Bus Services Bill

House of Commons, Report Stage, Tuesday 27 March 2017

Key messages

• We support Amendment 1 tabled by Andy McDonald MP, Daniel Zeichner MP, Pat Glass MP and Richard Burden MP. This would remove Clause 22 which seeks to prohibit county and district councils, combined and integrated authorities and passenger transport executives in England from setting up municipal bus companies to provide local services. Councils should continue to be allowed to form new municipal bus companies which are able to compete in the open market place or for council contracts. Municipal bus companies can often offer good value-for-money and in most cases have high passenger satisfaction ratings.
• Amendment 14, tabled by Sir Henry Bellingham MP, Mike Wood MP, Theresa Villiers MP, looks to ensure that a local transport authority cannot make a franchise scheme if the passenger benefits can be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme. The provisions in the current bill already provide sufficient safeguards to ensure the outcomes are in the interests of passengers Local authorities would not enter into a franchising scheme lightly and would always ensure that any proposed scheme provides best value for local people and bus users.
• We oppose Amendment 24, tabled by Sir Henry Bellingham MP and Mike Wood MP, which would ensure that the value for money test of a franchise scheme is a factor in the cost of compensation to bus operators who lose part or all of their business as a result of a franchise. We support the findings of the Transport Committee, which states "there is no case for compensation where a dominant operator loses market share to a challenger in a head to head competition or the funding for a supported bus service is cut by the local transport authority".

House of Commons, Committee Stage, Tuesday 14 March 2017

Key messages

• Amendment 7, tabled by Andrew Jones MP, amends the Bill to its original purpose of opening bus franchising to mayoral authorities automatically. The Government have stated the Bill in its current form (franchising for all transport authorities) is not the Act of Parliament it wishes or intends to pass, and the changes made are not in the spirit of the devolution deals that have been reached by the Government with local areas. The Bill introduces much needed improvements to simplify and make franchising more accessible. In the LGA's view, it is imperative the Bus Services Bill progresses in the House of Commons and becomes an Act of Parliament. As such, we are offering a way forward for all councils on bus franchising which acknowledges the Government's recent response to the Transport Committee's inquiry into the Bus Services Bill. Mayoral combined authorities should have automatic and immediate access to these powers and we want to ensure that all Government decisions on franchising for other areas are transparent, timely and achievable. Where it is appropriate, some local areas may wish to bid for bus franchising powers to improve local transport services. The LGA will be working with the Department for Transport to ensure the secondary legislation is clear about the process for accessing franchising powers, in order to secure the best deal for all councils, including those in non-mayoral combined authority areas.
• Amendment 1, tabled by Andrew Jones MP, intends to reverse an amendment made in the House of Lords and remove the power of the Secretary of State to issue an order for local authorities in an advanced quality partnership scheme to enforce traffic offences. Since 2004, the Secretary of State has had the power to issue an order to all local authorities to enforce moving traffic offences, but has chosen not to enact these powers. Our view is that the Government should enact the powers that are already on the statute book, making them readily available to all transport authorities.
• We support Amendment 19, tabled by Daniel Zeichner MP, Lilian Greenwood MP and Nic Dakin MP, which would mean local service contracts are able to specify that bus operators should meet certain standards of service on bus punctuality and bus journey speeds. This would ensure passengers receive consistently high standards of services, which in turn will improve passenger journeys and could lead to increased demand for bus services. We also support Amendment 20, tabled by Daniel Zeichner MP, Lilian Greenwood MP and Nic Dakin MP on equipping buses with Wi-Fi after a specified period for the same reason. 

House of Commons, Second Reading, Wednesday 1 March 2017

Key messages

• The LGA supports the overall aims of the Bus Services Bill. As the most used form of public transport, buses support local economies by connecting communities and providing access to vital public services and jobs. By reforming the bus franchising system, the Bill will provide local transport authorities with a more effective set of powers to improve services for local residents, and reverse the decline of services in areas outside London. 

House of Lords, Third Reading, Wednesday 23 November 2016

Key messages

• The LGA supports the overall aims of the Bus Services Bill. As the most used form of public transport, buses support local economies by connecting communities and providing access to vital public services and jobs. The current bus franchising system needs to be reformed to improve bus services for passengers. Local transport authorities need a more effective set of powers to improve services for local residents, and reverse the decline of services in areas outside London.

