Bus Services Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2016-07-20
Topic: Transportation
Jennifer Elizabeth Randerson (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, Amendment 93, which is in my name, states: "Once consulted, the Competition and Markets Authority may not overturn an enhanced partnership plan and scheme" We tabled it because we are seriously concerned about the retrospective role of the CMA that we have seen operating in the rail industry, for example. A retrospective power to impose competition, red in tooth and claw, at all costs is at odds with the principles behind the Bill We have a deregulated bus market. Through the Bill, the Government are trying to bring in an element of regulation to improve quality and standards. We support that, but the potential role of the CMA could undermine or, at the very least, seriously disrupt the purpose of the Bill. It is important that we get the role of the CMA clear at this stage and that, once consulted, it will not be able to say retrospectively—after an agreement has been made or a partnership or franchise established—that it is not possible, and to disrupt it and prevent it going ahead I draw noble Lords’ attention to the statement put out by the CMA on 5 July. Among other things, it states: "We recognise that the introduction of franchising may be appropriate in specific circumstances. But we continue to believe that on-road competition should only be abandoned in favour of competition for the market where it’s clear that this is the only way to secure better outcomes for the travelling public" I emphasise the word "only". It is impossible to prove that something is the only way. You can prove the reverse, but it is often impossible to prove that something is the only way. That sets an impossible hurdle for local authorities trying to set up either enhanced partnerships or franchising The CMA states that local authorities should have to, "demonstrate that any distortion to competition created by the proposed arrangements"— this applies to partnerships as well as franchises— "would be justified by the contribution to achieving other policy aims" That is another complex and potentially impossible step. It states that local authorities should, "ensure that partnership schemes don’t harm competition unless it’s strictly necessary to achieve their objectives. We want that principle to be hardwired into every stage of the process" It recommends that, "LTAs should be obliged to take the following steps", and one of them is to, "demonstrate that any distortion to competition created by the proposed arrangements would be justified by the contribution to achieving other policy aims" That is setting an impossible hurdle for local authorities to achieve. It is also in danger of making even partnerships so complex to achieve that local authorities simply do not bother. If that is so, the Bill will fail Amendments 108 and 111 both simply specify bus users as among those who must be consulted on enhanced partnerships. This is very much in line with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, just emphasised. It is truly astonishing that the Bill, which purports to have at its heart the desire to increase the number of people using buses, specifies as people to be consulted the operators, the CMA and, "such other persons as the authority or authorities think fit" It is perfectly reasonable to include the operators and the CMA, but I am unsure why it is not acceptable to use the phrase "bus users" or "bus user groups". The poor old passenger is worthy of a specific mention. I know that the Minister will say, "Of course bus users will be consulted", but I think that they are worthy of a mention. There is no philosophical or legal objection to mentioning bus users, because the Bill mentions them at one point—but it does not mention them consistently I urge the Minister to take our points on board. The bus user point is not new, but the role of the CMA needs to be clarified if it is not to make it very difficult for the Bill to work as intended.