Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Driving Test Backlog

    The post-covid backlog in driving tests was trending down under the last Government. At the time of the general election, it had got to 521,000, which was still too high, but it was coming down. Since this Government took over, the number has rocketed up to 600,000, a new record high, meaning that constituents like Oliver, in my Spelthorne constituency, have had to wait six months for a driving test. The increasing delays in driving tests are putting a handbrake on growth and productivity, so whatever the Government are doing, can they do more of it and faster please?

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Business of the House

    I do not know if the Leader of the House is aware that if we installed just 15% of floating solar panels on the man-made reservoirs in this country, we would double the installed base of solar power without having to put a single new solar panel on agricultural land. I know what she is thinking: “If only some plucky Back Bencher had secured today’s Adjournment debate, the House could learn more.” I am happy to say that I have, so will she encourage Back Benchers from across the House to attend today’s debate to learn more about floating solar?

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    G7 and NATO Summits

    The former Prime Minister has just welcomed the US military action against Iran at the weekend. Why cannot the Prime Minister bring himself to welcome it, too?

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    I am delighted to see the House so full for this Adjournment debate. I want hon. Members who are staying to remember who was here. Indeed, people in the Public Gallery might wish to make a note in their diary, too, because I hope that I will in some way blow the House’s mind with what I am about to say and sow a seed that will grow into something fantastic. What we are here to discuss is floating solar. Members will know that I am the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne. I feel obliged to remind the House on regular occasions that Spelthorne is not in Lancashire or in Lincolnshire. It is everything south of Heathrow until one gets to the River Thames. Hon. Members from around the House know my constituency well, because it is what they see when they take off from or land at Heathrow airport. I was selected as the candidate for Spelthorne four days into the general election campaign. Having spent 25 years in the Army, obviously I love a map. There is a very good saying, “If you don’t understand what is going on, get a bigger map.” When I looked at a map of Spelthorne, I was struck by these four massive blocks of blue, so I looked into them. They are four raised reservoirs, which hold half of London’s drinking water. Being a practical person, I first thought to myself, “Well, there are not many votes there!” Secondly, I thought, “I cannot really build any houses there.” Spelthorne is 67% green belt and water, and a large chunk of the rest of it is floodplain, so it is difficult to know what we might do to meet our housing targets; people get crammed into the small islands where development can happen. I was determined, though, to find some way to utilise the 2,000 acres of raised reservoir in my Spelthorne constituency. I looked into it a little further, and came upon the concept of floating solar. This is a terribly simple concept: simply take solar panels, attach them to plastic floats, anchor those floats to the bottom of the reservoir, and string some wires to take an alternating current from the floating solar panels. The clever bits, in terms of intellectual property, are the anchors—because, as I am sure hon. Members know, the depth of reservoirs tends to vary by about 1 metre from time to time. Equally, reservoirs are drained and reassessed on a rolling cycle of about 20 years.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    My hon. Friend pre-empts one of the many benefits of floating solar that I will highlight to the House. He remembers his physics highers well, because the placing of floating solar reduces evaporation from the body that is covered by 70%. Given that the vast majority of the water in our reservoirs is lost through evaporation every year, we will save a great deal more water if the Government decide to pursue this technology at a grand scale. Part of my coming here today is to speak to two large constituencies within this House. There are 543 constituencies that contain reservoirs or man-made water sources. Similarly, countless Members from across the House have very difficult decisions to make about putting solar farms on good agricultural land. Essentially, what has happened is that the whole discussion in this area has become a zero-sum game. It is a battle between food security and energy security, and there has seemed to be no way of unpicking that—until now. Globally, floating solar has been put to practical application at large scale in China, India and Vietnam. The UK was formerly a leader in this space, because on the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir in 2016, a grand technology demonstrator was put on and plugged in, and it has been banging out 6.3 MW into Thames Water’s water treatment facility ever since. That is enough to power 2,000 homes. Given that floating solar covers less than 10% of that reservoir, I am sure that hon. Members can see the vast potential. I want to talk about some of the benefits of floating solar, because they are legion. First, as hon. Members will have worked out already, there is the removal of the opportunity cost of putting floating solar panels on grade A agricultural land. If we do not have to put them all over Lincolnshire and we can put them on reservoirs, that land can be used for growing food.

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope we are going to give hope across the House and therefore across the country that this alternative solution to putting solar panels on grade A agricultural land is, to a certain extent, an answer to a maiden’s prayers. Not only does floating solar remove the opportunity costs of putting it on agricultural land, but one of its beauties is that it is twice as efficient as a land-based system. Land-based systems warm up because they are on the land, and as they warm up they become less efficient, whereas floating solar panels, because of the evaporative effect on the underside, remain automatically cool and 100% efficient throughout a sunny day.

