buses in Greater Manchester

:35:18. > :35:21.sometimes given the cost of travel. How on earth can that possibly make

:35:22. > :35:28.sense and how on earth can that lead to anything other than complete

:35:29. > :35:33.gridlock on our roads? My right honourable friend is right.

:35:34. > :35:38.We need a second reading. A number of cases across the country

:35:39. > :35:40.experience this, to travel locally, it's bad for congestion and

:35:41. > :35:44.employment and bad for social justice. Mr Speaker, the way buses

:35:45. > :35:49.are funded in this country is clearly not working. We need to see

:35:50. > :35:52.a proper Governmental strategy to address these funding issues and

:35:53. > :35:55.allow the country to have the national conversation about buses

:35:56. > :35:59.that is long overdue and much-needed. I therefore urge the

:36:00. > :36:03.Government to accept our new clause one and I perhaps could helpfully

:36:04. > :36:07.suggest later in the discussion we'll press that to a division.

:36:08. > :36:11.Thank you. New clause one, national strategy.

:36:12. > :36:15.THE SPEAKER: The question is that new clause one be read a second

:36:16. > :36:20.time. Maria Miller? Thank you, Mr Speaker. New clause one calls for a

:36:21. > :36:24.national strategy that sets out various targets and objectives and I

:36:25. > :36:26.feel sure that the honourable gentleman speaking for the

:36:27. > :36:33.opposition may see one of those targets as being the need for

:36:34. > :36:36.accessible for all when it comes to buses -- accessibility. I understand

:36:37. > :36:40.the Government's already considered this particular issue in committee

:36:41. > :36:43.and I feel sure they'll have very valid reasons for not going forward

:36:44. > :36:46.with a national strategy. I think the honourable gentleman does read a

:36:47. > :36:52.number of important issues by tabling this new clause which I just

:36:53. > :36:56.would like to touch on very briefly. Particularly the need for some

:36:57. > :37:00.consistency when it comes to certain issues and I do, Mr Speaker, welcome

:37:01. > :37:03.the Government's amendment to their own Bill with regards to the

:37:04. > :37:07.information for bus passengers. I think this's something that will

:37:08. > :37:11.help all of our constituents and I would particularly like to note the

:37:12. > :37:14.constituents that have contacted me on the importance of having

:37:15. > :37:18.information available for passengers when they're on buses about the

:37:19. > :37:22.routes that they're taking, something that's not only important

:37:23. > :37:30.perhaps for partially sighted or blind passengers, but also for my

:37:31. > :37:34.constituent who contacted me who has autism and special needs, that won't

:37:35. > :37:40.particularly help that individual as well as a broader group. As Baroness

:37:41. > :37:45.Campbell pointed out in the other place when this Bill was debated,

:37:46. > :37:50.there are other issues which are also nationally important to people

:37:51. > :37:52.who use buses that might I think fall under the national strategy the

:37:53. > :37:58.honourable gentleman's talking about. Perhaps around wheelchair

:37:59. > :38:03.priorities or access policies more generally. In terms of wheelchair

:38:04. > :38:07.priority, comments made by the Government when this was discussed

:38:08. > :38:14.in committee, I think a very heartening Mr Speaker, the setting

:38:15. > :38:21.up of an advisory committee following the Pooly case is very

:38:22. > :38:25.important. It's important to confirm whether he's thought about the

:38:26. > :38:27.composition of that group. Does he intend to involve the Equality and

:38:28. > :38:31.Human Rights Commission in that group? I think very important that

:38:32. > :38:36.he'd consider that carefully, Mr Speaker. Also the disabled people's

:38:37. > :38:40.transport advisory, the minister when he spoke about this in

:38:41. > :38:44.committee didn't touch upon that detail, perhaps it hadn't been all

:38:45. > :38:47.worked through at that stage. But perhaps the minister could take the

:38:48. > :38:53.opportunity about this debate today to assure us of the discussions that

:38:54. > :38:58.he's had subsequent to that committee debate. I'll give way to

:38:59. > :39:02.the honourable lady in a moment. And perhaps he can assure the House that

:39:03. > :39:07.the discussions that are had as part of that advisory group will be acted

:39:08. > :39:10.upon and acted upon quickly and that all of the relevant people will be

:39:11. > :39:13.involved. I give way to the honourable lady.

:39:14. > :39:20.I thank the honourable lady for giving way. Does she agree that the

:39:21. > :39:24.message she's now discussing is part of the national strategy would give

:39:25. > :39:29.bus services to status that they deserve and recognise the fact so

:39:30. > :39:33.many more people actually travel on buses and have bus journeys than

:39:34. > :39:36.they do on trains which are more widely recognised in national

:39:37. > :39:38.policy-making. I think the honourable lady makes an

:39:39. > :39:43.interestings point about the difference between the way trains

:39:44. > :39:47.and buses are treated and whilst I don't necessarily agree that there's

:39:48. > :39:52.a need for a national strategy to put them on in terms of parity, I do

:39:53. > :39:56.think that the point she raises is important, there shouldn't be undue

:39:57. > :40:00.differences in the way that we treat bus operators and train operators,

:40:01. > :40:04.particularly when it comes to disability issues. I'll just perhaps

:40:05. > :40:08.take that point one stage further before I finish, Mr Speaker. As my

:40:09. > :40:12.Noble Friend, the Baroness Campbell said when this Bill was also

:40:13. > :40:18.discussed in the other place, there is a need for an accessibility

:40:19. > :40:21.policy which has teeth, Mr Speaker, to ensure that it's effective. There

:40:22. > :40:25.is, as the honourable lady's just said, a real contrast between the

:40:26. > :40:30.way the Government treats buses and trains when it comes to disability

:40:31. > :40:35.access and the conditions of licences for those that operate

:40:36. > :40:40.these important Public Services. It's a condition of a train

:40:41. > :40:44.operator's licence that they have to comply with disabled people's

:40:45. > :40:48.protections policy and have one in place and state how they'll protect

:40:49. > :40:52.the interests of disabled customers which is enforceable not only by the

:40:53. > :40:57.regulator but it has fines associated with it if there is a

:40:58. > :41:03.lack of compliance. So why is it not the case for bus operators that

:41:04. > :41:06.perhaps in the absence of a national strategy that there could be a

:41:07. > :41:10.condition put in place to make sure that there are such provisions for

:41:11. > :41:13.bus operators that disabled passengers who use buses for whom

:41:14. > :41:18.there'll be an important way of getting about to work, to social

:41:19. > :41:22.engagements and to be part of the community that such provisions are

:41:23. > :41:29.also put in place for bus operators, so that we ensure there is parity

:41:30. > :41:32.between the way train operators support people and train operators

:41:33. > :41:37.support people, disabled people. Of course I'mth I'll give way. The

:41:38. > :41:43.distinction she's making between buses and trains is an interesting

:41:44. > :41:48.one, but surely the point here is that the policy initiatives that the

:41:49. > :41:54.Government can take, like access for dis disabled people don't mean a

:41:55. > :41:57.national strategy is going to take away from the requirements of a

:41:58. > :42:04.local strategy which is what the buses are based on. I thank

:42:05. > :42:09.manufacture for his intervention and I'm not arguing against having local

:42:10. > :42:16.strategies, but there appear to be a number of issues which have national

:42:17. > :42:19.resonance when it comes to the provision of services. The

:42:20. > :42:24.Government has themselves identified this through the provisions they've

:42:25. > :42:27.put into their own Bill around the information that's available to bus

:42:28. > :42:33.passengers whilst they're on buseses. That's nationally

:42:34. > :42:38.applicable. So I'm simply asking the minister today if he could confirm

:42:39. > :42:42.to the House what further thoughts he's given to making sure that what

:42:43. > :42:45.is good enough for train operators is also good enough for bus

:42:46. > :42:56.operators when it comes to disability access.

:42:57. > :43:01.Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker... Sorry, I apologise. What a terrible

:43:02. > :43:06.mistake! I did not mean to demote you, Mr Speaker.

:43:07. > :43:14.I do apologise. I rise to support this amendment.

:43:15. > :43:21.And to reflect on the fact that in the Bill committee on this issue,

:43:22. > :43:27.there was a huge amount of consensus from both sides. We were divided on

:43:28. > :43:33.a number of issues, but it was a relaxed committee and the minister

:43:34. > :43:40.gave reasoned answers. I think that represents a change in... That's a

:43:41. > :43:45.first! I think that represents a change in attitude towards buses so

:43:46. > :43:49.that this Bill is the first step towards it, it's a Bill that was

:43:50. > :43:54.brought about following negotiations between the then Chancellor of the

:43:55. > :44:00.Exchequer and different metropolitan areas that came to a deal that if

:44:01. > :44:06.they had elected Marys, they could then sort out the buses. I hope it's

:44:07. > :44:12.the first step, Mr Speaker and what I would ask the minister to do is

:44:13. > :44:16.reflect on this because I think it's a developing situation. The new

:44:17. > :44:20.Prime Minister's brought in an industrial strategy. We have a

:44:21. > :44:24.strategy, as has just been mentioned, on the railways. We have

:44:25. > :44:30.a strategy for aviation. It is difficult to think, and quite

:44:31. > :44:37.rightly so, of areas where we spend large amounts of public money where

:44:38. > :44:42.it is not the responsibility and the right of the Government Anderlechted

:44:43. > :44:46.representatives to define -- and elected representatives to define

:44:47. > :44:54.the objectives of what that money should provide. Of course I'll give

:44:55. > :44:58.way. He mentioned just before a connection between directly elected

:44:59. > :45:00.mayors and bus deregulation. Does he see a sensible connection between

:45:01. > :45:05.the two or why the two should go hand in hand?

:45:06. > :45:11.I see that it was a pragmatic decision taken by the then

:45:12. > :45:16.Chancellor and the combined authorities in the metropolitan

:45:17. > :45:23.areas, but obviously it isn't a rational basis to decide to have a

:45:24. > :45:27.different bus system in Greater Manchester than in Southampton -

:45:28. > :45:31.what would be the rationale there? There clearly isn't one. The point I

:45:32. > :45:35.was making, that now is the time, having made that first accept, not

:45:36. > :45:41.in a consistent way, but in a sensible way in the Metropolitan

:45:42. > :45:52.areas, to look for a strategy and to get rid of what really is a relic of

:45:53. > :45:58.ideological Thatcherism from the early 1980s, in the 1985 Transport

:45:59. > :46:03.Act which deregulated the buses. Because the absence of a strategy in

:46:04. > :46:11.actual fact is saying that we don't care - I don't know how many

:46:12. > :46:18.billions of pounds have gone into the bus industry since 1986 when the

:46:19. > :46:22.bus act came into force - but I would think it's a large chunk

:46:23. > :46:27.without any policy direction whatsoever given to how that money

:46:28. > :46:34.is being spent. So what we have been left with is a rather sterile debate

:46:35. > :46:38.where one side says well buses are declining and they would have

:46:39. > :46:42.descliened anyway over this period -- declined anyway over this period.

:46:43. > :46:49.Well, those of us who think that dechain was not necessary have said,

:46:50. > :46:55.actually if we had not on-road competition which has failed, if we

:46:56. > :46:58.had the competition at tender stage and actually decided what services

:46:59. > :47:04.we wanted and what bus fares would be charged, we'd not have lost as

:47:05. > :47:09.many bus routes, we'd not have lost as many bus passengers as we have

:47:10. > :47:16.done. Not to have a strategy is actually saying, over the last 31

:47:17. > :47:20.years, that it doesn't matter that two thirds of bus passengers have

:47:21. > :47:25.disappeared in Greater Manchester and bus fares have gone up by

:47:26. > :47:31.considerably higher than the rate of inflation. It does matter. As the

:47:32. > :47:37.honourable lady said, and my right honourable friend on the frontbench

:47:38. > :47:41.has said, the vast majority of the people we represent, particularly

:47:42. > :47:48.poorer people, people who don't have access to a car, rely on buses to

:47:49. > :47:53.get to work, to get to hospitals, to see relatives at weekends, which

:47:54. > :47:57.after deregulation often those bus routes and buses don't exist. How

:47:58. > :48:04.can we not have a strategy? How can we abandon... Of course. Thank you,

:48:05. > :48:08.Mr Speaker. I think one of the other things about a strategy to follow on

:48:09. > :48:15.is the need for making sure that we have better records on bus safety

:48:16. > :48:20.and I would ask the minister to actually look again at what

:48:21. > :48:24.record-keeping we have. Of course we publish the killed and seriously

:48:25. > :48:29.injured figures, but actually there are a large number of other injuries

:48:30. > :48:33.on buses caused by buses, particularly obviously I can only

:48:34. > :48:37.speak from a London experience and I think it would be really helpful

:48:38. > :48:42.when putting together our overall plans for transport that we do think

:48:43. > :48:46.of some way of both recording both the minor and major incidents in

:48:47. > :48:50.order that we can give everybody insurance or assurance needed on the

:48:51. > :48:57.safety of buses. The honourable lady makes a

:48:58. > :49:02.pertinent point on this issue. But of course, a buses strategy would

:49:03. > :49:08.cover all those issues from personal safety to disabled access to fares,

:49:09. > :49:13.to where buses were running. I think both from the experience in the

:49:14. > :49:18.committee and the interventions and speech made from the opposite

:49:19. > :49:24.benches both here today and in the committee, it is clear that that is

:49:25. > :49:30.where the centre of the views of this House lie.

:49:31. > :49:37.I think that will be the direction even if this amendment is not

:49:38. > :49:46.accepted now. I want to finish on this point. There will be a

:49:47. > :49:52.bare-knuckle fight in this because it is not just about having a

:49:53. > :49:57.rational look at how best it is to provide bus services. Because there

:49:58. > :50:05.has been no accountability of that money, a small number of people who

:50:06. > :50:09.have set up more or less monopoly situations in our great conurbations

:50:10. > :50:17.have made a huge amount of money. Have become the owners of, the

:50:18. > :50:23.owners of stage coach had become billionaires. I'm not against people

:50:24. > :50:34.who make a profit, I'm not against people who innovate. But I am

:50:35. > :50:36.against people who are parasitic on public money without the people

:50:37. > :50:42.whose responsibility it is to look after that public money is saying

:50:43. > :50:47.what should happen. So this amendment may well not be accepted

:50:48. > :50:52.today but I think in the fairly near future, as this bill becomes an act

:50:53. > :50:58.and the benefits of regulation are seen that we will move to regulation

:50:59. > :51:02.throughout the country. I thank my honourable friend for giving way. He

:51:03. > :51:09.makes an important point. Duffy recalled that the transport select

:51:10. > :51:14.committee over three parliaments has investigated bus deregulation on

:51:15. > :51:18.five occasions and De Ceglie this reinforces the case is making that

:51:19. > :51:24.fundamental reform starting with the bill we have today is what is

:51:25. > :51:30.required. I do indeed recall the times and the effort spent with my

:51:31. > :51:36.honourable friend on those reports. And they show that competition does

:51:37. > :51:40.not take place, that is amiss and we have left the public purse

:51:41. > :51:44.vulnerable to parasites like Brian Souter who have taken the money out

:51:45. > :51:49.of the public purse while they have been putting up prices and reducing

:51:50. > :51:52.the service. So that is going to be a rearguard resistance from those

:51:53. > :51:59.people who have benefited from the system. But as parliamentarians and

:52:00. > :52:03.people who have a duty to look after taxes, we should move towards the

:52:04. > :52:08.consensus I believe there is an espoused to having a bath strategy.

:52:09. > :52:21.After all we have strategies all the rest of the way through the

:52:22. > :52:25.transport system. I also sat on the bus Bill committee and I was pleased

:52:26. > :52:30.to make a contribution in what was very much a consensual discussion

:52:31. > :52:35.and well piloted through by the Minister. I was also grateful to him

:52:36. > :52:40.for sending through a double-decker chocolate bar through the internal

:52:41. > :52:45.mail! Sadly due to the mail system it looked more like a Bentley bus by

:52:46. > :52:50.the time it was opened. With respect to new clause number one, there is

:52:51. > :52:56.much within that which is attractive. The 1.I would make with

:52:57. > :53:02.respect to the strategy is that with the newly improved local data

:53:03. > :53:06.requirements through this bill, it should be possible to fix that

:53:07. > :53:10.strategy on a local basis rather than needing some form of government

:53:11. > :53:19.top-down approach. In a way the essence of the bill is to bring in

:53:20. > :53:23.more localism. His right honourable friend made an important point that

:53:24. > :53:26.a national strategy or consistency would help disabled people who may

:53:27. > :53:30.travel to a different part of the country and not know what to expect

:53:31. > :53:34.in terms of the public transport system. Basic minimum standards in

:53:35. > :53:39.areas like disability access or ticketing would be really helpful to

:53:40. > :53:43.people as they travel across the country and use different public

:53:44. > :53:47.transport systems. I can certainly can see the attraction of that but I

:53:48. > :53:50.think there was a danger that if there is a feeling from local

:53:51. > :53:53.authorities that government will deliver the strategy then local

:53:54. > :53:56.authorities do not put anything perhaps in place themselves. The

:53:57. > :54:00.other mechanism through the bill is that it will make it easier for

:54:01. > :54:05.local authorities to get more involved in the policy of how this

:54:06. > :54:09.bill will be implemented, how partnerships should operate. So I

:54:10. > :54:12.would state that rather than talking about a national strategy, the bill

:54:13. > :54:22.has some excellent points that should assist the strategy at local

:54:23. > :54:25.level. Where I really want... I can understand the point is making and

:54:26. > :54:29.have a huge amount of sympathy for wanting to make sure we have a local

:54:30. > :54:37.approach to services. Does he agree with me that we need to make sure

:54:38. > :54:41.that the law through the equality act has more teeth that individuals

:54:42. > :54:43.are able to make the law work for them when they encounter problems

:54:44. > :54:47.like discrimination against them because of their disability. My

:54:48. > :54:56.right honourable friend is correct indeed. Perhaps the laws do need to

:54:57. > :55:06.be tightened up. So I agree with the point she has made. Moving to

:55:07. > :55:10.subsection number two... We only discussing new clause number one,

:55:11. > :55:14.two and three in this group. I think the causes that he wants to speak

:55:15. > :55:21.on, 16 and onwards, are in the next group. So he could think about those

:55:22. > :55:27.when the next group comes up. Thank you for your guidance. I was

:55:28. > :55:35.referring to subsection two of you", the reduced their concessionary

:55:36. > :55:44.scheme for those aged 16 to 19. With respect to the falls, in terms of

:55:45. > :55:48.considering this scheme, I see the advantages. -- this clause. I serve

:55:49. > :55:52.rural constituency where it is difficult for young people in

:55:53. > :55:57.particular to travel by bus. I also would like to extend the point that

:55:58. > :56:02.in my view this relates to our desire to increase social mobility.

