Bus Services Act 2017 - updated topic heading, ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From Localgov

Queen's Speech 2016: Elected mayors to get power over buses

The much-anticipated buses bill will limit powers to franchise services to areas with directly elected mayors while legislation will be introduced to facilitate the use of autonomous and electric vehicles.

The Queen's speech included plans for a Bus Services Bill and a Modern Transport Bill, as well as measures to improve infrastructure and the digital economy.

In his introduction to the document setting out details of forthcoming Government legislation, prime minister David Cameron said: "To back business, we will make sure Britain has first-class infrastructure, especially when it comes to the transport of the future."

The government has confirmed expectations that "London-style powers to franchise local services" will only be given to mayoral combined authorities.

Ministers said a separate Modern Transport Bill "will put Britain at the forefront of the modern transport revolution, so that we create new jobs and fuel economic growth around the country".

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

"To back business, we will make sure Britain has first-class  infrastructure, especially when it comes to the transport of the  future." - there he goes again but in six years there has been no major infrastructure started and who knows when HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will see a digger wielded in anger! So given the essential requirement of elected mayors what can East Anglia do about its awful bus services - chose a mayor for the Broads and the Fens!!!

and

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? Bus deregulation has to be one of the most badly handled and produced the grimmest outcome of all privatisations (apart from Right to Buy, trains, utilities ....). The most commercial routes cherry-picked by private monopolies (who crushed the early competition by illegal means) for super-normal profit leaving rural and outlying areas at the mercy of local authority budget cuts as the only way to service those is routes is through a subsidy. Not for London though - oh no, that's *different* - billions in transport infrastructure and ability to intervene for you, stuff everyone else.

Edit by FT,N! to tidy up fonts.

[Rapidash]

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

[JayMac]

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

[grahame]

Queen's Speech briefing details

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

Bus Services Bill

^In England, further powers will be devolved to directly elected mayors, including powers governing local bus services.^

The purpose of the Bill is to:
* To give elected mayors and local transport authorities the power to improve bus services for the people who use them.
* Mayoral combined authorities would be given London-style powers to franchise local services.
* Data about routes, fares and times would be made available across the country to app developers to give passengers better information about how to make the most of local bus services.

The main benefits of the Bill would be:
* Local authorities would be able to use new powers to set required standards of service with bus providers, including branding, ticketing and the frequencies of services.
* New powers to franchise services would be made available to combined authorities with directly elected Mayors to allow them to take control of their services as Transport for London does in London. Applications from other local authorities will be considered on a case by case basis.
* Passengers across the country would be given real time information about timetables and fares to enable them to make the most of bus services in their area.
* Bus companies would be required to make data freely available. This would allow app developers to produce new journey planners and other products.
* This delivers on the manifesto pledge to devolve more powers over transport to large cities which choose to have elected mayors (p.13).

The main elements of the Bill are:
* Stronger arrangements to allow local government to work in partnership with bus operators.
* New franchising powers that are clearer and simpler to use.
* A requirement on all operators to make data about routes, fares and times open and accessible to allow app makers to develop products for passengers to plan journeys.

Devolution: The Bus Services Bill would apply to England only.

Key Facts:
* Local buses outside of London account for 73% (26,200) of the total number of buses within England (35,800).
* There are over 800 bus operators in England, but head to head competition is limited. In its local bus market investigation (in 2011), the Competition Commission found that many local markets are highly concentrated, with the five largest bus operators running 69% of all local bus services

[ChrisB]

The Bill as introduced can be found here

Already through 1st Reading in the Lords.

[Zoe]

Second Reading on Wednesday 8 June.

[Rhydgaled]

limitation of the powers to only areas with elected Mayors

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

[Zoe]

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.

[Rhydgaled]

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.

[grahame]

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^» (Department for Transport - about)'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

limitation of the powers to only areas with elected Mayors

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

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

[Zoe]

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.

[grahame]

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 ...

My Lords, it is a pleasure to lead the debate on the first Bill to focus on bus services alone. I know that many noble Lords are keen to contribute to this debate, for bus services are of enormous importance to local people and their communities. They help connect people to education, jobs and healthcare, together with boosting our local economies.

[snip]

Bus services in the local community are an important lifeline for many, and in some areas they are working well. The latest bus passenger survey from Transport Focus, published in March 2016, reveals that overall satisfaction ranges across areas from 79% to 93%. However, in others there is much room for improvement. We want to increase bus passenger numbers; to help cities and regions to use better bus services to unlock opportunity and grow their economies; and to improve journeys for bus users. Passengers would like to know more about the services available to them, when buses will arrive and what the fare will be. This kind of information is available in London but varies across the rest of England. The Bill will provide the basis for such a step change. It also provides new tools for local authorities and bus operators to use to improve local services.

[snip]

I am sure that noble Lords from across the House will join me in recognising the importance of reducing the budget deficit. Given our fiscal circumstances, no new additional funding is available for bus services, but the Bill enables local authorities to make better and more efficient use of the funds already available to them. It also allows local councils to influence the commercial bus services provided, which will continue to receive financial support directly from my department.

[snip]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the intentions of the Bill so clearly. It is a Bill that we regard as long-promised and eagerly awaited. It recognises what we have been saying for some time: that deregulation of the bus system has proved a failure both for customers and transport planners alike. In England, outside London, since deregulation, bus patronage has steadily declined, fares have shot up faster than wages, and routes and services have been axed. Conversely, since 1986-87, patronage in London has doubled, bus mileage has increased by 74% and fare increases have been lower than in the city regions. So we welcome the Bill’s underlying intention to bring back some order to the system, learn from the successful models, reverse the decline in the number of passenger journeys taken, and drive up quality and reliability.

It is absolutely right that these decisions should be taken locally by those who know best the challenges and opportunities of providing public transport in their locality. Although there is much in the Bill to applaud, this does not mean that we do not have major areas of concern that we will need to explore in Committee.

[snip]

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

[Zoe]

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.

[grahame]

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.

[Zoe]

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.