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    I do, indeed. I was not 100% sure which Minister would respond to this debate, so I have had only the briefest of moments to look at the lake in Burgess park in the Minister’s Peckham constituency to see whether that may be suitable for floating solar. We have talked about the opportunity costs and about doubling efficiency. I am sure hon. Members will have worked this out, but the 2,000 acres of reservoir in my Spelthorne constituency are raised, which means no one can see the top of them unless they are flying off to Torremolinos or landing from Dubai. Therefore, there would be none of the visual vandalism that people object to so much, and the carpeting of our beautiful country in solar panels would go away too.

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for joining this merry band of evangelists for floating solar, and for seeking to get in on the ground floor with the inclusion of the reservoir in his constituency. Within minutes, he is immediately seeing the opportunity, and I congratulate him on that.

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    The hon. Member, with whom I serve on the Defence Committee, makes a very important point about future-proofing the United Kingdom’s water supply from increased temperatures. In Australia, I understand that reservoirs are being covered at great expense to reduce evaporation. He might know that where floating solar panels exist, they reduce evaporation by 70. In the case of the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir, that is 100 tonnes of water a day. It is absolutely extraordinary. I know Members are thinking, “Well, Lincoln, it couldn’t get any better,” but I have to tell the House that there are still some further benefits. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Where reservoirs are owned by water companies and the water companies want to use the electricity themselves, there is no requirement for planning permission. When we consider the turmoil that land-based systems have to go through over many, many years, and the paroxysms the nation puts itself through before it puts in a land-based system, we should note that floating solar can be deployed within a few weeks.

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. The Queen Mary reservoir in my constituency has a plug-in point to the national grid at one end of it. The ability to minimise the disruption that is caused by placing solar farms away from where the power is needed is certainly a consideration that plays into this. Hon. Members will think, “Well, that must be his list complete. Those must be all the benefits of floating solar, because there can’t be any more.” But I say to the House that one of the most astonishing things about floating solar is that it improves the water quality underneath, as it is denuded of light and heat. There are things that grow in the water which the water companies subsequently have to filter out to make it tap-ready for us and our constituents. The water companies have to use fewer filtrants where the surface has been covered by floating solar. We have covered the evaporative effect, so I think I have made the case for floating solar.

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    We have gone from Cooper to Hooper! I am delighted to follow my right hon. and gallant Friend’s endorsement, and wish everyone there the opportunity to get to the polls today to exercise their democratic right.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    On Tuesday, I visited the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir, which is a closed site owned by Thames Water. I am not aware that there were any fish there, but there was certainly bird life. It is important to make the point that the general planning norm and all the modelling have been based on covering only 15% of these reservoirs, in order to leave sufficient space for leisure use, including fishing, no doubt, and for bird life. The birds I saw on the Queen Elizabeth II on Tuesday were warming themselves very happily on the floating solar panels, because, of course, by being on the panels, they are predator free, as nothing can attack them there. “How big could this be?”, I hear the House roar.

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    I thank my hon. Friend for that. The installed base of every single solar panel in the United Kingdom is producing 17 GW. If we were to cover 15% of man-made reservoirs in this country, we would double the national capacity, adding a further 16 GW without touching an inch of agricultural land. That is absolutely extraordinary. In so doing, we would create 80,000 jobs in the construction phase and 8,000 jobs in the maintenance phase. My plea to the Minister—who I know is putting the finishing touches to the Government’s solar road map—is that floating solar should play a much greater part in the final road map than it did in the first draft. I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their support; I hope this debate has been educational and informative, and that they are now fully signed up to the floating solar brethren and sisterhood, which will go forth from this place and evangelise for the good cause.

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    I just point out to the Minister that she could save herself a vast amount of political pain, because, apart from a few swans that I saw, a couple of seagulls and one man from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, there ain’t many people who are going to complain about putting floating solar on raised reservoirs.

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentLincoln Jopp

    Floating Solar Panels

    I wonder whether the taskforce has engaged with the company that runs the Queen Elizabeth solar farm; it is called Bluefield—very clever name; very clever company. It wrote to the Secretary of State earlier in the year, some four months ago, but is yet to receive a reply. I would be grateful to know whether the Department is engaging with Bluefield and whether I could nudge the Secretary of State to reply to its letter?

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentKit Malthouse

    G7 and NATO Summits

    Since the second world war, our national security has been based broadly on three pillars: our physical defences, which the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement; the alliances that we have built, which he also mentioned; and the international rules-based order, which he did not mention. What discussion did he have at either summit about the importance of international law, and the undermining of its credibility through the inconsistent way that it has been applied in the conflicts in Ukraine and in Gaza? In particular, did he try to persuade President Trump to lift the United States sanctions on the International Criminal Court?

