Debatable changes

Gareth Evans shares highlights of last week’s five-hour debate in the House of Commons on the Second Reading of the Bus Services Bill, discussing not only familiar arguments but also changes made to the legislation by the House of Lords

The Bus Services Bill (BSB) passed another ‘timing point’ on its journey through the corridors of power in Westminster on Wednesday (March 1), when it had its Second Reading in the Commons. Topics covered ranged from municipal operators to smartcards, concessionary fares for young people and franchising in Manchester. It was notable that Greater Manchester MPs appeared to be present en masse.

The BSB’s next ‘timing point’ is March 21 (see panel) – although in the meantime, there’s a ‘request stop’ with public consultation. [wlm_nonmember][…]

[/wlm_nonmember][wlm_ismember]

The Bill

Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom & Ewell) began by calling for the BSB to be read a second time.

“Across England, the bus industry is delivering excellent services for passengers. According to the most recent Transport Focus bus passenger survey, 86% of users were satisfied with their services. Buses today are very different from the buses of 30 years ago: over 90% are accessible; many have free WiFi, CCTV and USB charging points; and nine out of 10 have smart ticketing equipment. That’s all thanks to significant private sector investment in the industry. I’m particularly pleased that the five largest operators are continuing to invest in better services and that they’ll bring contactless payment to every bus outside London during the next five years. We have an industry of large and small firms, with large firms doing a good job and small firms doing a good job.”

Andy Burnham (Labour, Leigh) asked: “Passengers in many parts of England will think the Secretary of State’s living in a different world. Since 1986, fares have gone up and services have been withdrawn from poorer, often isolated communities. The picture he paints would not be recognised in Greater Manchester (GM). If the policy has been a success, would not bus patronage have increased? Will he confirm that, in those 30 years, it has gone down, down and down throughout England?”

Chris replied: “The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we have the best possible services for passengers in future. My expectation and belief is that mayoral authorities and others will pursue change only if it will obviously improve things.”

Responding to a question from Sir Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire), Chris said: “It’s not about forcing anybody down a route to change. No local areas should countenance asking or pushing for change unless they have a clear plan for delivering improvements for passengers. The Bill is not and should not be simply about moving deckchairs around.”

Citing “a note from the CEO of one of the main bus operators in South Dorset,” Richard Drax (Conservative, South Dorset) enquired: “Although as a private bus operator, he welcomes the Bill, believing that working together is a good idea, he thinks that franchising is a slightly perverse route for a Conservative Government to follow. He states: ‘If a franchise model was adopted, this could lead to a future layer of bureaucracy being introduced, and the local authority would be designing the bus network and setting prices.’ Will the Government comment on that point?”

Chris stated: “Franchising will be available to mayoral authorities automatically – but to deliver change, they will still have to demonstrate that it would benefit passengers. They’ll have a legal duty to do that, otherwise their decision will be subject to judicial review. Other authorities will have a duty to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that they’ll transform services to get permission to make a change.

“Let me make it very clear: the Bill does not introduce wholesale re-regulation of the bus market. It’s not a return to a pre-1986 world of Local Authorities (LAs) running bus services. Private operators will continue to dominate the bus market. They’ll still deliver services, whether through the current arrangements, improved partnerships or franchising.

“The aim of the Bill is to increase passenger numbers and to improve services by giving LAs and operators new options. The Bill builds on existing partnership powers, making them more attractive and easier to use, and introduces new, enhanced partnership scheme powers, which will enable LAs to work with bus operators and introduce a set of standards for bus services in their areas. They both operate in a deregulated environment where commercial operators can make decisions about where and when buses run.

“The Bill also refreshes bus franchising powers and honours our devolution deal commitments.”

Richard Drax also asked about funding: “My bus operator is concerned that, if in the franchise modelling the revenue is reduced, there is a risk that the shortfall will be made up from other means that will affect the local taxpayer and business rates payer.”

