Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·John 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
2. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·John 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
3. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·John 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
4. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·John 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
5. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·John 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
6. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe 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
7. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe 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
8. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe 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
9. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe 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
10. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

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

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source
11. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe 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
12. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe 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
13. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Joe 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
14. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jesse Norman

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

    Hansard source
15. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jesse 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
16. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jesse 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
17. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome 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
18. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome 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
19. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome 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
20. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome 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
21. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome 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
22. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome 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
23. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome 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
24. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    My hon. Friend is right. In broad terms, the Bill facilitates additional opportunities for local transport authorities, which is a good thing. As I have said, allowing franchising is in fact a Conservative concept. It goes back to the days of Mrs Thatcher, but more recently, the 2017 changes allowed franchising without consent for mayoral combined authorities. In fact, any local transport authority was allowed to apply for franchising operations, but with the safeguard that it required the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport, because of the huge commercial risks associated with franchising for local transport authorities, particularly smaller ones. That was an eminently sensible safeguard that I have spoken about previously, so now we have that risk. Even if the local transport authority is capable of managing that risk, of developing the expertise to design these complex systems in-house, as is anticipated, and of starting a municipal bus company on top of designing the franchise operation, we cannot get away from the conclusion that is expensive. Whichever way it is designed, if it is going to improve services, it will be expensive.

    Hansard source
25. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    I am grateful for that thoughtful intervention. In principle, the answer is yes, which is why we legislated in 2017 to allow that in principle and why we supported Greater Manchester through the implementation of the Bee Network. That happened under not Labour, but the Conservatives. However, it comes with financial risk. There needs to be clarity on where the costs are and an absolute, laser focus on minimising them, just like in any other business. The hon. Member did not say that the forecast in the Bee Network’s business case, which enabled it to get the go-ahead, was for it to make a profit. I accept that there will be periods where it makes a profit and periods where it makes a loss, but it should break even overall. Over the forecast period, however, the plan was for it to make a profit of £94 million—that was how it was sold. For it to make a planned loss in 2025-26 of £226.3 million and change, given the huge cost overruns that I hinted at in Tuesday’s sitting, is a disaster. It makes me wonder where that has come from. I remember the hon. Member watching with interest on Tuesday as I talked about the more than £17 million overrun on agency bus drivers, because the transport authority had failed to provide enough qualified drivers having misunderstood the nature of the TUPE regulations regarding their transfer from the previous operators to the franchise process. There was also the massive cost overrun on the purchase of bus depots because it was the only buyer in the market. There was an explosion in costs for the purchase orders for new buses, with a surcharge of £40,000 on every bus that Andy Burnham’s Greater Manchester combined authority buys because of the design requirements that he has put in, including bits of leather on the seats—we will not go into the detail of that. If we are not absolutely laser-focused on the costs, that is what happens. The biggest overrun, which perhaps I should have led with, was the increase in wages. There has been an increase in unionised power—which arguably could be a good or bad thing—and an increase in hourly rates for bus drivers to £16 an hour, which is above the market rate. There are not just bus drivers in a bus company; there are all sorts of other roles as well. I should also mention the failure to be efficient with the application of capital. In a private organisation, having bus washers is important, because having clean buses is part of the service and it affects the customer experience. Since the Bee Network has been in place, and the local transport authority purchased the depots, there has been a rather unfortunate occurrence whereby the bus cleaning mechanism—the washers—have been out of action for over a year. The processes and the efficiency within the new structure have to date proved inadequate to get the funding to repair the washers, because that is capex rather than opex. I am assuming that is what the problem is—that it is an unplanned expense, so the authority has to go through the rigmarole of a public sector procurement process. No doubt it will get there in the end, but the consequence is that the bus depot is sending out buses that have not been cleaned for a year. Is that an improvement in service? No, it is not. I say that not to denigrate franchising. Franchising can be done well—it is not a necessary consequence of bus franchising that there are dirty buses—but the evidence that we have at the moment is that even a really sophisticated operator such as Greater Manchester, with a mayoral combined authority and the financial resources, but without the experience of running buses, suffers very significant bumps along the road. That needs to be addressed. If that is happening in a large local transport authority, what is the likelihood of it happening in a small one—for example, in Norfolk county council in my neck of the woods? That is one of our problems with the Bill. Going back to amendment 49, proposed new section 123Q(5B) of the Transport Act 2000 deals with intra-boundary services. I am applying the same logic as I did to amendment 47. Why should local transport authorities have the power to refuse to grant a service permit if they are satisfied that there are benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the area, or to persons living in that area, and that those benefits will outweigh any adverse effect on any existing local service? All the amendment requires is for local authorities to act in the wider interests of consumers—the passengers. The proposed service might have an impact, but if we are satisfied that overall the net benefit is in the positive column and not the negative, why would we not agree to it? Let us think of the passenger—the consumer—rather than the supplier. The amendment would be a particularly important safeguard if the local transport authority was also the owner of a municipal bus company, which was the supplier of the local services contract. There would then be an added layer of opacity in the process, because the contractor and contracted would be the same organisation. A challenger brand could then come and say that it wanted to provide additional services, and it could be assessed to be net beneficial to the economy or the people living in that area, nevertheless the local authority could refuse to grant a permit, even though it is the operator that would be adversely affected—let us imagine how that would look. The temptation, of course, would be to say that the award was refused for wholly improper reasons: a circling of the wagons to protect one’s own. I hope that the whole Committee would agree that that would be an improper reason to deny additional access to the people living in the area, and/or to deny a benefit to the economy, yet there would be a strong temptation. If the authority has built its bus service network, and a little so-and-so comes in and demonstrates that it can go one step better, but that would have a negative impact on the authority’s cosy plans, people in the authority are going to think, “I don’t want to be troubled by this.”