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentKit Malthouse

    Armed Forces Day

    One of the 180 events that the Minister mentioned will be Armed Forces Day in Andover, which I will attend on Saturday. As the Minister knows, Andover is home to the Army’s land forces headquarters. Will he reflect on the importance of the work of celebrating the armed forces in the communities that physically embrace their headquarters, camps and residences, to sustain that connection between the non-uniformed civilian population and those who protect them on a daily basis?

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentKatie Lam

    Local Bus Services

    As I mentioned to the Minister when he appeared before the Transport Committee, I sent a transport survey to every household in Weald of Kent and received hundreds of comments about our buses. Many are dismayed that villages such as Smarden, Egerton, Frittenden and Pluckley now have no bus service at all, while others observe that small villages are served by massive buses carrying one or two passengers. What further assessment has the Minister made of the role of demand-responsive services in rural areas such as mine?

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    Business of the House

    Research shows that 91% of farmers see poor mental health as the industry’s biggest hidden issue. Last year, Kelso farmer Neil Stewart very sadly took his own life. His friends and family have since raised over £80,000 for RSABI, which provides support for people working in farming. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to them and may we have a debate on mental health in farming?

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    G7 and NATO Summits

    The situation in Scotland is very difficult. I welcome the news that we are to go further with our at-sea deterrents, and of course the nuclear missile Trident boats are based at Faslane. But as we have heard, First Minister John Swinney and his SNP Administration do not back nuclear weapons. Further, they have created a hostile environment for defence firms in Scotland because they will not back any firms that make ordnance. This week we have also heard former First Minister Humza Yousaf claim—wrongly—that allowing our American allies to use the Prestwick air base to refuel is some kind of war crime. What can we do to nullify the threat to British security from these fifth columnists?

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    Floating Solar Panels

    I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for allowing me to intervene. We are told that there is nothing new under the sun, but he is describing something that ticks both boxes—it is quite remarkable. I learned much about reservoirs from playing by the side of the scenic Penwhirn reservoir, outside by home town of Stranraer. I also learned about them in geography classes at Stranraer academy, and it strikes me that one of the reasons that reservoir levels rise and fall is to do with evaporation, and water is obviously a precious resource. Does covering reservoirs help to combat evaporation?

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    Floating Solar Panels

    I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for giving way a second time. I do wonder if I may have stumbled across another advantage to floating solar, which may not have occurred to him. If water quality is improved, will that not help the fish? Clatteringshaws loch reservoir in my constituency has some of the best pike fishing in the country. I wonder if the fish might benefit from having a roof over their heads.

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    Floating Solar Panels

    The Minister is right to point to the figures now, but this is a growing problem. One of the difficulties with the land that goes under solar panels is that it tends to be south-facing land, which is prime agricultural land. That is where the crops would normally go, so this is a growing problem.

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    Floating Solar Panels

    I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. She is making a powerful argument for looking again at the CfD scheme, which is notoriously complicated and very difficult. I think we need a two-pronged approach—we need some changes to CfD, but obviously technology associated with solar is moving on all the time, so perhaps the two could come together.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentJoe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    On my hon. Friend’s point about rural areas such as his constituency and my constituency on the Isle of Wight, it is difficult to move between towns. On the Isle of Wight, we have a radial system that makes it easy to get in and out of Newport, which sits in the middle of the island, but it is less easy to go anywhere else. I am at a slight loss as to how we get over that fundamental issue in bus franchising—this is geography, and the market for moving between villages is clearly smaller. I am concerned that the entire franchising model and, indeed, this clause are overselling a solution to a fundamental problem. If we are to get over that hurdle, it would ultimately require a lot of public money.

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentJoe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    The more I hear the shadow Minister unpicking all these issues, the more it transpires that the whole franchising model that the Bill offers to local authorities is really rather unattractive. Particularly for smaller local authorities, it is complicated, and there is a huge risk that when the new service is implemented, despite the best of intentions, it will not run in the way that the local authority or commercial provider thought it would. All the while, the local authority—I am thinking in my case of the Isle of Wight council or the potential combined mayoral authority with Hampshire—is taking on that risk of things going wrong. The shadow Minister is getting to the heart of a fundamental problem with the Bill: it will not sort out bus services country-wide, particularly in rural areas. It is really just a model for the big cities.