Chris stressed: “We have to ensure both public and private funding for buses. Those who seek to make a change need to understand the impact and be certain that they’ll bring improvements to passengers. There is sometimes a dogma and ideology that assumes that greater state control means a better service, but often a lack of private sector investment means nothing happens at all – so it is the other way around.”

Dr Julian Lewis (Conservative, New Forest East) enquired: “Like Richard Drax, I’ve had representations from my local bus company, Bluestar, which welcomes the provisions of the Bill in so far as they enhance partnership schemes. However, it worries about the potential of franchising arrangements to introduce rigidity into the system and lessen the circumstances that an enterprising bus company will introduce, for example, new routes at its own risk, unlike a cautious LA that would be unprepared to take that risk. Will the Government comment on that?”

Chris replied: “While we’re extending the kind of franchising powers we see in London to other big cities and mayoral areas, it’s not the Government’s intention to offer automatic franchising powers to other areas. Other areas that want to make franchising proposals will have to demonstrate clearly that they can provide an improved service for passengers. When making those decisions, we should bear in mind the flexibility and rapid innovation he describes.”

Welcoming the Bill’s regulatory powers, Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield South East) asked: “If the Secretary of State does not extend them beyond mayoral combined authorities, what criteria will he use to judge other requests for franchising from areas that do not automatically get it under the Bill?”

Chris responded: “There has to be a point of accountability – that’s the mayor in a mayoral authority and the Secretary of State in other areas. Any change must deliver benefits to passengers.”

Continuing his speech, Chris stressed: “The Bill in its current form is not the Act that the Government wishes or intends to pass. A number of changes were made to the Bill and the proposals we tabled that we believe are not in the interests of passengers, and that we will seek the consent of the House to reverse. The changes are also not in the spirit of the devolution deals we have reached.”

Franchising

Giving more details on the main parts of the Bill, Chris said: “Franchising enables LAs to specify the services that should be provided to local communities, with bus companies competing for contracts to provide those services. LAs that implement franchising will have more influence on where and when services run, but they’ll remain commercial operations, with the private sector providing those services. That’s what happens in London. Competitive tendering in London was introduced in 1985, and privatisation of the bus companies took place in the mid-1990s. That’s evolved into a network with almost 2.3 billion passenger journeys a year. Those powers are being extended to other Mayors in other parts of the country, to give them the opportunity to operate in the same way as London. The Bill therefore provides for the Government’s intention for all combined authorities with elected Mayors to have automatic access to franchising powers.”

Somewhat bemused by the Secretary of State’s praise for the London model, Andy Burnham stated: “Is he therefore saying that the model and experiment inflicted on the rest of the country has, as Labour members believe, been a total disaster? Is he saying that deregulation as introduced in 1985 was, in hindsight, a major mistake?”

Chris said: “I don’t believe it was a major mistake, because we’ve seen substantial investment from the private sector that would not otherwise have happened.”

Welcoming the “historic U-turn of the Conservative party towards re-regulation,” Shadow Secretary of State for Transport Andy McDonald (Labour, Middlesbrough), stressed: “Powers to re-regulate should be available to all areas that want them, not just to combined authorities with an elected mayor. Not all areas want a combined authority, and the Government does not intend that every area should be covered by a combined authority. That doesn’t mean that the Government should prevent those non-combined authority areas from improving bus services solely on the basis that they are not combined authorities.”

Chris stated: “While we’re open to plans from other authorities to take franchising powers, we will give them only if they can demonstrate that they can do a better job than the current one. A compelling case needs to be made before any other authority receives consent. We have the point of accountability with the Mayor, who will have a legal duty to demonstrate an enhanced service, or a point of accountability in the Government, who likewise will judge whether a proposal will deliver that enhanced service.”

Criticising the Lords’ amendments on opening up the automatic access to franchising powers to all LAs, Chris said it would “reduce certainty in the bus market and reduce investment and the attractiveness of bus services being offered. It would not be good news for passengers and certainly not for bus manufacturers and the people who work in those factories right across the UK, from Ballymena to Stirling and Yorkshire. We will therefore bring forward an amendment to reinstate the two-step process for non-mayoral combined authorities wishing to access franchising powers.”

