Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 17th December 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 8th January 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, before I come to the Bill, I will pay my respects to Baroness Randerson. Since being appointed to your Lordships’ House, Baroness Randerson served as a Government Minister and spent almost 10 years as her party’s transport spokesperson. During this time, she showed a mastery of the transport brief, making important contributions to wide-ranging debates and holding successive Governments to account.
After becoming a Minister in July, I enjoyed exchanging views over the Dispatch Box and in private with Baroness Randerson. I was very grateful to work closely with her on the recent Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill—now Act—the first Bill I have taken through as a Government Minister, and she showed her characteristic attention to detail, inquisitiveness and determination to ensure that the legislation left this House in the best shape possible. I know she was enthusiastic about the Bill in front of your Lordships’ House today and would have wanted again to make sure that it left this House in excellent shape. On that, I will do my best.
As your Lordships will be aware, Baroness Randerson had a distinguished career prior to her introduction to the Lords, serving in the Welsh Assembly, now the Senedd, as the Member for Cardiff Central for 12 years and holding a ministerial post in the Welsh Government. I am honoured to have had the opportunity to work with her, and I know that her commitment to public service will be long remembered. I send my condolences to her family, friends and colleagues in this House.
Moving to the Bill, I am pleased to present the Bus Services (No.2) Bill for Second Reading today. It is not to be confused with the Bus Services Bill, which was introduced as a Private Member’s Bill in the other place. I declare my interest as a licensed PCV driver and that the charity of which my wife and I are trustees holds a number of community bus service permits used for the Imberbus service, which raises money for charitable purposes.
Buses are the most popular mode of public transport and are essential for growth, jobs and housing. However, we have seen in England that passenger numbers and bus service levels have been in decline, with 1.8 billion fewer annual bus journeys outside London in 2023-24 compared with 1985-86. The Transport Act 1985 radically changed the bus industry by privatising the National Bus Company companies and deregulating services outside London, restricting the powers of local leaders to decide what is best for their local area. This Government intend to reverse this.
In London, passengers have long benefited from public control of the bus network, with lower fares and frequent and reliable services. The 1.8 billion passenger journeys made in London in the year ending March 2024 demonstrate how critical the network is to London. This figure accounts for over half of all bus journeys in England. Outside London, two of the existing local authority bus companies, in Nottingham and Reading, are ranked second and third for the highest number of bus journeys per head in England. The success of London, Nottingham and Reading is not a coincidence. Passengers will use good services. It is therefore only right that these options are available to all local transport authorities.
As a Government we are committed to delivering better buses. In the 2024 manifesto the Government set out a clear plan to improve bus networks. This Bill marks an important contribution to supporting the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth and break down the barriers to opportunity. Changes that the Bill makes will enable safer, more reliable, inclusive and accessible networks that provide the connections that passengers need. This, as I said, is essential to accessing vital jobs, education and healthcare in cities, towns and rural areas across England.
The Bill is about providing local leaders the ability to choose the best way of running services in their area, a choice not currently available everywhere in England. Local authorities should be able to decide how best to run their services, choosing the right operating model that works for their communities. This will help improve bus services and grow usage, meaning that it will be passengers who benefit. The Bill is focused and narrow in scope. Its measures apply primarily to local bus services in England. School services are also in scope due to the single clause relating to enhanced criminal record checks for drivers of school services.
We have already taken a first step in reforming bus services. We brought forward the Franchising Schemes (Franchising Authorities) (England) Regulations 2024. These came into force on 18 December and enable all local transport authorities in England to franchise their bus services. These powers had previously been limited to mayoral combined authorities and mayoral county combined authorities. The Bill builds on these regulations and marks the next step in our ambitious plan towards a better bus network. The need for reform is clear—to reverse the decline in passenger numbers and services that have been depleted over many years, and particularly recently.
Transport for Greater Manchester’s journey to bus franchising has shown the potential benefits of greater public control. It is timely to be presenting the Bill during the week in which its journey has been completed. Manchester has already seen patronage increase by 5% since public control began to be rolled out in 2023. Elsewhere, local authority bus companies such as Nottingham City Transport have delivered award-winning services to passengers. There are also great examples of local transport authorities working in partnership with the private sector to deliver excellent services, such as in Brighton, Norfolk, Bournemouth and Poole, and Wiltshire. Sadly, there are also examples of towns and cities with little or no evening or Sunday services, and rural areas with no services at all. There will be no one-size-fits-all approach. Different cities, towns and rural areas have different needs. The Bill is about ensuring that local areas have all the tools they need to improve bus services for their communities.
