When you read this, the final stages of the Commons proceedings for the Bus Services Bill – Report and Third Reading will have been successfully navigated on 27 March. Royal Assent to this unnecessary Bill will be only a matter of days away.
I’ve described this Bill as unnecessary before. We now have some evidence to demonstrate why. The latest passenger survey by Transport Focus shows that 87% of all passengers in England are satisfied with their bus services. That’s 1% up on the previous survey.
But the critical thing to emerge from this survey is that while satisfaction levels are impressively high, congestion and traffic jams are beginning to have an impact on satisfaction levels.
Note that it is congestion and traffic jams that passengers cite as the issue. Not poor quality buses, or rude and unhelpful drivers. Not even fares. But congestion and traffic jams; two factors wholly outside the control of bus operators.
So this Bill will, in truth, have very little impact, if any impact at all, on passenger satisfaction or even on passenger growth, because it does not address the one key factor that might make a difference. Franchising won’t impact on congestion and traffic jams. This Bill is not just unnecessary; it’s almost certainly pointless.
I was interested to see that some Conservative MPs had tabled some amendments to the Bill for the Commons Report Stage. All struck me as sensible, and improve the Bill without seeking to undermine its objectives. But two stood out as especially sensible and reasonable.
The first requires that the auditor appointed by a franchising authority to assess its franchise proposals must be independent. This is so obviously sensible and fair that it’s slightly odd that the government didn’t put this in the Bill from the outset.
The second amendment requires that the franchising authority must satisfy itself that a franchise is in the interests of passengers, and that the benefits of franchising can’t be met by any other means.
This is also entirely sensible and reasonable. Why would an authority want to introduce franchising if the benefits can be achieved by other means?
Why would an authority want to take all the financial risk of a franchise if the benefits can be delivered in partnership with operators with the financial risk remaining with the operators?
A franchise must be a solution of last resort, otherwise you can only conclude that it is being introduced for purely political reasons. Authorities should not play politics with bus passengers.
Both amendments are entirely sensible, reasonable and logical. Since the Secretary of State has put his name to the amendment on auditor independence (and even tabled others to strengthen the impartiality of the auditor), one can be confident that it will be accepted.
Come the evening of 27 March I hope I will find that the government has accepted the other amendment too.