:56:03. > :56:05.If we cannot have young people accessing work perhaps at weekends

:56:06. > :56:08.because it is too far for them to travel, they cannot afford motor

:56:09. > :56:13.insurance premiums which we know are incredibly expensive, then there's

:56:14. > :56:17.something to be said for a lack of social mobility. So I am attracted

:56:18. > :56:20.to the idea that this should be looked at. Of course we need to make

:56:21. > :56:24.sure that we cost those measures up and that is a matter of that would

:56:25. > :56:28.give me concern. If we increase the national debt with policies like

:56:29. > :56:34.this it would have a negative impact on young people as they are the ones

:56:35. > :56:37.likely to be paying it back in the future generations. Perhaps one

:56:38. > :56:41.consideration could be the overall cost of concessionary travel. And

:56:42. > :56:46.whether it is time for concessionary travel perhaps for those aged over

:56:47. > :56:51.65 to be given purely to those who really cannot afford it. So more

:56:52. > :56:54.looking at means testing than perhaps giving concessions to those

:56:55. > :56:59.who can well afford it. And perhaps therefore would like to share that

:57:00. > :57:04.benefit over to the 16 to 19-year-olds who after all are

:57:05. > :57:12.required to stay in education and training and therefore need some

:57:13. > :57:16.assistance. Does he accept it may not be necessary to just throw money

:57:17. > :57:20.at this, the powers in this bill could be used cleverly to extract

:57:21. > :57:24.value for instance if longer term franchises were given to bus

:57:25. > :57:29.operators, on condition, they could then give free travel to those aged

:57:30. > :57:34.16 to 18 because then if they become regular bus users the bus operators

:57:35. > :57:41.would capture the upside of that. So this could be done cleverly if more

:57:42. > :57:44.areas were given the ability to use these powers. That is absolutely

:57:45. > :57:48.right and anything that can be done to get young people onto the buses

:57:49. > :57:53.and stay on them as much to lend itself to. I'm also conscious this

:57:54. > :58:01.sub clause talks about consideration of a reduced fare. So indeed perhaps

:58:02. > :58:04.a mission for government should be that money that can be saved or

:58:05. > :58:08.perhaps reinvested will actually go towards this measure which I believe

:58:09. > :58:15.would help young people and help social mobility. I rise in support

:58:16. > :58:19.of the amendment in my name, new clause number two and three and also

:58:20. > :58:23.in support of new clause number one. Both the amendments I brought

:58:24. > :58:27.forward are basically about coherence. Neither is about

:58:28. > :58:33.dictation to local authorities as was mischievously suggested during

:58:34. > :58:36.the second reading of the bill. I'm not trying to dictate to local

:58:37. > :58:41.authorities what they should do. Both of them are about concessionary

:58:42. > :58:46.travel for young people which has been a thorny issue throughout the

:58:47. > :58:54.whole process of the bill. So far as young people are concerned, the

:58:55. > :58:59.situation is both variable and actually worsening. Since 2008

:59:00. > :59:06.50,016 to 18-year-olds had free transport withdrawn. I think a 42%

:59:07. > :59:12.drop. Two thirds of local authorities no longer provide free

:59:13. > :59:18.transport to 16 to 18-year-olds. And bus passes for 16 to 18-year-olds

:59:19. > :59:26.are incredibly variable across the country, ranging from under ?30 to

:59:27. > :59:32.over ?1000. Transport authorities used to offer wide concessions but

:59:33. > :59:39.the number has also dropped since 2010 from 29 concessionary

:59:40. > :59:43.authorities down to 16. And ten authorities have no arrangements at

:59:44. > :59:52.all. That benefit the older age groups. Including that those that

:59:53. > :59:57.offer no concessionary fare for young people, Cheshire West,

:59:58. > :00:03.Lincolnshire, Nottingham, Bracknell Forest, Portsmouth, and Slough. So

:00:04. > :00:13.the situation is scarcely good. And the impact is fairly obvious. Impact

:00:14. > :00:18.on educational progress, according to the Association of colleges, one

:00:19. > :00:21.fifth of students would consider dropping out during the course

:00:22. > :00:26.because of transport costs. Or transport difficulties if the cost

:00:27. > :00:32.is not foremost in their minds. There is an impact on students, and

:00:33. > :00:34.NUS survey showed further education students, two thirds of them paid

:00:35. > :00:38.more than ?30 a week which is a lot more than ?30 a week which is a lot

:00:39. > :00:43.of money for a young person. There is a clear impact on traffic

:00:44. > :00:48.congestion and pollution, the honourable member mentioned that, as

:00:49. > :00:53.more young people try to get cars may be earlier than they should or

:00:54. > :00:57.rely on other forms of transport affecting congestion at all the

:00:58. > :01:01.wrong times in most towns. And there is clearly a choice on educational

:01:02. > :01:04.choice. I would emphasise the point made by the honourable member that

:01:05. > :01:11.the worst affected are people in rural areas by students generally.

:01:12. > :01:16.They are the worst affected. And within the system there are clear

:01:17. > :01:20.anomalies that need to be cleared up because we raised the age for

:01:21. > :01:24.compulsory education but local authority obligations on transport

:01:25. > :01:28.remain very much as they wear. I agree with everything he is saying,

:01:29. > :01:33.pointing out the withdrawal of concessionary support for young

:01:34. > :01:37.people. But would you concede that the withdrawal of the Education

:01:38. > :01:39.Maintenance Allowance under the coalition government made these

:01:40. > :01:51.problems a lot worse for young people. Well that Education

:01:52. > :01:55.Maintenance Allowance was in my notes but for some reason I did not

:01:56. > :02:05.mention it there. I dare say it was a factor. The other anomaly in the

:02:06. > :02:13.system is that we all recognise we have academic roots,

:02:14. > :02:22.apprenticeships, but apprentices do not really get a look in. Those aged

:02:23. > :02:26.between 16 and 18 get about ?4 minimum wage. And clearly we want to

:02:27. > :02:31.make the apprenticeship route even more attractive. There is some

:02:32. > :02:36.evidence that where schemes are deduced they are successful. The my

:02:37. > :02:39.ticket scheme in Liverpool city region anecdotally is supposed to

:02:40. > :02:44.improve attendance quite appreciably. And developing

:02:45. > :02:48.transport in line with the apprenticeship system is very much

:02:49. > :02:54.part of the city region agenda touched upon by the honourable

:02:55. > :02:59.member for Manchester. So my amendment is trying to achieve

:03:00. > :03:02.something relatively modest. It does not really change the character of

:03:03. > :03:09.the bill which broadly speaking I support. Basically the amendments

:03:10. > :03:17.are trying to urge local authorities, to oblige them ready to

:03:18. > :03:24.take a broader view of the impact of transport policy in the wider

:03:25. > :03:28.environmental and educational sense. Does he share my concern that

:03:29. > :03:32.actually one this government is cutting and usually the funding for

:03:33. > :03:36.local authorities, even where they want to provide concessionary fare

:03:37. > :03:40.is, in many cases they're being forced to withdraw them and

:03:41. > :03:43.certainly that was evidence we heard from Texas who said they are getting

:03:44. > :03:47.to the point in the north-east word much as they would like to support

:03:48. > :03:54.young people, they got to the point where they felt they would no longer

:03:55. > :03:57.be able to do so. Desperate times call for desperate remedies and most

:03:58. > :04:02.local authorities are in a desperate situation at the moment.

:04:03. > :04:09.friend, The government will accept there is a case for joined up policy

:04:10. > :04:15.and the government needs to link up the apprentice ship agenda with

:04:16. > :04:21.real-time transport problems and impacts. That is where new clause 2

:04:22. > :04:29.comes into its own and if I'm supported, I would be happy to move

:04:30. > :04:33.that to a vote. Unless the minister can assure me these things are

:04:34. > :04:40.within his frame of reference at the moment. Thank you. It will be useful

:04:41. > :04:47.for me to cover all of these in one hope any detailed set of replies.

:04:48. > :04:53.New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to develop and publish a

:04:54. > :04:56.national bus strategy. We discussed this is in committee. Glad it was

:04:57. > :05:03.considered reasonable and helpful. Also for the consideration of a

:05:04. > :05:08.reduced fare scheme for young people aged 16 to 19. New clause 2 requires

:05:09. > :05:14.the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out steps to support

:05:15. > :05:20.local transport authorities to provide concessionary travel to

:05:21. > :05:23.apprentices aged 16 to 18. Well the Government fully appreciates the

:05:24. > :05:27.importance of public transport for young people, particularly those

:05:28. > :05:32.living in more isolated areas. We also recognise that the cost of

:05:33. > :05:44.transport can be an issue for some young people, including those taking

:05:45. > :05:50.part in apprentice ships. One reason for the intro-- introduction of this

:05:51. > :05:55.was to support young who need help with education and training costs

:05:56. > :06:02.and evaluation showed nearly 400,000 young people were being supported.

:06:03. > :06:05.The statutory responsibility for transport to education and training

:06:06. > :06:10.rests with local authorities. This enables them to make decisions that

:06:11. > :06:14.best match local circumstances, with many authorities and operators

:06:15. > :06:22.already offering discounts for passengers in this age group. Both

:06:23. > :06:27.of thesish use relates -- these Esh use relate to funding. This bill is

:06:28. > :06:31.not about funding, but providing with new tools to help improve their

:06:32. > :06:38.services in the way that best suits their areas. As part of spending

:06:39. > :06:44.review my department is protecting the bus service operator's grant at

:06:45. > :06:49.current levels for the period to 2021. This provides security of

:06:50. > :06:53.funding for services without the strategy the member proposes. This

:06:54. > :06:57.funding is provided to local authorities and to bus operators, it

:06:58. > :07:04.is not broken into category of service or by route. Attempting to

:07:05. > :07:08.do this would be a burdensome exercise that could embroiling

:07:09. > :07:11.central Government in the fine detail of local provision. That is

:07:12. > :07:19.the at the heart of the question about a national strategy. It is

:07:20. > :07:23.about local services, not about a national plan. Bus are local by

:07:24. > :07:29.definition and that is why we are seeking to support local councils

:07:30. > :07:34.with more powers. So a national plan isn't the answer, more powers for

:07:35. > :07:41.local authorities is part of answer. That is what this bill does. I think

:07:42. > :07:44.one of the things we disagreed on during the committee is what should

:07:45. > :07:47.be determined locally and what should be determined nationally.

:07:48. > :07:52.That was one of the few disagreements. Doesn't he think when

:07:53. > :07:57.the Government is spending billions per year on bus services, that they

:07:58. > :08:02.should have an interest in saying that there should be more bus

:08:03. > :08:11.passengers, more bus miles, and an interest in what the fares should be

:08:12. > :08:17.what. Is the difference between buses and trains in this respect?

:08:18. > :08:22.Well, I'm happy to agree that butses are a critical part of - buses are a

:08:23. > :08:32.critical part of any local transport mix. I'm a great champion of bus

:08:33. > :08:39.travel that. That was clear Mus my work. Through my work. I made the

:08:40. > :08:43.joke one of the great truths of business is that I'm from head

:08:44. > :08:49.office, I'm here to help. I was going on to say that actually I

:08:50. > :08:54.often was that person from head office and it often wasn't so

:08:55. > :08:59.welcome. This should be about local transport needs, not a national

:09:00. > :09:06.strategy. Is the Government neutral? No, that is why we have brought

:09:07. > :09:09.forward a bill and have protected the bus service operator's grant.

:09:10. > :09:13.But this about local authorities working with bus oeptors to deliver

:09:14. > :09:22.-- operators to deliver the right services for their areas. If it is

:09:23. > :09:27.about local decisions, why then will he not devolve the bus service

:09:28. > :09:38.operators grants to local authorities. Some of the grant is

:09:39. > :09:47.already deinvolved. Volved. The key reason it goes directly to bus

:09:48. > :09:50.operators and they operate routes that cross council boundaries.

:09:51. > :09:55.Transport to work is nothing to do with a local authority's geography.

:09:56. > :09:58.So it would be I think a potential bureaucratic nightmare to change the

:09:59. > :10:10.system now. Having said that, we are looking at how we can reform the

:10:11. > :10:16.operation. It pays a flat 34. 357 pence per litre in subsidy. That it

:10:17. > :10:23.is why it was called the fuel duty rebate. We are looking how we can

:10:24. > :10:29.incentivise better practice. I will give way to the honourable lady and

:10:30. > :10:33.then they think. The honourable gentleman. It feels as if he is

:10:34. > :10:39.trying to devolve all responsibility for the state of our bus services,

:10:40. > :10:44.in the 2015 local Government settled it was announced Government funding

:10:45. > :10:48.to local authorities will fall by 24%. That is part of why local

:10:49. > :10:52.authorities support for bus is falling. Does he not take any

:10:53. > :10:59.responsibility for the impact that is having on bus services and

:11:00. > :11:02.people's ability to use the buss? Of course I recognise that the

:11:03. > :11:07.pressures on local government finance are acute and I was in

:11:08. > :11:14.charge of a local government financial affairs and my local

:11:15. > :11:19.council throughout the financial crash in 2008/9. So I'm aware of

:11:20. > :11:22.that. But that doesn't change the requirement to recognise this is a

:11:23. > :11:32.local service and should be determined locally. Hasn't my

:11:33. > :11:38.honourable friend just exposed a major contradiction here, he is

:11:39. > :11:43.saying he wants local delivery, but when it comes to cross border issues

:11:44. > :11:48.he said Whitehall knows best. The position should be for maximum

:11:49. > :11:53.devolution. I'm not saying white hall knows best, but the grant is

:11:54. > :12:00.best delivered to operators running those services. And then taking it

:12:01. > :12:04.from there. So it is not a question of white hall knows best. We are

:12:05. > :12:15.keen to see more support for buses and more routes available. The way

:12:16. > :12:21.to achieve long-term sub stainable growth is to have more passengers.

:12:22. > :12:27.My honourable friend raised the issue of the case that went through

:12:28. > :12:34.the legal system and took five years to reach a High Court. Well,

:12:35. > :12:39.specifically, we are going to be inviting the equalities and human

:12:40. > :12:43.rights commission to attend our working group meetings. We have got

:12:44. > :12:49.some progress made here. What we are seeking to do is have a small

:12:50. > :12:55.working group that will look at the practical implication of the Paulie

:12:56. > :13:00.case. The members invited are the disabled person's transport advisory

:13:01. > :13:10.committee, to hear the voice of disabled group. We also want the

:13:11. > :13:13.voice of bus operate. We want the voice of passengers and Transport

:13:14. > :13:23.Focus have been invited. I would hope me will see the equalities and

:13:24. > :13:30.human rights commission. In terms of timing, I would hope we would get

:13:31. > :13:38.this under way next month. Could I take him back with regards to the

:13:39. > :13:42.cross border issues. Even in areas which don't have landscape drawn out

:13:43. > :13:50.for elected mayors, local authorities have for the last three

:13:51. > :13:56.decades been working in partnership with each other. And I just don't

:13:57. > :13:59.understand the point that the minister's making about devolving

:14:00. > :14:08.that to the bus company and not to group of local authorities who work

:14:09. > :14:12.in travel to work areas. Well, the devolution of this funding goes

:14:13. > :14:16.straight to local authority bus companies. We are looking to see how

:14:17. > :14:19.we can reform this and I will take the honourable gentleman's point ps

:14:20. > :14:25.as a sort of contributory suggestion within that. But I don't want to

:14:26. > :14:29.make a change to this system, unless we are clear it is going to keep

:14:30. > :14:34.more routes operational. We have no guarantee unless we ring fence the

:14:35. > :14:39.funding that if we grant devolution of this to a local authority that it

:14:40. > :14:43.will be used to support buses. It could go into other forms of

:14:44. > :14:47.transport. I want to keep this focussed on buses. But I will take

:14:48. > :14:52.his point further as we think about how to take this forward. If I may

:14:53. > :14:59.just answer my honourable friend's questions more fully here. This

:15:00. > :15:06.needs to be a work group, which is action-orientated. The High Court

:15:07. > :15:10.encountered practical challenges in dealing with disabled access. We

:15:11. > :15:18.need to get the balance right and have space for this space which is

:15:19. > :15:21.used for wheelchairs could be used for parents with children who need

:15:22. > :15:31.assistance. I want to protect everyone's needs here. The issue of

:15:32. > :15:35.disabled transport plans, these are important in providing confidence

:15:36. > :15:41.and consistency for disabled people to use transport and I have much

:15:42. > :15:45.sympathy with the underlying reason behind my colleague's suggestion

:15:46. > :15:48.here. We are going to take forward a recommendation in the guidance

:15:49. > :15:52.supporting the bill that authorities ensure information is made available

:15:53. > :15:57.to passengers and that might be in a form of provided by the authority or

:15:58. > :16:05.by individual operators. We have been working on this again with an

:16:06. > :16:10.organisation who have developed a template. So I expect us to make

:16:11. > :16:16.some progress in this area that will assist my honourable friend. Do you

:16:17. > :16:20.want me? She does. Can I welcome the minister's clarification on that

:16:21. > :16:25.point with regard to the guidance being made available to passengers.

:16:26. > :16:30.Could I gently remind him when it cops to rail passengers, there is

:16:31. > :16:37.not only a regulator breathing down the neck of providers, but there are

:16:38. > :16:43.fines for not compliance. How can he give this real teeth? My honourable

:16:44. > :16:47.friend makes a very interesting point, but I'm not sure there is a

:16:48. > :16:53.read across from rail into buses. There are 30 or so rail companies,

:16:54. > :16:59.there are a thousand plus bus companies. So we need to have

:17:00. > :17:04.something that is proportionate. For the larger groups it could be

:17:05. > :17:10.appropriate. For the smaller companies, something more as we are

:17:11. > :17:14.suggesting would be clearly more appropriate to provide information

:17:15. > :17:21.to disabled passengers that is our joint objective here. If I may turn

:17:22. > :17:27.to clause 3, which was tabled by the member for South port. This requires

:17:28. > :17:31.local authority s who do not provide a concessionary scheme for 18 to

:17:32. > :17:36.16-year-olds in education to produce a report. This report would set out

:17:37. > :17:41.the impact on this group of young people and on local traffic of not

:17:42. > :17:45.providing such a scheme. As I have said, the legal responsibility for

:17:46. > :17:49.transport to education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds rests with

:17:50. > :17:51.local authorities. Who are free to put in place appropriate

:17:52. > :17:57.arrangements. These arrangements don't have to be free, but we expect

:17:58. > :18:01.authorities to make reasonable decisions based on the

:18:02. > :18:10.infrastructure and their available resources. Local authorities already

:18:11. > :18:16.have a duty under the education Act to publish a transport policy each

:18:17. > :18:19.year and the arrangelets for young people -- arrangements for young

:18:20. > :18:26.people. The effect of this would be to replicate this duty. So in short,

:18:27. > :18:32.I do not believe clauses 1, 2 and 3 will add anything of value to the

:18:33. > :18:35.delivery of a bus service on a local service or benefit passengers. I

:18:36. > :18:44.hope the members will not press their new amendments. Thank you. Can

:18:45. > :18:48.I say that I think again this has been a constructive exchange and I

:18:49. > :18:53.think particularly the points around disabled access are welcome and will

:18:54. > :18:58.be pursued. Much like in committee, much of the discussion has hinged on

:18:59. > :19:03.the issues of localism. And my honourable friend made the points

:19:04. > :19:06.very well as did my honourable friend for Leigh in terms of what we

:19:07. > :19:15.see as many see as the failures of systems is over the last 30 years.

:19:16. > :19:22.In committee we discussed the values of a national framework. And

:19:23. > :19:27.listening closely to contributions from the other side I did not hear a

:19:28. > :19:31.large amount of opposition to that. In fact many contributions suggested

:19:32. > :19:35.they could also see the benefits. But the minister stuck to the script

:19:36. > :19:40.heroically and clearly does not wish to go down that route at the moment.

:19:41. > :19:44.Although I have to say as we come to in future discussed the way funding

:19:45. > :19:49.for the bus services, whether concessionary fares or the operators

:19:50. > :19:59.grants, clearly there is a debate to be had. And that would seem... .Ca

:20:00. > :20:03.agree with me that it would be helpful to have that national

:20:04. > :20:06.discussion, not only involving passengers but also the industry and

:20:07. > :20:11.local authorities about what is the most sustainable way to fund the

:20:12. > :20:17.buses. And ask local authorities, as they develop different emissions

:20:18. > :20:21.standards, as the campaign for better transport said, a national

:20:22. > :20:26.strategy would provide some certainty for the UK bus vehicle

:20:27. > :20:32.manufacturers as well. There are many advantages to doing this. As

:20:33. > :20:37.always my honourable friend is right and she has raised a very important

:20:38. > :20:41.issue of air quality which clearly is becoming more important in many

:20:42. > :20:48.cities across the country. I would suggest that the government is

:20:49. > :20:53.having a national framework, that might be helpful for many reasons. I

:20:54. > :20:58.fear this issue will not be resolved and so we will be pressing for

:20:59. > :21:06.division from our side. The question is that new clause one he read a

:21:07. > :21:08.second time. As many as are of that opinion said aye. Division, clear

:21:09. > :22:29.the lobby. The question is that new clause one

:22:30. > :33:38.B read a second time. The term... The noes to the left

:33:39. > :33:49.278. The eyes to write 193. So the noes

:33:50. > :33:55.have it. The noes have it. Unlock. Doctor John Pugh, the question is

:33:56. > :34:04.that new clause number to be read a second time. As many as are of that

:34:05. > :35:39.opinion say aye. Add to the contrary know. Division. Clear the lobby.

:35:40. > :35:46.To be read a second time. As many of that opinion say aye. Of the

:35:47. > :44:57.contrino. Order. Order. The ayes to the right,

:44:58. > :45:08.193. The noes to the left 277. The ayes to the Wright were 193 the noes

:45:09. > :45:12.277. The noes have it. Unlock. We now come to new clause 4 with which

:45:13. > :45:18.it will be convenient to consider the amendments listed on the

:45:19. > :45:28.selection paper. Who moves to move new clause 4. Could I move new

:45:29. > :45:34.clause 4 and amendments, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Could I also

:45:35. > :45:41.declare an interest in as much as that I am chair of RMT Parliamentary

:45:42. > :45:46.group and vice chair of Unite Parliamentary group. Both of which

:45:47. > :45:59.unions have members in the bus industry. Madam Deputy Speaker, the

:46:00. > :46:05.transport sector is a safety critical environment and the sector

:46:06. > :46:11.involves carriages travelling at speed, individuals working long

:46:12. > :46:16.hours on repep it the it is a -- repetitive tasks. And hard lessons

:46:17. > :46:23.have been learned following a series of fatal road and rail crashes in

:46:24. > :46:28.the 80s and 90s, continuing financial pressures, declining

:46:29. > :46:34.support from government through the bus operator's grant and the

:46:35. > :46:41.commercially orientated initiatives to reduce staff could also threaten

:46:42. > :46:45.safe working practices and bus drivers are aware of where corners

:46:46. > :46:49.are being cut. In theory they can use the whistle blowing policies to

:46:50. > :46:55.speak out, but in practice, workers that do so are frequently subject to

:46:56. > :47:02.all sorts of pressure and have been known to be dismissed for whistle

:47:03. > :47:06.blowing. This leads to a situation where serious safety failings are

:47:07. > :47:15.ignored and not investigated adequately or the results are not

:47:16. > :47:20.acted upon by the bus companies. So to counter this dysfunction a

:47:21. > :47:24.confidential reporting system was introduced, this system has been

:47:25. > :47:28.successful in enabling workers to have their concerns ventilated.