Bus services are the lifeblood of communities. They carry people to hospital appointments, to school and to their jobs. This is especially true for women, those who are young, those on low incomes, ethnic minorities and the elderly, all of whom rely on buses more. Given the strong case for change, the principles behind the Bill should, I hope, receive cross-party support. The manifestos of all three main political parties acknowledged the importance of buses. There is also strong public support, so I sincerely hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House can get behind the Bill as a vital step towards fixing our fragmented and variable bus networks.
I know from speaking to many noble Lords that they believe in improving the bus network for the better, whether that is improving accessibility or rural services, or protecting routes. The Bill seeks to address all these issues and keep passengers at the core of its aims. It is a government priority. The ambition is clear, and it is hoped that the Bill will deliver greater consistency in bus services across the country. Its objectives include protecting passengers from anti-social behaviour and violence, reducing fare evasion and expanding powers to local authorities on bus funding.
I am sure that some noble Lords will question how the Bill moves forward from the last fundamental shift in bus legislation. It is true that the Bus Services Act 2017 gave new powers to local transport authorities to create enhanced partnerships and allowed mayoral combined and mayoral combined county authorities to pursue bus franchising, but these franchising powers did not extend more widely. New local authority-owned bus companies, formerly referred to as municipal companies, were also banned by that Act.
This Bill builds on the 2017 reforms, while also reversing the ban on local authority-owned bus companies. This will help deliver a wider set of options for local areas. Local transport authorities—LTAs—know the needs of their communities and they are best placed to decide what shape their bus services should take.
I will briefly enumerate what the Bill does. It is split into 11 areas. First, while the recent franchising regulations removed the limit on which local authorities could franchise, the clauses on franchising in the Bill will streamline the process, including by removing the Secretary of State consent requirement. The intention is to introduce flexibility and to reduce the amount of time it takes for LTAs to franchise their bus services if they choose to do so.
Secondly, a provision in the Bill will require LTAs to specify requirements which must be followed where bus operators under enhanced partnerships wish to vary or cancel a service that has been identified as a socially necessary local service.
Thirdly, for local areas where enhanced partnerships remain the best option for local services, the Bill will strengthen these partnerships, allowing for improved working between LTAs and bus operators.
Fourthly, the Bill will repeal the ban on establishing new local authority bus companies, giving local authorities the chance to use their local knowledge to run services in their area and opening up powers currently limited to the five legacy local authority bus companies.
Fifthly, LTAs will be given the power to design and make grants to operators of bus services in their areas. They will have greater freedoms to decide where that money is directed.
Sixthly, provisions on bus registration will improve the availability of information for passengers. This includes new statutory powers to require LTAs in franchised areas to provide information about local bus services with the aim of helping to improve reliability for passengers.
Seventhly, the Bill includes measures to improve safety on buses by giving powers for LTAs to bring forward by-laws to tackle anti-social behaviour and powers to enforce fare requirements.
Eighthly, it is important to increase the safety and accessibility of stopping places, so there is a measure giving the Secretary of State the ability to set out expectations for bus stops and bus stations in statutory guidance.
Ninthly, the Bill closes an existing loophole through the inclusion of a safeguard for school services. This requires the operator of a public service vehicle to check an enhanced criminal record certificate for drivers who carry out closed school transport services more than three times in any 30-day period.
Penultimately, there is a power in the Bill to mandate training of bus staff, including bus drivers, on tackling crime. This is intended to tackle incidences of violence against women and girls, as well as anti-social behaviour. There is also a measure for training on disability awareness and assistance.
Finally, to meet the commitment to move towards sustainable travel, there is a measure on zero-emission buses to accelerate their rollout by introducing a restriction on the use of new non-zero-emission buses on registered local bus services. But, in recognition that the industry will need time to adjust to this change, this will not come into force before 1 January 2030.
This is a comprehensive and focused Bill that reforms and develops critical aspects of bus services. Stakeholders, including the bus industry, have been engaged throughout policy development to ensure that the provisions are fit for purpose and address the key challenges that the industry faces.
The Bill’s application is largely to England only. This is the case for the critical measures relating to bus operating models, such as franchising. Certain clauses will also apply to Wales and/or Scotland where necessary, but the Bill as drafted will not require any legislative consent motions from the Welsh Senedd or Scottish Parliament.