Bus franchising

• It is positive to see Peers have agreed on amendment which will ensure that all areas have automatic rights to bus franchising powers, not just Mayoral Combined Authorities. The requirement for the Secretary of State for Transport's approval for non-Mayoral Combined Authorities for franchising is counter to the principles of devolution. It is important that this has been removed from the Bill, to ensure bus franchising decisions are made locally.

New municipal bus companies

• We are also pleased that Peers voted in support of an amendment to ensure councils retain the power to form new municipal bus companies. We were concerned that Clause 21 of the Bill would remove powers granted to councils under the 2011 Localism Act and associated General Power of Competence provisions. It's important this clause was removed from the Bill, as councils should continue to be allowed to form new companies which are able to compete either in the open market place or for council contracts if they are able to offer a better service and value-for-money for bus users, or step in as a provider of last resort. Advanced Quality Partnership and Enhance Partnership Schemes
• Advanced Quality Partnership Schemes (AQP scheme) build on the existing Quality Partnership scheme arrangements. Under an AQP scheme, a local transport authority can introduce bus improvement measures when a scheme is introduced instead of being restricted to providing new infrastructure. We are supportive of the development and creation of new and existing partnership schemes. However, we want to ensure these schemes are a practical option for councils and sufficient support is provided by commercial bus operators.

Open Data

• We are supportive of the Bill's proposals on open data, which will provide more accurate door-to-door journey planning across England. It should lead to better information services that will make bus travel more attractive to local people.

Other reforms, including funding

• We would like the Government to pursue, in parallel with the Bill, other measures to promote bus services. This includes fully funding the national concessionary fares scheme, devolving Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) to all areas and implementing local authority enforcement powers for moving traffic violations. Supporting more councils to adopt Workplace Parking Levy schemes will also help to reduce congestion and attract an improved bus offer.

House of Lords, Report Stage - Monday 24 October 2016

Key messages

• We support Amendment 111 led by Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Randerson in their intention to oppose Clause 21 of the Bus Services Bill. Clause 21 prevents local authorities from forming a company for the purpose of providing a local bus service. This would remove powers granted to councils under the 2011 Localism Act and associated General Power of Competence Provisions. Councils should continue to be allowed to form companies which are able to compete either in the open market place or for council contracts if they are able to offer a better service and value-for-money for bus users.

• There are also wider funding issues to be considered. The Bus Services Operators Grant would automatically be devolved to local authorities which have franchising powers. This funding could be used to improve bus services for local residents, and should automatically come to all local authorities, not just Mayoral Combined Authorities. It will be crucial these extra powers are accompanied by the necessary funding to ensure that local authorities are able to exercise them effectively.

House of Lords, Report Stage, Wednesday 12 October

Key messages

• The LGA supports Amendment 3 to Clause 1 tabled by Lord Bradshaw and Baroness Randerson. This seeks to ensure local authorities have the power to enforce traffic offences, as part of an advanced quality partnership scheme. However, it is important that all councils have enforcement powers to deal with moving traffic offences to help improve the reliability and punctuality of buses, making them a more attractive mode of travel.

• We support Amendment 111 to Clause 4 tabled by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Kennedy of Southwark which would remove the condition for the Secretary of State to approve bus franchising powers for non-Mayoral Combined Authorities. We are calling for all areas to be given automatic rights to bus franchising powers. The decision to gain responsibility for bus franchising should be taken locally, based on robust evidence, and taking into account the needs of passengers, local residents and other circumstances, such as the performance of local bus markets. The requirement for the Secretary of State's approval for non-Mayoral Combined Authorities for franchising is counter to the principles of devolution, which is why we are calling for this condition to be removed.

House of Lords, Committee Stage, Wednesday 20 July

Key messages

• We support Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson in their intention to oppose Clause 21 of the Bus Services Bill. Clause 21 prevents local authorities from forming a company for the purpose of providing a local bus service. This would remove powers granted to councils under the 2011 Localism Act and associated General Power of Competence Provisions. Councils should continue to be allowed to form companies which are able to compete either in the open market place or for council contracts if they are able to offer a better service and value-for-money for bus users. 