:47:29. > :47:33.Resulting in lessons being learned and accumulation of failings being

:47:34. > :47:40.halted with serious harm prevented. Not all of the major rail companies,

:47:41. > :47:46.many of whom own bus companies have signed up to this. So the first

:47:47. > :47:52.group going ahead, Stagecoach and they all have interests in both bus

:47:53. > :47:58.and rail and I should declare another interest, in as much as I'm

:47:59. > :48:03.a frequent user of my local bus services in Gateshead, not owning a

:48:04. > :48:09.car, but I have a very good service provided by the Go Ahead group. But

:48:10. > :48:14.not all of my constituents can benefit from such great services.

:48:15. > :48:20.The bus company do try their best and provide excellent bus services

:48:21. > :48:27.during the peak hours, but as the evening goes on, those bus

:48:28. > :48:34.frequencies dwindle. Bus workers outside of London should also be

:48:35. > :48:41.able to access this and that would be the effect of this new clause,

:48:42. > :48:46.where franchises or quality partnerships are introduced and this

:48:47. > :48:53.was brought in responding to a spate of deaths and injuries on London's

:48:54. > :48:58.roads involving bus. Transport for London has arranged for the system

:48:59. > :49:04.to be extended to London and London has one of best resourced networks

:49:05. > :49:09.with some of the newest buses. This supports the extension of the seem

:49:10. > :49:16.to butt operators nationwide in line with other aspects of bill,

:49:17. > :49:20.including matters unconnected to franchises, such as announcement and

:49:21. > :49:25.a national approach is warranted and would be desirable. The cost of

:49:26. > :49:33.membership is certainly not in any way, shape or form prehibitive.

:49:34. > :49:40.It is based on the turnover of boss operating companies so a bus

:49:41. > :49:43.operating company with a turnover of less than ?1 million would only have

:49:44. > :49:51.a certain amount of money to pay worth as a big operator, if they

:49:52. > :49:56.were in theory to have enough overnighting turnover of ?200

:49:57. > :50:02.million VC would still only be the same so the fee are low, modest and

:50:03. > :50:05.represent a serious obstacle and what I would ask the Minister is if

:50:06. > :50:09.they are not willing to concede to this clause we hope the ministers

:50:10. > :50:13.would agree to make regulations or at least guidance in this area or to

:50:14. > :50:20.consult on all bus companies throughout the United Kingdom with

:50:21. > :50:25.not just those who participated in those in a quality partnerships

:50:26. > :50:34.cream, the consultation should indicate support for signing up to

:50:35. > :50:40.Cyrus. On the amendment, there are a number of things in the amendment is

:50:41. > :50:44.would like to refer to, ensuring employees working under local

:50:45. > :50:47.service contracts would be not employed on terms and conditions

:50:48. > :50:55.than those provided by a city, and there is also a concern that an

:50:56. > :51:01.anticipation of changes in local provision bus operators... I might

:51:02. > :51:07.actually curtail a route, and therefore the drivers or operators

:51:08. > :51:10.on that route are made redundant and then another operator might start at

:51:11. > :51:17.the same route only a week or ten days later but the way in which the

:51:18. > :51:22.bill is -- instructed the drivers would have an automatic eg of

:51:23. > :51:25.protection, although of course I'm sure that they have it unions would

:51:26. > :51:30.be frightened for that. -- are fighting for that. Working condition

:51:31. > :51:34.should be no rewards for the duration of the franchise and

:51:35. > :51:37.employees must not be employed in worse terms than existing employees.

:51:38. > :51:42.There are precedents for these type of illness leg-macro arrangements,

:51:43. > :51:45.with government support for example the countries with public private

:51:46. > :51:53.partnership with YouTube, and well protected. More recently ScotRail,

:51:54. > :51:57.Antares, including four ferries and additional protections for the

:51:58. > :52:02.successful bidder, making savings from reducing staff goats -- are not

:52:03. > :52:07.making savings from reducing staff jobs, one amendment would protect

:52:08. > :52:11.and age recruitment and retention and therefore a high-quality, stable

:52:12. > :52:17.workforce within the industry which I know does right many franchise

:52:18. > :52:24.areas and communicable I personally have been on many buses over the

:52:25. > :52:28.duration of privatised franchises were frankly bus drivers did not

:52:29. > :52:32.know the route they were travelling on, asking passengers, you know, the

:52:33. > :52:38.route that they are having to travel on a particular journey. So it is

:52:39. > :52:44.not beyond the bounds of possibility that we can actually legislate this

:52:45. > :52:49.or regulate it out. More importantly, the amendment would

:52:50. > :52:55.also prevent the further increase in short-term bus drivers, in an

:52:56. > :52:59.industry which has affected services, and certain values of the

:53:00. > :53:04.professional logistics and transport body have published findings from a

:53:05. > :53:07.survey addressing the current driver sorted in the industry. The three

:53:08. > :53:13.highest reasons cited as of 15 reasons were by some distance a

:53:14. > :53:18.shortage of drivers, where poor pay and poor conditions, and industry

:53:19. > :53:24.image were problems in terms of recruitment and retention. And if

:53:25. > :53:26.the government are willing to concede the amendment in this

:53:27. > :53:34.section I would hope that the ministers would agree to regulations

:53:35. > :53:40.at least making some guidance to the industry about this. On amendments

:53:41. > :53:47.ten, this amendment with the dismissal of a employee for the sole

:53:48. > :53:52.principle of reducing the franchise scheme automatically unfair, and

:53:53. > :53:56.unfair dismissal, and amendments 12 and 13 would make dismissal of an

:53:57. > :54:00.employee for the sole principle reason of the award of a contract

:54:01. > :54:06.and a partnership scheme automatically construing unfair

:54:07. > :54:09.dismissal. There is concern about the potential or a company which has

:54:10. > :54:14.lost a bid to run a franchise or which does not wish to participate

:54:15. > :54:18.in the franchising process can simply abandon its route and it has

:54:19. > :54:21.happened on numerous occasions. In order to do this they only need to

:54:22. > :54:26.deregister the route by notifying the traffic Commissioner Emma and we

:54:27. > :54:29.want the bus services built to protect workers and passengers from

:54:30. > :54:34.company conducting itself in such a manner. We are also concerned about

:54:35. > :54:40.things slipping outside the protective net of duty, but if the

:54:41. > :54:46.company does abandon a franchise that means the passengers who rely

:54:47. > :54:50.on that bus service day in, day out, are often left without a means of

:54:51. > :54:53.just getting to and from their place of work and we have heard ministers

:54:54. > :55:01.in the Department for Transport criticising rail unions over the

:55:02. > :55:04.solution having an impact on people getting to and from work, but

:55:05. > :55:11.equally they should be concerned about the scope of it bus franchise

:55:12. > :55:19.owner actually a landing their own franchise for business reasons. The

:55:20. > :55:22.amendment means... Given a particularly loose way in which the

:55:23. > :55:24.bus sector is currently arranged them is elevated risk of this

:55:25. > :55:31.occurring at the moment than the bill provide protection and the

:55:32. > :55:33.point of transport, or earlier if the agreement is reached with the

:55:34. > :55:42.successful bidder, and the amendments mean terminations for

:55:43. > :55:47.very matter of employees in certain categories unfair. This will not

:55:48. > :55:52.only protect jobs but help ensure continuity of service in the event

:55:53. > :55:55.that the bus service operator seeking to provide a service or

:55:56. > :56:00.reduced services because of the threat of franchise order because

:56:01. > :56:05.they do not win the bid for franchise from withdrawing Fire

:56:06. > :56:09.Service. The extract I will talk about now is from the Manchester

:56:10. > :56:14.evening News of the 21st of March and it shows bus companies in

:56:15. > :56:18.Manchester are already cutting services in readiness for the bus

:56:19. > :56:26.bill and no doubt as a show of strength in negotiations and must

:56:27. > :56:31.franchising. We have been reliably informed that the whole timetable

:56:32. > :56:38.for this bill is being driven by Manchester as part of the coalition

:56:39. > :56:42.deal. -- devolution deal. If the government are unwilling to concede

:56:43. > :56:47.is amendments we would hope that ministers would agree to make

:56:48. > :56:53.regulations were the least guidance to the industry in this area, and

:56:54. > :57:02.that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish my piece. New clause four,

:57:03. > :57:07.bus safety. The question is that new clause four be read a second time.

:57:08. > :57:11.Adam Driver disfigure our rise in support of those amendments tabled

:57:12. > :57:15.in my name and the name of other honourable and right honourable

:57:16. > :57:25.colleagues, first Amendment 14, amendment cysteine-23, amendment 15,

:57:26. > :57:29.amendment 24, amendment 25, 26, 27, and also finally amendment 20 eight.

:57:30. > :57:36.If I can turn first of all in moving these amendments to amendment 14. As

:57:37. > :57:40.a straightforward because it ensures the local transport authorities

:57:41. > :57:46.cannot make transport schemes if benefits can be provided by equality

:57:47. > :57:56.partnership, an advanced equality partnership or enhanced partnership

:57:57. > :57:59.scheme. These are mainly drafting amendments but I think it is very

:58:00. > :58:06.important that they franchising authority is satisfied rather than

:58:07. > :58:12.just considering the issues in a franchising settlement. As has been

:58:13. > :58:15.made clear and we have heard on many occasions in debates on this clause,

:58:16. > :58:20.franchising should not be an easy option. A local transport authority

:58:21. > :58:23.should not be allowed to take a simple punt at franchising without

:58:24. > :58:28.full and detailed consideration of all options available. Of course

:58:29. > :58:33.there are other options available not least partnership arrangements

:58:34. > :58:36.but we looked at and will surely return to them again in the near

:58:37. > :58:42.future. The filters contain stringent tests that I think it

:58:43. > :58:46.would be easy for local authorities to say that it has considered

:58:47. > :58:50.whether a proposed voucher scheme would the age to its transport buses

:58:51. > :58:53.or whether it has the capability, resources to operate the scheme or

:58:54. > :58:57.just as important to consider whether it can afford the scheme and

:58:58. > :59:02.whether evidence value for money. In other words, for the constituents.

:59:03. > :59:06.It is another matter to save the authority is satisfied that the

:59:07. > :59:11.proposals will do the thing so surely the importance in taking a

:59:12. > :59:17.franchise scheme is not too much to ask, but it is convinced that the

:59:18. > :59:23.proposals will do exactly what those say on the tin, as it were, and that

:59:24. > :59:29.is what the particular amendments tabled set aside to try and achieve.

:59:30. > :59:37.I had an Deputy Speaker will move on to amendment 15 and what that does

:59:38. > :59:40.is simply complement 14 although it basically look at it from a

:59:41. > :59:45.different angle and as far as that is concerned I would say anything

:59:46. > :59:51.about it except just to show that you can't have 14 without 15 because

:59:52. > :59:56.what $15 is require a transplant satellite to specify the benefits of

:59:57. > :00:06.passengers explained why they can be delivered by a partnership scheme or

:00:07. > :00:11.the leader of any sort. I now move on to the most important amendment

:00:12. > :00:16.in this collection and that is amendment 24, all about

:00:17. > :00:25.compensation. I think the key here is to bring into play a degree of

:00:26. > :00:28.fairness, because I think what is important is that the bill is

:00:29. > :00:33.actually very silent on the matter of conversation which I think is

:00:34. > :00:41.wrong. I know that he will say in his response that if you will go

:00:42. > :00:47.along to the select committee, saying there was no case

:00:48. > :00:51.compensation, and follow where that the conversation wouldn't have been

:00:52. > :00:55.available under an equality under scheme but the days of policy

:00:56. > :00:57.countries are severely numbered and I feel that there was no

:00:58. > :01:04.compensation under the scheme does not mean that it isn't right to have

:01:05. > :01:09.compensation in new arrangements. I think it would be bad enough for the

:01:10. > :01:13.large PLCs, Madam Deputy Speaker, who have to redeploy their staff,

:01:14. > :01:21.their assets, what about the smaller operators I will give way. Thank

:01:22. > :01:28.you. Listening gavel to what he says, because he hasn't explained so

:01:29. > :01:31.far, what basis would be compensation given when every bus

:01:32. > :01:41.company could compete to run the buses via a franchising process? I'm

:01:42. > :01:46.not an expert on this, I have a small and medium enterprises in my

:01:47. > :01:50.constituency on buses, and if they established their businesses on a

:01:51. > :01:55.lot of hard work, with lots of risk, one company came to see me to save

:01:56. > :01:58.the directors have mortgaged their homes, and invested the life savings

:01:59. > :02:02.to ensure the company grew, they would stand to lose not because they

:02:03. > :02:06.haven't performed properly, not because there were about company,

:02:07. > :02:10.not because passengers decided they didn't want to use them any more,

:02:11. > :02:14.no, they stand to lose because they didn't win a bit, simply, to

:02:15. > :02:18.continue to do what they have been doing successfully the years. I

:02:19. > :02:22.suggest that this is a fair measure and I would ask the Minister to have

:02:23. > :02:28.a look at it and I think there was a wider point here because what

:02:29. > :02:33.message does it send to businesses looking to invest in the UK? We want

:02:34. > :02:36.businesses to come to the UK to invest and we should be saying to

:02:37. > :02:41.those businesses can write you come to the UK to invest but indeed

:02:42. > :02:43.authorities take your business of view, there should be some

:02:44. > :02:49.compensation. I think this particular measure does any

:02:50. > :02:53.long-term represent good value for the taxpayer because it actually

:02:54. > :02:58.shows that taxpayer's money is going to be put to a good use because if

:02:59. > :03:02.businesses are put out of business because of measures in this bill

:03:03. > :03:09.then surely there should be a caustic compensation. I will give

:03:10. > :03:13.way. I thank him. He is rightly talking about the importance of

:03:14. > :03:16.delivering value for money for the taxpayer. I say to him in the case

:03:17. > :03:19.of the north-east as across many parts of the country there isn't

:03:20. > :03:24.good value for the fact that I would have limited bus operators that

:03:25. > :03:29.really have a monopoly over services as shown by the magician commission.

:03:30. > :03:31.The competition that was meant to follow from deregulation hasn't

:03:32. > :03:35.materialised, this isn't good value for the taxpayer and actually that

:03:36. > :03:40.would allow smaller operators to break into the market where the big

:03:41. > :03:46.boys at the moment has a stranglehold. I see the point that

:03:47. > :03:50.she makes, and I don't need judgment to see what is going on in my area

:03:51. > :03:55.but I hope what she has says that in taking on in the view of the

:03:56. > :04:01.Commissioner. I in competition, smaller operators flourishing stop

:04:02. > :04:04.certainly in Norfolk this small operators, like Norfolk Green for

:04:05. > :04:11.example that are able to move in on two routes and bring into place a

:04:12. > :04:18.new culture, a new service, a new ethic, and have done a quite

:04:19. > :04:21.fantastic job and as a consequence, and I defer to the right Honourable

:04:22. > :04:25.gentleman who knows a lot about this subject, have been happy to get more

:04:26. > :04:26.customers onto these routes and to reopen routes that have previously

:04:27. > :04:37.been closed down. It hasn't worked that way under the

:04:38. > :04:41.current regime. The worry I have with what he is saying, he is

:04:42. > :04:44.speaking for the bus companies rather than the travelling public,

:04:45. > :04:51.that is what it sounds like to me. Can he assure me this is not a

:04:52. > :04:53.wrecking amendment? That by fear of compensation, he is hoping that

:04:54. > :04:57.local authorities will be persuaded to not even try and use the powers

:04:58. > :05:03.in this bill because they would not be able to afford compensation

:05:04. > :05:07.payments? I assure him I am not trying to wreck the bill or do

:05:08. > :05:13.anything that is untoward. I'm simply trying to make sure that SMEs

:05:14. > :05:20.are treated fairly. Moving on to amendment 25 which is again in my

:05:21. > :05:27.name and of other colleagues. It ensures that any auditor appointed

:05:28. > :05:31.by the franchising authority has no commercial interest or association

:05:32. > :05:40.with the franchising authority that might create or could be perceived

:05:41. > :05:48.to create, the franchise. It is recently anodyne but it is actually

:05:49. > :05:54.quite important. I would urge him to look at it carefully indeed. As we

:05:55. > :06:04.move onto the next one at the next two, 26 and 27, these two here are

:06:05. > :06:10.again quite small amendments. But I think they are important. If a

:06:11. > :06:16.franchising authority fails to make a case for a franchise scheme or

:06:17. > :06:19.decide not to progress proposals, should have the measure to combat

:06:20. > :06:24.the following year or the year after that, all within months. I suggest

:06:25. > :06:31.it should not be able to do that. What these two amendments do is

:06:32. > :06:36.prevent the authority coming back within five years with a fresh

:06:37. > :06:40.proposal. I would like to quote what my right honourable friend the

:06:41. > :06:45.Chancellor said in his Autumn Statement "I know how much business

:06:46. > :06:50.values certainty and stability." I think he is right. The one thing

:06:51. > :06:55.they dread is uncertainty. It can affect recruitment decisions and

:06:56. > :07:03.investment plans. Particularly SMEs, how they conduct business. The

:07:04. > :07:07.measures contained in this bill, they could find their businesses

:07:08. > :07:11.under threat and in the worst case scenario, an authority coming back

:07:12. > :07:18.time and again within that five-year period possibly. What we want to do

:07:19. > :07:22.is create a situation where we have a workable franchise scheme and the

:07:23. > :07:27.franchising authority can't keep chipping away at it. I would say to

:07:28. > :07:32.the Minister that these amendments are not by any means vital but I

:07:33. > :07:38.think they would help local authorities as well. We know do not,

:07:39. > :07:41.Madam Deputy Speaker, that the burdens on local authorities are

:07:42. > :07:46.growing the whole time. They are under massive pressure to deliver

:07:47. > :07:50.better services and value for money from refuse collection to care for

:07:51. > :07:55.the elderly and streetlights and planning with ever dwindling

:07:56. > :08:00.resources. So for the local authority to have quite a lot of

:08:01. > :08:05.pressure put on it by elected members were other bodies, to devote

:08:06. > :08:10.time and energy to bringing back a franchise excise when it was not

:08:11. > :08:15.progressed in the first place I think would be a mistake. I go away

:08:16. > :08:19.again. I am grateful to him for giving way again. I want

:08:20. > :08:25.clarification from him and reassurance on this point. It sounds

:08:26. > :08:29.like the combined effect of these amendments is to open up some

:08:30. > :08:33.confusion and possibilities for legal challenges that bus operators

:08:34. > :08:37.can use. To actually tie the hands of the combined authority in greater

:08:38. > :08:42.Manchester but other combined authorities elsewhere. Can he make

:08:43. > :08:45.it absolutely clear that that is not what he is trying to do. It sounds

:08:46. > :08:51.for all the world that that is the real intent behind these amendments.

:08:52. > :08:55.Eremenko I have a lot of time for the honourable gentleman, and a

:08:56. > :09:00.times in the past and he was a minister and I was asking questions

:09:01. > :09:03.and we engaged in committee, it is not my intention to do what he is

:09:04. > :09:09.suggesting. These are amendments that smaller bus companies will have

:09:10. > :09:15.a lot of time for. With the honourable lady like me to give way?

:09:16. > :09:19.Does he acknowledge that having the opportunity franchising powers

:09:20. > :09:23.allows local authorities to put pressure on operators who are not

:09:24. > :09:28.all small and medium-sized companies. Most of them are very

:09:29. > :09:33.large operators. In order to bring them perhaps into partnership with

:09:34. > :09:35.arrangements. If the authority does not have the opportunity and

:09:36. > :09:41.potential of bringing forward franchising scheme is that in many

:09:42. > :09:45.cases, those operators will not enter into serious negotiations

:09:46. > :09:52.about partnerships, whether they be advanced or enhanced. They have

:09:53. > :09:57.those powers anyway. But it will be listened to by the Minister and the

:09:58. > :10:03.Minister will listen to what we have said and take a decision on that.