Before I conclude my opening remarks, I reinforce that reform does not end with this Bill. This journey has many stops. Following Royal Assent there will be further regulations required, including on franchising, bus registration, fare evasion, staff training and zero-emission buses. These are needed so that that which the Bill has enabled can be set out clearly for industry stakeholders and local authorities to follow. My department will continue to engage with all parties.
I recognise that franchising is a choice, but that this route is not currently well trodden. My department is therefore developing guidance to increase capability and capacity in those authorities that are striving to franchise, and this guidance will follow the Bill.
While the Bill does not introduce new funding, I am sure that noble Lords will wish to debate funding through the parliamentary process. It would be remiss not to mention the Government’s Budget commitment to over £1 billion of funding for buses in 2025-26 to support and improve services and keep fares affordable.
To conclude, this Government will reform the bus network to deliver improved services for passengers across England. This supports our growth and opportunity missions, providing a clear strategic direction for buses and proper integration and co-ordination. The Bill presents an unprecedented opportunity, learning from the 2017 Act, to create a safer, more reliable and transparent bus network, with local leaders having more powers to decide what is best for the local area that they represent. This will be a step forward in reversing the decades of decline that have become synonymous with bus travel in this country. There is much to be done and this will not be an easy journey, but industry stakeholders and local authorities alike are invested in creating an improved bus network that users can be proud of. This Bill is a vital component in our plan to reform buses. I beg to move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. We look forward to working constructively with him to improve this Bill, alongside my noble friend Lord Moylan, who will be leading for His Majesty’s Official Opposition.
I hope noble Lords will allow me to say this. Given that this is the second bus services Bill introduced in this Parliament so far, it seems right that you wait a while for one, and then two come along at the same time.
The Bill’s primary goal is to deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to give new powers for local leaders to franchise local bus services. It gives local authorities the ability to run and own their own bus companies. In the manifesto, these measures are presented as a reaction to higher fares, routes disappearing and unreliable services. It is therefore only right and proper that we hold the Government to account on exactly how these new powers will address those issues directly. We have concerns that the Government are taking an ideological approach to public transport reform without considering more pragmatic ways to deliver the improvements that are needed. We will also seek to explore whether local authorities have the skills and experience in place to franchise bus services effectively and the appropriate funding to do so.
There is also the question of oversight. In government, we retained the Department for Transport’s oversight of local bus franchising, and we will seek to understand why the Government feel it necessary to remove these existing oversight mechanisms.
The Bill includes a whole range of measures changing the way our bus services work nationally. Whether it be zero-emissions buses, safeguarding rules for school bus services or mandatory training for drivers, we will scrutinise the provisions of the Bill closely to ensure that it will really deliver the improvements we need to see for passengers who are reliant on their bus service.
The previous Conservative Government had an excellent record of backing our bus services and we have long recognised the importance of bus services for poorly connected rural communities, as well as the crucial role the services have to play in the growth and prosperity of cities such as Manchester.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Can he tell us all the great advantages to the bus industry brought about under the last Conservative Government? Can he give the House the figures of the decline in passenger carrying in the bus industry over the 14 years they were in power?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
If the noble Lord, Lord Snape, will allow me to continue, I can tell him that under our watch we invested a record £3.5 billion into the bus network to support the post-Covid recovery with that critical lifeline. In answer to his question, we delivered the fantastic “Get Around for £2” scheme, nationally backed by hundreds of millions of pounds. That scheme is a testament to the previous Conservative Government’s commitment to support our bus network as it recovered from the dreadful effects of the pandemic.
Let me also tell the noble Lord that it is impossible for us to hide our disappointment that this Government announced last year that bus fares would increase by 50% as of 1 January this year. That was a choice by this Government that will hit millions of hard-working people across the country.
We also led the way on bus franchising, taking a pragmatic approach while retaining the appropriate government oversight. Our Bus Services Act 2017 gave many local authorities the power to adopt a franchising model, as well as establishing enhanced partnerships.
It was the Conservative Government who gave a mayoral authority area such as Greater Manchester the go-ahead to establish its own bus services, which are now part of the Bee Network. It was the Conservative Government who provided more than £1 billion of central government funding to support the establishment of the Bee Network.