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentJoe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    It may be tempting to think that the shadow Minister was particularly detailed, lengthy and comprehensive in his earlier contribution, but from where I was sitting, he was all too brief. There were a great range of issues that he failed to address, and I feel it is my role to address them. Before that, I will agree with what the hon. Member for North Norfolk said about different companies providing services to similar or the same destinations, where using one service in one direction means that another service in the other direction cannot be used. Unfortunately, the Government are currently unpersuaded that that is a problem for ferry services to the Isle of Wight, which is a shame, given that the Government—I agree with them on this—are reforming public transport. I will, however, save that debate for another time. It was good to hear some genuine philosophical disagreement between the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. I am sure that the hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of members of the public listening to this Bill Committee will have noticed that it was done in a polite and respectful way. I think the shadow Minister almost went too far at one stage, and I was nudging the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to intervene—even though she is a Green MP and I am a Conservative—because I think she missed an opportunity to fight back, but maybe she will in a later sitting. I will make a few brief points on the principle, but they are anchored in amendments 46 and 50. They concern the idea that assessing whether a new proposed service will have an adverse effect on a current local service is slightly academic, contested and possibly futile, especially if we add in the possibility that, although the analysis and conclusion may have been done in good faith, they will not translate when a service is brought into effect and the market is tested. I therefore completely support the shadow Minister’s amendments seeking to get rid of the analysis of an adverse effect. It is entirely possible that an element of the service could be adversely affected by the introduction of a new service. To some people, that is a net gain; to others, it is a net loss. Who is to say which of those competing groups is more important than the other? I have a completely hypothetical example. The local economy of my constituency is heavily reliant on tourism, but people also use buses to get to work and my older constituents rely on them for their daily movements, such as going shopping, visiting friends or going to appointments, including at the hospital. We could end up with a bus franchising proposal that has a net positive effect on moving visitors around between the key tourist areas. That may have an overall positive effect on the economy—on paper and maybe in reality—and that effect may trickle down and raise the prosperity of the whole area. However, that proposal could also have a negative effect on the older population, who need bus services to move around year in, year out. They do not need to travel to the key hotspots that drive the tourist economy, but to GP practices and shopping areas, and not tourist shopping areas but those that provide essential goods for residents, particularly older residents. That example poses a very legitimate question: is it more important to provide a service that leads to a general raising of the economy and wellbeing by improving tourism, which some might say has a trickle-down effect on everyone, including older residents, or is it better to protect people who are more vulnerable and who have fewer opportunities, if any, to use a different mode of transport? People could come to fair but different conclusions about that. Whether a proposed new service will have an adverse effect on a local service is an unanswerable question, and it cannot be fitted into an assessment. If an assessment can be made at all, it will be entirely reliant on subjective, statist, planned, expert-led analysis. One can only hope that a conclusion drawn from that analysis would translate into the real world and be correct, but it is entirely possible that it would not.

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentJoe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    I agree with the hon. Lady, but of course, it is more complex than that. Obviously, a local strategy will and should sit at the heart of any decision making, but there are great challenges in assessing whether a new service is fundamentally having an adverse effect on an existing service. Even approaching it in that way slightly negates the idea of holistic planning—rather than considering whether a new service conflicts with an existing service, we should be treating them both as one service. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentJoe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    I take the hon. Member’s point about joining up buses and trains. As I am on the Committee, might he also include ferries in that analysis?

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentJoe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I was planning to say a few words about amendment 39, but the shadow Minister has really said it: it not necessary to include healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes in the definition. Of course, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that those things are important. I can think of dozens of important and socially necessary places where buses might go, but I would not propose to add them all to clause 14(2)(c), not least because when attempting to make an exhaustive list, it is always possible to leave things out, and there is great scope for argument over issues on the periphery that some people think are important and others do not. The measure’s wording is broad. A “social necessary local service” is defined as one that allows passengers to access: “essential goods and services”, which is very wide; “economic opportunities (including employment)”, which is very wide; or “social activities”, which is also very wide. Plainly, healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes fall within those definitions, so the amendment is unnecessary. However, I welcome the hon. Lady’s highlighting those things, because healthcare and schools plainly rank very highly.