Passengers first

Acknowledging “there would probably be a bit of uncertainty for the bus companies, as they will have to compete in a different way to run services,” Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley & Broughton), said: “My prime interest and concern is for the passengers who, for the past 31 years under deregulation, have only had six weeks’ notice – in practice, sometimes less – of bus services being withdrawn. Part of the Bill takes some of that uncertainty away from passengers, so that argument does not stand up, particularly if our priority is passengers.

“The Bill is not about renationalising the buses – it’s primarily about reregulation in metropolitan areas.

“I don’t think it would do any harm for LAs that saw the need for it to have the right to set up municipal bus companies, particularly if the private sector moves out, as it has threatened to do on a number of occasions if the Bill goes through.”

Graham continued: “It’s not only that the ridership has gone down, but fares have gone up by about 43%.

“In terms of the way the legislation has worked so far, does anybody think that we, as the taxpayer, have had our return from Brian Souter and his sister, who’ve become billionaires out of this – I do not mind people being creative, being entrepreneurs and making money – pocketing money by gaming the system, running semi-monopolies and putting buses out, when every single bus that goes out of the depot has, on average, a 50% public subsidy?

“The system hasn’t worked. Moving to a system where there’s competition, not on the road, but by tender by private bus companies, will be better for the travelling public. I agree with competition by and large, because monopolies tend towards inefficiency, but the competition is better off the road, not on it.”

Asset confiscation

In a detailed speech, Theresa Villiers (Conservative, Chipping Barnet) outlined her thoughts on several aspects of the BSB: “I welcome clauses 1 to 3 and 9 to 15 on partnerships. Partnership working can be a highly effective way to improve bus services for passengers. There’s a long list of successful examples, including Sheffield and Bristol. The extension of the statutory partnership structure beyond the provision of infrastructure to include general bus improvement measures makes sense, and is an important part of the Bill. It’s also a welcome step forward to enable statutory partnerships more easily to cover larger areas and have a more joined-up approach between different operators.

“It’s also helpful to make the Competition and Markets Authority a statutory consultee. Its current status as a powerful but somewhat unpredictable presence outside the partnership process can be a barrier to ambitious measures that both the operator and the LA might sincerely believe are the right way forward. Giving it a more formal role internal to the process can help generate the certainty needed to support investment in measures to improve bus services for passengers.”

Referring to her “anxiety” about “rolling back the clock, essentially, and renationalising and re-regulating,” she said her “key worry is that the effect of the provisions introduced by clause 4 would be to enable LAs, who perhaps 30 years ago sold their bus operations at a commercial price, now effectively to confiscate those self-same businesses.

“The inevitable impact of this clause is that companies large and small, who might have spent many years and a great deal of money, energy, effort and innovation building up their business, might be barred from operating in the event that they lose the franchise contest. They could see their operations disappear overnight, leaving them with buses, staff, depots and equipment that they cannot use.

‘I’m particularly worried about the impact on smaller operators. Those with a successful business serving a relatively small area and small range of routes might find it very difficult to tender for a big LA contract. They might also find the tender process for running services to be complex and expensive, and require costly professional advice. If the process is anything like rail franchising, complexity can be truly daunting.

“I do not believe that reversing (deregulation) would produce better outcomes for passengers. There was no golden era before 1986. The trouble is that if we create a system in which we discourage private sector investment, we’ll create uncertainty in the bus industry. We need to bear in mind, in competing for bus contracts, local operators might be up against large transport groups owned by overseas Governments with deep pockets.

“I’m particularly concerned that the amendment that was approved in the Lords will mean that bus operators could even find themselves having to contest for contracts alongside a company owned by the franchising authority that is making the decision to award the contract, giving rise to an obvious and unacceptable conflict of interest. I fear that clause 4 would inevitably result in a number of bus companies going out of business, which would be bad for passengers. I’m also concerned that LAs that are keen to take over the provision of bus services will find that taking on revenue risk could be a very costly exercise that would deplete the funding available to support those crucial non-commercial routes which don’t generate enough passengers to cover their costs.

