Bus Services Act 2017 - updated topic heading, ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[Tim]

I have no idea why this bus power is only limited to Mayoralties and Combined Authorities. Can anyone shed light on the reason behind this dogma?

It appears to simply be that the Government, rightly or wrongly, regards Mayoralties as A GOOD THING, By giving areas with Mayors extra powers to improve buses then the likelihood increases that the public will see Mayors as a Good Thing too.

They do the same in education with school academies.  They are convinced that academies are a Good Thing, and so funding is rigged so that Academies get more money and therefore,  on average, do better.  The Government then points to the success of academies and hopes that people will credit this success to academisation rather than better funding.  Same with faith schools.  They are given an advantage over other schools (the ability to exercise indirect social selection) and when they consequently get better results the cause is misattributed.   

It is the opposite of evidence-based policy making. 

[TonyK]

I have no idea why this bus power is only limited to Mayoralties and Combined Authorities. Can anyone shed light on the reason behind this dogma?

It appears to simply be that the Government, rightly or wrongly, regards Mayoralties as A GOOD THING, By giving areas with Mayors extra powers to improve buses then the likelihood increases that the public will see Mayors as a Good Thing too.

In the Bristol area, I see it as an attempt to force the four local authorities to at least talk to each other, even if the smaller ones can't be persuaded to forget the unholy shambles of Avon County Council that blighted everything from 1974 to 1996. An ITA^▸ (Integrated Transport Authority), a Metro Mayor, or even Batman (with or without Robin) - I care little who it is, just so long as there is only one person in charge of transport links that cross boundaries where the only noticeable change is to the colour of the wheelie bins.

[Zoe]

This was debated on the first day of report, the minister's response was as follows:

I have had time to reflect on the various contributions and have met with various noble Lords outside the Chamber post-Committee, but it remains the Government’s position that the decision and model we are pursuing is the right one. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, mentioned passengers; we believe that it is the right one for passengers, British businesses and employees in this important sector. Bus companies invest in their staff, buses, new services and improvements for passengers, because they expect to achieve long-term benefits. If a local transport authority automatically has the power to pursue bus franchising at any point, the period of investment certainty is reduced. Operators in that area will think twice about these investment decisions. Let us be clear that we are not excluding anyone; we believe that the mayoral authorities have the key differential of having strategic transport as part of their direct responsibilities. When other local authorities see benefits for passengers in bus franchising, the risk of seeking access to franchising will have to be weighed up by the local authority, and their decision may be that the risk is worth taking. Similarly, where a mayoral combined authority has automatic access to franchising powers, there will be a single, elected individual with a fixed term of office with whom the decision on whether to pursue franchising rests. I would be surprised if most mayoral candidates did not set out their position on this issue at hustings or in their electoral manifestos. That remains to be seen

The full debate can be read at https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2016-10-12/debates/6581F0D7-9297-4A67-8AAC-34437CE67B0A/BusServicesBill%28HL%29

This however was not accepted and the government was defeated when it went to a vote and so as it stands, the requirement for only mayoral authorities to automatically have franchising powers is not part of the bill.  I expect it will be added back in though when the bill goes through the Commons.

[grahame]

This was debated on the first day of report, the minister's response was as follows:

Bus companies invest in their staff, buses, new services and improvements for passengers, because they expect to achieve long-term benefits. If a local transport authority automatically has the power to pursue bus franchising at any point, the period of investment certainty is reduced.

So how does giving the rights to mayoral authorities automatically encourage bus companies to invest in those areas?  Lord Ahmed gave a different reason to the one I heard!

[stuving]

This was debated on the first day of report, the minister's response was as follows:

Bus companies invest in their staff, buses, new services and improvements for passengers, because they expect to achieve long-term benefits. If a local transport authority automatically has the power to pursue bus franchising at any point, the period of investment certainty is reduced.

So how does giving the rights to mayoral authorities automatically encourage bus companies to invest in those areas?  Lord Ahmed gave a different reason to the one I heard!

That's not what he said. Nor is it the context in which the (poorly chosen) word "automatically" was used.

His point, tenuous and unconvincing though it may be, is that LTAs^▸ (Local Transport Authority) can change their minds and policies too easily to give companies the length of foreseeable future they need to invest. They have to beg for the right to make the change to a franchising model, which places a threshold in their way and makes their actions more visible. Mayors are supposed not to need that, since transport is a major responsibility and they have to get elected and (probably) discuss the details with other authorities. Or something.

[grahame]

That's not what he said. Nor is it the context in which the (poorly chosen) word "automatically" was used.

His point, tenuous and unconvincing though it may be, is that LTAs^▸ (Local Transport Authority) can change their minds and policies too easily to give companies the length of foreseeable future they need to invest. They have to beg for the right to make the change to a franchising model, which places a threshold in their way and makes their actions more visible. Mayors are supposed not to need that, since transport is a major responsibility and they have to get elected and (probably) discuss the details with other authorities. Or something.

My 'bad' - rushed post and I hijacked the word 'automatically' in an accidentally naughty way.

His justification is indeed "tenuous and unconvincing" to me.  A good local authority of any size suitable to be the LTA will work closely with the transport providers and ensure that the pool of knowledge, skill and investment that's present will continue to be nurtured and indeed fertilised and grown. A newly elected metro-mayor, at a separate regional level, may be much more likely to have a strong political stance rather than the pragmatism and understanding of years of working with the issue of providing excellent transport facilities for the economy of his area and its people and visitors at a sensible price.

[Zoe]

Third reading will now not be taking place on 2 November.  The new date has yet to be announced.

[Zoe]

Third reading has now been scheduled for Wednesday 23 November.

[Zoe]

The bill has now been read a third time.  Unlike in the Commons amendments can be proposed at this stage if they have not previously been fully considered and voted on.  Two government amendments were passed:

Amendment 1 added the Competition and Markets Authority to the list of bodies which a franchising authority must consult.

Amendment 3 extended the general provisions of the bill to Scotland.

The bill was then passed and will now be sent to the Commons.

[Zoe]

A message was received in the Commons on 24 November that the Lords have passed the Bus Services Bill bill for which they desire the agreement of the Commons.  The Bill was then read a first time and now awaits a date for second reading.

[Zoe]

Leader of the House David Lidington has just announced that second reading will take place on Tuesday 31 January.

[Zoe]

Second reading has been postponed in order to give time for consideration of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.  This bill will have two days for second reading next week followed by three days the following next week for consideration by a Committee of the whole House and then the remaining stages.  The week following this the House is in recess so the Bus Services Bill will not be able to be considered until the week beginning 20 February at the earliest.

[Zoe]

Impact assessments have been published and are available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-services-bill-impact-assessments.

Also available are the draft regulations and guidance at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/bus-services-bill-draft-regulations-and-guidance.

[Zoe]

A statement today by Bus Minsiter Andrew Jones has confirmed that the government intend to reverse amendments made by the Lords and return the bill largely to its original form.  This will include restricting automatic access to franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities for reasons of strong governance and accountability.  The Minister also confirmed the government are committed to getting the bill through Parliament before the mayoral elections in May despite recent delays due to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.

The full statement is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/changes-and-challenges-facing-uk-bus-industry

[Zoe]

Second reading has now been scheduled for Wednesday 1 March.