:10:04. > :10:07.The other amendment I want to move, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be be

:10:08. > :10:13.because I have already taken up the House's time. That is amendment 20

:10:14. > :10:19.eight. The key to amendment 28, what this will do is specify that fares

:10:20. > :10:25.and structures could only be specified as part of an enhanced

:10:26. > :10:34.partnership scheme if all the operators agree. I think the key

:10:35. > :10:38.here is the ability of commercial bus operators to set their own

:10:39. > :10:46.affairs. A key part of a deregulated market. Prices will be set

:10:47. > :10:50.competitively. Men and Speaker, the competition authority has safeguards

:10:51. > :10:57.in place to ensure bus companies do not collude to stitch up the market

:10:58. > :11:00.and set fares that disadvantage passengers. There are checks and

:11:01. > :11:04.balances here that are extremely important. I will certainly give way

:11:05. > :11:09.for the honourable member for Newcastle. I am grateful to the

:11:10. > :11:15.honourable gentleman. I'm afraid to say that what he is outlining here

:11:16. > :11:18.seems to suggest that the powers of the local authority or collection of

:11:19. > :11:22.local authorities in the areas that he represents would be less than

:11:23. > :11:28.those which are currently enjoyed by the voters of London in terms of

:11:29. > :11:34.having oversight of the running of an integrated transport system. Why

:11:35. > :11:38.should it be that the electors of all other parts of England should

:11:39. > :11:43.have an inferior set of arrangements for an integrated transport system

:11:44. > :11:47.than the voters of London? That is what would be the outcome of the

:11:48. > :11:55.elements and amendments he is suggesting. I simply say to the

:11:56. > :11:59.honourable gentleman, that I have a huge amount of respect for him, I

:12:00. > :12:02.have listened to the bus operators in my constituency and listened to

:12:03. > :12:11.the passengers in my constituency. We have compared, compared to 20

:12:12. > :12:14.years ago, when the honourable member for Cambridge were standing

:12:15. > :12:22.in a rural Norfolk seat and nearly winning that Norfolk seat in 1997,

:12:23. > :12:25.Migno folk I think it was. We have added more bus services serving when

:12:26. > :12:30.it communities and villages because of the way SMEs have come forward

:12:31. > :12:36.and stepped up to the plate as it were. I have taken enough time of

:12:37. > :12:43.the House this afternoon and I simply say to the Minister that I do

:12:44. > :12:46.believe these amendments in my name and my honourable and right

:12:47. > :12:53.honourable friends go a long way to improving this bill at, not

:12:54. > :12:57.undermining sabotaging parts of the bill but making it, I think better

:12:58. > :13:01.for the bus operators, the smaller bus operators but for passengers and

:13:02. > :13:07.local authorities as well by providing important clarity. I beg

:13:08. > :13:13.to move those amendments. I would like to make -- direct my remarks

:13:14. > :13:24.that the clauses and amendments in relation to franchising. Including

:13:25. > :13:32.amendments 14 to 23 and 26 and 27. The strength of this bill is in

:13:33. > :13:34.devolution. And the proposal that decision-making on providing bus

:13:35. > :13:39.services should be devolved to local transport authorities and should be

:13:40. > :13:46.looking at what works best in local areas. In looking at that, it is

:13:47. > :13:49.important to remember that this bill has come about because of

:13:50. > :13:54.dissatisfaction from members of the public and people who want to use

:13:55. > :14:02.buses about the way the current system operates. There have been a

:14:03. > :14:06.number of opportunities to change the 1985 transport directly to

:14:07. > :14:13.transport services but none of those efforts have resolved the problem.

:14:14. > :14:18.This bill I think is an important element in have the public

:14:19. > :14:23.experience and growing the private sector. I welcome the bill. The

:14:24. > :14:29.transport select committee has looked at the bill in detail. We

:14:30. > :14:33.looked at it from the perspective of passengers and the interests of

:14:34. > :14:37.passengers. We did very much welcome the possibility of new entrants,

:14:38. > :14:41.smaller entrance, being able to be involved in the bus market. My

:14:42. > :14:46.concerns in relation to these amendments and clauses what to do

:14:47. > :14:54.with looking at whether the proposed amendments will in fact stop

:14:55. > :15:00.devolution as opposed to being able to take place. Two aspects, firstly

:15:01. > :15:03.in relation to the areas where combined authority areas with

:15:04. > :15:10.directly elected mayors will have the power to go forward with

:15:11. > :15:16.franchising. There is a lack of clarity on what regulations will be

:15:17. > :15:19.introduced or imposed to impede directly elected mayors from doing

:15:20. > :15:25.that. It is not entirely clear from the amendments put forward whether

:15:26. > :15:32.that would be an absolute right of directly elected mayors with

:15:33. > :15:33.combined authorities to introduce franchising or perhaps complex and

:15:34. > :15:40.unknown regulations would be imposed. I would like clarification

:15:41. > :15:45.from the Minister on that. It addresses a fundamental part of this

:15:46. > :15:50.bill. Secondly, the proposal of the bill is that transport authorities

:15:51. > :15:55.in areas which are not combined authorities with directly elected

:15:56. > :16:01.mayors may have the powers to introduce franchising under certain

:16:02. > :16:06.circumstances. My concern is that the amendments put forward make that

:16:07. > :16:11.proposal extremely complex. So that it is virtually impossible to assess

:16:12. > :16:14.whether the local transport authorities in those areas would in

:16:15. > :16:18.fact be able to proceed with franchising if they wished to do so.

:16:19. > :16:24.The transport select committee when we looked at this did look at good

:16:25. > :16:28.practice and the committee as a whole certainly thought that local

:16:29. > :16:33.transport authorities should look at other existing ways of operating in

:16:34. > :16:37.partnership with local transport operators for their move to a

:16:38. > :16:41.franchising system. We did not think that should be part of the

:16:42. > :16:48.regulations. The proposal now introduces new hurdles, not fully

:16:49. > :16:54.specified as to what those hurdles are. Equally importantly, how these

:16:55. > :16:58.hurdles would be assessed before the authority could proceed to having a

:16:59. > :17:04.franchise system. That, it seems to me, seems to strike at the heart of

:17:05. > :17:08.the bill. This bill is about improving transport services in the

:17:09. > :17:12.localities. Devolving to local transport authorities the ability to

:17:13. > :17:16.act on the needs of their areas. Yet the amendments we are looking at

:17:17. > :17:21.introduce new hurdles which could possibly in the future mean that

:17:22. > :17:27.future ministers could impede the objectives of the ball. I'm sure

:17:28. > :17:33.that present their ministers would not wish to happen. I'm extremely

:17:34. > :17:36.concerned about these amendments and proposals and I seek clarification

:17:37. > :17:41.from the transport minister on what they mean and whether the government

:17:42. > :17:45.still intends franchising to be able to go ahead. And it has stated,

:17:46. > :17:53.without introducing convex hurdles which in reality would make it to

:17:54. > :17:57.achieve. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow

:17:58. > :18:03.my honourable friend the chair of the transport select committee. We

:18:04. > :18:06.have looked at this issue number of times in the transport select

:18:07. > :18:14.committee and we have never been able to find a reason, as my

:18:15. > :18:18.honourable friend from Gateshead alluded to, a reason why London

:18:19. > :18:23.should have one system and the rest of the country should have another

:18:24. > :18:27.system. I know the honourable member for Wimbledon agrees with that. I

:18:28. > :18:35.don't blame them, the regulated system in London is superior to the

:18:36. > :18:44.system the rest of us in the rest of the country have. I listened to the

:18:45. > :18:50.honourable member for North West Norfolk in his responses about not

:18:51. > :18:57.wanting to wreck this bill and I take that at face value. However, I

:18:58. > :19:03.think the amendments do not reflect the nature or the reality of bus

:19:04. > :19:08.services certainly in urban areas I am not an expert of bus services in

:19:09. > :19:14.Norfolk. I suspect he knows more than I do about Norfolk. But the

:19:15. > :19:21.fact is that if he is concerned about small bus companies, he should

:19:22. > :19:26.be concerned to support this bill as it is way to improve it. What has

:19:27. > :19:30.happened in the West Midlands, Merseyside, Tyne and greater

:19:31. > :19:33.Manchester and the great urban areas of this country is precisely the

:19:34. > :19:40.opposite of what he wants. Small companies have been given off

:19:41. > :19:58.the road by large companies. I couldn't agree more. When the

:19:59. > :20:01.situation was first brought about I actually remember visiting Merthyr

:20:02. > :20:09.Tydfil, Madam Deputy Speaker to see Gateshead play, and a conference

:20:10. > :20:14.fixture and lo and behold there were Gateshead buses actually being used

:20:15. > :20:18.in a local bus war to actually destabilise the local small bus

:20:19. > :20:22.company site in terms of the impact on small and medium-size enterprise

:20:23. > :20:27.bus companies that particular horse has bolted long ago. I thank my

:20:28. > :20:35.honourable friend for his intervention. Exactly right. The

:20:36. > :20:39.deregulation of bus services has not led to greater competition, it's not

:20:40. > :20:44.been of benefit to small enterprise or medium enterprise and stop they

:20:45. > :20:51.have been literally driven off the roads because on the odd occasions

:20:52. > :20:54.when there has been on the road competition it has led to congestion

:20:55. > :21:03.and eventually a large monopoly operator taking over first group for

:21:04. > :21:07.example, and one or two others, taking control and therefore able to

:21:08. > :21:12.exploit the situation with higher bus fares and sometimes withdrawing

:21:13. > :21:16.services from other areas. I will give way. I am grateful. I have

:21:17. > :21:24.listened with interest to the comments made about SMEs, and there

:21:25. > :21:27.is a lot of truth for small bus companies but isn't the greatest

:21:28. > :21:31.concern for medium-sized operators which there aren't that many of any

:21:32. > :21:36.country but in a kanji like mine, Nottinghamshire, and bathing in

:21:37. > :21:41.Derbyshire, there are some, which the honourable lady from Nottingham

:21:42. > :21:44.South is familiar with, good medium-sized bus companies and they

:21:45. > :21:47.stand to lose a lot from this and they will either go exponentially to

:21:48. > :21:52.win a franchise or confined in the case of either of those companies 30

:21:53. > :21:56.years of hard work going down the toilet, with no compensation

:21:57. > :22:00.whatsoever? I will come onto the point that the honourable gentleman

:22:01. > :22:07.makes, it is a fair point, and he's right to be concerned about that but

:22:08. > :22:12.I want to develop the argument on making by these amendments are not

:22:13. > :22:19.sensible amendments to the bill. In large parts of the country where

:22:20. > :22:27.most bus passengers are, we do not have competition. The basis of the

:22:28. > :22:34.1985 act was that would be on the road competition in that provide

:22:35. > :22:37.good services and a bus companies lost out because of an road

:22:38. > :22:45.competition, they lost out as in any other catalyst competitive market

:22:46. > :22:52.situation. That actually hasn't happened, he moved to monopoly.

:22:53. > :22:58.Incidentally, when the... 1985 act was implemented in 1986 there was no

:22:59. > :23:03.compensation paid to those bus companies of which there were a

:23:04. > :23:09.number who had been running an regulative routes, in east

:23:10. > :23:13.Manchester, for example a company had run for many years and they when

:23:14. > :23:20.they had to compete did not get compensation. So what we are doing

:23:21. > :23:26.now is moving to in principle a different way, to a system in those

:23:27. > :23:30.areas that used to do it because the world rejoices for Norfolk Greater

:23:31. > :23:36.Manchester at some stage if they do, to a competitive situation. And of

:23:37. > :23:42.course in a competitive situation as is true of oil franchises, and

:23:43. > :23:47.cavities lose out. -- rail franchises, they lose their

:23:48. > :23:49.businesses, and I have mentioned previously as one of the

:23:50. > :23:55.difficulties of franchising, ending up with investors and a lack of

:23:56. > :24:00.investment at the end, that of the nature of franchising. About

:24:01. > :24:06.medium-sized bus companies, that can of course be taken into account in

:24:07. > :24:13.the way that franchises are set up by local choice. They can set them

:24:14. > :24:22.up in as many different ways as they wish to which would give you rights

:24:23. > :24:26.of medium-sized companies to tender for routes that that the size of the

:24:27. > :24:31.bus company if that was the franchising authority's desire,

:24:32. > :24:39.which brings me to one of my points in committee, that rather than the

:24:40. > :24:48.amendments we have here I would have preferred the bill to have said as

:24:49. > :24:52.rejected in committee that two things. One regulation should be

:24:53. > :24:54.unburdened, and they should should secondly reflect local conditions

:24:55. > :24:59.and there if they were reflecting local conditions that they could

:25:00. > :25:02.take into account those small and medium-sized companies. But there is

:25:03. > :25:06.a larger point here and as my right honourable friend said I think the

:25:07. > :25:11.large bus companies more than the small bus companies would be pleased

:25:12. > :25:18.if these amendments were passed. The reason that there is not a single

:25:19. > :25:24.quality contract in this country is that when quality contracts were

:25:25. > :25:30.brought in legislatively in the 2000 transport act, there was a clause in

:25:31. > :25:35.that which, very similar to the clauses that the honourable

:25:36. > :25:38.gentleman here, saying they are the only practical way of delivering a

:25:39. > :25:47.better bus service. This is an incredibly high hurdle to pass which

:25:48. > :25:51.is why there aren't any. In fact, in terms of quality partnerships which

:25:52. > :25:54.she refers to when I asked the minister in committee how many

:25:55. > :26:01.quality partnerships were in the country, after a little help from

:26:02. > :26:04.his officials we discover that there were ten, so even quality

:26:05. > :26:12.partnerships are not even abundant on the ground in this country. I

:26:13. > :26:16.think we do not need over burdensome regulations, but want to make this

:26:17. > :26:24.work because with little improve the services, more competitive, and lead

:26:25. > :26:27.to better services. In terms of reducing costs, we are discussing

:26:28. > :26:33.them now, but there are huge notes on guidance associated with this be

:26:34. > :26:41.-- bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I think over prescriptive, and I

:26:42. > :26:47.prefer to rely on the good sense of local councillors who will make some

:26:48. > :26:53.good decisions and some bad, but there are many bus companies opposed

:26:54. > :26:58.to this and if local authorities behave in an unreasonable way then

:26:59. > :27:04.they have the right to apply the Wednesbury principal and go through

:27:05. > :27:07.a judicial review, and I think rather than having lots of

:27:08. > :27:15.prescriptions, putting more and more hurdles in the way of local people

:27:16. > :27:20.making decisions, we should rely on them, and sometimes they will get it

:27:21. > :27:26.wrong, as they do at national level at times, but we can rely on them,

:27:27. > :27:31.on the common law that will insure that if bus companies feel that they

:27:32. > :27:35.are being unfairly treated, that the transport authority in the area is

:27:36. > :27:40.behaving in a way that is unreasonable, then they would be

:27:41. > :27:44.able to take that to court so why have the minister will reject these

:27:45. > :27:50.amendments, in the balance that we have had through all of this vote,

:27:51. > :27:52.what essential, what is going to help local authorities, transport

:27:53. > :27:57.authorities, elected mayors make the decision, I don't think these are

:27:58. > :28:05.helpful in moving us towards a better local transport system. Thank

:28:06. > :28:10.you Madam Deputy Speaker. With a wide range of amendments here, many

:28:11. > :28:14.of which we support but some we do not, I would like to start with new

:28:15. > :28:17.clause four on bus safety, one which I genuinely hope the Minister will

:28:18. > :28:21.consider because despite his comments in committee, I have had

:28:22. > :28:27.more disappointment it's best to me since those discussions on any other

:28:28. > :28:32.element of those proceedings partly because the Minister from the other

:28:33. > :28:35.players had been encouraging, but I can't believes there is any

:28:36. > :28:40.disagreements on the value of improving safety. It is widely

:28:41. > :28:44.improved as a cost-effective way of achieving that goal. I think the

:28:45. > :28:49.minister suggested in committee that he might be minded to insert some

:28:50. > :28:56.guidance to encourage bus operators to sign up but I have to say the

:28:57. > :29:03.importance of -- emphasis on voluntariness is clear, and to my

:29:04. > :29:07.knowledge no bus operator outside London is signed up. This is an

:29:08. > :29:12.opportunity to actually end that situation, as my honourable friend

:29:13. > :29:16.said, it is not expensive, it works in the railway industry, haven't

:29:17. > :29:21.heard anyone make a strong case against it stop it works very well

:29:22. > :29:29.and I would urge the Minister to grasp the opportunity. Now, the

:29:30. > :29:33.amendments 14-23, and 15, do seem to us to be unnecessary and to go

:29:34. > :29:36.against the spirit and evolutionary nature of the bill. We believe the

:29:37. > :29:41.current assessment process laid out in the bill, and as honourable

:29:42. > :29:45.friends have mentioned, the extensive, I think 168 pages of

:29:46. > :29:49.guidance available to it, I think that is a very thorough process and

:29:50. > :29:55.in fact a very tough process already. We don't believe it needs

:29:56. > :29:58.to be added to further. Amendment 24 in our view undermines the

:29:59. > :30:03.assessment made by the government of the issues around compensation, and

:30:04. > :30:06.sufficient time for operators to be able to plan accordingly, and we

:30:07. > :30:13.believe the conditions already in the bill fully satisfy all the money

:30:14. > :30:16.for consideration so we are pleased the confirmation of the second

:30:17. > :30:22.reading and in committee, but the aim is to remove barriers in this

:30:23. > :30:24.proceeding, and so our fear is exactly as has been said by

:30:25. > :30:27.honourable friend and right honourable friend is that this

:30:28. > :30:35.amendment could put the very heart of the bill at risk. Amendment 25

:30:36. > :30:36.also seems to us unnecessary, as additional appropriate independent

:30:37. > :30:40.structure for the audit process will be insured by the government

:30:41. > :30:47.amendment that I think are probably about see him moved. And amendments

:30:48. > :30:50.26 and 27, a game seemed to us against the evolutionary nature of

:30:51. > :30:57.the bill because we believe it is to the local authorities to make these

:30:58. > :31:04.local judgments. Returning to amendments six, seven, ten, 11 and

:31:05. > :31:07.13 in the name of the Gateshead, we strongly support them, and the

:31:08. > :31:11.arguments made strongly in committee and more strongly today, very well

:31:12. > :31:15.made, and I'm my view it is absolutely right that any of these

:31:16. > :31:21.transfers the detectives, and this is an opportunity do that. I fear

:31:22. > :31:32.that if we don't take this opportunity, we should. Thank you

:31:33. > :31:36.very much. The respective roles of central government and local

:31:37. > :31:39.government in this bill was a running theme through the committee

:31:40. > :31:43.stage and I think Brown back to its today. Let me start by addressing

:31:44. > :31:51.amendments concerning franchising schemes. The decision to move to a

:31:52. > :31:53.franchising system is a big one for any authority or combined

:31:54. > :31:58.authorities you take, and it is therefore not to be undertaken

:31:59. > :32:03.lightly. And it is one which must have improvement for bus passengers

:32:04. > :32:09.at its heart. Importantly it must be very much a local decision. That is

:32:10. > :32:13.absolutely and underlining support which we have bought to this bill

:32:14. > :32:17.from the very beginning. We do however want to ensure that local

:32:18. > :32:20.authorities contemplating franchising do so with their eyes

:32:21. > :32:26.wide open to the opportunities, risks and costs. We expect them to

:32:27. > :32:31.have consulted widely on proposals. The bill sets out clearly the

:32:32. > :32:37.processes authorities must follow for implementing franchising. This

:32:38. > :32:41.includes developing and assessment -- and assessment of the proposal

:32:42. > :32:45.commenters of a business case. As a part of the assessment the authority

:32:46. > :32:49.must consider value mother -- for money and the proposal, and must

:32:50. > :32:53.prepare achingly proposed game against other courses of action such

:32:54. > :32:57.as a partnership, very much indeed as my honourable friend from Norfolk

:32:58. > :33:01.was suggesting. But several of the amendments in this group were

:33:02. > :33:06.changed -- would change how these amendments are operated. Amendments

:33:07. > :33:10.24 tabled by my honourable friend for North West Norfolk ekes to

:33:11. > :33:14.ensure that an authority includes in its assessment consideration of

:33:15. > :33:16.whether the proposed scheme would be more efficient, effective and

:33:17. > :33:24.economic than any other option. Taking into account any compensation

:33:25. > :33:26.payable to operators. I do not see a need given extensive requirements

:33:27. > :33:31.set out just exactly go to include these additional and very similar

:33:32. > :33:36.issues as a separate part of the assessment. I also do not think it

:33:37. > :33:38.is necessary to delete macro or appropriate for there to be a

:33:39. > :33:43.reference to compensation in this part of the bill or indeed of any --

:33:44. > :33:48.anywhere in it. Any move to a franchising scheme will not come as

:33:49. > :33:50.a surprise to bus operators, with clear processes and consultation

:33:51. > :33:54.arrangements we have set out providing them with sufficient

:33:55. > :33:59.warning of, giving an opportunity to express views on the proposed

:34:00. > :34:06.scheme, as statutory consultees. Currently, bus operators of riots --

:34:07. > :34:12.acquires to provide their intentions. This enables authorities

:34:13. > :34:16.to experiment notice period to hundred and 12 days to enable

:34:17. > :34:20.authority to make changes if necessary. That's an important point

:34:21. > :34:24.I think for the amendments suggested by the honourable gentleman for

:34:25. > :34:29.Gateshead. Bus operators of all sizes will be able to compete when a

:34:30. > :34:32.franchising system is implemented even if that is the route that is

:34:33. > :34:45.chosen for the local basis. That competition will take place off

:34:46. > :34:52.the road but it will still exist. It is only for those operators who

:34:53. > :34:55.choose not to compete or to that will generally no longer be able to

:34:56. > :35:01.run services once franchising model is implemented. In any event, they

:35:02. > :35:07.would be free to register for new services elsewhere. The minister

:35:08. > :35:18.says the competition will continue to exist. 30 save that the committee

:35:19. > :35:24.were unable to find much evidence for an road competition. My point in

:35:25. > :35:27.that competition doesn't disappear from the market. Competition

:35:28. > :35:31.currently takes place where it does come on the road. We are now moving

:35:32. > :35:36.from the roadside to the tender. I'm not accepting that competition