    Hansard source
26. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    The hon. Member is absolutely right that there is a fundamental difference of philosophy here. She appears to back what I described as the cosy relationship—but let us not use pejorative language; let us call it the mechanism of state supply. She thinks that that is more important than improving the experience of passengers in that location and/or improving the economy, because that is the hurdle that would have to be crossed for the change made by amendment 49 to take effect. I accept, acknowledge and celebrate that difference. As a Conservative, I stand up for the consumer—for the resident—in my constituency, not for the supplier of services, even if it is the state supplier. Those are the people who I represent, those are the services that I am trying to improve, and that is what amendment 49 would do. The amendment would require the local authority to act in the wider interest of consumers, not that of its own suppliers. That is particularly important where the authority has skin in the game. If I am unsuccessful—as I have a sneaking suspicion that I might be—in persuading the majority of the members of the Committee to support amendment 49, we should at least expect transparency in any decision-making process where the decision taker, the local authority, is taking a decision that affects a municipal bus company owned by that authority. At the very least—as we will discuss in relation to other amendments—we should insist on absolute transparency in those commercial relationships, so that the disinfectant of sunlight can shine on the exact rationale for a commercial opportunity being refused. Amendment 50, my final one in this group, goes one stage further. It would get rid of the complex “balance of benefits” argument entirely and replace it with a simple assessment of the application: will the proposed service have benefits for the economy of the area or persons living in the area? If yes, the licence would be granted. The impact would be similar to that of amendment 48: it would simplify the process and give agency to the applicant. If they could prove that their service would deliver benefit, the local authority would grant a service permit.

    Hansard source
27. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    I fear that the hon. Member and I may agree more than he perhaps thinks. As I said, I accept that rural routes are unlikely to be profitable, but that does not mean they should not be provided. That is why I went on to talk about demand-sensitive transport, as well as to mention the suggestion from the hon. Member for North Norfolk about rural transport hubs. Those can be subsidised, either through an enhanced partnership or through a franchise process. I accept that they will not be part of a purely commercial result, but that is not what I was suggesting in the first place.

    Hansard source
28. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    The risk of the franchising model, as we are already seeing in Greater Manchester, is that the size of the contract determines the amount of profit. Although the profit percentage is reduced, it is applied to the full size of the contract. Ironically, there is no incentive for the operator to reduce costs—for example, by pushing down wages—because wages are paid as agreed under the contract, and then the operator receives the 3% or 4% on top of that. My concern is that, as currently evidenced in Greater Manchester, we are seeing costs rise despite services being operated by private sector companies.

    Hansard source
29. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    It is jolly nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. As I spoke to the amendment before lunch, it falls to me now only to press it to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.