“To those who think that passing greater financial responsibility for investing in the bus network from the private sector to LAs is a great idea, I would point out that it involves investment in buses and bus services having to compete with pressing priorities such as social care, libraries, waste collection and all the rest, and that that investment – and bus passengers – are likely to suffer as a result.

“In my previous role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I was contacted by Wrightbus. The company was concerned about the chilling effect that even the proposals leading to the Bill were having on orders for new buses from operators in England. Its concerns demonstrate that the re-regulation of bus services outside London is not a step to be undertaken lightly. It is not a cost-free option. If we get this wrong, it will be the passenger who suffers.

“Reverting to the Bill’s original drafting would not deal with all the issues I’ve highlighted, but it would certainly mitigate the problems caused and the uncertainty that’s likely to damage the interests of passengers by undermining the viability of bus operations and investment in those services.

“I therefore very much welcome the intention expressed by the Secretary of State to amend clause 4 as it stands, and I give the Government my support in their endeavour. As the Bill progresses, I hope that they will consider going a step further and remove clause 4 altogether.”

Existing legislation

Describing the Quality Contracts process as “too cumbersome and complex to use,” Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) stressed: “It’s vital that the new powers are workable and practical to implement. That’s not to say that franchising is the only way to improve services, or that it is a panacea.

“There are three key reasons for Nottingham’s public transport success: consistent political leadership, our outstanding municipal bus company and the presence of an excellent private sector operator.

“Nottingham’s an example of what can be achieved through good partnership working between the LA and local operators, but it’s not perfect. Passengers still face a confusing range of fare options, and there are two different multi-operator/multi-modal smartcards, which give rise to different fares and cannot be used on all buses and trams in the city.

“Partnerships can deliver real improvements, but they also have limits, and even the enhanced partnerships envisaged in the Bill rely on operators’ agreement, which can be difficult to achieve.”

Manchester battle

Jeff Smith (Labour, Manchester, Withington) was certainly not wrong when he observed:

“It’s noticeable how many Greater Manchester (GM) MPs are in the chamber. That’s an indication of how important this Bill is to us.”

Declaring his interest as a candidate for the mayor of the conurbation, Andy Burnham stressed he “will indeed seek to use the powers in this Bill should they become available.”

He added: “Bus usage in GM has gone down from 355 million journeys in 1986 to 210 million journeys now – a huge decline that is very much linked to the cost and quality of the services.”

Rising to support the BSB, Mary Robinson (Conservative, Cheadle), said it has “the potential to reinvigorate bus services across the UK and in GM. Bus use has changed over the past 30 years. Since 1985, usage has fallen by half in metropolitan areas and by 30% in GM.

“The Bill will enable LAs – particularly GM, with its devolved powers – to address current service shortfalls, to tackle congestion on our roads, and to provide a vital link for people to access work and town centre facilities. All that will further support our local economies.”

She stressed: “Franchising presents an opportunity to introduce simple and integrated smart ticketing across GM. It could also alleviate some of the problems in the current system of multiple providers. Some 22 different bus operators provide services across GM. Each has its own fares and branding, which gives rise to inconsistency. Compare that with London’s successful, single, unified brand. A change to the current system will allow seamless travel through joint-ticketing and a more stable service. It could also end injustices such as passengers having to pay a 10% premium for a ticket that can be used across different operators.

“The Bill is a revolutionary step for GM. Regionally, we need a better, more integrated bus service to encourage a more user-friendly public transport system – I’m pleased to support the Bill.”

Asked by Andy Burnham whether she would back his call for GM to be designated a Clean Air Zone, Mary responded: “It’s important that the next Mayor of GM makes a point of improving our air quality and decreasing congestion on our roads.”