:35:37. > :35:42.disappears from the marketplace at all. I come from a robust private

:35:43. > :35:44.sector background into this place where competition was the

:35:45. > :35:49.bread-and-butter of daily activity and I'm sure it can have a positive

:35:50. > :35:58.impact on customer service, innovation, price etc. I am grateful

:35:59. > :36:04.to the Minister for giving way. He kindly met my constituent John

:36:05. > :36:08.Marshall, who is also the chair of the East Midlands passenger

:36:09. > :36:12.transport organisation that represents other small and

:36:13. > :36:17.medium-sized bus companies. In the region. He says that for him and his

:36:18. > :36:20.members, the question of compensation remains unanswered in

:36:21. > :36:26.the bill. For the sake of clarity for bus operators like he is, is the

:36:27. > :36:31.government intention that in the event franchises are lost, there

:36:32. > :36:36.will be no compensation or should be no compensation for any bus company

:36:37. > :36:42.in the UK? Would do not think that it would be requirement to pay

:36:43. > :36:46.compensation. But if a franchising authority goes down the route of

:36:47. > :36:55.developing a franchising model, they would be free to offer any payments

:36:56. > :37:00.as they would see fit. I now turn to amendments 16 to 23, tabled by my

:37:01. > :37:06.honourable friend, the member for North West Norfolk. Is seek to

:37:07. > :37:10.require a franchising authority to be satisfied of rather than consider

:37:11. > :37:15.certain matters when making an assessment of a proposed franchising

:37:16. > :37:18.scheme. I think this is a significant distinction. The

:37:19. > :37:22.assessment proposed in the bill does not require the authority to pass

:37:23. > :37:26.certain tests or prove that franchising would achieve certain

:37:27. > :37:29.things. Instead it reflects the standard approach for public sector

:37:30. > :37:33.investment decisions requiring a view to be taken on the overall

:37:34. > :37:37.merits of the scheme. This is a very deliberate move away from the old

:37:38. > :37:42.quality context in the assessed which as we have heard this

:37:43. > :37:47.afternoon, no authority has established a franchising system. A

:37:48. > :37:51.requirement for franchising authority to satisfy itself that a

:37:52. > :37:55.franchise would deliver certain things risks the creation of an

:37:56. > :38:00.impossible hurdle. It would be difficult for authorities to satisfy

:38:01. > :38:03.themselves with certainty as their analysis, by its very nature, would

:38:04. > :38:08.be based on assumptions and projections about the future. I am

:38:09. > :38:15.afraid that I think these amendments risk making this bill are unworkable

:38:16. > :38:19.in practice. We agreed to deliver franchising power as part of our

:38:20. > :38:24.devolution commitments. And that is what this bill does. I hope that on

:38:25. > :38:29.the basis of these explanations, my honourable friend will feel able to

:38:30. > :38:33.withdraw amendments 16 to 24. As well as requiring a franchising

:38:34. > :38:38.authority to prepare an assessment, the bill also requires the authority

:38:39. > :38:44.to obtain a report from a qualified auditor. This report must set out

:38:45. > :38:48.whether the authority, has in relation to its consideration of

:38:49. > :38:52.affordability and value for money, used information and conducted

:38:53. > :38:58.analysis which is of sufficient quality. The authority must publish

:38:59. > :39:01.the auditor's report as part of the consultation process. Amendments to

:39:02. > :39:04.and three in the name of my right honourable friend the member the

:39:05. > :39:09.Secretary of State make it clear that the auditor appointed for this

:39:10. > :39:13.purpose must be independent. It has been our intention that this would

:39:14. > :39:20.be independent but we want to make it clear and put this beyond any

:39:21. > :39:22.doubt. In particular, Amendment three imposes duties on the

:39:23. > :39:27.Secretary of State to issue guidance on matters a franchising authority

:39:28. > :39:32.are to take into account when selecting its auditor. And also on

:39:33. > :39:34.the criteria to be taken into account by an auditor in reaching a

:39:35. > :39:48.view on the relevant aspects of another it is system. I have to say,

:39:49. > :39:53.I am happy to see that I am in this instance in total agreement with my

:39:54. > :39:58.right and noble friend, or North West Norfolk, and I agree with him

:39:59. > :40:03.in principle an amendment 20 five. I have to say though that the

:40:04. > :40:10.principle I agree with, when we go into the nuances of how you would

:40:11. > :40:14.demonstrate independence from the authority are better addressed

:40:15. > :40:20.through guidance rather than on the face of the bill. This is the

:40:21. > :40:26.thinking behind amendment three. The amendment details five years of

:40:27. > :40:33.independence from the authority, that could be quite a difficult

:40:34. > :40:35.thing to deliver. If you are the combined authority Manchester, you

:40:36. > :40:39.would have to demonstrate that none of the bigger accountancy firms had

:40:40. > :40:42.dealt with the constituent authorities over the last five

:40:43. > :40:47.years, that could be quite a challenge. But the principle we have

:40:48. > :40:52.here of independence has absolutely been in our thinking as a government

:40:53. > :40:56.from the beginning. It is behind my honourable friend's amendment which

:40:57. > :41:01.I support in principle and that is why I hope that on this basis, you

:41:02. > :41:09.will feel able to withdraw amendment 20 five. On the basis of what he is

:41:10. > :41:12.saying and I am grateful for what he says an amendment 25, would it be

:41:13. > :41:17.possible to include the spirit and essence of 25 in the guidance that

:41:18. > :41:23.the Secretary of State will issue, if he gives an undertaking that

:41:24. > :41:30.would happen, I would be prepared to withdraw 25. I can give my

:41:31. > :41:35.honourable friend that assurance. We will be dealing with the matter of

:41:36. > :41:39.independence in the guidance and it is an absolutely basic principle

:41:40. > :41:42.that independence from the decision-making body will be a

:41:43. > :41:48.criteria for that so I can confirm that for my honourable friend. I

:41:49. > :41:54.thank him for giving way and may I say I am reassured by what he has

:41:55. > :41:58.said this afternoon in rejecting amendment 14 and the other related

:41:59. > :42:04.amendments. Can I ask him to go a little further and give the House a

:42:05. > :42:06.clear commitment that on the guidance and regulation that will

:42:07. > :42:11.come after this bill, the consultation closed last week I

:42:12. > :42:15.think, that the spirit of his remarks today will be carried into

:42:16. > :42:21.those regulations as well. And he will work closely with greater

:42:22. > :42:23.transport -- transport for greater Manchester in terms of regulation

:42:24. > :42:29.and guidance consistent with what he has said today to the House and what

:42:30. > :42:33.is in this bill. I can provide the right honourable gentleman with that

:42:34. > :42:39.assurance. We not seeking to stand in the way here. We a suite of

:42:40. > :42:45.powers were authorities can make decisions for their area and in some

:42:46. > :42:49.case it will be a franchising model. I don't think that will happen in

:42:50. > :42:53.most parts of the country but I know that in some parts and greater

:42:54. > :42:59.Manchester is one, they have indicated much interest in that

:43:00. > :43:03.model. It will not be in our objective is to stand in the way of

:43:04. > :43:07.local authorities choosing what is right for their area. What we want

:43:08. > :43:11.to see is a thriving bus industry with local authorities working with

:43:12. > :43:15.bus operators to deliver a better network with a better deal for

:43:16. > :43:23.passengers to much more passengers on buses. That is our objective in

:43:24. > :43:27.this bill. Amendments for and five, or also tabled by my right

:43:28. > :43:31.honourable friend come at the Secretary of State make clear the

:43:32. > :43:35.precise requirements that a person has to satisfy in order to be

:43:36. > :43:39.appointed as an auditor. What we are proposing these changes in response

:43:40. > :43:44.to a effective representations we have received from a number of

:43:45. > :43:50.members and following meetings I have had personally and the

:43:51. > :43:54.Secretary of State has as well. Conversations on the practicality of

:43:55. > :43:58.the existing provisions with potential auditors. I hope these

:43:59. > :44:02.government amendments, which I will move later on will be broadly

:44:03. > :44:08.supported by members across the House. The aim of amendments 14 and

:44:09. > :44:12.15, again tabled in my honourable friend, the member for North West

:44:13. > :44:15.Norfolk, are to prevent a franchising scheme from proceeding

:44:16. > :44:19.if the passenger benefits it is expected to deliver could be

:44:20. > :44:26.achieved by making a partnership scheme. Again, there is much in his

:44:27. > :44:30.intentions with which I have great sympathy. And I know that my

:44:31. > :44:37.honourable friend the North West Norfolk and the Wimbledon have done

:44:38. > :44:41.a significant job speaking up on behalf passengers and being a voice

:44:42. > :44:47.for passengers in the bus sector for a long period of time. I have to say

:44:48. > :44:51.I do not want to see franchising pursued for any other reason than

:44:52. > :44:58.passenger benefit. Simply not for ideological reasons. This is all to

:44:59. > :45:04.do with benefits for passengers. It has to be a theme which runs through

:45:05. > :45:08.the entire bill. And how we wish to see their experience improved. As I

:45:09. > :45:11.have made clear, the bill already requires a local authority to

:45:12. > :45:17.compare making a franchising scheme to one or more other options. I hope

:45:18. > :45:21.my honourable friend will be reassured that this will be a proper

:45:22. > :45:26.consideration of options available. The draft guidance on which we

:45:27. > :45:30.recently consulted states that identifying realistic options should

:45:31. > :45:34.not be a desk exercise. Authorities should engage with bus operators in

:45:35. > :45:39.the area to see if there is a realistic partnership opposition and

:45:40. > :45:42.that authorities should not dismiss realistic alternatives without

:45:43. > :45:49.detailed assessment. I believe the decision-making apparatus in the

:45:50. > :45:53.bill is appropriate. And an authority on intimate franchising

:45:54. > :45:57.must have satisfied itself following a consultation on its assessment of

:45:58. > :46:01.the options, including bus operators and passenger representatives, that

:46:02. > :46:05.franchising is the right option for its area. Most importantly it should

:46:06. > :46:09.have a clear rationale for that with passengers at its heart. I hope

:46:10. > :46:14.therefore that my honourable friend will feel able to withdraw

:46:15. > :46:18.amendments 14 and 15 in due course. The final set of amendments relating

:46:19. > :46:24.to franchising decisions are also from I honourable friend, amendments

:46:25. > :46:29.26 and 27. Ain't to prevent an authority -- aimed to prevent an

:46:30. > :46:34.authority but not progressed it from making another scheme for a period

:46:35. > :46:39.of five years. Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that these amendments do

:46:40. > :46:42.rather go against the spirit of devolution. Banning the introduction

:46:43. > :46:47.of a franchising scheme for an arbitrary time period could severely

:46:48. > :46:52.restrict the capacity of an elected mayor or other franchising

:46:53. > :46:56.authorities to take local situations into account and to act accordingly.

:46:57. > :47:01.It could also undermine the democratic process by preventing a

:47:02. > :47:04.new mayor, who is elected within the five-year period, from developing a

:47:05. > :47:11.franchising scheme even if he or she had run on a franchising scheme as

:47:12. > :47:14.part of their manifesto. In practice, if an attempt at a

:47:15. > :47:19.franchise would fail, it is highly unlikely that an authority would

:47:20. > :47:22.seek to make another scheme without devoting a reasonable amount of time

:47:23. > :47:27.to learning the lessons from that experience. Given this, again, I

:47:28. > :47:34.hope my honourable friend will withdraw these amendments. I now

:47:35. > :47:38.have an to consider how much freedom he mayor or local transport

:47:39. > :47:44.authority should have about how they implement franchising in partnership

:47:45. > :47:49.schemes. Amendments six to 13 and new clause four tabled by the

:47:50. > :47:55.honourable gentleman for Gateshead, to seek to limit that freedom. In

:47:56. > :47:58.various ways. As I said in committee, I do not believe

:47:59. > :48:01.mandating the basis on which contracts are procured by local

:48:02. > :48:06.transport authorities or the contents of these contracts is

:48:07. > :48:10.appropriate. But this is exactly what amendment six and nine propose

:48:11. > :48:14.in relation to the terms and conditions of employees. I can

:48:15. > :48:18.assure the honourable member that the power to achieve the outcome

:48:19. > :48:22.that these amendments seek will already rest with the franchising of

:48:23. > :48:27.parity, who will be letting the contracts. Employees and other

:48:28. > :48:30.representative groups will have plenty of opportunity to raise that

:48:31. > :48:34.point during the consultation process for those respective

:48:35. > :48:38.schemes. It might be appropriate in fact to put these proposals to the

:48:39. > :48:43.mayoral candidates for each of our parties. I was a little surprised I

:48:44. > :48:47.have to say, that these amendments have come forward. Because there are

:48:48. > :48:52.some practical concerns about them which we did discuss at the

:48:53. > :48:55.committee stage. For example, it was not clear exactly which terms and

:48:56. > :49:00.conditions would apply. Whether people with different arrangements

:49:01. > :49:04.of transfers and the cost of his proposals could also prove

:49:05. > :49:09.sufficient to prevent some authorities from pursuing a

:49:10. > :49:10.franchising scheme. We look at amendments ten and 13 regarding

:49:11. > :49:20.potential dismissals. I have some sympathy with the

:49:21. > :49:29.intention behind the two subsections concerning Ribot -- redundancies of

:49:30. > :49:34.employees. The scenario they seek to address I think is very unlikely to

:49:35. > :49:38.occur. I very much doubt any employer will choose to dismiss an

:49:39. > :49:45.employee and where the redundancy costs if they are able to transfer

:49:46. > :49:50.them instead. In any event, employment law already deals with

:49:51. > :49:56.the issue of unfair dismissal of employees. I am afraid for the

:49:57. > :50:02.similar reasons I cannot accept amendments seven, eight, 11, and 12.

:50:03. > :50:09.These amendments would broaden the bill's provisions so that

:50:10. > :50:14.projections would my where new operators provide new services

:50:15. > :50:21.sometime after the previous owner ceased. This bill enhances employee

:50:22. > :50:26.protection in certain circumstances and we right balance in this regard

:50:27. > :50:29.and do not believe this provision should be broadened further. One of

:50:30. > :50:38.the first things re-established in preparing this bill was for TP and

:50:39. > :50:42.prevention in prevention of franchising. Mr Deputy Speaker, the

:50:43. > :50:47.honourable member Gateshead proposes through new clause four to require

:50:48. > :50:51.bus operators to subscribe to a confidential reporting system in

:50:52. > :50:58.order to participate in any bus scheme provided under the bill. This

:50:59. > :51:00.would also require operators to collect, monitor rush casualty data

:51:01. > :51:04.and make that data available for publication. Any assure the house

:51:05. > :51:11.that I take the issue of road safety very seriously and although the

:51:12. > :51:15.number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured involving a bus or

:51:16. > :51:18.coach outside London is falling, I don't think we can be in any way

:51:19. > :51:24.complacent. There have been a number of debates on this matter both in

:51:25. > :51:27.committee and in the other place. Although I can agree with the

:51:28. > :51:33.sentiment, the objective of this amendment, I don't believe it is

:51:34. > :51:39.appropriate to mandate that in primary legislation. CFL is given as

:51:40. > :51:43.they don't like I will give way. With the Minister accept, and as a

:51:44. > :51:48.regular bus user I have witnessed this on a number of occasions,

:51:49. > :51:54.injuries can also occur to passengers. This is not about

:51:55. > :51:57.pedestrians or other road users, passengers on buses quite often

:51:58. > :52:03.without the vehicle being involved in any sort of concession cat-macro

:52:04. > :52:06.collision may gain images because the bus might brake abruptly.

:52:07. > :52:13.Surely, the protection of the travelling public on the bus, the

:52:14. > :52:17.customers of the bus operator have a right to some protection from the

:52:18. > :52:25.government in this manager. -- nature. I recognise the point the

:52:26. > :52:29.honourable gentleman says, there is no doubt they can be injured on a

:52:30. > :52:35.bus as a passenger. I am also a regular bus user, and not that

:52:36. > :52:41.that's particularly relevant, having said that, but all of us who action

:52:42. > :52:44.travel upon buses will have potentially seamless, so his point

:52:45. > :52:48.is reasonable, but I don't think that necessarily means that we need

:52:49. > :52:57.to mandate a reporting system in primary legislation will stop TEFL

:52:58. > :53:03.is the main example in reporting and featured in debates and discussed in

:53:04. > :53:08.committee and I understand that TEFL pays the subscription -- TFL Paisley

:53:09. > :53:13.subscription. When the contract came up for renewal, that was extended to

:53:14. > :53:18.buses at no extra cost to TFL. It is a different aspect to every

:53:19. > :53:23.different bus operator subscribing to such a system. As I mentioned

:53:24. > :53:26.when dealing with an intervention from my honourable friend from

:53:27. > :53:34.Basingstoke earlier, there are 30 rail companies in this country,

:53:35. > :53:38.there are 1000 plus bus companies. And we'd also to consider evidence.

:53:39. > :53:42.I have not been made aware of any robust Addison's suggesting that

:53:43. > :53:47.buses introduced in London impact upon safety. If a franchising

:53:48. > :53:55.authority wishes to stimulate a system as part of its conditions, it

:53:56. > :54:01.is free to do so as has kept in London. This could also include bus

:54:02. > :54:07.safety measures as part of this arrangement. I will explore through

:54:08. > :54:10.the guidance how we could encourage operators and local transport

:54:11. > :54:14.authorities to consider the benefits of an independent, confidential

:54:15. > :54:17.reporting system and will probably only limit that to a franchising or

:54:18. > :54:24.partnership scheme to start with but I hope that in light of my comments

:54:25. > :54:28.the honourable gentleman for them Gateshead will be able to withdraw

:54:29. > :54:34.amendments 6-13, and indeed new clause four as well. Mr Deputy

:54:35. > :54:37.Speaker I am sure that you and all of us across the house will be

:54:38. > :54:40.pleased to note that I have been speaking for too long, I am coming

:54:41. > :54:47.to my end, and amendments 28 titles by my honourable friend, my

:54:48. > :54:50.colleague from North West Norfolk, concerning decision-making in

:54:51. > :54:54.enhanced partnership scheme. It would event requirements relating to

:54:55. > :54:58.the way that tickets are purchased or first page, how fares or

:54:59. > :55:03.ticketing arrangements are publicised, and has really matter as

:55:04. > :55:08.to the price being specified in such a scheme unless all parties agree to

:55:09. > :55:13.add. While ticketing is a key element of the proposals in the bill

:55:14. > :55:17.and one of the key principles of the enhanced partnership regime is that

:55:18. > :55:24.it does not require consensus by all operators. Instead affected

:55:25. > :55:26.operators make objects to the enhanced partnership proposals at

:55:27. > :55:31.key points in the process and the authority cannot proceed with the

:55:32. > :55:35.proposals if more than a sufficient number of the operators object. What

:55:36. > :55:40.amounts to that number will be set out in the regulations on which we

:55:41. > :55:44.have recently finished consulting but even inside the objection Megan

:55:45. > :55:48.is are further safeguards to ensure individual operators are treated

:55:49. > :55:54.fairly when ticketing requirements are included in an enhanced

:55:55. > :55:58.partnership scheme. A key one is the ability for any proposals relating

:55:59. > :56:01.to ticketing or any other elements of an enhanced partnership scheme to

:56:02. > :56:05.be subject to scrutiny from the Competition and Markets Authority.

:56:06. > :56:11.They will be a statutory consultees for the proposals. Our draft

:56:12. > :56:15.guidance on in-house partnerships -- enhance partnerships also make sure

:56:16. > :56:19.that all documents ensure they never include a section on condition and

:56:20. > :56:22.her clear advice on how operators can raise concerns at any point

:56:23. > :56:26.during the development or implementation of the scheme.

:56:27. > :56:31.Perhaps most importantly I can reassure the member that the

:56:32. > :56:34.authority making the scheme has to be satisfied that any restrictions

:56:35. > :56:38.on competition is introduced by the enhanced partnership such as the

:56:39. > :56:42.setting of a price or a multi-operator ticket are balanced

:56:43. > :56:45.by the benefit to passengers. The effect on small and medium-sized bus

:56:46. > :56:50.operators should also be taken into account as part of this process and

:56:51. > :56:54.we have built in protection for small to medium-sized operators on

:56:55. > :57:00.the face of the bill by requiring them to be considered whichever

:57:01. > :57:04.regulatory model is chosen. And in the clear, I think these provisions

:57:05. > :57:08.are about fairness not about protecting commercial interests of

:57:09. > :57:13.operators, as bus operators may well prefer their customers to buy an

:57:14. > :57:16.exclusive ticket rather than an open ticket, but that is their commercial

:57:17. > :57:22.interests but not necessarily in the interest of the passenger. If the

:57:23. > :57:24.honourable member's amendment were to be accepted, only one operator

:57:25. > :57:29.would need to put their commercial interests first to block what could

:57:30. > :57:33.be a potential improvement to ticketing for passengers and through

:57:34. > :57:38.that actually grow the entire market in their area. Overall I believe the

:57:39. > :57:43.safeguards I have outlined are enough to ensure that proposals

:57:44. > :57:49.related to taking our fair and businesses, while delivering

:57:50. > :57:54.businesses to passengers. -- benefits to passengers. I hope my

:57:55. > :57:58.honourable friend has found my exhalation reassuring and therefore

:57:59. > :58:00.will not press his amendment. To where I started, Mr Deputy Speaker,

:58:01. > :58:07.I believe the bill already has dishes and making -- decision-making

:58:08. > :58:11.in the right places to make the best outcome for passengers and in doing

:58:12. > :58:22.so delivering on devolution commitments and I trust the house

:58:23. > :58:24.agrees. I would like to think the minister could see his way to

:58:25. > :58:32.actually providing within the guidance to this bill once it

:58:33. > :58:34.becomes an act a reference to the confidential incident reporting and

:58:35. > :58:41.analysis as best practice in the industry but notwithstanding that Mr

:58:42. > :58:44.Deputy Speaker I do not seek to press this any further at this stage

:58:45. > :58:51.and would ask fully from the house to withdraw new clause four and the

:58:52. > :58:58.other amendments in my name, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12 and

:58:59. > :59:04.13. Is it your pleasure... Sorry, Sir Henry. Sorry we will comeback.