    Hansard source
30. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    I will start with clause 10, to which explicit reference has not yet been made, and under which section 123D of the Transport Act 2000, which refers to auditing, is to be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8). Subsection (2) sets out that a franchising authority may not proceed with a proposed franchising scheme unless it has obtained a report from an “approved person” on the assessment of the proposed scheme. The approved person—this is important—will replace the requirement to obtain a report from an auditor. We read, under the new drafting, that the approved person must be independent, but based on that drafting we have no idea what other qualities the approved person may or may not have. Subsection (3)(c) requires the report to state whether the information relied on in the authority’s or authorities’ assessment is of sufficient quality for the purposes of the subsections, which I will not go into. Subsection (4) will replace section 123D(3); it states that the Secretary of State must issue guidance as to when it is appropriate to appoint an approved person and what the franchising authority needs to take into account when selecting an approved person, including in relation to whether a person is independent. Subsection (7) sets out that an approved person means a person specified in regulations by the Secretary of State. That raises the question whether the local transport authorities have the technical know-how and/or financial competence to create and then run these franchises. That is the big question that we have been debating backwards and forwards over the past few days. We know that they are expensive; we know that they are complex. I will not rehash arguments that I have made already, which we can take as read. We know that it is crucial that any plans be fully developed, properly costed, stress-tested for viability and generally fit for purpose before we press go on an entirely new system. The requirements of clause 10 are important in facilitating that stress testing. On the face of it, the clause appears to water down the independent oversight, particularly on financial management. One of the core risks of franchising, as we have discussed, is the transfer of commercial risk from the operator to the local authority. That is a very significant change—one of the most significant changes. Here we are, having a report on the plans: we no longer need an auditor who is financially qualified. Instead, we have an approved person. It could be an auditor, but we just do not know. The only qualification that we are told the approved person will have is their independence. That is a good thing, but subsection (7) writes a blank cheque to Ministers: “‘approved person’ means a person specified…in regulations made by the Secretary of State.” We have not seen those regulations; I assume that they have not yet even been drafted. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the point. What specifications will he seek to put into the regulations? If the Government want the Committee to vote in favour of substituting an approved person for an auditor, it behoves the Minister to tell us the kind of people who would qualify as an approved person, beyond their mere independence. I look forward to his detailed response, so that members of the Committee can feel satisfied that we are discharging their duty properly by understanding at least the direction of travel of the regulations. I want to know what qualities, qualifications or expertise will be required. I question why the term is not defined in the Bill, but instead left to future regulations. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to sit down now and decide what kind of person we wish an approved person to be. It is not dependent on future information becoming available. It seems to be slightly sloppy drafting to define a term in reference to a future regulation—that is no definition at all.

    Hansard source
31. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    Clause 12 amends the Transport Act 2000 to set out the new process for varying a franchise scheme. In particular, subsection (2)(b) removes the minimum notice period of six months before a variation can come into effect. I will not seek to divide the Committee on this, but what assessment has been undertaken of the impact of a reduced notification period on service providers? What confidence can the Minister give current service providers that the impact will be minimised? What was the original rationale for the six-month delay, and what has changed to remove the need? Government amendments 7 to 10 are sensible clarifications to ensure that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act applies only where such policies are mandatory. I fully agree with them. Government amendments 11 to 16 tidy up the requirement for consultation with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, where a proposed franchising scheme under amendments 11 and 12, or a variation of an existing scheme under amendments 13 to 16, would affect the devolved area. Again, that is a sensible clarification that needs no further elaboration.

    Hansard source
32. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    No answer to the questions?