• We support Amendment 127A tabled by Baroness Randerson, which calls for the Bus Services Operators Grant to be automatically devolved to local authorities which have franchising powers. This funding could be used to improve bus services for residents, and should automatically come to all local authorities, not just Mayoral Combined Authorities. It will be crucial these extra powers are accompanied by sustainable and long term funding to ensure that local authorities are able to exercise them effectively.

Second Day Committee Stage debate. House of Lords, Monday 4 July

Key messages

• We support Amendments 21, 38, 39 and 40 to Clause 4 tabled by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson which would remove the condition for the Secretary of State to approve bus franchising powers for non-Mayoral Combined Authorities. We are calling for all areas to be given automatic rights to bus franchising powers. The decision to gain responsibility for bus franchising should be taken locally, based on robust evidence, and taking into account the needs of passengers, local residents and other circumstances, such as the performance of local bus markets. The requirement for the Secretary of State's approval for non-Mayoral Combined Authorities for franchising is counter to the principles of devolution, which is why we are calling for this condition to be removed.
• We support Amendment 22 tabled by Lord Bradley to Clause 4, which seeks to ensure a Passenger Transport Executive could enter into a local service contract with operators once the Integrated Transport Authority or combined authority had decided to implement a franchising scheme.
• We oppose Amendment 35 tabled by Earl Attlee, to amend Clause 4 to require franchising authorities to take account of compensation payments to bus operators. The Government do not anticipate compensation being required if a franchising authority follows the process as set out in the Bill and if they are acting in the interests of local people and bus users. The payment of any compensation would increase costs for the franchising authority and could lead to additional costs and/or poorer service for local residents and passengers.

House of Lords, Committee Stage, Wednesday 29 June

Key messages

• We support Amendment 5 by Lord Bradley to Clause 1 which extends the criteria for an advanced quality partnership scheme to protect the current quality of services for passengers. We support Amendments 21, 38, 39 and 40 to Clause 4 tabled by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Baroness Randerson which would remove the condition for the Secretary of State to approve bus franchising powers for non-Mayoral Combined Authorities.
• We are calling for all areas to be given automatic rights to bus franchising powers. The decision to gain responsibility for bus franchising should be taken locally, based on robust evidence, and taking into account the needs of passengers, local residents and other circumstances, such as the performance of local bus markets. The requirement for the Secretary of State's approval for non-Mayoral Combined Authorities for franchising is counter to the principles of devolution, which is why we are calling for this condition to be removed.
• We support Amendment 22 tabled by Lord Bradley to Clause 4, which seeks to ensure a Passenger Transport Executive could enter into a local service contract with operators once the Integrated Transport Authority or combined authority had decided to implement a franchising scheme.

House of Lords, Second Reading 8 June 2016

Key messages

• Bus franchising:  All areas should be given automatic rights to bus franchising powers, not just Mayoral Combined Authorities. The requirement for the Secretary of State for Transport's approval for non-Mayoral Combined Authorities for franchising is counter to the principles of devolution. Therefore, we are calling for the requirement for Secretary of State approval of bus franchising powers to be removed from the Bill, and for bus franchising decisions to be made locally.
• Advanced Quality Partnership and Enhance Partnership Schemes: Advanced Quality Partnership Schemes (AQP scheme) build on the existing Quality Partnership scheme arrangements. Under an AQP scheme, a local transport authority can introduce bus improvement measures when a scheme is introduced instead of being restricted to providing new infrastructure. We are supportive of the development and creation of new and existing partnership schemes. However, we want to ensure these schemes are a practical option for councils and sufficient support is provided by commercial bus operators.
• Open Data: We are supportive of the Bill's proposals on open data, which will provide more accurate door-to-door journey planning across England. It should lead to better information services that will make bus travel more attractive to local people.
• Other reforms, including funding: We would like the Government to pursue, in parallel with the Bill, other measures to promote bus services. This includes fully funding the national concessionary fares scheme, devolving Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) to all areas and implementing local authority enforcement powers for moving traffic violations. Supporting more councils to adopt Workplace Parking Levy schemes will also help to reduce congestion and attract an improved bus offer from operators.