Great Western Coffee Shop

From Localgov (http://www.localgov.co.uk/Queens-Speech-2016-Elected-mayors-to-get-power-over-buses/40885)


Comment on that page regrets the limitation of the powers to only areas with elected Mayors:


and



Edit by FT,N! to tidy up fonts.

Elected Mayoral powers is a Osborne hobby horse, isnt it? He who holds the purse strings, holds the power...

Purse strings are held by the First Lord of the Treasury, no? That ain't Georgie boy.

Queen's Speech briefing details

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524040/Queen_s_Speech_2016_background_notes_.pdf

The Bill as introduced can be found here (http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/busservices.html)

Already through 1st Reading in the Lords.

Second Reading on Wednesday 8 June.

Does that scupper the option 24/7 proposals you were promoting?

The bill also allows for franchising powers to be granted to county councils but this is not automatic and requires the consent of the secretary of state.  Cornwall is not going to have  a mayor but bus franchising powers are to be granted although as discussed in another thread, Cornwall Country Council do not intend to use these powers.  It will be up to Wiltshire County Council to seek consent from the government.

Ah, that's not so bad. Thanks for the reply.

Documents summarising the main measures in the Bus Services Bill and explaining how government intends that they will work in practice have been published on the DfT's site; we have a mirror on Option 24/7.
The main points of the Bus Services Bill (DfT text) are:
* to strengthen arrangements for partnership working in the sector, introducing ^enhanced partnerships^
* introduce new franchising powers with decisions at a local level
* to provide for a step change in the information available to bus passengers
Summary: http://option247.uk/ds_summ.pdf
Franchising: http://option247.uk/ds_fran.pdf
Partnership: http://option247.uk/ds_part.pdf
Open data and ticketing: http://option247.uk/ds_open.pdf


Sorry - had missed that question.    After a few heart-stopping hours while we got clarification, no, not scuppered.

Second reading passed unppossed and bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

It has been confirmed that before any non-mayoral authority can apply to the secretary of state for consent to run a franchising scheme, a Statutory Instrument will need to have be made to allow the relevant category of authority to become a franchising authority.  This SI is subject to the affirmative procedure and so will require explicit approval by both houses.
 
Also of note is clause 21 which will prevent a local authority in setting up a company to run local services although it doesn't seem to prevent existing companies such as Reading Buses and Thamesdown from bidding for local service contracts should franchising be introduced in the areas.

Still very early days though and a fair bit could change by the time the bill has completed its stages in the Lords and gone through the Commons.

Committee stage begins on Wednesday 29 June.

Bus Bill second reading debate (House of Lords, 8th June 2016) - mirror at http://option247.uk/bsbr2.pdf of original at https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-06-08/debates/16060840000472/BusServicesBill(HL)

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon introduces the bill ...


Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)


Much more - I have just mirrored the introductions from both major parties.

The bill was considered by a committee of the whole house over three days in June and July where each clause was considered and various amendments proposed.  In the House of Lords however it is not usual to force anything to a vote at committee stage.  Each amendment is debated and the minister will then give a response after which the amendment will be withdrawn (or not moved if it was not the lead amendment in the group).  Each clause must then be agreed to stand part of the bill and if there is opposition then this can be debated but it is not usually forced to a vote.

Report stage started on 12 October where five amendments were forced to a vote resulting in four government defeats:

Amendment 3 allows the Secretary of State to give traffic enforcement powers to local transport authorities making advance quality partnership schemes.

Amendment 6 adds a requirement for advanced quality partnership schemes that new vehicles for local services must meet the specifications of the low emissions bus scheme.

Amendment 9A adds a requirement that appropriate representatives* of any affected employees be consulted after giving notice for an advance quality partnership scheme.
*Appropriate representatives was defined by amendment 10A which was agreed to without a vote.

Amendment 14 removed the requirement for regulations to be made before any category of authority other than a mayoral authority can be a franchising authority.


Amendment 7 would have required that advanced quality partnership schemes include a reduced concessionary fare scheme for 16 to 19 year olds but this amendment was defeated.


Various government amendments were agreed to and report stage continues on 24 October.

Listening to Lord Faulkner and others talking about this last night, the Lords are hopeful that some / all of the amendments they passed will remain in the bill as it passes through the following stages.  As is intended, some of the amendments made by the Lords seem to make the bus services bill a better piece of legislation, taking out the "why on earth did they put that in in the first place?" type things.  So I hope they stick.