In contrast to our approach, the current Administration have tied themselves to a position in the manifesto that we would summarise as, “There are problems with our bus network; franchising will fix it”. We disagree. While franchising may be appropriate in areas such as Greater Manchester or Greater London, it may not be appropriate elsewhere.
The Bill reads as though it has been written by individuals who are not entirely familiar with rural and non-metropolitan areas. Given that franchising is not appropriate in every case, we believe there must be oversight and will seek to explore this in Committee.
Under the Bill, the key players in the Government’s bus policy will now be local authority executives. We pay tribute to every single one of the excellent councillors who work tirelessly for their communities across the country. But many of those councillors will tell you that their authority does not have the skills or necessary funding to run its own bus company. Speaking in the Local Government Chronicle last year, Andrew Carter, the chief executive of Centre for Cities, welcomed franchising powers for cities but flagged that having money to run the bus services is “crucial”.
As we have already highlighted, Greater Manchester received more than £1 billion of central government funding to set up the Bee Network. The bus funding announcement at the end of last year delivered just £1 billion for the whole country.
During the passage of the Bill, we will scrutinise the resources and skills that local authorities have at their disposal to establish whether the Government have put the right measures in place to help those authorities deliver the promised improvements in services. We are also keen to hear the government plans for bus services in areas that decide against taking advantage of franchising powers. Local people deserve better-value services, regardless of the model of provision their local leaders have chosen. The issue of local government funding links into the cost of franchising. We know from areas that already operate franchising models that this is a costly business, with London subsidising its bus network heavily. My noble friend Lord Moylan will speak about that in more detail than I can here, but it is critical that the Government accept this and put the right level of financial support in place if their “franchising first” approach is to be successful.
The Bill includes measures on transparency and accessibility of data on services and performance, enforcement powers on fare evasion and anti-social behaviour. It also seeks to improve bus stops and bus stations for disabled people. By what date will the Minister commit to improving bus stops? Surveys suggest that almost a quarter of people are put off taking the bus because shelters are inadequate.
The Bill mandates enhanced criminal record checks for drivers on school services, as well as regular training for bus drivers and other staff on disability, tackling crime and anti-social behaviour.
The Bill includes provisions to restrict the use of new non-zero emission buses on registered local bus services at some point after 1 January 2030. How can the Minister ensure that we will not see a recurrence of the recent report of electric buses in Glasgow grinding to a halt as the cold weather drains their batteries, or the almost 1,800 electric buses recalled from fleets in major cities last year because of fears they could catch fire if unattended?
The above items are not manifesto commitments for the Government, and the scope of the Bill is wide in these areas. We intend to probe the Government’s plans surgically because we want to ensure that local authorities, bus operators and the public at large can hear more on exactly how the Government intend to proceed. Where issues arise, we will seek to improve those elements of the Bill as part of a collaborative and constructive approach to its scrutiny.
As I said at the start, His Majesty’s Official Opposition have long recognised the critical nature of our bus services. We will do everything we can to deliver improved services. We will approach the Bill with a one team ethos, challenging the Government where it is logical and sensible and, crucially, where the passenger benefits. We will probe the plans as fully as possible so that together we can send an improved Bill on to the other place.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
As I rise to speak, I first want to acknowledge the great contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made to this House over many years, not least on transport legislation. I thank the Minister for his tribute. She was such a good friend to me and had acted as my mentor ever since I joined this House last year. Although the time I had with her was so much shorter than it should have been, I benefited greatly from her guidance and wisdom over the last few months and I will miss her wise counsel.
Lady Randerson was the transport spokesperson on these Benches from 2015. and established herself as a strong champion for passengers and for improved and accessible public transport. She was a much-respected Minister in Cardiff Bay and Westminster and held many other posts, including the chancellorship of Cardiff University. Her humour, wisdom and intellect will be hugely missed by the Liberal Democrat family, by the wider House and in the political life of Wales and the UK. On these Benches, we are already feeling her absence deeply—not least right now, when she should be sitting next to me and taking part in this Second Reading debate. The House will miss her contribution today; she was working on it only last week. We will do our best to continue that work.
More than 1.6 billion passenger journeys were made by bus across England, outside London, in 2023. As we have already heard, buses are essential for people to get to school, college, work or appointments and to have access to shops and leisure. A good bus service provides wider economic and social benefits for local communities, businesses and public services.
