An article written by our campaigner Matthew Bramall that questions the premises of clause 21 of the bus bill. Originally published by The Guardian. 

The bus services bill was debated in the House of Lords before parliament broke up for the summer – and Labour and Liberal Democrat peers had strong words to say about one “nasty mean-minded little clause” in particular.

The proposed legislation has some good points, but in among the sensible policy there’s clause 21, which effectively bans local authorities from setting up bus companies to run bus services. In the Lords it was deemed “a piece of political dogma”, which “sticks out like a sore thumb”. Given that the bus services bill is intended to increase passenger numbers, improve services and devolve power, clause 21 doesn’t make sense. It potentially robs communities in England of opportunities to access high quality, low cost bus travel, which Nottingham, Reading and others already provide.

The council-run bus companies that still exist provide some of the best bus services in the country

We Own It, and the 11,000 people that have signed a petition against clause 21 so far, think that local authority ownership of arms-length companies is an option that needs to be kept on the table. This could give councils more choice in achieving the aims of the bill, but it could also give councils more bargaining power in discussions about franchising with companies like First and Stagecoach.

The government says existing municipal bus companies won’t be affected by the bill, but other local authorities won’t be allowed to follow their lead. The clause goes further than the 1985 Transport Act, which forced councils to ensure that any bus provision was provided at arms-length, by independent companies owned by local authorities. It means councils are no longer involved in the day-to-day running of the buses.

The attention that’s been paid to the bill so far has celebrated the shift to franchising – and rightly so. This will enable authorities with a mayor to follow the London model: bus services run by private companies under a franchising system, where contracts are put out to tender at a set price.

But at the same time, we also need to ask serious questions about clause 21: is it necessary? Will it help increase passenger numbers that, outside London, have been decreasing for years? And does it help local authorities?

Success stories

The evidence is pretty clear. The local authority-run bus companies that still exist – there are just 12 – provide some of the best bus services in the country and have some of the highest passenger numbers in the country, outside London.

Local authority-run bus companies, like Reading Buses and Nottingham City Transport, have won bus operator of the year in four of the last five years. Nottingham and Reading also have the second and third highest journeys per head outside London. Prior to 2014, Nottingham increased passenger numbers 13 years in a row.

Companies do this by maintaining high levels of investment, even through the recession, and by offering a truly joined up transport policy through strong partnerships with the local authority. They also do extremely well at making cities cleaner and greener.

Their success isn’t surprising. Research by Transport for Quality of Life (pdf) looked at 16 essential attributes of a world-class bus system (such as coordinated timetables and simple area-wide fares) and found that deregulation – transfer from public bodies to private companies – is a major obstacle to achieving 13 of them.

Franchising is a step in the right direction – and performs better than deregulated systems like the one we have currently. But municipal operators can also address these issues, and in addition save us money. The report concludes that municipal operation would deliver greater financial gains than franchising. Putting a figure on it, the report suggests that public ownership of buses (outside London) would save us £506m a year – money that could be reinvested in better services.

Ultimately, clause 21 robs authorities of the chance to replicate the success stories seen in Nottingham, taking power away with one hand, while appearing to give it with another.