    Hansard source
33. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    Clause 13 amends the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 to allow franchising authorities to make a direct award for the first local service contract under a franchising scheme to the “incumbent operator”—that is the important phrasing. The intention, as I read it, is to allow for a smooth transfer of operations to the new scheme, where the qualifying conditions are met. Proposed new regulations 16A(1)(a) and (b) specify that the award must be of a local service contract within the franchising scheme and where no local services are currently provided. Proposed new regulation 16A(1)(c) sets out that the operator must have provided the same or similar services for at least three months prior to the new contract. I acknowledge the objectives of the clause, but I am concerned that it raises more issue than it addresses. The approach could look like a cosy agreement, which is a theme that I have addressed a couple of times today. Where we are awarding a further contract to an existing contractor, without going to market or tendering more widely, there is a perception, if not a reality, of a cosy agreement. It cuts out competition and favours one operator over the others, and it is not just for a short period; it is for a period of up to five years, as set out in clause 13(3). The likelihood of a challenge from other bus operators in the area, who are angry about being excluded, may well be quite high, yet proposed new regulation 16A(2) requires the local transport authority to publish information relating to the contract only within six months of granting the direct award. We therefore have a transfer that may look like a sweetheart deal between the local transport authority and the existing service provider, which may be the municipal bus company but could equally be a private provider, while the judicial review, which is the mechanism by which an external aggrieved party can challenge that decision, has an application deadline of three months—12 weeks. Under the clause, the requirement to publish the information on which that judicial review could be based falls fully three months after the judicial review deadline, so there is a problem with the timings set out in the Bill. What is the point of publishing the information in subsection (3) six months after the date of the award? Other operators cannot go to judicial review, because the deadline has already passed, so what use is it and to whom? I have a simple question for the Minister. What process should operators follow to challenge a sweetheart deal, as they obviously should be able to do? If the information is six months’ old, it cannot be through judicial review, because they will not have been provided with the information before the three-month deadline. What process do the Government recommend that operators should follow, and what information will be available to them? What is the reason for such a long delay in providing information? The information is there from day one, because the local authority and the existing provider will have signed a contract, so all that needs to be done is publish it. What governance provisions will be in place to guard against improper preference, because it may well feel like that has been involved to excluded competitors looking in from the outside? They need to have extra special confidence that there is sufficient governance in place to guard against that, especially if the provider is a municipal bus company, for the obvious reason that they have skin in the game—I will not rehearse that argument. Amendment 72, tabled by the Green party, would have an effect similar to amendments 34 to 37 by removing the ability to grant a contract to a private operator working outside a franchising scheme—for example, in an enhanced partnership.

    Hansard source
34. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    I am so sorry—it is in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). I will therefore address amendments 34 to 37, which would allow for a direct award to local government bus companies. I fully understand the rationale behind the Bill, but looking at clause 13, I do not think that that award is excluded by the current drafting, because the term of art is “operator”, and a public bus company could be an operator.

    Hansard source
35. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    That was absolutely not clear from the drafting, and I do not feel able to support such opaque drafting. It would not be right to slip in five words and change the whole meaning of the clause. Perhaps it would be better to draft a new clause; I suspect the hon. Lady has time to do so before the end of the Bill’s consideration.

    Hansard source
36. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    I rise to speak briefly in support of Liberal Democrat amendment 66, which inserts a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of the existing network of local services—through proposed new subsection (4B)(a)—and the requirement to identify any gaps in provision, through proposed new subsection (4B)(b). Proposed new subsection (4B)(c) states that what further action the local transport authority intends to take to address the gaps identified must be set out. Proposed new subsection (4C) would require the authority to publish both the assessment and the resulting plan after the relevant consultation. It is clearly a good idea to identify the scale of opportunity in the local area as well as what is already available. Such good information would inform good future decisions, so I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment. Amendment 64, which was also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a statement every six months with information on socially necessary services across a county and the number of whole routes cancelled, as well as frequency and days of the week. I am not supportive of it. Although I understand the rationale behind the amendment, and it would be interesting to have that information on a regular basis, it would be truly onerous to require the Secretary of State to provide that every six months for services right across the country. As with all things, when we are trying to design effective government, we have to balance benefit and cost. In my respectful view, such a requirement tips into being simply too onerous. Assessments are, by their nature, local or regional, and I do not understand the practical utility of national reporting when the people who really need to know the information are in the local transport authority that would be providing the information in the first place. I therefore confirm my support for amendment 66 and my opposition to amendment 64.

    Hansard source
37. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    Amendment 39 would add healthcare services, schools and educational facilities to the list of socially necessary local services. The hon. Lady is, of course, right that those are important destinations for bus services—so important that they would without doubt come under the services side of the definition. Since the clause as drafted refers to enabling “passengers to access…essential goods and services”, the amendment is otiose. I understand the political point that the hon. Lady is seeking to make through amendment 38 but, as drafted, nothing could be done with that information under the clause. In fact, the amendment would have a negative effect, because it would simply muddy the waters with historical data without being helpful in establishing the future direction of travel for local transport authorities.