In its independent bus user survey, Transport Focus found that the timeliness of bus services is one of the key factors for a good experience for passengers, as is the quality of the bus driver in providing the service. I hope that this legislation will help deliver the quality bus services that passengers desire and protect lifeline bus services, which serve rural communities in particular.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome this legislation, which looks to improve bus services across England, grow the number of passengers using buses and ensure a more reliable network connecting people and places. We recognise that bus services in many communities across the country fall far short of the required standard and level of service. In particular, we welcome the aims to empower local leaders to choose the bus operating model that works for their local area and to provide powers to underpin those models. There is no one-size-fits-all approach given that, on the one hand, we have places such as London—although it is excluded from this legislation—working with a franchise model, and, on the other hand, we have urban towns and cities operating a decent bus network in some places and, in others, less so. Then we have rural areas with different needs and costs associated with running even a very basic service. Each area will want to adopt an option that suits its geography and community.
Rural areas remain severely underserved when it comes to bus services, with provision often unreliable and inadequate. In North Shropshire, an estimated 63% of bus miles have been cut since 2015. These reductions are having a significant impact on communities. Too often, elderly people are forced to rely on family members for transport when what they really need is a dependable, accessible bus network that allows them to travel independently. Without this, many struggle to reach vital amenities such as shops, health services and hospitals. An extraordinary example is the local campaign to establish a bus route from Fleet in Hampshire to the local hospital, as no such service currently exists. With a population of 40,000-odd people in Fleet and its neighbouring towns, the hospital car park often experiences a 45-minute queue, yet there is no bus service.
Adding to the challenge of infrequent bus services is the lack of adequate technological infrastructure. In many rural constituencies, real-time bus information is either unavailable or inaccurate. Bus apps, which could help the user experience, are rendered useless by poor mobile signal, and basic bus information at bus stops can be non-existent. This situation must change. Reliable public transport is not a luxury; it is a necessity, especially for those who are most vulnerable. By addressing these issues in this legislation, we can ensure that rural areas are better connected, thus supporting residents and improving their quality of life.
Alongside empowering local leaders, we also welcome the provision to devolve powers to local transport authorities to design and pay grants to bus operators. Yet new Section 154A provides the Secretary of State with a delegated power to issue statutory guidance on the exercise of the payment and design powers that are to be devolved. This seems contradictory. Can the Minister clarify whether this is genuine devolution or local authorities simply implementing what the department requires?
As noble Lords will be aware, current bus funding is complicated, with different funding pots across the country: from bus service improvement plan funding, BSIP+, Network North BSIP, zero-emission bus regional areas, ZEBRA 2, local transport funds, BSOG and so on. There are so many areas. As we have seen, Portsmouth has a strong enhanced partnership: through bidding, it has managed to secure £235.76 per head of population for its bus services. This can be compared to places such as Swindon, which has secured a mere £3.98 per head. The Campaign for Better Transport highlighted these discrepancies in its recent report on bus funding. For greater clarity, can the Minister say whether funding will be provided alongside this devolution, with local transport authorities able to decide how best to support financially their local bus services rather than being directed from Whitehall? Genuine devolution to ensure that local bus services meet the needs of local communities, with funding to make it happen, is absolutely essential. Powers with no funding will not transform our bus services.
An unfortunate area that is missing from this Bill relates to fares. The final-stage impact assessment states:
“There may also be benefits associated with increasing bus usage through lowering fares”.
It also states:
“Increased fares, unreliable services and fewer routes would likely drive more people away from buses, further reducing passenger numbers”.
This is critical as many of the most financially vulnerable people rely on bus services to access key amenities in their community. The increase in the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 creates real issues for passengers, particularly those on low incomes. Many rely on buses for daily essentials and a £1 rise per journey adds up quickly, straining already tight budgets and forcing difficult choices between transport and other essentials. For rural communities where alternatives are few, the impact is even greater. Without addressing this in the Bill, we risk isolating those most in need and deepening existing inequalities.
This must include cheaper bus travel for young people, making education, training and job opportunities more accessible. It would reduce the financial strain on families and encourage independence, helping young people to engage fully in their communities. Affordable transport also promotes greener travel choices, cutting carbon emissions and easing road congestion. I hope that the Minister will be able to advise us how affordable fares will be addressed going forward. As this Bill progresses, we will want assurance that it fully addresses the needs of remote rural areas, assists the transition to net-zero buses, and includes strong and improved accessibility provisions for disabled passengers.