Decrying the loss of “around 140,000 commercial bus miles” across Trafford since 2006, Mike Kane (Labour, Wythenshawe and Sale East) added: “That worries me because, if the decline continues, people will lose faith in a mode ​of transport.

“I talked to people from Transport for Greater Manchester, who could not tell me the best system. People need a mathematics degree to work out how best to travel around our conurbation. People have to pay a premium for tickets covering two or more companies. So what can be done to fix the issue? Thankfully, the Bill is the first thing.”

However, Chris Green (Conservative, Bolton West) said he does have some concerns about the BSB: “The Government must ensure that small and medium-sized bus operators are able to compete in a franchised environment. It’s encouraging that the Bill includes a requirement to ensure that franchising authorities consider in their procurement strategy how to facilitate smaller operators. I hope that as well as considering this in their strategy, LAs will ensure that there is a wide range of service providers – often innovators coming in with new ideas for new routes, who ought not to be excluded from franchising.”

Echoing the views of many of his counterparts in GM, Jeff Smith (Labour, Manchester, Withington) said: “If the Government is going to reverse the Lords’ amendments, which would be unfortunate, I urge them not to delay giving powers to the mayoral authorities and not to water down those powers. We need the powers proposed in the Bill and we need to get on with improving the transport system in GM because we have a willingness to prove the model. We can make it work. We have the capacity and willingness to deliver. We can make public services better for the people of GM if we are given the opportunity.”

Municipal operators

Chris said the Government will “seek to reinstate the ban on LAs setting up new municipal bus companies,” which was removed in an amendment in the Lords.

He added: “My view is that LAs have other priorities today, and this is about partnership between the private sector and the public sector. That’s the big difference between the Government and the Opposition. They don’t want the private sector investment that comes in and delivers better and newer buses, providing jobs in Ballymena. They want to go back to the days of the past, but we’re not going there as well.

“The Government strongly believes that striking a balance between LA influence and the role that private operators can play will help to ensure that both are incentivised to deliver the best services for passengers. We’re not going back to the 1970s world of LA-planned and delivered bus services. That was not a golden era, but one of indifferent services which cost the taxpayer. As far as possible, we want the commissioning and provision of bus services to be kept separate, and to ensure that we retain the strengths of the private sector. We’ll therefore seek to return this Bill to what was tabled in the first place. We welcome and accept the thoughts of the Lords on some amendments – on accessibility, for example – but not the broad principles of change that were written in the House of Lords.”

Asked by Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South) to “congratulate” Blackpool Transport on “making a profit last year of £1.38m, £1m of which was returned as a dividend to the council,” which makes “the case for extending rather than stifling municipals,” Chris replied: “There’s no doubt that in a small number of places such as Blackpool, they play an important role in the local transport system. I pay tribute to Blackpool, which has also done excellent work on the tram system. However, the Government does not believe that extending the provision of bus services to council after council is the right approach. It will stifle the private sector investment that has made such a significant difference.”

Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) enquired: “I don’t believe municipals are the answer to everything, and I certainly would not expect every LA to want to set one up. Why will the Government not let LAs decide what’s best for them?”

Chris replied: “That’s the point of difference between us. We don’t want to go back to the situation in which every Labour council is trying to set up its own bus company. We think that will absorb public sector capital that could be more wisely used elsewhere, take up essential time which should be devoted to other services and not deliver a good deal for passengers.”

Referring to the “huge imbalance” in public transport funding in England between London and elsewhere, Rob Marris (Labour, Wolverhampton South West) said localism is “all well and good as long as there is the money to go with it.”

Responding to Rob’s call for a Labour commitment to adequately fund the delivery model, Andy McDonald said the spend per head “must be corrected.”

Andy added: “We (Labour) won an amendment in the Lords to extend powers to re-regulate buses to all areas – and removing clause 21, which would ban LAs from forming their own bus companies. Removing the incentive to profit from operations can allow a greater focus on the social and economic purpose of bus services. Labour didn’t introduce a clause mandating municipals, but simply removed a clause prohibiting them. We believe there’s not a one-size-fits-all model for running bus services. Indeed, there are a number of solutions for different areas.