:59:05. > :59:13.Unless it is a point of order? No? OK. Is it your pleasure that clause

:59:14. > :59:20.four be withdrawn? To move formally... Amendments to death five

:59:21. > :59:27.beer made? As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

:59:28. > :59:36."no". We now come to amendment one, Mr Andy Mac. Mr Zycher, sorry. Who

:59:37. > :59:49.wants to move? Amendment one? They give very much. I rise to speak

:59:50. > :59:53.to amendment one, in my name and the names of my honourable friend the

:59:54. > :59:56.member for Middlesbrough, Birmingham Northfield and North West Durham.

:59:57. > :00:02.Are amendment would remove the section in the bill that bans county

:00:03. > :00:06.and district councils in England are to mind and integrated authorities

:00:07. > :00:10.in England, and transport executives in England to set up companies to

:00:11. > :00:15.provide local services. In short, we seek to overturn the government ban

:00:16. > :00:18.on municipal bus companies. Mr Deputy Speaker this section of the

:00:19. > :00:24.bill is a piece of ideological dogma that has no place in an otherwise

:00:25. > :00:27.agreeable piece of legislation. We have already visited this issue in

:00:28. > :00:32.committee and I fear the government is not minded to budge but I and

:00:33. > :00:35.many others find the government arguments of their extreme the

:00:36. > :00:39.unconvincing. In committee, the Minister said, quote, our view is

:00:40. > :00:45.that passengers will see the most benefit whether commissioning of bus

:00:46. > :00:49.services is kept so -- separate from provision. We don't think that local

:00:50. > :00:54.authorities should provide bus services. On the side of the house

:00:55. > :00:57.we think passengers said see the benefit and we do not agree that

:00:58. > :01:01.municipal bus services cannot be a part of achieving those benefits for

:01:02. > :01:05.passengers. The latest annual transport focus must passenger

:01:06. > :01:10.service was better survey was published last week. It shows

:01:11. > :01:13.municipal bus companies once again provides all the best in the

:01:14. > :01:18.country, both Nottingham city transport and Reading buses,

:01:19. > :01:21.municipal bus companies, both with higher overall satisfaction results

:01:22. > :01:26.than the big five private national bus operators. The government

:01:27. > :01:34.attempted ban on municipal 's flies in the face of the evidence. It also

:01:35. > :01:37.flies in the face of their reported spirit of devolution. They say this

:01:38. > :01:41.bill will provide local authorities with a range of options and tools,

:01:42. > :01:44.and the local authorities are best placed to make a decision about how

:01:45. > :01:49.local bus services are organised and run, that actually is imposing an

:01:50. > :01:52.arbitrary ban on one of those options, not just anyone, but once

:01:53. > :01:57.shown to work very well for passengers. Many of us suspect that

:01:58. > :02:00.this part of the bill is really about pacifying some private bus

:02:01. > :02:05.operators who the Minister wants said are already on a journey here.

:02:06. > :02:09.But without rehashing every pine point from the committee we do not

:02:10. > :02:13.see municipal as Asian and competition as necessary

:02:14. > :02:17.antithetical. In fact, the government undermines their own

:02:18. > :02:22.long-haired admiration by opposing to barriers to the market, to stop

:02:23. > :02:26.bus companies from being able to compete with private bus companies.

:02:27. > :02:30.Is the government afraid that local authority bus run companies might

:02:31. > :02:33.just be better? And the condition commission has reported they have

:02:34. > :02:37.seen no evidence to suggest that they municipal possessor -- operated

:02:38. > :02:45.results condition in the market. I'm very grateful for him to give way,

:02:46. > :02:48.and I think ministers have short memories about how an awful lot of

:02:49. > :02:53.the big bus franchises came about in the first place. Some of those large

:02:54. > :03:01.bus franchise companies were based on old municipal bus companies, sold

:03:02. > :03:06.off at an absolute pittance with their entire interstate bus depots,

:03:07. > :03:11.bus parks, and of course their role in... Their vehicles in sold off for

:03:12. > :03:18.a very, very small amount of money, only to be floated on the markets in

:03:19. > :03:21.a matter of months, for ten times, 15 times, 20 times the value and

:03:22. > :03:27.which they were bought out in the first place. My honourable friend is

:03:28. > :03:29.absolutely right, if you talk to people particularly some who work on

:03:30. > :03:33.the buses for that period, they will feel very aggrieved by that process

:03:34. > :03:38.that has gone through 30 years ago which has left so much of our

:03:39. > :03:43.country with services that were far poorer than the universal coverage

:03:44. > :03:47.that was available at that time. But the competition commission looking

:03:48. > :03:50.at this suggested that municipal companies might be minded to run

:03:51. > :03:55.services and new -- routes making less sense for economic reasons,

:03:56. > :04:00.perhaps unprofitable routes that private operators have been cutting

:04:01. > :04:02.left right and centre, and an Institute of Public policy research

:04:03. > :04:08.has also described public must submit as an innovative transport

:04:09. > :04:11.solution, demonstrating, quote, that conventional operations are not the

:04:12. > :04:21.only option. Sadly this government has its way with this measure, then

:04:22. > :04:28.they soon will be. Are grateful. Would he agree with me that apart

:04:29. > :04:31.from the reasons given by the competition commission, that

:04:32. > :04:37.municipal bus companies can be the benchmark? And in rational debate,

:04:38. > :04:44.we should always be able to get from the government a reason about why

:04:45. > :04:47.when municipal bus companies have performed in an excellent way that

:04:48. > :04:53.they are not allowed and that reason was not forthcoming in committee? I

:04:54. > :04:59.very much agree with my honourable friend. That idea of keeping the

:05:00. > :05:02.market honest is very important. I remember when I was elected a local

:05:03. > :05:07.councillor, the housing officer told me that that was one of the roles of

:05:08. > :05:13.having an in-house operation that kept the market honest. It plays an

:05:14. > :05:18.important role. I will happily give way to my right honourable friend

:05:19. > :05:23.the Nottingham South. I thank him for giving way, one of the reasons

:05:24. > :05:26.that ministers have given for their objection to municipal operations

:05:27. > :05:33.was that it would prevent the market from operating effectively? When we

:05:34. > :05:36.look at the latest bus passenger survey and satisfaction and value

:05:37. > :05:40.for money, is it not interesting to see the Nottingham city transport

:05:41. > :05:47.has the highest value for money of any single operator in the country?

:05:48. > :05:51.My honourable friend consistently makes the case for Nottingham and

:05:52. > :05:57.she is of course, it is made easier by the excellence of the local

:05:58. > :06:01.services she has. People from my own city of Cambridge have been going to

:06:02. > :06:04.Nottingham to see how to do it. Part of the lesson would be that with a

:06:05. > :06:09.municipal, you can do it really well. According to this bill, that

:06:10. > :06:17.will not be possible. I give way to my right honourable friend. I am

:06:18. > :06:23.most grateful, the minister when he spoke before stressed the importance

:06:24. > :06:27.to have really vigorous competition. Isn't it the case that during a

:06:28. > :06:31.franchising process, if one were to be used, the existence of the

:06:32. > :06:35.municipally option owned would enable those doing the franchising

:06:36. > :06:40.to drive an even harder bargain in respect of the public because there

:06:41. > :06:43.would be a fallback option if the private sector couldn't come up with

:06:44. > :06:48.the goods? Would it not enhance competition and enable the passenger

:06:49. > :06:57.transport authority to get an even better deal for the public? I think

:06:58. > :07:02.he is correct yet again. It is very interesting, part of the argument or

:07:03. > :07:05.discussion throughout the committee stage has been about moving

:07:06. > :07:09.competition from on the road to off the road. I think we have agreement

:07:10. > :07:16.on this, an area where there hasn't been competition. But apart from

:07:17. > :07:19.being the -- when you talk to people in London about how competitive the

:07:20. > :07:25.system is, no one on the other side of the House should be worried about

:07:26. > :07:28.lack of competition. My fear, and this is why it is so important that

:07:29. > :07:33.we have protection for the workforce is that competition can risk a race

:07:34. > :07:37.to the bottom if you are not careful. That is why we believe you

:07:38. > :07:42.need those provisions in there. But that is from the debate we have just

:07:43. > :07:48.had. I think the franchising system, would benefit from having municipals

:07:49. > :07:51.involved as an alternative as well. I think we rather conclude that the

:07:52. > :07:55.banning of local authorities from running their own bus companies is

:07:56. > :08:00.slightly unworthy of the spirit behind this bill. The evidence is

:08:01. > :08:04.clear Mr Deputy Speaker, that they work for bus passengers and they are

:08:05. > :08:09.also able to put social values at the heart of what they do. It is

:08:10. > :08:12.this measure in some ways that has drawn the attention of the public

:08:13. > :08:17.more strongly than other parts of the bill. A very strong reaction,

:08:18. > :08:20.quite rightly from councils across the country who don't understand why

:08:21. > :08:24.they should be stopped from doing something that they strongly believe

:08:25. > :08:29.is in the interests of their local constituents. Also from trade

:08:30. > :08:32.unionists who feel strongly about this and from passengers. I pay

:08:33. > :08:36.particular tribute to the organisation who have campaigned

:08:37. > :08:41.very strongly against this particular measure. We believe it is

:08:42. > :08:45.a petty measure and sits uneasily with the rest of the bill and I urge

:08:46. > :08:50.the government to look again and accept our amendment today. The

:08:51. > :09:03.question is that the amendment be made. Wanted to intervene on this

:09:04. > :09:06.amendment. I appreciate the Minister to address my amendments, I have

:09:07. > :09:11.been in this place long enough to know that when in front, you should

:09:12. > :09:18.quit. Because I am very grateful to the Minister for effectively saying

:09:19. > :09:23.that my amendment 25 is going to be incorporated into the guidance. I am

:09:24. > :09:29.also grateful to him for the reassurances given to me on 15 and

:09:30. > :09:36.26 and 27 and 28. There are some useful reassurances there. He said

:09:37. > :09:39.they can indeed be scope for the authorities to be compensated. On

:09:40. > :09:47.that basis, I will be withdrawing those amendments, albeit a touch

:09:48. > :09:52.belatedly, thank you. I would like to support amendment one for the

:09:53. > :09:57.reasons given by my honourable friend. This is all about devolution

:09:58. > :10:01.and local transport authorities deciding what is best for their

:10:02. > :10:09.areas. I see no good reason having been put forward for not allowing

:10:10. > :10:14.the municipal operators as an alternative. The government has

:10:15. > :10:17.talked about conflicts of interest but that cannot be taken seriously.

:10:18. > :10:21.We don't have to look any further than the experience in Nottingham

:10:22. > :10:27.that forward by my honourable friend and what has happened in Reading.

:10:28. > :10:32.There is a perfect ability, and in fact has been done in those areas,

:10:33. > :10:36.for the proper distance to be made between the local authority as a

:10:37. > :10:43.local authority and the an operator in terms of letting out franchises.

:10:44. > :10:49.This bill is about giving more local choice. And I think it is entirely

:10:50. > :10:53.unjustifiable to remove the option of having a municipal operator from

:10:54. > :10:57.local authorities. The department have found a way to put forward

:10:58. > :11:01.quite complex regulations in relation to franchising but it still

:11:02. > :11:06.has concerns about this topic, those same regulations could be brought

:11:07. > :11:12.forward in relation to setting up municipal bus operations so I urge

:11:13. > :11:17.the government to think again. I am speaking in support of amendment

:11:18. > :11:22.one. We have a long discussion on this issue in committee and I also

:11:23. > :11:26.spoke then and at second reading about the success of Nottingham's

:11:27. > :11:31.municipal operator. So much as I love Nottingham city transport, I

:11:32. > :11:34.will restrain myself today. However, I do continue to question the

:11:35. > :11:41.government's motivation for its determination to ban local transport

:11:42. > :11:49.authorities, establishing new municipal bus companies. Ministers

:11:50. > :11:54.have simply not made the case for such a ban. The transport select

:11:55. > :11:59.committee, I honourable friend, he chairs it so well and he described

:12:00. > :12:02.it as a disproportionate response. It is quite clearly anti-localism

:12:03. > :12:09.and is preventing councils from acting in the best interests of

:12:10. > :12:12.their residents. In committee, the minister said there should be a

:12:13. > :12:16.split between the commissioning and provision of bus services. And I

:12:17. > :12:22.don't disagree with him on that point. But this ban goes far beyond

:12:23. > :12:26.that. It was noted in committee that local authorities with municipal

:12:27. > :12:30.operators have proved themselves very capable of managing just such a

:12:31. > :12:38.split when tendering for supported services. The Minister also

:12:39. > :12:43.suggested in committee that the existence of municipal bus

:12:44. > :12:47.operators, and I quote "Could easily deter investment from the private

:12:48. > :12:52.sector." But when I asked him what evidence he was drawing on in making

:12:53. > :12:56.such an assertion, he admitted "Of course we do not have any evidence

:12:57. > :13:02.for it, I am just looking at what the risks may be." I'm afraid that

:13:03. > :13:11.the Minister's risk aversion is simply unnecessary and can be shown

:13:12. > :13:14.to be such. Has already said, Nottingham has an excellent

:13:15. > :13:18.municipal operator but it does not deter private investment. The

:13:19. > :13:20.honourable member for Newark mentioned, we have an excellent

:13:21. > :13:26.private sector operator in Nottinghamshire. Such as Trent

:13:27. > :13:30.Barton. I hope that even at this late stage, the government will

:13:31. > :13:38.rethink its commitment to what I can only describe as an ideological

:13:39. > :13:45.obsession and take this opportunity to end their unreasonable position

:13:46. > :13:51.and accept amendment number one. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. This

:13:52. > :13:54.amendment, tabled by the honourable gentleman for Cambridge and

:13:55. > :13:58.Middlesbrough would effectively totally remove clause 20 two. And we

:13:59. > :14:04.did indeed debate this at some length in committee. I want to

:14:05. > :14:09.reiterate that the existing municipal bus companies, such as

:14:10. > :14:16.Nottingham city buses or Blackpool buses, while others around the

:14:17. > :14:22.country, and there are several in ASBO bus companies in this company

:14:23. > :14:26.-- in this country, deliver a high standard of service and I think that

:14:27. > :14:32.will continue. Their ability to do so is not affected by this cause --

:14:33. > :14:35.clause. The tools in the bill will provide authorities with more

:14:36. > :14:38.influence over bus services than they currently have now. And

:14:39. > :14:43.striking the right balance between local authority influence on the

:14:44. > :14:47.role the private sector bus operator can play is important. Our view is

:14:48. > :14:52.that passengers would be -- see the most benefit with the commissioning

:14:53. > :14:56.of services is kept separate and as such we do not think that

:14:57. > :15:00.authorities should be able to set up new bus companies. We have seen

:15:01. > :15:06.innovations from the private sector which I think have been very

:15:07. > :15:12.encouraging. The introduction of smart cards, the installation of

:15:13. > :15:16.Wi-Fi and increased access ability in the bus network has all been

:15:17. > :15:22.delivered through private sector investment. These improvements show

:15:23. > :15:29.overall the industry is always innovating and delivering a good

:15:30. > :15:32.deal for its passengers. I am grateful to the Minister, he will be

:15:33. > :15:36.aware that over the last exam the half years, local authorities up and

:15:37. > :15:39.down the country have seen significant reductions and ongoing

:15:40. > :15:46.reductions in their revenue support grant. Ministers from communities

:15:47. > :15:49.and local government have always been encouraging local authorities

:15:50. > :15:53.to be entrepreneurial and enterprising and to go out there and

:15:54. > :15:59.earn money to back Phil where the revenue support grant is once

:16:00. > :16:03.existed. By this measure, the Minister is precluding local

:16:04. > :16:08.authorities from doing just that. I recognise what the honourable

:16:09. > :16:12.gentleman says but it is also fair to say that no local authority has

:16:13. > :16:15.set up a municipal bus company and no local authority has approached me

:16:16. > :16:20.with a view to setting one up either. In some ways this is a

:16:21. > :16:25.slightly notional or theoretical debate. What we are seeking to do in

:16:26. > :16:30.the Bill... Making sure we get clarity is the entire point here.

:16:31. > :16:33.This bill seeks to balance between local authority influence, providing

:16:34. > :16:37.them with a variety of tools to address local issues, and the role

:16:38. > :16:42.that private sector bus operators can show to ensure both are

:16:43. > :16:48.incentivised to deliver the very best services for passengers. This

:16:49. > :16:52.bill is about local authorities and commercial bus operators working

:16:53. > :16:57.together to improve local bus services. It is about cooperation,

:16:58. > :17:00.all designed to improve the benefits for bus passengers and I hope this

:17:01. > :17:02.has made the government position clear and that the honourable

:17:03. > :17:10.gentleman will not press this amendment. Thank you Mr Deputy

:17:11. > :17:14.Speaker, I think the Minister finally let the cat out of the bag.

:17:15. > :17:17.If there hasn't been a queue of local authorities coming to him,

:17:18. > :17:21.then he doesn't really need to legislate a ban. It is pure

:17:22. > :17:26.ideology. There has been a great deal of agreement on this bill.

:17:27. > :17:30.There is lots of common ground that we have found. But on this, I can

:17:31. > :17:34.perhaps assure the wider world there is clear red water between the

:17:35. > :17:37.benches and we will clearly press it to a division and it will be

:17:38. > :17:43.achieved in future by a Labour government. The question is that

:17:44. > :17:44.amendment one be made, those in agreement, say ayes, the country,

:17:45. > :19:03.no. The vision, clear the lobbies. The country, no. Tell us for the

:19:04. > :29:27.ayes. Order! Order. The eyes to the right,

:29:28. > :29:33.one of naked. The noes to the left, 276.

:29:34. > :29:46.The eyes to the rise, 188. The noes to the left, 276 stop the noes have

:29:47. > :29:49.it, the noes have it. Unlock! Unlock! Consideration completed. I

:29:50. > :29:53.will now suspend the house for no more than five minutes in order to

:29:54. > :29:59.make a decision about certification. The division bells will be run two

:30:00. > :30:03.minutes for the house resumes. Following my certification the

:30:04. > :30:05.government will be tabling the appropriate consent motion, copies

:30:06. > :30:10.of which will be available shortly in the vote office. They will be

:30:11. > :35:08.distributed by the doorkeepers. Order, order.

:35:09. > :35:15.Order, order! I can now inform the house about my set that a decision

:35:16. > :35:22.about my certification. ATL, subsection J, I have certified the

:35:23. > :35:24.following provisions related to the bus provision in England and within

:35:25. > :35:36.devolved legislative competence. Causes one, 3-7, nine to 14, 16 and

:35:37. > :35:39.18-22 of and scheduled to and to the bill, as amended in the public bill

:35:40. > :35:45.committee, copies of certificates available on the vote office.

:35:46. > :35:49.Understanding order and under 83 M, a consent motion is therefore

:35:50. > :35:56.required for the bill to proceed. Does the Minister intends to move a

:35:57. > :36:00.consent motion? A simple nod of the head would suffice. The Minister

:36:01. > :36:17.said it with elegance and charm. Under standing order 83 M, the House

:36:18. > :36:18.shall forthwith resolve itself into the legislative grand committee,

:36:19. > :36:46.England. Order, order. Gray I remind honourable members

:36:47. > :36:49.that if there is a division, only members representing constituencies

:36:50. > :36:56.in England may vote on the consent motion. Ichor and minister to move

:36:57. > :37:03.the consent motion. The question is to legislative and committee

:37:04. > :37:09.encloses one, three to seven, nine to 14, 16 and 18, 222 of and

:37:10. > :37:18.scheduled to the bus services bill as amended in the public bill

:37:19. > :37:26.committee. As many of that opinion, say I macro, the country, no, the

:37:27. > :37:47.eye of the macro have it. -- the ayes have it.

:37:48. > :38:09.Order. I begged to report, 16 and 18, two, 22, the passage made by the

:38:10. > :38:13.House. Third reading, now. Please continue with the third reading. I

:38:14. > :38:18.beg to move that the bill be now read for a third time. I am grateful

:38:19. > :38:22.to all of those honourable members who have engaged so constructively

:38:23. > :38:25.with the passage of this bill and demonstrated their shared commitment

:38:26. > :38:30.to improving bus services and increasing bus passenger numbers.