Report stage has now been completed.  The second day of this stage was relatively uneventful until near the end.  In addition to various government amendments that were passed without a vote, there were also other amendments which similar or related to previous amendments which had already been voted on:

Amendment 19 added a requirement that new vehicles for local service contracts must meet the specification for the low emission bus scheme.  This was the same as the requirement added to advanced quality schemes by amendment 6.  This was later added to enhanced quality partnerships by amendment 66.

Amendment 25 followed on from amendment 14 and removed the requirement for the Secretary of State to grant consent before a non-mayoral authority can prepare an assessment for a franchising scheme.

Amendment 32 added a requirement for "appropriate representatives*" of any affected employees to be consulted after giving notice of a franchising schemes.  This was the same as the requirment added to advanced quality partnership schemes by amendment 9A.
*This was defined by amendment 35.

These amendments were all agreed to without a vote.


Proceedings then arrived at Amendment 111 which proposed the removal of clause 21.  This clause bans local authorities from setting up companies for the purpose of providing a local service.

The minister's defence of the clause was that Commissioning and provision of bus serves are kept separate to help ensure that the strengths of the private sector are retained in the market so that both the local authority and the private bus company have the incentive to deliver the best services for passengers.

This was not accepted and the amendment was forced to a vote where the government were defeated and so this clause has for now been removed from the bill.

Amendment 113 was debated on the first day but since it was so far down the list, was not called until the second.  It proposed a new clause which would require that the secretary of state issue a national strategy for bus services within 12 months of the day the Act is passed.  A vote was forced but the amendment was defeated.

Third reading is on 2 November.

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. 

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, 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.

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


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.

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 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.

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

Third reading has now been scheduled for Wednesday 23 November.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Second reading has now been scheduled for Wednesday 1 March.

The Bill was given second reading unopposed on Wednesday.  During the debate government comfirmed it's intentions to reverse some of the amendments made in the Lords:

Automatic access to franchising powers will be restricted to Mayoral combined authorities.  The minister's justification for this was accountability:  A mayor will have a legal duty to demostrate an enhanced service whereas with other authorities this responsibility lies with the government.  Other authorities will therefore have to make a "compeling case" to the Secretary of State in order to be granted franchising powers.  In the winding-up speech Andrew Jones referred to earlier comments by Theresa Villiers that there would be a very real risk to investment by bus operators if all authorities were to be given franchising powers and stated that this was one reason why they government were seeking to reverse the amendment made in the Lords.

Local authorities will be banned from setting up new municipals, the reason given was that the Bill provides substantially more opportunities for local authorities to influence provision of services and so commissioning and provision of services should be kept separate.

The programme motion was approved committing the Bill to a Public Bill Committee with proceedings in committee reaching a conclusion on 21 March.  The money resolution was also passed.

Committee stage starts on Tuesday 14 March.  A Public Bill Committee will go through the Bill clause by clause on this day with further sittings on Thursday 16 and Tuesday 21 March.

Forgive my ignorance on this subject. If a local authority already has a park and ride operation going will they be able to keep it going and even extend it?
Local one run by the Council but First provide the drivers and supervisors.

The bill should not effect things already running - though I did get a hint when I was up at the DfT on 3rd for a briefing on the guidance notes consultation that future changes to BSOG (Bus Service Operators's Grant) may make it advantageous for local authorities to move to AQPS (Advanced Quality Partnership Schemes) or EPS (Enhanced Partnership Schemes).


Ah - the truth of why the decision "Mayoral only" has been rammed back into the bill.

Thank you





Edit note: Broken quote marks removed, for clarity. CfN.

Tuesday saw the start of Committee stage and good progress was made though the Bill:

In clause 1:

Government Amendment 1 removed the ability of the Secretary of State to grant traffic enforcement powers to local transport authorities to enforce traffic offences.  This amendment was agreed to unopposed.

Government Amendment 2 removed the requirement that new buses ordered under advanced quality partnership schemes meet requirements of the low emissions bus scheme.  This was agreed unopposed.  Similar government amendments to franchising(6) and enhanced partnerships(11) were later agreed to.

Government Amendments 3 and 4 removed the requirement that representatives of employees of bus companies affected advanced partnerships be consulted about the proposed schemes.  Amendment 3 was agreed to on division after which Amendment 4 was agreed to unpossoed.  Similar amendments to franchising(8 and 9) were later agreed to.

Clause 4:

Government Amendment 5 added a requirement that regulations be made by the Secretary of State before categories other than mayoral authorities can access the franchising powers in this clause.  This amendment was agreed to on division.