“If the Secretary of State is committed to devolution and believes that devolved authorities should be allowed to choose the best model to meet their needs, I hope the Government will accept that the option of municipal operation should be preserved and that clause 21 should not be reintroduced.”

Ticketing & data

Describing the introduction of smartcard ticketing as “one of the great successes in London,” Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath) asked whether the forthcoming West of England Mayor would be able to introduce smartcard ticketing using the Bill?

Chris replied: “The Bill should give the powers and flexibility to introduce it. We’re updating in the Bill the existing powers to establish multi-operator ticketing schemes to recognise that latest technology. The Bill will allow an LA to require all operators within its area to sell and accept a particular multi-operator smartcard. Under the powers, LAs will not be able to set the fares, but will be able to determine the technology, which is important in ensuring that we get integration locally.

“That might be enough to improve services in some areas, but if not, the Bill offers further options. For example, new enhanced partnership schemes enable greater integration of ticketing. They allow authorities and operators not only to agree the price of multi-operator tickets, but to set common ticket zones or concessions and to join other modes, with their agreement, to offer an integrated ticket.”

Mary Creagh (Labour, Wakefield) commented: “In London, Transport for London owns the data and was able to make them freely available to web developers to make apps. The problem outside London is that the data are owned by private companies, which hoard them. The powers in the BSB to force those companies to make the data open source and stimulate innovation in the app market are important.”
Chris responded: “There’s no reason today for such information to be anything but widely available. We believe in open data. I want to make it simpler for passengers to plan their journey and to know when their bus will arrive and how much it will cost. Mary is right – it’s essential the enormous variability across England changes. Where the service is good, passengers have access to real-time information, but where it is not good, they do not, and it is important that the former becomes universal. The open data provisions in the Bill are designed to allow public transport app providers to develop a new generation of products that will do precisely that.”

Rural areas

Bemused at colleagues from metropolitan areas talking “hundreds of routes,” Robert Jenrick (Conservative, Newark) asked: “Will the Government comment on the effect of the Bill in rural areas where there are no routes? I welcome the flexibility and focus on Community Transport (CT) it will bring, but will he say how it might lead to a greater provision of bus services in rural areas?”

Chris replied: “Through the provision of greater flexibility, the Bill will allow for enhanced partnerships that take forward existing partnership arrangements. In a rural area – where it’s not always about building bus lanes, for example, but about other ways of improving services – the Bill will give LAs greater flexibility without some of the straitjackets in the previous arrangements. Of course we’ll continue to fund CT, which plays an important role in many parts of the country, particularly rural areas.”

Craig Tracey (Conservative, North Warwickshire) said he was keen to hear how the BSB will help his rural constituents: “The biggest turnouts at the public meetings I’ve held have been at those at which bus services are being discussed. I hear regularly from constituents that there aren’t enough buses; that they do not go at the right times; and that they don’t go where people need them to go. I have to admit there’s a stark contrast between my time spent in London, when I think of using nothing other than public transport because of how excellently it works, and my time spent back in the constituency, where it’s just not viable to use it.”

Cornish question

Scott Mann (Conservative, North Cornwall) said: “The Government signed a devolution deal with Cornwall in 2015 to give Cornwall Council bus franchising powers. Does the Government agree that, in a county which has historically suffered from poor public transport, the BSB will enable more buses to be on the road and more routes, and make Cornish communities more resilient and connected?”

Chris replied: “Correct, but it’s interesting that Cornwall is proceeding without seeking to use those powers, precisely because it has forged a better and stronger partnership with the local bus companies, which are already enhancing those services. That’s my point. We’re not seeking particular structures in particular places. We are seeking to ensure that we provide the best possible services for passengers around the country. Cornwall is already doing a very good job of that.”

Youthful concessions

John Pugh (Lib Dem, Southport) said: “The Bill will do all sorts of good things, but it conspicuously fails to do anything for young people’s travel or mandate LAs to consider it. Why not?”