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentJoe Robertson

    Transport: Economic Growth

    My local economy on the Isle of Wight is entirely reliant on ferry services for the movement of people, the delivery of products and, in the case of tourism, for customers. Will the Minister acknowledge just how important unregulated ferry services are for the entire economic wellbeing of the Isle of Wight?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentJesse Norman

    Business of the House

    I am afraid to say that the past week has been another horror show for the Government. This is Armed Forces Week, as the House will know. It is a time to celebrate and champion all those who serve and have served in our armed forces, and nowhere more than in my own county of Herefordshire. We must also note that, far from celebrating the armed forces, this Government deliberately opened the door last year to unfair and vexatious prosecutions of veterans who served decades ago in Northern Ireland, and they have kept that door open. What else? The original Abortion Act was debated for more than a year, but the Government allowed no notice for public debate on the abortion amendment last week, and they gave just two hours of debate in the Chamber on the biggest change in abortion law in nearly 60 years. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the issue, that is a scandalously bad way to make legislation. What else? Defence Ministers were left out of the loop on the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and were unable to say whether they supported this action by our closest ally. A Government Whip resigned, expressing her deep concerns over the welfare Bill, and the Government have promised to bring the Bill forward next week, as we have just heard—let us see if they do. Talking of U-turns, the Government, having only just U-turned on the winter fuel payment, and again on grooming gangs last week, have prepared themselves for a U-turn on the two-child benefit cap less than a year since they suspended seven Labour MPs for voting against the cap. This is just one week. Is it any wonder that the Prime Minister’s personal reputation has continued to plummet? Only yesterday, The Times of London said: “Not quite a year has passed since his landslide general election victory and already his political stock is trading at junk status, akin to a Zimbabwean dollar or Weimar papiermark.” Mr Speaker, you may recall from your intimate knowledge of German history that the papiermark was a monetary instrument that led to hyper-inflation and political collapse. That is coming from The Times of London. Shall we dig a little bit further into one specific reason why the Prime Minister’s reputation might have fallen so much? Following the record pay settlements of last year, the junior doctors have announced that they are “excited” at the idea of six months of strike action. Meanwhile, hospital consultants are balloting to see if they will strike as well. Doctors received a 22% increase last year after Labour took office, and now the junior doctors are apparently demanding a further pay increase of 29%. These are eye-watering numbers and, of course, we will all end up paying if the increases are granted, but I am afraid this is exactly what we would expect from a Government who have taxed and splurged the cash since the election. It is hardly surprising that the unions now think they have an open door to extract money from the Treasury, and the Government have actually made the situation even worse through their rolling programme of nationalisation, and by abolishing NHS England. Whatever else it may have been, NHS England acted as a firebreak on union lobbying, because it operated semi-independently of Ministers. By abolishing it, the Government have now removed one of the few means they had to face down extortionate demands for more pay and more restrictive practices. The same is true with the railways: as each one is nationalised—including South West Railway only last week—so the obstacles to the unions’ demands are progressively being removed. The House will recall the massive pay settlements given to the rail unions last year, with no attempt to negotiate any efficiency gains. It is only a matter of time before those unions come back for more, as the doctors are doing. These are not pay bargains; they are an abject surrender. Of course, Ministers themselves do not mind—after all, 90% of them are reported to be union members. As far as I can see, the Leader of the House is an exception: she is not a union member, and all credit to her for that.

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentJesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Ah, okay. I am very sorry to say that the Leader of the House has corrected me. She is, in fact, a union member and therefore fully complicit in the same problem. The Treasury itself is now the only hold-out against union demands. Little wonder the Chancellor has looked so unhappy and out of sorts—and that was before the Deputy Prime Minister started leaking memos calling for billions of pounds a year in tax increases. The unions know the Government are vulnerable, and they have come back for more. Labour Back Benchers also know that the Government are running scared and, led by their Select Committee Chairs, they are starting to get organised. Can the Leader of the House positively and personally now confirm that the welfare Bill vote will take place next Tuesday?