Government Amendment 6 (see above) was agreed to on division.

Government Amendment 7 prevents local authorities other than mayoral combined authorities from preparing franchising schemes unless the Secretary of State has consented.  This amendment was agreed to unopposed following the division on amendment 5.

During the debate on the above amendments the minister hinted that regulations required by Amendment 5 would only be made after at least one such authority had applied (these regulations would have to be made by Statutory Instrument before the Secretary of State could start to consider any authorities in that category).  It had previously been said that Cornwall would be granted franchising powers despite not being a mayoral authority but it seems that since they have said they do not intend to use them, then the regulations that would be required won't actually be made at this time.

Amendment 36 was proposed by Graham Stringer and would have specified that any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the preparation of an assessment for a franchising scheme.  It would have required that such guidance not be over burdensome on the authority, that an authority may decline to asses a potential scheme if bus operators had previously been unwilling or unable to implement such a scheme and that the final decision to go ahead with any scheme rests with the authority.  This amendment was defeated on division.

Government Amendment 10 added reference to the proposed New Clause 1 (also debated at this time) which will ban local authorities from setting up new municipals companies to operate bus services.  During the debate it was argued by the government that passengers will benefit the most of commissioning and provision of services were kept separate.  Lillian Greenwood pointed out that even if a municipal company were to bid for a contract, it doesn't mean that it would win (for example Nottingham City Council owns 82% of Nottingham City Transport) it did not win the contract for the expansion of Nottingham Express Transport.  I see to remember that in the case of rail, although the Railways Act 1993 was amended to allow BR to bid for franchises, OPRAF in the end decided not to allow this due to fears that private companies would be discouraged from bidding.  It the end the amendment was agreed to unopposed but it was made clear that it was going to be revisited at Report stage.

Clauses 1 - 15 were ordered to start part on Tuesday with the Committee resuming tomorrow.

The amendments seem to be, with a Bristol eye on them, purely to dilute the benefits first mooted for MetroBust to the lowest common denominator. The West of England Local Enterprise Partnership, the unelected unaccountable self-serving oligarchy that specialises in signing other peoples' cheques, can claim that it is the government to blame for them not having to honour the original plan of electric or hybrid or ultra-low emission vehicles paying a toll to operate on the special segregated guided busways.

None of which is happening, as the local councils prepare to subsidise a 3 buses per hour service subsidised by the taxpayer on a £250 million "system" operated by an as yet unknown operator (the obvious suspects seem to think it won't work and never would have) at a premium fare using any old vehicle they care to put out, except for the most modern ultra- low emission double-door double-deck vehicles currently operating on the Long Ashton Park and Ride, which are intended to be be the core route to somewhere not far from Temple Meads before going to the most popular bus stop, Anchor Road, about 7 minutes later than at present. The problem is that they are 80 mm too tall to fit under the Ashton Avenue bridge, recently refurbished at a cost of over £4 million. By coincidence, that is the figure that MetroBust  said would cover all the bridges on the "system", including the skew bridge over Winterstoke Road that was necessary to scoop up brownie points towards the elusive BCR, but which was planned at 2 metres too low  because no-one had asked Network Rail.

Which all makes me think that no-one has thought about buses and rail and / or road as being part of the same planet, let alone local arrangement. Diesel, the new Great Satan, is now allowed because of cost cutting as part of the usual window dressing.

Hugely useful post - Thank You.  Wanted to say that more than just hitting the like button.

Yes: many thanks for your prompt and detailed update posts in this topic, Zoë.  :)

Thursday saw the conclusion of proceedings in Committee:

In Clause 18

Government Amendment 12 allowed regulations to be made under the Transport Act 2000 to require local authorities to provide information about relevant local services which have stopping places in their area.  Government Amendments 13 and 14 require that this includes information about stopping places.  These amendments were agreed to unopposed.

In Clause 19

Government Amendment 15 defined "local transport authority" to have the meaning given in the Transport Act 2000, this was agreed to unopposed.

Clauses 18 - 25 ordered to stand part.

New Clauses

Government New Clause 1 which bans local authorities from setting up new municipals was debated on Tuesday was read a second time on division and added to the bill.

New Clause 2 was moved by Daniel Zeichner and would have required that the Secretary of State publish a national bus strategy for local bus services which would set out the objectives, targets and funding provisions for rural, urban and inter-urban local bus services.  The strategy would have included consideration of a concessionary fare scheme for 16 to 19 year olds.  This new clause was defeated on division.