    Hansard source
38. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 54 would place a duty on local transport authorities to identify and then satisfy the need for all—and I stress “all”—socially necessary services, irrespective of supply, under an enhanced partnership. The amendment does not explain how the services would be supplied by the local authority—presumably, there would be a tender process—but it would require the authority to produce a report within six months. That report would identify the need, estimate the costs of provision and associated funding gaps, estimate the impact of a new service “on local accessibility and transport needs”, provide “a timeline for the operation of the service”, and specify local funding shortfalls. That measure, if adopted, would be a truly revolutionary departure for the identification of local need and subsequent funding, because it would hand demand assessment to the local authority, but the cost of provision to the Secretary of State. What could possibly go wrong? I genuinely look forward to the Minister supporting the amendment and explaining how he will fund that. The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74 would require the Secretary of State to advance proposals within 12 months to “guarantee a service for socially necessary services”, where that service has been absent for six months and “the local transport authority is unable to run the service.” That is a second extraordinary proposal, because it would again place identification of need—according to the highly subjective definition of social necessity—in the hands of the local authority, but would give the Secretary of State a legal duty to supply that assessed need. It envisages the Department for Transport directly running individual routes that have escaped the design of the franchise network or the enhanced partnerships. Presumably, since the Department for Transport has to supply for that need, it will be liable for procuring, right across the country, individual routes that are not part of a wider contractual arrangement. There we have it: the Department of Transport directly running individual routes, spread across the country, independent of wider bus provision. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.

    Hansard source
39. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will deal with this in a slightly different order from that in which the Minister addressed it. I will deal with clause 14 in toto, and then look at Government amendment 6, which removes two subsections from the clause. Clause 14 amends the Transport Act 2000 by requiring local transport authorities to identify and list services in the enhanced partnership area that are “socially necessary local services”—we have already discussed this at some length this afternoon—and then to specify requirements that must be followed if a bus operator of those services wishes to vary or cancel them. Subsection (2) amends section 138A of the Transport Act 2000, which talks about enhanced partnership plans and schemes, and it requires local transport authorities to identify and list socially necessary local services within their enhanced partnership plans—so far, so sensible. The term is defined in subsection (2)(c), which inserts proposed new subsection (15) into section 138A and provides a definition of “socially necessary local service” as, “a local service which— (a) enables passengers to access— (i) essential goods and services, (ii) economic opportunities (including employment), or (iii) social activities, and (b) if cancelled, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access those goods, services, opportunities or activities.” That is not necessarily a problem, but it is worth noting that this definition is quite subjective in its application. It is not easily measurable what such a service is, nor is it standardised between local authorities. The Minister will say, “Devolution will allow a thousand blossoms to bloom,” and I conceptually agree. However, I wonder whether, if we have different interpretations of the same term—“essential goods and services”—in different parts of the country, that raises a question about how the provisions will be applied across the board. I understand the desire to devolve assessments to local need, but the determination does, after all, have commercial consequences for operators. As ever, where commercial opportunities are challenged or threatened, that brings with it a risk of legal challenge. That is why I raise the flag with the Minister—I am not going to do anything about it—that this is a potential future pitfall, where different local transport authorities apply the same definition differently. If the Minister recognises that the definition is subjective, is he concerned about the risk of challenge? The route to formal challenge within an enhanced partnership structure would typically be by judicial review. Is there another form of challenge that the Minister would recognise as part of this process? What guidance will be given to local transport authorities in the assessment process? He referred to some guidance in his earlier responses; I saw him glance towards his officials. I would be grateful for more detail. I think the issue can be dealt with through guidance, so it would be helpful to understand what form it will take for local transport authorities. Has that already been formulated? Either way, do we have an indication of when the guidance will be published? It is clearly an important document when looking to turn these concepts into practical policies. Clause 14(2)(a) inserts new paragraph (ba) into section 138A(3) of the Transport Act 2000, requiring local transport authorities to identify which local services in their area are socially necessary services and to list those services in the enhanced partnership plan. Clause 14(2)(b) inserts new paragraph (4A) into section 138A of the 2000 Act, requiring local transport authorities to keep the list of socially necessary services under review and amend it as necessary. The idea here is presumably to ensure that the list of socially necessary local services reflects any sudden network changes in an enhanced partnership area. So far, so good.

    Hansard source
40. 26 Jun 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

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

    No, I am pleased to say that I am not, Sir Desmond. Clause 14(6) makes specific reference to this. It was a requirement that was inserted into the Bill by the other place. I will read it to you: “The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the impact of the level of employers’ National Insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities…and lay it before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the day on which this Act is passed.” As such, this is fairly and squarely in the scope of not just the Bill, but this clause. Government new clause 6 would specifically remove that subsection, so I am setting the scene as to why that is a very bad idea. We understand the effect, which will be a 15.2% increase in employment costs. If an employee works 780 hours on the minimum wage, they earn around £8,923, which is currently below the minimum threshold. In that instance, following the increase, the employer’s national insurance contribution will go from £0 to £678. That is the additional cost of that employment. Who will pay for that in a SEND contract?

    Hansard source