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Allin-Khan. Clause 5 deals with the minimum period before provision of services can be changed. It is not a difficult clause, but it is worth going into some of the subsections in a bit more detail. Subsection (1) omits section 123H(4) of the 2000 Act, which set out that a franchising scheme “may not specify under subsection (2)(d) or (3)(c) a period of less than six months.” That meant that at least six months had to expire between the authority making a local service contract and the provision of the local service under that contract. Clause 5(2) sets out that the transition arrangements in subsection (3) apply where, before the clause comes into force, the franchising authority or authorities have published under section 123E(2) of the 2000 Act a consultation document relating to a scheme or variation of a scheme, but have not yet made the scheme or varied it. Clause 5(3) provides that when making or varying the franchising scheme pursuant to the consultation document, the franchising authority or authorities may specify a minimum period, under sections 123H(2)(d) or 123H(3)(c) of the 2000 Act, that is less than six months. Although I understand that the Minister and his Department want to smooth out some of the hindrances and streamline the system, and in principle I am supportive of that, the question that begs to be asked is: is there no de minimis period? It may be considered that a six-month period is too long, but what about a one-week period? Is that too short? As drafted, the clause does not provide a de minimis period. What would be the impact on franchise operators if there were an instantaneous change? That is a significant issue that needs to be considered, because we are dealing with operators that are commercial beasts. They have infrastructure, and drivers and staff that have to accommodate changes to these schemes, and yet the Government’s proposed changes would in theory allow there to be no notice at all. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Department’s, or the Government’s, thinking on this matter. I accept that six months is itself an arbitrary time limit. Why is it not seven, or five? I accept the rationale, which is that we wish to streamline the provisions in order to make it easier for local transport authorities to undertake these changes and take advantage of some of the opportunities that the Bill provides, but it is important for it to be practical and not to have unintended consequences for bus operators and their commercial activities. Clause 6 amends sections 123E(4)(a), 123N(2)(a), 123Q(5)(a) and 123R(5)(a) of the 2000 Act. Before I go any further, it is worth reflecting that the reason why the clause is so complicated in its nomenclature is that there have been multiple amendments to the Transport Act. Although I have not researched it, some of that presumably came about through the deliberations of this House when the legislation was drafted, but there have subsequently been multiple alterations. It begs the question of our approach to legislation in this place when an Act is so often amended. It makes it very difficult, one imagines, for people and organisations—local transport authorities, in particular—to understand what their duties and legal responsibilities are. In many instances, these are not recommendations; they are mandatory requirements, with which failure to comply could lead to judicial review and the kind of lawfare that we as a society often rail against, because we feel that the Government—and by that, I also mean local transport authorities in this instance—cannot get anything done because they are being tripped up by incredibly complex legislation with poor drafting that requires multiple amendments. That is how we get to a “section 123Q(5)(a)”—but that was a slight aside. Clause 6 further amends the Transport Act by adding to all those subsections the words “which have one or more stopping places” after the references to “local services”. In itself, it is a wholly good amendment, and I am not seeking to criticise it. It clarifies that the references to “local services” incorporate any service that has a stopping place in the relevant area, including cross-boundary services operating pursuant to a service permit. However, I wonder whether this clarification was necessary in practice. I would be interested to know whether there have been any instances of local transport authorities being misled by the current drafting—I would be surprised if there had been—or any legal challenge to the current definitions that highlighted a need to clarify an ambiguity. Subject to that clarification from the Minister, I accept that there is nothing wrong with the amendment made by the clause. It is a useful clarification of the Transport Act 2000, to avoid doubt in interpretation, if, in fact, such doubt has ever existed.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 7, page 3, line 23, at end insert— “(1A) In subsection (5), omit from ‘and’ to end.” This amendment seeks to simplify the process for granting service permits by removing the requirement that the proposed service will not have an adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    Clause 7, which is reasonably long, introduces a number of additional tests for the granting of service permits. Subsection (2) inserts a new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) to section 123Q of the Transport Act 2000. Paragraph (a) provides that the franchising authority or authorities may grant a service permit for a cross-boundary service—this is the meat of it—if satisfied that “the benefits to persons making the journey on the proposed service will outweigh any adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.” Paragraph (b) sets out that the franchising authority or authorities may grant such a service permit if they are satisfied that “the benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the relevant area”— that is different from paragraph (a), which referred to benefits to persons taking the journey— “or to persons living in that area, will outweigh any” adverse effect on the local service provided under a local service contract. The first paragraph refers to the benefit to passengers on the cross-boundary service and the second to the benefit to the area. I suppose what sits behind this is the abstraction argument, which we are familiar with from the railway. In fact, those lucky enough to be at Transport questions this morning will have heard a brief rehearsal of that argument by the Secretary of State in respect of open access applications on the railway. The essence of the argument is that when a new service is proposed for a particular area, in addition to just saying, “Isn’t this is a jolly good idea? We’re getting further provision, more choice and no doubt price competition as well, and new constituencies and demographics being served by buses”—or, in the other example, by rail—before agreeing to it, we need to look at its impact on existing services. It is argued that it would be unfair if we have already contracted a franchise agreement or service operation agreement for buses, or we have a franchise operator on the railway, such as London North Eastern Railway—actually, that is not a good example, because it has open access competition. Let us take High Speed 1, where Eurostar has its operations, and imagine that we said, “We’re going to provide a new service.” Virgin, for example, is applying for an operating licence for HS1. We would then say, “What would be the impact on the provision of the existing services? Is this new service going to supply a currently unmet need, or is it going to provide two services fighting over the same customer?” That takes us back, interestingly enough, to the original regulation of bus services in the 1920s. A major argument for the need for bus regulation in the first place was the common complaint that there could be one route with 15 different buses on it, all from different bus operators competing furiously for a key route, and for the less well-travelled routes and perhaps the suburban or rural routes, there would be no bus provision at all. The argument ran that we could not leave it up to the private sector to fight it out and let the market decide where services should be provided; we needed a degree of regulation so that we could have decent provision on the main thoroughfare and provision elsewhere. I think I am right in saying that the term “traffic commissioner” was first