New Clause 7 was moved by Lillian Greenwood and would have allowed regulations to be made for the purpose of facilitating travel on local services by wheelchair users.  These regulations would have been able to require operators to put in place and enforce a policy for priority wheelchair spaces.  The proposed new clause was defeated on division.

Proceedings concluded with the simple formality of Government Amendment 16 in Clause 26 which removed the Lord's privilege amendment.  This was agreed to unopposed after which Clause 26 was ordered to stand part.

Since proceedings are now complete, there will be no sitting on Tuesday and the Bill will now be reported back to the House where the remaining stages will take place on Monday 27 March.

Interesting ...  :-X

I too have enjoyed reading the detail of this debate thanks to Zoe.  One small pedantic point:


A winding-up speech usually concludes a debate.  A wind up speech is usually delivered by the opposition when feeling mischievous.  I did have a smile when I read it.

You make a better journalist than some journalists, Zoe. (Or perhaps you are one?)

Yes, I was referring to the speech used to wind-up the debate and it was simply a case of not noticing what the wording I used would imply before I posted.  Looking back through Hansard though I see the term has been used by MPs and even the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons First Report (https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmmodern/337/33708.htm)  says:

I hope they are not suggesting that the two largest opposition parties should be able to choose whether to make either an opening speech or one that winds up the government.

Hmm. ::)

I rather suspect that the Opposition 'May' want to wind up the Government in any such debate - but my renewed thanks to member Zoë for reporting here in such detail.  ;)

Today saw the completion of the reaming stages of the Bill in the Commons.

At Report stage the amendments were placed into three groups the first of which dealt with the National Strategy and Concessionary Schemes.  Two Amendments were forced to a vote:

New Clause 1 was moved by would have required that the Secretary of State publish a national strategy for local bus services setting out objectives, targets and funding of local bus services in the 10 years following Royal Assent of the Bill.  The strategy would have been required to include consideration of a reduced concessionary fares scheme for 16 to 19 year olds. 

New Clause 2 was moved by John Pugh and would have required that the Secretary of State lay a report before parliament detailing possible steps to provide support local authorities in providing conscesisonary bus travel for 16 to 18 year olds in apprenticeships.

Both of these New Clauses were defeated on division.

Proceeding then moved on to the next group which covered franchising and partnership schemes.  No amendments were forced to a vote here  but there were some government amendments relating to the appointment of auditors by for franchising schemes by local authorities.

Report stage concluded with Amendment 1 moved by Daniel Zeichner and would have removed the controversial Clause 22 which bans local authorities from setting up new municipals.  This clause was in the original bill as Clause 1 but was removed at Report Stage in the Lords before getting added back in at Committee stage in the Commons.  The Amendment was forced to a vote but was defeated and so the clause remains part of the Bill.

The House was then briefly suspended to allow Speaker John Bercow to consider the certification of clauses relating to England or England and Wales only.  The House then resolved itself into Legislative Grand Committee with Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair and a consent motion for those clauses was agreed to unopposed.

Proceedings then concluded with Third Reading which after a short debate was agreed to unopposed.

The Bill now returns to the Lords for consideration of the amendments.

The Lords will consider the Commons amendments after the Easter recess on Wednesday 26 April.

Thank you so much for all the updates, appreciated.

The Commons Amendments have now been considered (a day earlier than originally planned due to Thursday's prorogation).  Members of the opposition expressed some regret over the changes made by the Commons but in the end they were all agreed to unopposed.  The Bill has now passed all parliamentary stages and awaits Royal Assent.

La Reyne le veult.  Royal Assent has just been announced at the prorogation ceremony and so the Bill is now the Bus Services Act 2017.

Excellent ... let's now see if we can get adjustments after some of the "sillies" this weekend to reflect a co-operative partnership across networks between operators.   We could do with the aggressive competition between operators turned into an aggressive competition to persuade passengers to public transport.

With thanks for your latest update here, Zoë, I've now amended this topic's heading accordingly - purely in the interests of clarity for our no doubt ongoing discussions.  :)

Eh? We're still in the EU I know. Translation please!
P.S Many thanks for the updates, all greatly appreciated.

This is an English* tradition pre-dates the EU by several centuries. It dates from a time when the kings of England spoke (Medieval) Norman French. The assent of the Queen to an a Bill and it becoming an Act of Parliament. It means the Queen wills it. 


* Word chosen carefully as this was in the time of the old English Parliament before the terms Great Britain or United Kingdom were used. 

From the DfT