Chris replied: “It’s somewhat ironic that the gentleman, whose party has always argued for localism, argues for centralisation of something I believe should be a local decision. I’ve no doubt that Southport Council will take wise decisions about what is best for that town, as will others around the country.”

Referring to a question put to Labour by Chris Green (Conservative, Bolton West) about the party’s policy of giving free concessionary fares to 16 and 17-year olds, Ben Howlett (Conservative, Bath) said: “It’s one thing to propose that for 16 and 17-year-olds in Manchester, but our West of England Labour candidate has promised to introduce free bus travel for all children. We’ve yet to see any costings for that, and it’s a hugely expensive operation. Just in Bath & North East Somerset, the smallest of the three authorities involved, we are talking about £11m. With a devolution deal of £30m each year, it seems that the entire budget – the entire devolved operation – could end up being subsumed into one uncosted commitment; although this may sometimes politically be beneficial, it may not be a funded commitment. We’ll need to be aware of that, so any costings that could be provided from either Front Bencher would be incredibly useful.”

Audio-visual

Commending the Government and the Lords on clause 17 (accessibility), the BSB’s only UK-wide provision, Alan Brown (SNP, Kilmarnock and Loudoun) described it as “a victory for common sense and equality.”

Confirming his party’s support for the clause, Philip Boswell (SNP, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) enquired: “Will the Minister confirm that small rural operators that are struggling to keep costs down and vital lifeline services alive might be exempted from the initial provision of the audio-visual services?”

Under-Secretary of State for Transport Andrew Jones (Conservative, Harrogate & Knaresborough), replied: “We’ll work through the phasing of the introduction of the requirement, but we don’t want to hold back from it. There’s a slight cost implication for operators, but we think that that will be more than offset by the extra patronage they will secure if people are more able to use the buses. This is a business-generating approach, but we’ll treat the issues for the smaller operators with great sensitivity. We’ve taken a very deliberate approach, and I hope members will appreciate that it focuses on the information to be provided, not on any particular technology. We hope to consult on how to take this forward later in the year.”

Conclusions

Summing, Andrew Jones said: “Teresa Villiers recognised the very real risks to investment by bus operators that will be created if franchising powers are made automatically available to all LAs, and the chilling effect that that might have on operators and bus manufacturers such as Wrightbus. I agree with the concerns highlighted, which is one reason why we will seek to reverse the changes made in the Lords.

“The Bill requires franchising authorities to consider how, in conducting their procurement process for franchising contracts, they will facilitate the involvement of small and medium-sized operators. We – and, I hope, every directly elected Mayor – want to ensure that such operators thrive if franchising is implemented. We’ve made that clear in the Bill.”

Disagreeing with Louise Ellman’s belief that bus routes should be designated as assets of community value, he said: “That would force operators to continue to run a service for six months, potentially at huge cost, which could act as a disincentive for improving or maintaining services, especially in rural areas.”

Agreeing with Louise that “congestion is a problem” for local buses, Andrew said the Government remains to be convinced about the case for giving all authorities the powers under the Traffic Management Act 2004 “to install a raft of new cameras on yellow box junctions or elsewhere.” He recently “received a letter from a councillor who said that doing that would be a great idea because it would help with council revenue collection, which was exactly what we did not want to hear.”

He also wished to “challenge the myth” which has been perpetrated in the debate by some colleagues, that bus services were flourishing before deregulation in the 1980s and that the decrease in bus passengers started at deregulation. I’ve gone back and looked at the data. In the 30 years between 1955 and 1985 – 30 years prior to deregulation – the number of passenger journeys on local bus services in Great Britain fell on average by 2% a year. Since deregulation, the fall has gradually reduced, at an average of just 0.2% a year.

“The number of passenger journeys fell from 15.5 billion in 1955 to 5.5 billion in 1985. One thing has been clear in the debate: all members want that trend reversed and for passenger numbers to increase.”[/wlm_ismember]