:38:31. > :38:35.Buses are already England's most used former public transport, 4.5

:38:36. > :38:42.billion passenger journeys every year. Vital to our economy and it

:38:43. > :38:46.connect to schools, hospitals and leisure and are used by people of

:38:47. > :38:51.all ages. That is why this bill has bus passengers at its heart. It

:38:52. > :38:56.allows local authorities and operators measures to row passenger

:38:57. > :39:02.numbers. This is therefore an enabling Bill. Fundamentally it is

:39:03. > :39:06.about improving bus services for passengers. It recognises the need

:39:07. > :39:10.for local solutions to local transport problems. By working

:39:11. > :39:15.together, local authorities and operators can tackle key transport

:39:16. > :39:19.issues such as pollution and congestion. They can support local

:39:20. > :39:22.businesses and help drive a local economy. This bill introduces a

:39:23. > :39:28.range of tools that will achieve these aims. Built upon the success

:39:29. > :39:31.of partnership working, local authorities and operators can agree

:39:32. > :39:36.the standard of services in a particular area. This could include

:39:37. > :39:39.multi-operator tickets, better connections between transport modes

:39:40. > :39:43.and improved vehicle standards, order which will drive an increase

:39:44. > :39:48.in bus usage and increased performance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I

:39:49. > :39:54.should also emphasise that this bill, part of this bill has been

:39:55. > :39:59.widely welcomed by local authorities and operators as well as honourable

:40:00. > :40:04.members. Of course, it is not the only opportunity this bill brings.

:40:05. > :40:07.It will also bring the opportunity to refresh powers were local

:40:08. > :40:13.authorities to franchise, delivering on our evolution agenda. It is only

:40:14. > :40:18.right that our larger cities should have the opportunity to make a

:40:19. > :40:21.franchising success away TfL have in London. Privatising will not be for

:40:22. > :40:28.everyone and authorities must have a compelling case to implement such a

:40:29. > :40:32.scheme. I am of the firm Bill that -- a firm belief that this bill will

:40:33. > :40:35.offer a better standard of bus services. Between states automatic

:40:36. > :40:44.franchising powers to Merrill combined authorities. -- may role.

:40:45. > :40:49.It will maintain the private sector investment we have seen in the past

:40:50. > :40:52.market. In addition, the requirement of an independent auditor as part of

:40:53. > :40:57.the assessment for franchising schemes will ensure a scheme is only

:40:58. > :41:01.lamented with proper scrutiny. A necessity to buy separate tickets or

:41:02. > :41:06.to pay with cash when travelling by bus can be both frustrating and

:41:07. > :41:09.costly. Authorities will therefore have improved advanced ticketing

:41:10. > :41:13.powers to create multi-operated ticketing schemes that cover not

:41:14. > :41:18.only buses but other modes of transport such as tram or vital

:41:19. > :41:20.rail. They can also make use of emerging technologies like

:41:21. > :41:24.contactless and Bluetooth ticketing. The bill will make it easier for

:41:25. > :41:30.passengers to access information on timetables, fares and roots. App

:41:31. > :41:33.developers will be encouraged to make innovative products that will

:41:34. > :41:36.make this information available to passengers. I firmly believe that

:41:37. > :41:40.these improvements will deliver significant benefits to passengers

:41:41. > :41:45.and through that, attract more people onto our public transport. I

:41:46. > :41:49.now turn to the accessibility improvements that this bill will

:41:50. > :41:53.deliver. Indeed, this is the one element which I think has attracted

:41:54. > :41:57.more public attention than any other. It has certainly dominated

:41:58. > :42:04.more than any other by a factor of many times. Many times my inbox.

:42:05. > :42:09.That is the audiovisual provision introduced in the other place. This

:42:10. > :42:13.will ensure that bus services in England, Wales and Scotland are

:42:14. > :42:17.accessible to those with a hearing or site disability and at the same

:42:18. > :42:20.time provide valuable information to all passengers. I know from personal

:42:21. > :42:23.experience in London and elsewhere and how important next stop

:42:24. > :42:27.announcements have been when travelling. All passengers will

:42:28. > :42:33.benefit from this significant improvement. Mr Deputy Speaker, I

:42:34. > :42:38.want to see the bus market thrive and encourage more people onto

:42:39. > :42:42.public transport. As I said at the beginning of the speech, it will

:42:43. > :42:46.have significant benefits for the environment, congestion and the

:42:47. > :42:51.local authority. We are seeking to reverse a decline in bus usage and

:42:52. > :42:54.put passengers at the heart of bus services. I wish to thank all

:42:55. > :42:58.honourable members who having gauged and contributed to this bill,

:42:59. > :43:02.especially those on the Bill committee. I would also like to

:43:03. > :43:07.thank the committee clerks and our Parliamentary Counsel for all of

:43:08. > :43:11.their work. I would also particular like to thank my team within the

:43:12. > :43:16.Department. A significant amount of work, hard work has got us to this

:43:17. > :43:21.point. We have a good bill, it has been welcomed widely. It reflects

:43:22. > :43:25.the importance of buses in local communities. We want to see the bus

:43:26. > :43:30.industry thrive. That is what has driven this bill and I commend it to

:43:31. > :43:36.the House. The question is the Bill be read a third time. I would like

:43:37. > :43:41.to pick up where the minister left off and thank everyone who has

:43:42. > :43:43.contributed to this bill. Especially my honourable friend who served on

:43:44. > :43:47.the public Bill committee and of course pay to be to the wonderful

:43:48. > :43:51.work of the transport select committee and everything they have

:43:52. > :43:54.done in this matter. I would like to think -- thank the staff of

:43:55. > :43:58.honourable members, particular Juliet eels who is soon to leave the

:43:59. > :44:02.shadow transport team and her contributions have been invaluable

:44:03. > :44:08.throughout the passage of this bill. This bill is ultimately underlined

:44:09. > :44:12.by broad consensus which has been reflected in the generally cordial

:44:13. > :44:16.spirit of our debates. At its heart, Mr Deputy Speaker, the bus services

:44:17. > :44:21.Bill offers local authorities the opportunity to improve the way buses

:44:22. > :44:26.are run in their areas. Should they choose to take it. This is something

:44:27. > :44:29.we have fought over for many years. First through legislation 17 years

:44:30. > :44:35.ago which failed to make the impact we had hoped and from opposition

:44:36. > :44:40.benches for seven years. Sadly since 2010, we have heard time and again

:44:41. > :44:44.of bus routes being axed and constituents campaigning hard to

:44:45. > :44:48.keep their vital local bus service. Disabled people, job-seekers and

:44:49. > :44:52.students unable to afford the rocketing cost of travel. We have

:44:53. > :44:58.heard these issues and we have fought for a revision of the market

:44:59. > :45:02.to give local areas the power and flexibility to control their bus

:45:03. > :45:07.services as local circumstances best allow. So while we don't think this

:45:08. > :45:11.will is perfect, and we certainly don't think it is a silver bullet

:45:12. > :45:16.that will fix the bus system across the country, there is much to be

:45:17. > :45:23.positive about. Male combined authorities may be -- authorities

:45:24. > :45:27.with a local mayor Ken increased parity between areas like greater

:45:28. > :45:31.Manchester and London. We have fought to ensure that those powers

:45:32. > :45:35.can be accessed without delay and that the process for bringing in

:45:36. > :45:41.those powers will be clear and free from hidden barriers. We had hoped

:45:42. > :45:44.that all areas of the country would have access to those powers whether

:45:45. > :45:51.they have an elected mayor or not but we will have to continue that

:45:52. > :45:54.argument for another day. The Bill provides new partnership options to

:45:55. > :45:58.local authorities working alongside bus operators. We hope local

:45:59. > :46:04.authorities will be encouraged to use these new tools in order to

:46:05. > :46:08.improve journey times and vehicle standards and to consequently reduce

:46:09. > :46:12.congestion. Which are huge environmental and health issues

:46:13. > :46:17.affecting us all. The bill also gives the Secretary of State powers

:46:18. > :46:22.to make regulations requiring buses providing local services to have in

:46:23. > :46:25.place audiovisual information systems. We were so pleased that the

:46:26. > :46:30.government included provision following strong pressure from

:46:31. > :46:33.Labour and the other place and an excellent campaign from the guide

:46:34. > :46:39.dogs Association. That section could make a real difference to people's

:46:40. > :46:45.lives. What is missing, stronger employment protections. Clearer

:46:46. > :46:49.access ability provisions. Bus safety improvements. We have fought

:46:50. > :46:53.for these and won the argument and we have lost the votes. That is the

:46:54. > :46:56.tragedy of being in opposition. This bill could have been better and we

:46:57. > :47:01.were disappointed by the lack of movement from the government in

:47:02. > :47:04.these areas. So Mr Deputy Speaker, the bus services Bill isn't perfect

:47:05. > :47:10.but it will go some way to reversing the damage of deregulation that we

:47:11. > :47:14.have fought to fix for three decades. Going some way to reversing

:47:15. > :47:19.the damage is better than going nowhere at all. For that reason and

:47:20. > :47:22.on the half of all those constituents waiting at bus stops

:47:23. > :47:30.right now, we will be supporting this bill at third reading today.

:47:31. > :47:34.Many thanks Mr Deputy Speaker for calling me to make, I assure the

:47:35. > :47:38.House is a brief contribution on this important piece of legislation.

:47:39. > :47:43.I believe that the partnership provisions in this bill are very

:47:44. > :47:47.welcome. They are very important. The reason I hold that view is

:47:48. > :47:51.because I believe partnership working between local authorities

:47:52. > :47:53.and private sector bus companies have delivered a whole range of

:47:54. > :47:59.improvements for passengers in many parts of the country. I think the

:48:00. > :48:03.goal of government here should be to really focus on encouraging that

:48:04. > :48:08.kind of cooperation where the business acumen and expertise of the

:48:09. > :48:11.private sector can work alongside the local understanding and

:48:12. > :48:19.commitment of local authorities. So I think those provisions in the Bill

:48:20. > :48:23.are very welcome. And I also recognise the that during the

:48:24. > :48:26.passage of this bill we have heard a number of examples, positive

:48:27. > :48:30.examples in different parts of the country such as Brighton, where

:48:31. > :48:32.partnerships between private sector operators and local authorities have

:48:33. > :48:39.had a transformative and positive effect on services. I regret that I

:48:40. > :48:44.was not able to be here for the debate on the amendments tabled by

:48:45. > :48:47.myself and the Right Honourable member for North West Norfolk. But I

:48:48. > :48:52.very much welcome the assurances given by the Minister on a number of

:48:53. > :48:58.those amendments. And a recognition of the importance of a number of the

:48:59. > :49:02.principles contained in those amendments. And in particular I

:49:03. > :49:07.would urge the Minister to take seriously the objectives of

:49:08. > :49:13.amendments 14 and 15 and I hope that it will be very clearly set out in

:49:14. > :49:16.the guidance which is issued on this legislation, that franchising scheme

:49:17. > :49:22.is should be a last resort. And would only be approved if

:49:23. > :49:23.partnership working will not deliver the benefits for passengers which

:49:24. > :49:33.are sought. I also work the support for the

:49:34. > :49:37.amendment to come mentoring those who audit a franchise assessment

:49:38. > :49:41.properly independent. I think that significantly strengthens the bill I

:49:42. > :49:47.think it would be very unfortunate if those assessing the, those

:49:48. > :49:49.checking out franchise assessment were not independent of local

:49:50. > :49:56.authorities, essentially making decisions making an franchise in

:49:57. > :49:59.authorities. I also believe the man wants to return to a theme I talked

:50:00. > :50:04.at some length about in the second reading debate. I hope the

:50:05. > :50:11.government will do everything it can to facilitate certainty within the

:50:12. > :50:15.private sector bus operators market. Because that certainty is a key to

:50:16. > :50:21.investment in new fleets, in better ticketing measures, and a range of

:50:22. > :50:27.passenger improvements. Anything that leads to uncertainty could

:50:28. > :50:32.jeopardise investment and that would have a negative effect on passengers

:50:33. > :50:36.and I particularly have in mind the importance of delivering smart

:50:37. > :50:38.ticketing because of course that is crucial for the convenience of

:50:39. > :50:44.passengers but also in persuading passengers that the bus can be more

:50:45. > :50:52.often an attractive and a viable alternative to the car. I believe

:50:53. > :50:55.this... There is a certain irony in that it is a Conservative government

:50:56. > :51:00.is taking to this bill which is of course as a house is aware does

:51:01. > :51:06.partially rolled back one of the major privatisations of the Thatcher

:51:07. > :51:12.era, I know that there are mixed views on the role of the private

:51:13. > :51:15.sector bus operators in delivering transport services, but I do believe

:51:16. > :51:21.that they have brought significant benefits for passengers, and I hope

:51:22. > :51:23.nothing in this bill allows to jeopardise the blinds on the

:51:24. > :51:30.expertise and investment that the private sector has brought the bus

:51:31. > :51:35.operations over the years. I'm afraid I'm about to conclude but he

:51:36. > :51:39.will get his chance very soon, and I would close just by once again

:51:40. > :51:43.thanking the Minister for his assurances that he takes seriously

:51:44. > :51:47.the points raised in the amendments, by commending the partnership

:51:48. > :51:51.working between the private sector and local authorities which is one

:51:52. > :51:57.of the best ways to deliver improvements for passengers. Thank

:51:58. > :52:04.you Mr Deputy Speaker. This bill is a very important step in achieving a

:52:05. > :52:09.modern, thriving bus sector and I welcome the bell and in doing so I

:52:10. > :52:13.do pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues as to the Shadow team

:52:14. > :52:18.for the work they have done and I would also like to commend all the

:52:19. > :52:25.members of the transport select committee for the Merc that they did

:52:26. > :52:28.in its scrutinising this bill. Some points brought forward not acted

:52:29. > :52:35.upon have been considered, and I think this is a better bill. I first

:52:36. > :52:42.spoke on this matter a very long time ago, when bus deregulation was

:52:43. > :52:47.first introduced, through the bill, in 1985. I was in fact at the time

:52:48. > :52:51.either of Lancashire County Council and I opposed the bill very strongly

:52:52. > :52:54.at that stage because I was concerned it would result in a

:52:55. > :53:00.reduction in bus patronage outside of London. I think the intervening

:53:01. > :53:06.years have indeed shown me that is the case. This bill does not repeal

:53:07. > :53:11.the act but it does make substantial changes to it and I very much

:53:12. > :53:15.welcome them. A thriving and comprehensive bus network across

:53:16. > :53:20.England is not an optional extra that is an absolute necessity, and

:53:21. > :53:23.the basic principle of the bill, but there should be more devolution and

:53:24. > :53:28.that local transport authorities should decide what is best for their

:53:29. > :53:33.areas is vital, and I welcome its very much. Although I am

:53:34. > :53:37.disappointed that in some areas the government have not gone as far as I

:53:38. > :53:43.wish they had gone, I do welcome the bill as we have it now, and I also

:53:44. > :53:47.welcome the provisions on accessibility of buses in the bill,

:53:48. > :53:53.particularly access and information for people who are impaired. Of

:53:54. > :53:56.course, as information about buses, bus services, and the operation of

:53:57. > :54:00.individual buses is made more accessible to people who may have a

:54:01. > :54:04.disability, everybody in fact benefits from that as well, and

:54:05. > :54:10.improvement of the bus sector as a whole. I will end Mr Deputy Speaker

:54:11. > :54:14.by saying tank you to everybody who has been involved in this, I think

:54:15. > :54:18.the bill makes major strides in producing better bus services for

:54:19. > :54:22.the people of this country, both for those people who currently use

:54:23. > :54:26.buses, and for those who I hope in the future will do so. I am pleased

:54:27. > :54:32.to support the third reading of the bill. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.

:54:33. > :54:38.Bus services are the mainstay of the public transport system, and yet

:54:39. > :54:41.historically they have had comparatively very little attention

:54:42. > :54:47.given to them by this house, so I am pleased that this bill gives to

:54:48. > :54:51.correct that. And I want to congratulate the secretary of State,

:54:52. > :54:56.the Minister, and indeed the government for the way in which they

:54:57. > :55:00.have stuck to the terms of the devolution deal and delivered a bill

:55:01. > :55:03.which I believe will bring real benefits to the travelling public in

:55:04. > :55:07.Greater Manchester and beyond, I correct in late May and front bench

:55:08. > :55:11.for the way they have engaged constructively in this debate, too,

:55:12. > :55:16.and I also think it is appropriate for me to congratulate the leaders

:55:17. > :55:20.of councils in Greater Manchester. This bill was a clear demand from

:55:21. > :55:25.the Labour leaders in Greater Manchester as part of the devolution

:55:26. > :55:30.deal that was struck with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, so it

:55:31. > :55:35.is in effect as they think the right honourable lady was hinting about

:55:36. > :55:40.the -- a moment ago, a label bill, and proudly deny Greater Manchester

:55:41. > :55:46.bill, and in that sense we take great pride in this bill clearing

:55:47. > :55:52.the third reading in the house tonight. I want to pay particular

:55:53. > :55:55.tribute to my. I will give way. My honourable friend is making a very

:55:56. > :55:59.interesting speech but I had to think he shouldn't put bad ideas and

:56:00. > :56:07.the government mind, they might read and vote against it. A partnership

:56:08. > :56:10.Bill, if that makes him feel a bit more at ease. Certainly, a rare

:56:11. > :56:16.example of common-sense breaking out across both sides of the house. I

:56:17. > :56:21.want is to pay particular tribute to my honourable friend, the member for

:56:22. > :56:25.Liverpool Riverside because I she said moments ago, she has

:56:26. > :56:31.consistently spoken of the damaging effects of gusty regulation, the

:56:32. > :56:34.free for all, the declining quality of service, the increase in fares

:56:35. > :56:38.that people experience, she has been consistent and she is vindicated

:56:39. > :56:42.tonight at this bill finally go through this house, as is my other

:56:43. > :56:46.honourable friend the member for Blackley and brought in Hutu

:56:47. > :56:49.throughout the years, and including under the Labour government and I

:56:50. > :56:56.made this argument and has waited long to see this bill come to pass.

:56:57. > :56:59.I can say that if I am to be successful in a new role that ICI

:57:00. > :57:02.will be seeking to use the powers in this bill for the benefit of the

:57:03. > :57:07.travelling public in Greater Manchester. For 32 years, we have

:57:08. > :57:11.had a service in Greater Manchester run in the private, vested interest,

:57:12. > :57:15.rather than the public interest. Only last week a whole new series of

:57:16. > :57:20.service alterations were announced that will decrease the quality and

:57:21. > :57:23.coverage of services across Greater Manchester with no real ability for

:57:24. > :57:28.those community to challenge those decisions. Well, that way of running

:57:29. > :57:31.bus services is coming to an end. I thank him for giving way, and I'm

:57:32. > :57:34.enjoying his speech. Does he agree with me that country to what the

:57:35. > :57:40.right Honourable Lady opposite said, this bill to enhance competition,

:57:41. > :57:43.and enhance the role the private sector plays by having really

:57:44. > :57:47.effective competition off the road in the way there on Road competition

:57:48. > :57:53.has not for passengers? I beg it is absolutely the point, that if you

:57:54. > :57:58.construct a franchise process that can really puts the public interest

:57:59. > :58:02.first, and then ask the private sector to meet that public interest,

:58:03. > :58:06.that will be a better system, indeed a system that the right honourable

:58:07. > :58:10.system Lady's constituents will benefit from in London, and I make

:58:11. > :58:14.the point again why does she think it is OK for her constituents but

:58:15. > :58:19.seeks to deny to others? I don't think that's unacceptable position

:58:20. > :58:22.for her to take will stop obviously I don't want to go back over the

:58:23. > :58:28.whole debate we had on this but there are a whole range of ways in

:58:29. > :58:32.which the bus sector is very different in London, not least is

:58:33. > :58:35.the fact that Londoners paid millions of pounds in congestion

:58:36. > :58:39.charges would support the bus network. That is one of the major

:58:40. > :58:42.reasons why bus services in London are different to the rest of the

:58:43. > :58:45.country, not necessarily regulatory structure that makes the difference.

:58:46. > :58:51.I think that is the kind of London centric argument that gets this has

:58:52. > :58:54.a bad name, if I'm honest will stop its different, therefore it needs

:58:55. > :59:00.different rules, it needs all the extra attention. If it works here,

:59:01. > :59:05.why can it not work in a city region like the West Midlands, like a

:59:06. > :59:09.Merseyside, or indeed lie Greater Manchester? If the principles are

:59:10. > :59:13.good ones, delivering a good bus service for people here, then surely

:59:14. > :59:18.they should be extended to other major cities of our country, and

:59:19. > :59:23.those decisions should be devolved. If I am to be in a position to use

:59:24. > :59:26.the powers in this bill Mr Deputy Speaker I would use them to bring

:59:27. > :59:29.fares down the affairs are much more expensive in Greater Manchester than

:59:30. > :59:34.they are in London, for instance. I would use them to increase and

:59:35. > :59:40.improve disability access, including a the derision. I would improve the

:59:41. > :59:43.way for an integrated ticketing system, we are currently denied an

:59:44. > :59:47.Oyster style system, because of the free for all, using different set

:59:48. > :59:54.across operators, and I would like to provide a reliable service for

:59:55. > :00:00.all communities, and I would introduce a free bus pass for all

:00:01. > :00:04.16-18 -year-olds. I will give way. I am wondering whether my honourable

:00:05. > :00:10.friend would actually just news for a moment why it is that the same

:00:11. > :00:13.companies who operate in London are making twice as much profits on

:00:14. > :00:19.routes that they operate in places like Tyne Wear or in Greater

:00:20. > :00:22.Manchester? The same countries with a operating profit in the two

:00:23. > :00:29.different places is twice as much, outside London, then it is here.