created following the review in the 1920s, and those commissioners still exist to this day. As we progress through the Bill, we will see reference to the traffic commissioner, which is a historical overhang from the initial regulation of the bus network in the 1920s. I return to abstraction. The argument goes that it would be unfair to provide a new service where the impact of that would be negative on existing services or on other factors in a local area. The Secretary of State’s argument—admittedly in the context of rail, but it is relevant to this argument—is that it would be unfair to provide such a new service, but I challenge that base assumption. The person who is being left out of that consideration is the passenger. New services provide new opportunities for the passenger. Yes, it is true that new services may act as de facto competition for existing service providers, but as we know from every other aspect of our lives, competition tends to improve performance. Before I came into Parliament, I was a businessman running a consumer-facing company. I hated competition, and I did everything I could to stifle it, because I knew the impact it would have. I will not tell the Committee the things I used to do—I should think there would be a by-election—but the point is that existing providers hate competition, because they have got a comfy little operation, they know what their activities are, they know what their likely revenue will be, they know how they deal with their customers, and they do not like change. When competition comes in, businesses are forced to sit up and say, “Oh my goodness! This is an existential threat to us as an operator. How are we going to respond?” Businesses in aggregate respond in a number of different ways. Some of them are nicer to their customers and improve their customer service to hang on to their customers and ensure they are not tempted across by the new provider. Others reduce their fares to attract custom. Then we get a price war, as we often read about in the press—we get price wars between Tesco and Asda, and Lidl and Aldi. Those who benefit are not the businesses but the customer, who gets either better customer service or lower prices. They certainly benefit from wider provision of opportunity, because they have two services available to them instead of one, and that puts the providers on their mettle. My submission is that new provision of whatever description is inherently a good thing, even if there is an argument about abstraction from existing providers. I suppose it comes down to the core beliefs of Government Members as opposed to Conservative Members, who at heart—my heart, anyway—believe that competition and the challenge of a competitive market is a good thing. In the vast majority of cases—not always—it brings benefits to the customer and forces a focus on the end user rather than the supplier. If I were to traduce Labour Members’ political opinions—perhaps I am putting words into their mouths—my criticism of the Labour party more widely and its approach to legislation as demonstrated in this clause is that its instinct is to support the supplier and the operator, rather than the customer, particularly in heavily unionised sectors. We touched on this point a little bit in our last sitting on Tuesday, when I was discussing the Bee Network in Greater Manchester and the decision on whether to increase the hourly rate for bus drivers. At the time when the contract was being let, the commercial rate was £12.60 an hour. The Mayor for Greater Manchester insisted on an hourly rate for bus drivers of £16 an hour. I rehearsed the arguments both for and against. We can look at it in two ways—we can think it is a wonderful thing that bus drivers are being paid more, but it also means that bus services are considerably more expensive to provide in Greater Manchester than they are elsewhere in the country because salaries—wages—are more than 60% of the costs of running any bus operating business. That is the heart of it. Who are we after? Are we supporting the suppliers or are we supporting the customer—the passenger? That brings me to amendments 46 to 50, standing in my name. Amendment 46 would have the effect of removing the requirement in section 123Q(5)(b) of the Transport Act that “the proposed service will not have an adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.” Given my preceding comments, we can see why this is so important. As it currently stands, we have a measure that prohibits the provision of a new service if that service were to have any adverse effect on pre-existing services under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates. That is a very low bar—it is almost a veto—for the provision of new services, because one can imagine that it is very easy to assert that the provision of a new service may draw customers away from one that is already being provided. The amendment seeks to simplify the process for granting service permits. Demonstrating that a change will not have any adverse effect is an enormously high bar and is evidentially onerous. Removing section 123Q(5)(b) from the Transport Act, as the amendment would do, speaks to the Government’s desire to streamline the process and make it easier for the supply of new services, for innovation, and for new entrants to enter the market.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    That is an interesting point, and the hon. Member is of course quite right. I did preface my comments by saying that competition is beneficial in most areas, but there are some areas where it is not. The counter-argument is that, in this instance, this is about a new operator, which does not have to be a private sector operator, suggesting an additional service. This is not about cutting services. This is about where, for whatever reason, an analysis has been done that there is additional demand—this is not about cutting a service, but about providing an additional service. The hon. Member is quite right to raise rural areas, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk has done through a number of his amendments. I represent a rural constituency myself in Norfolk. In bald terms, the rural service in Norfolk is not too bad as long as the destination is Norwich. We have a radial provision of bus services from outlying villages directly into Norwich. If someone wants to go across the county to anywhere other than Norwich on those lines, it is very difficult. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is right that if we look to only the passenger ride and the fare box to support usable and sufficiently frequent services, it is highly unlikely that a purely commercial approach will do it. That is why, in Norfolk and many other places, the innovation of an advanced partnership has worked so well.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is no commercial case for large-scale, frequent bus services to every small rural community. I have certainly not come across such a case, even if one does exist. The solution—if there is a solution—will be one of a number of things. Under a franchising scheme, it would be open to a local transport authority to invest in and design a scheme that provides for frequent bus services to every rural community. It would be possible to do that, but it would be phenomenally expensive. Already, one of the key criticisms of the Bill is that it has no money attached to it, so we are going to spend the next two and a half weeks virtue signalling about how wonderful franchising could be. It is not mandatory, and no one is actually going to do it—outside of the big mayoral authorities that are doing it anyway under the Bus Services Act 2017—because there is no money supporting the Bill. It would be incredibly expensive. There is an alternative, hybrid solution: a combination of scheduled bus services on the key arterial routes from big villages into their major towns, such as from Norfolk going into Norwich, a rural hub-and-spoke system for the more remote villages, as suggested by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, and demand-responsive public provision. On Tuesday, I described this as the “Uberfication” of public transport. It still is unlikely to make sense on a purely commercial basis, but it is the kind of focused provision of public sector transport that could work in a highly rural area where the aggregate cost would be less than the blind provision on frequent, full bus services to every community, which would be monumentally expensive.

