Bus Services Bill [Lords] — House of Commons, 2017-03-27
Topic: Transportation
Natascha Engel (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 4, page 14, line 13, at end insert— "(2A) A franchising scheme may not be made unless the franchising authority can demonstrate that the benefits for passengers could not be provided by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme." This amendment would 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. Amendment 16, page 15, leave out line 36 and insert— "(3) A franchising authority or authorities shall consider an assessment and shall not proceed with the proposed scheme unless it is satisfied that—" This amendment and amendments 17 to 23 would tighten the criteria against which an authority must consider a franchise proposal. Amendment 17, page 15, line 37, leave out "whether" This amendment is consequential on amendment 16. Amendment 18, page 15, line 43, leave out "whether" This amendment is consequential on amendment 16. Amendment 19, page 16, line 1, at beginning insert "they know" This amendment is consequential on amendment 16. Amendment 20, page 16, line 3, leave out "whether" This amendment is consequential on amendment 16. Amendment 21, page 16, line 5, leave out "whether" This amendment is consequential on amendment 16. Amendment 22, page 16, line 7, leave out "the extent to which" This amendment is consequential on amendment 16. Amendment 23, page 16, line 7, leave out "are likely to" and insert "will" This amendment is related to amendment 16. Amendment 15, page 16, line 9, at end insert— "(g) the specific passenger benefits that would result from a franchise scheme, with an explanation of why those benefits could not be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme or an enhanced partnership scheme." This amendment would require a franchise assessment to specify the benefits of the proposed scheme for passengers and to explain why these benefits cannot be delivered by a quality partnership scheme, an advanced quality partnership scheme, or an enhanced partnership scheme. Amendment 24, page 16, line 9, at end insert— "(g) whether the proposed scheme would be more efficient, effective and economic than any other option, taking into account any compensation payable to bus operators whose businesses would be wholly or partially expropriated by the scheme." This amendment would ensure that the value for money test of a franchise scheme must factor in the cost of compensation to bus operators who lose part or all of their business as a result of a franchise. Government amendments 2 to 4 Amendment 25, page 17, line 7, at end insert— "(3A) A person may not act as an auditor under this section if the person or company for whom the person is employed has been an auditor for the franchising authority at any time in the previous five years or has had any other commercial relationship with the franchising authority at any time in the previous five years." This amendment would ensure that any auditor appointed by the franchising authority had no commercial interest or association with the franchising authority which might create, or might be perceived to create, a conflict of interest. Government amendment 5 Amendment 6, page 19, line 37, at end insert— "(4A) An award of any new franchise or contract shall not be made on the basis of labour costs estimated by the potential franchisee or contractor assuming labour costs for new employees at less than the labour cost of workers who are covered by TUPE protections in accordance with section 123X transferring to the new franchisee or contractor." This amendment would ensure that any new franchise or contract will not be awarded on the basis of estimated labour costs being lower for new employees than the labour cost of workers covered by TUPE protections. Amendment 26, page 20, line 24, after "(or further postponed)" insert "or cancelled" Amendment 27, page 20, line 24, at end insert— ‘(1A) If an authority or authorities decide to cancel a proposed franchising scheme under subsection (1) they may not initiate a revised or alternative franchising scheme until the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the decision to postpone the original scheme was taken." This amendment would provide greater certainty for bus operators and passengers by specifying that, if a franchising authority fails to make a case for a franchise scheme or decides not to progress its proposals, it should not be permitted to bring forward fresh proposals for five years. Amendment 7, page 30, line 2, leave out "at the same time," Amendment 8, page 30, line 14, leave out "at the same time" Amendment 9, page 32, line 27, at end insert— "123Y Employees not covered by TUPE protections Employees of local bus service providers who are not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE." This amendment would ensure that employees working under local service contracts not covered by TUPE protections may not be employed on terms and conditions less favourable than those provided by TUPE. Amendment 10, page 32, line 27, at end insert— "123Z Effect on employees of introduction of local service contract (1) Where, either before or after the introduction of a local service contract following an assessment under section 123B, any employee of an operator in the area to which the scheme relates is dismissed, that employee is to be treated for the purposes of Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the introduction of the relevant local service contract (2) Paragraph (1) applies whether or not the employee in question was part of an organised grouping of employees principally connected with the provision of local services, under section 123X(4). (3) Where section 123X(4) applies, a new operator may not engage employees or workers on terms and conditions less favourable than those of the employees whose employment transferred from the former operator." This amendment would make dismissal of an employee for the sole or principal reason of the introduction of a franchising scheme automatically unfair dismissal. Amendment 28, in clause 9, page 41, line 17, at end insert— "(6A) The requirements that may be specified under subsections (4)(b), (4)(e) and (4)(h) in relation to fares and the prices of multi-operator tickets may only be specified if all operators party to the enhanced partnership scheme are in agreement with those requirements." This amendment would specify that fares structures could only be specified as part of an enhanced partnership scheme if the operators involved agree. Amendment 11, page 57, line 3, leave out "at the same time," Amendment 12, page 57, line 14, leave out "at the same time," Amendment 13, page 59, line 42, at end insert— "138T Effect on employees of introduction of enhanced partnership scheme or plan (1) Where, either before or after the coming into force of an awarded contract in an area to which the relevant enhanced partnership scheme relates, any employee of an operator in the area to which the contract relates is dismissed, that employee is to be treated for the purposes of Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as unfairly dismissed if the sole or principal reason for the dismissal is the introduction of the awarded contract (2) Paragraph (1) applies whether or not the employee in question was part of an organised grouping of employees principally connected with the provision of local services, under section 138S(4) (3) Where section 138S applies, a new operator may not engage employees or workers on terms and conditions less favourable than those of the employees whose employment transferred from the former operator." This amendment would make dismissal of an employee for the sole or principal reason of the award of a contract under an enhanced partnership scheme automatically unfair dismissal.