:00:30. > :00:32.Dissemble, we have an unregulated system, effectively and because of

:00:33. > :00:38.that they are able to increase fares. Increased faster than in

:00:39. > :00:41.London, so that is exactly how they make those profits, there are good

:00:42. > :00:49.bus operators out of that. I wouldn't want to punish them or have

:00:50. > :00:52.a smaller operator, a brilliant bus operator in my constituency, you

:00:53. > :00:56.would want those operators to be part of their regime, but it is

:00:57. > :00:58.valuable time on the profiteering off the backs of the travelling

:00:59. > :01:06.public in places like Greater Manchester. Mr Deputy Speaker, in

:01:07. > :01:10.conclusion, the declining quality and the rise in cost of bus travel

:01:11. > :01:13.in places like Greater Manchester has over the 32 years since buses

:01:14. > :01:19.were deregulated but more and more cars on the road, to the point where

:01:20. > :01:23.conurbations like Greater Manchester are becoming increasingly congested.

:01:24. > :01:26.As I said earlier, is cheaper for young people in parts of Greater

:01:27. > :01:33.Manchester to get a taxi and it is for them, four of them, to use a bus

:01:34. > :01:36.service. That cannot possibly make sense and that tells you that

:01:37. > :01:42.seriously believe that something is seriously wrong here with the way

:01:43. > :01:45.the system operates. The people of Greater Manchester and I say again,

:01:46. > :01:49.deserve a bus system equally as good as London, if not better. That is

:01:50. > :01:57.what using this bill we will now seek to deliver. The question is

:01:58. > :02:05.that the bill now be read a third time, as many of the decision, ayes?

:02:06. > :02:10.The ayes added. Point of order. Thank you very much. On Monday last

:02:11. > :02:13.week I asked for an emergency debate under banning order 24 and I don't

:02:14. > :02:17.seek to reapply for this debate. Last week Mr 's biggest set he would

:02:18. > :02:23.hope and anticipate that the usual channels would find time to make it.

:02:24. > :02:28.Mr Deputy Speaker, business collapsed at 435 last Tuesday, it is

:02:29. > :02:33.finishing at seven 43 tonight. It is a logical to me and everybody is

:02:34. > :02:36.watching elsewhere, can you advise Mr Deputy Speaker how I can get a

:02:37. > :02:41.debate on the significant surgeons believe Africans as I still have

:02:42. > :02:46.about the two child policy, and before it is permitted in two days'

:02:47. > :02:50.time. If now is at the time, when is? It's not a matter for the chair

:02:51. > :02:54.but a matter for the government, the one thing is that it is definitely

:02:55. > :03:00.on the record and I would hope that usual channels would have picked up

:03:01. > :03:04.the comments now made. With the leave of the housework I would like

:03:05. > :03:09.to do is put motions to-7 together, so with leave of your pleasant...

:03:10. > :03:12.The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of the

:03:13. > :03:21.opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".. The ayes have it. Motion

:03:22. > :03:25.number eight on EU Turkey migration, and Schengen free movement. The

:03:26. > :03:28.ministers move. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are

:03:29. > :03:33.of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".. The ayes have it.

:03:34. > :03:40.We come to motion number nine on sittings in Westminster Hall. Sir

:03:41. > :03:43.Michael to move. Macro I beg to move formally, Mr Deputy Speaker. The

:03:44. > :03:46.question is as on the order paper. As many as are of the opinion, say

:03:47. > :03:55."aye". To the contrary, "no".. The ayes have it. I beg to move that the

:03:56. > :04:05.house now adjourns. The question is the house now adjourns. Thank you

:04:06. > :04:08.very much Mr Deputy Speaker. Sao -- Sao sub Shields has a proud maritime

:04:09. > :04:26.history. South Shields used to be the centre

:04:27. > :04:34.of the universe for the Maritime universe -- industry. The time of

:04:35. > :04:36.this. It provided seafarers in our local area with a range of vital

:04:37. > :05:09.services. The maritime and coastguard agency

:05:10. > :05:14.'s consultation on the future of the Tyne office stated that the office

:05:15. > :05:21.would close by September this year. Yet, it closed on the 6th of March

:05:22. > :05:27.with the lease expiring just a week later. A move supported by the

:05:28. > :05:31.government's maritime growth study. I accept that some alternative

:05:32. > :05:35.provision has now been made at South Tyneside College for an initial

:05:36. > :05:40.period of five years. But that move has seen a depletion in crucial

:05:41. > :05:44.parts of the service so not only was the office closed ahead of schedule

:05:45. > :05:48.but what is in place quite frankly does not fit the bill. The new

:05:49. > :05:53.office will not have on-site surveyors, nor will it have a

:05:54. > :05:58.counter service. The 18 surveyors have been redeployed in the flexible

:05:59. > :06:02.customer focused way the government believes to be an essential strand

:06:03. > :06:08.in its plans for maritime growth. The consultation proposed for

:06:09. > :06:13.surveyors to put in place a remote IT enabled working regime to

:06:14. > :06:19.minimise any adverse impact. This will be based around surveyors

:06:20. > :06:26.working remotely from other suitable locations or from home. This is now

:06:27. > :06:29.in practice. But I wonder if the Minister will be able to advise me

:06:30. > :06:37.when the new IT system for remote working will begin to be used by the

:06:38. > :06:41.surveyors. It is important that Port and in the north-east and the north

:06:42. > :06:47.and that taxpayers know how much that procurement exercise will cost

:06:48. > :06:52.in order to balance it against the estimated 330,000 annual savings the

:06:53. > :07:01.MCA will make from these marine -- Marine office closures. The loss of

:07:02. > :07:03.the office has left the 350 mile stretch of UK coastline between

:07:04. > :07:12.Aberdeen and Bridlington with no physical base for surveyors required

:07:13. > :07:17.to inspect and if necessary detain a diverse range of UK and

:07:18. > :07:20.internationally registered shipping. Its loss has increased the prospect

:07:21. > :07:26.of private sector carrying out port state control work at ports where a

:07:27. > :07:31.surveyor may not be available at short notice. This was recognised by

:07:32. > :07:35.some local RMT members in the north-east to make their feelings

:07:36. > :07:40.clear to the government and to the MCA. Stating that the closure of the

:07:41. > :07:44.Port of Tyne office and the office and Bridlington will open the

:07:45. > :07:49.north-east coast to be exploited by shipping companies when inspectors

:07:50. > :07:53.are working from home and do not have a centre to coordinate their

:07:54. > :07:59.inspections and monitor shipping movements across the north-east

:08:00. > :08:04.coast. Mr Deputy Speaker, in November 2013, a Panama registered

:08:05. > :08:11.ship called the Donald Duck Ling was detained in the Tyne by surveyors.

:08:12. > :08:19.The vessel, over 46,000 tonnes was found to be unsafe and crude by 18

:08:20. > :08:22.Filipino seafarers who had run out of food. The vessel owners then

:08:23. > :08:26.abandoned the ship and the crew and they were stranded on the vessel

:08:27. > :08:31.without pay and reliant on international freight transport and

:08:32. > :08:37.our brilliant South Shields mission for seafarers to survive. The crew

:08:38. > :08:45.had to wait nearly a year before receiving any pay and safe passage

:08:46. > :08:50.home. Moving MCA 's surveying work may compromise times when a

:08:51. > :08:56.substandard vessel of concern is in a north-east port, if only for a

:08:57. > :09:02.short period of time. The other change is the loss in counter

:09:03. > :09:04.service. Marine officers provided services to cater for issues such as

:09:05. > :09:11.discharge books, training record books, Siemens's cards and other

:09:12. > :09:20.things, including duplicates of lost certificates. As the Marine office,

:09:21. > :09:24.this is not just a loss for my constituency but for the north-east

:09:25. > :09:29.and for Yorkshire. Seafarers now have the travel to Hull was send

:09:30. > :09:35.their documents by coast. All that at increased cost and risk. The

:09:36. > :09:39.service, I am led to believe the same number of administrative staff

:09:40. > :09:44.are to be retained at the college, therefore I am completely at a loss

:09:45. > :09:49.as to why this service has been removed. Especially at a time where

:09:50. > :09:55.the range of certification required to work at sea is extensive and

:09:56. > :10:00.subject to regular updates. Just this January, the Convention on

:10:01. > :10:03.standards and training is in watch keeping an certification which sets

:10:04. > :10:10.out basic training requirements for all seafarers were subject to

:10:11. > :10:14.changes and the NCA is reforming its pay structures, including for the

:10:15. > :10:21.basic medical certificate which you cannot work at sea without. Marine

:10:22. > :10:25.information notice 541 issued earlier this month states that the

:10:26. > :10:31.Hull Marine office will provide a number of services previously

:10:32. > :10:35.provided at the port of Tyne office. After being under threat, the office

:10:36. > :10:40.in Hull will remain open but this does not take away the fact that the

:10:41. > :10:42.seafarers in South Shields and the north-east of their counter office

:10:43. > :10:50.will now be 100 miles down the coast. The number of seafarers at

:10:51. > :10:56.work or training in the UK shipping industry is in long-term decline.

:10:57. > :11:01.Records showing a 60% decline in the number of emerging seafarers in the

:11:02. > :11:04.last 30 years. We are seeing a decline in offshore supply activity

:11:05. > :11:09.in the North Sea following the collapse in oil prices and there is

:11:10. > :11:15.a constant threat of being replaced by low-cost crew from overseas. In

:11:16. > :11:20.this context, I can't see how the loss of the Port of Tyne Marine

:11:21. > :11:25.office had my region to recover jobs and skills in this industry. Surely,

:11:26. > :11:28.when the government speaks of wanting to recruit and train more

:11:29. > :11:32.British seafarers, moves such as the closure of this office and removal

:11:33. > :11:40.of the counter service are steps that will do the exact opposite. I

:11:41. > :11:47.am grateful. My honourable friend will be aware of the planned merger

:11:48. > :11:53.between South Tyneside College and my own borough. And with a history

:11:54. > :11:57.of seamanship and engineering excellence, shouldn't we be in

:11:58. > :12:02.courage in young men and women who seek a career at sea rather than

:12:03. > :12:06.discouraging them? It will come as no surprise that I agree completely

:12:07. > :12:11.with my honourable friend. In an era where we have declined in the

:12:12. > :12:15.seafaring industry, we should be doing everything we can to encourage

:12:16. > :12:19.growth. I would like the Minister to at least commit today to restoring

:12:20. > :12:25.the counter service in South Shields. The seafarers projections

:12:26. > :12:30.review published by the DFT in January forecasts and increases in

:12:31. > :12:35.the demand for seafarers from the UK shipping industry over the next

:12:36. > :12:39.arcade. If UK ratings and officers are to fill those jobs, the

:12:40. > :12:45.government has to go beyond the maritime study to tackle the effect

:12:46. > :12:50.of low-cost models in constituencies like mine. I understand from the

:12:51. > :12:54.maritime unions that the government is taking steps on applying the

:12:55. > :12:58.national minimum wage for seafarers and it is significant reforms like

:12:59. > :13:01.this that are needed and not the closure of Marine offices to revive

:13:02. > :13:06.our traditional seafaring communities. But Deputy Speaker, I

:13:07. > :13:13.am pleased that South Tyneside College will retain seafarers exams.

:13:14. > :13:18.As the Tyne Marine officer has the highest number on the national

:13:19. > :13:25.network. Between 2009 and 2016, it carried out nearly 7700 seafarer

:13:26. > :13:31.oral exams. The total number of UK seafarers working today is just over

:13:32. > :13:36.20 3000. Save a significant number will have been through the Marine

:13:37. > :13:40.office in my constituency. So I do sincerely hope the minister will be

:13:41. > :13:43.able to offer some assurances that this service will remain firmly in

:13:44. > :13:51.place in South Shields for the long-term. Madam Deputy Speaker, I

:13:52. > :13:56.am also a little confused as to why in all of these changes, the office

:13:57. > :14:00.has retained the enzyme unit which carries out services that the large

:14:01. > :14:03.or the superyacht sector. I think all my constituents will agree with

:14:04. > :14:11.me when I say that South Shields is not an area of Roche with super

:14:12. > :14:16.yachts. It is however, a wash for -- brushwood seafarers, can he do when

:14:17. > :14:20.the rational for keeping this service and not the much valued

:14:21. > :14:23.counter service that might constituents want retained. It is

:14:24. > :14:27.short-sighted to cut the Marine office network, traditionally --

:14:28. > :14:33.particular in traditional areas like South Shields. Marine offices like

:14:34. > :14:36.the Tyne should be seen as assets in the industrial strategy that

:14:37. > :14:38.strengthens the link between maritime communities and seafaring

:14:39. > :14:47.jobs and skills. Particularly for women who remain with -- represented

:14:48. > :14:51.in the seafaring industry. Madam Deputy Speaker, the loss of the Tyne

:14:52. > :14:58.office in my constituency were only save the SCO just over ?100,000 per

:14:59. > :15:01.year. Its closure tells my constituents that the government

:15:02. > :15:05.don't value seafarers in the north-east and I fear that the

:15:06. > :15:17.long-term effects of these changes will far outweigh the short-term and

:15:18. > :15:20.short-sighted financial gain. I am very grateful, I won't detain the

:15:21. > :15:25.House for very long but I wanted to put on record the fact that I agree

:15:26. > :15:27.with every word my honourable friend, the member for South Shields

:15:28. > :15:33.is just said. The UK maritime workforce continues to diminish and

:15:34. > :15:38.important skills are being lost to the industry. And we must never

:15:39. > :15:42.forget that we are a maritime nation. And we are seeking to

:15:43. > :15:49.significantly increase our trade beyond the confines of the European

:15:50. > :15:54.Union. But we are reducing our infrastructure to look after the

:15:55. > :15:59.interests of UK-based seafarers in a growing international market. The

:16:00. > :16:05.offshore oil and gas industry along the North Sea coast has been in the

:16:06. > :16:11.doldrums and many ships and vessels are tied up in ports along the

:16:12. > :16:14.north-east and yet we are losing our regulatory capacity to make sure

:16:15. > :16:19.that people actually working on those vessels are the right people

:16:20. > :16:23.to be there. They have the requisite skills to be there or in fact have

:16:24. > :16:28.the right nationality and work permits to work on those vessels.

:16:29. > :16:33.Madam Deputy Speaker, I actually find it beyond belief that the

:16:34. > :16:38.government are taking the measures that my honourable friend for South

:16:39. > :16:44.Wales has talked about in this important adjournment debate this

:16:45. > :16:49.evening. We really do need to reverse this. It is a retrograde

:16:50. > :16:52.step for an industry that needs the government to be acting on its

:16:53. > :17:01.behalf rather than abandoning it at the moment. Gray Minister, Mr Andrew

:17:02. > :17:03.Jones. Into very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate the

:17:04. > :17:10.honourable lady on securing this debate about the closure of the Tyne

:17:11. > :17:15.Marine office. The second thing I should say is that it is a bit of an

:17:16. > :17:21.apology from that I am not the maritime Minister. The maritime

:17:22. > :17:26.Minister is currently away an important government business in

:17:27. > :17:31.questions that may come from her questions that may come from her

:17:32. > :17:39.speech that I will not be able to answer in my speech. However, I will

:17:40. > :17:44.undertake to go through all of the Hansard recordings from this debate

:17:45. > :17:48.and take the Department to ensure that she receives the answers she is

:17:49. > :17:53.seeking. Just to clarify that before we go any further. Before we go on

:17:54. > :17:58.to talk specifically about the recent closure of the Tyne Marine

:17:59. > :18:05.office, it might actually help the House if I put some background to

:18:06. > :18:12.the decision into the debate. The House will recognise that our

:18:13. > :18:16.people's strong connection to the sea and are impressive maritime

:18:17. > :18:19.heritage, the British have always worked beyond our shores and built

:18:20. > :18:24.strong trade links with the rest of the world. Ships and the related

:18:25. > :18:28.maritime industries have historically been crucial to our

:18:29. > :18:33.economic well-being and that is as true now as it has ever been. We are

:18:34. > :18:41.obviously an island nation and the UK's requires an shipping from 95%

:18:42. > :18:42.of its trade by volume. And maritime industry directly contributes ?11

:18:43. > :18:53.billion to the UK economy each year. Those maritime industries are

:18:54. > :18:57.expected to grow significantly over the next decade, and the public

:18:58. > :19:00.needs assurance that ships visiting our ports, whether registered in the

:19:01. > :19:18.United Kingdom or not, operating safely. -- are operating safely. I

:19:19. > :19:21.say run very, very fast. Does the Minister agree that it's undoubted

:19:22. > :19:26.that the closure will compromise the ability of the maritime coastguard

:19:27. > :19:29.service and inspection unit to carry out their duties? And the effect

:19:30. > :19:34.this will have on local seafarers living and working in the area.

:19:35. > :19:39.There is no doubt whatsoever it will certainly at first you say the

:19:40. > :19:46.least. -- it will certainly be adverse to say the least.

:19:47. > :19:51.I'm not sure I can agree with the honourable gentleman. We were just

:19:52. > :19:54.talking about operating -- about operational safety, and safety

:19:55. > :19:58.matters. It matters. There is on ships and for protecting the

:19:59. > :20:03.cherished and highly priced marine environment. That is why we do need

:20:04. > :20:10.a robust, strong and effective ship survey and inspection regime. Within

:20:11. > :20:15.my department, the Maritime and coastguard agency is responsible for

:20:16. > :20:22.providing that broad safety regime. In that effort the agency and its

:20:23. > :20:27.staff are guided by their mission statement of "Safer lives, safer

:20:28. > :20:30.ships and cleaner Seas". The ship survey and inspection regime they

:20:31. > :20:33.have established must be capable of ensuring the safety of the shipping

:20:34. > :20:37.industry. Asked at the same time being supportive to the industry it

:20:38. > :20:45.serves, and being commercially tuned to what industry needs. That view is

:20:46. > :20:48.shared by the industry itself. And was highlighted in the maritime

:20:49. > :20:57.growth study report, published in September 20 15. Lord Mountbatten

:20:58. > :21:05.'s' report -- Lord Mountevans' report set out ways to support

:21:06. > :21:09.growth and they have been working tirelessly to do so since September

:21:10. > :21:13.2015 to put into effect the excellent recommendations in that

:21:14. > :21:16.report. For the Maritime and coastguard agency, we have

:21:17. > :21:20.implemented some of these recommendations by separating out

:21:21. > :21:25.the UK ship register into a bespoke, commercially focused directorate. We

:21:26. > :21:28.have appointed Dan Barrow, formerly chief executive of maritime London,

:21:29. > :21:34.as new director for the UK ship register. He's been supporting the

:21:35. > :21:40.MCA on a part-time basis since January, and will take up his formal

:21:41. > :21:44.appointment full-time on the 10th of April. Mr Barrow brings with him an

:21:45. > :21:49.expert and forensic understanding of the commercial needs of the shipping

:21:50. > :21:51.industry. The MCA's leads to ship has been bolstered by the

:21:52. > :21:57.appointment of its executive chairman. -- leadership has been

:21:58. > :22:02.bolstered. Michael Palmer will bring 40 years of experience and

:22:03. > :22:05.knowledge, and he will support the MCA's greater commercial awareness

:22:06. > :22:10.and responsiveness which is critical to what I am coming on to talk about

:22:11. > :22:13.shortly. Another transformational change for the agency, linked to

:22:14. > :22:18.balancing its role as a regulator, with a need for greater commercial

:22:19. > :22:23.responsiveness, that was recommended at the heart of the maritime growth

:22:24. > :22:26.study is the modernisation of our ship survey and inspection

:22:27. > :22:30.arrangements. Ship survey and inspection is at the heart of the

:22:31. > :22:35.Government's responsibilities, both as a flag state, running a shipping

:22:36. > :22:39.register, and as a port state, with many ships visiting the UK ports and

:22:40. > :22:43.harbours daily. Both roles are about balancing safety and the protection

:22:44. > :22:48.of the environment, with facilitating legitimate commercial

:22:49. > :22:52.activity and trade. The safety of shipping ports and the marine

:22:53. > :22:57.environment is dependent on effective proportionate regulation,

:22:58. > :22:59.robust technical standards, and the comprehensive oversight and

:23:00. > :23:03.inspection of national and international merchant shipping

:23:04. > :23:07.fleets. Effective survey and inspection is key to that

:23:08. > :23:10.compliance, and must be robust if it is to support the level of growth