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    The hon. Lady is right that there is a risk of challenges in some areas, but in other areas there is the opportunity to increase provision for new markets. The difficulty is that the clause as drafted says that “any adverse effect” will be sufficient to prevent the application. Amendment 47 would replace the word “may” with the word “must” in clause 7(2)—in reality, proposed new section 124Q(5A) of the Transport Act 2000—if a local transport authority is satisfied with the conditions of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b). In such circumstances, why should the local transport authority be given discretion to refuse to grant a cross-boundary permit? It will have accepted that there are no adverse effects; nevertheless, it is given discretion. The clause says that it “may” grant the application, but why? If someone wants to provide an additional service and the local transport authority has satisfied itself that there is no adverse impact, why would it say no? That is the purpose behind amendment 47. If the applicant—it could be the municipal bus company, given that there is nothing to prevent it from doing this—has satisfied the local transport authority that there is no adverse impact, as set out in the conditions of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), why should the provider not, as a right, be able to create the service?

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentJerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

    The hon. Lady is bending over backwards to think of hypothetical instances in which it is possible that something like that could exist. The fact remains that we must ask—this comes down to the philosophical difference between us, perhaps—whether we are looking after the passenger or the supplier. From my perspective, the Bill should have services for passengers squarely in its sights. If passengers will benefit from a new service, the local transport authority should allow it. After all, the aim of the Bill is to maximise general utility for the wider bus service. Amendment 47 would therefore prevent local authorities from sitting on their hands, as the hon. Lady suggests they might. Amendment 48 goes one step further. If the previous two amendments were red meat to some members of this Committee, this one will send them over the top. It would scrap entirely the convoluted assessments about balancing benefits and adverse effects in proposed new subsections (5A)(a) and (b). The authority would simply take a view on the benefits for persons making journeys on the proposed service—what is wrong with that? If the service has benefits for customers, why should we not just go for it? It is a straightforward process where applicants are in the driving seat. The amendment would provide higher certainty for applicants and therefore encourage additional service providers. I anticipate that hon. Members may say, “What about the web—the franchise service—that the local transport authority may be trying to design?” But I seek to remind them about the incentives of providers. Again, I speak as a former businessman. We sometimes forget something in this place. We make lots of rules and we deal with processes ad infinitum, and we think that everyone will be incredibly logical. We say, “Oh yes, they have to go through this process, then that process and the other one, and then the local authority may decide to help them or not.” That ignores the basic maxim of private enterprise, which is that time kills deals. If a process is convoluted by design, it is also, by design, time consuming, and therefore expensive and uncertain in its outcome. Let us think of a potential service provider looking through these provisions. They would say, “I’ve jumped through the hoops of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), and I’ve demonstrated the evidential basis for this application,” but then there is the discretion at the end where the local authority may, for whatever reason, choose not to award the deal based on some plan for some date in the future that we have not even heard about. Is the provider even going to bother doing it in the first place? This is an important issue of practicality. Commercial organisations respond to incentives, and if we make something long-winded, expensive and complex, they are much less likely to bother doing it. They will employ their capital, their time and their creative energies elsewhere.

    Hansard source