I am pleased to see that the Bill responds to the experience in Manchester, which has re-franchised its bus services. It has taken a considerable time—more than six years—to get there and there were a lot of bureaucratic hoops to jump through, but I am delighted that the Bee Network is now going from strength to strength. Although many of these issues are addressed in this legislation, going forward, there may be room to tighten the wording in some areas to ensure that it is clear. We will pick this up in Committee.
We are also pleased that a safeguarding loophole is being closed where drivers could drive school buses without an enhanced criminal record certificate. That is absolutely essential. It is extraordinary that we have such loopholes today.
Finally, an issue I have been interested in for some time is demand-responsive buses, which have been trialled successfully in places such as Sutton and have the potential to help deliver a good bus service in some areas. Can the Minister clarify that these services can be supported by this legislation and that a local authority could run such a service if it desired?
Overall, we welcome many of the changes proposed in this Bill and look forward to debating it in more detail in Committee.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, in recent years I have chaired two transport commissions for the Welsh Government. The first focused on congestion issues in south Wales, while the second explored the challenges faced in having an effective public transport system in largely rural north Wales. During these investigations, I learned a great deal about the problems bus passengers encounter with the current bus network and I fully support the way forward set out in this Bill.
From the perspective of users outside London, the current bus network is plagued by numerous issues. These include inadequate coverage, inconsistent service frequencies, a lack of user-friendly information, and poor reliability and punctuality. In Wales, I found there was strong demand for a network of effective bus connections between key origins and destinations, including transport interchanges and railway stations. This is particularly important for access to people’s places of work, local hospitals, and higher education. In rural areas, journeys to and from local towns and villages are also crucial.
However, in practice, co-ordination of timings and routes often falls short of what is necessary. This hinders connections to other buses and train services that people look for and renders many journeys impractical by bus. Bus services are frequently confusing and difficult to use, resulting in longer journey times compared to cars. They also have a reputation for poor value for money.
Several factors contribute to these concerns, but, in essence, the problem is the absence of a well-managed and integrated network. Outside of London, generally but with some recent exceptions there is an absence of a guiding authority overseeing the coverage and integration of routes, timetabling, ticketing, and information. I am afraid that the current privatised model has prioritised popular and profitable routes. The resulting unevenness in services means insufficient attention is paid to the needs of those without access to a car.
For these reasons, I have been attracted by the potential benefits that could be achieved through extending the franchise model outside London. This model offers the opportunity for an effective bus network to operate within an integrated public transport system. The benefits can be realised in both urban and rural areas. A well-functioning bus network can significantly help people by facilitating journeys that cater to their travel needs and making bus travel more convenient, rather than simply dealing with the issue of the popularity of particular routes.
As more good jobs become available in city centres and large towns, it becomes ever more important that they are accessible to outlying areas without the need for a car. The franchising model opens the possibility for authorities to design efficient systems that maximise the network’s value by integrating timetabling and ticketing. It also ensures that the network and services appeal to a diverse range of potential travellers and are much better adapted to people’s needs.
The present Bill addresses these issues and I welcome that, but I would like to emphasise some aspects that I found to be important in the work I was doing. At its heart, there must be a data-driven analysis of the journeys that are currently being undertaken by car, whether they are for work, hospital trips or recreation. We now have access to mobile phone data that tells us a great deal about movements of people in an area. Analysis can show the opportunities that are currently unavailable to individuals without access to a car. Often, this shows how people in this position miss out on good jobs or career advancement, or hospital visits. It also provides a picture of where more frequent services and better connections could be used to tempt drivers out of their cars.
It is also crucial to ensure continuous access to open data on bus service performance and to make this data available in a useable form to help people plan their journeys. This data should be easily accessible and available in a single location. Effective data is vital for potential bus passengers to plan their journeys efficiently, as well as for those evaluating the success of route and timetable decisions taken by the authority.
Another important aspect is a ticketing system that enables people to move between services with a single ticket, preferably with a daily cap on ticket prices. I am afraid that complicated fare structures are another significant disincentive to travelling by public transport.
Of course, as has been mentioned today, funding for franchised bus networks is a significant concern. Current bus subsidies are already under pressure, and I suspect an improved bus network will also require some additional funding. Multi-year funding would help provide stability and certainty for the travelling public and operators.
The Bill will allow local authorities to manage their own bus services. While this can be successful, and I understand why there is pressure for it, my own view is that it is also crucial that private operators can bid for contracts awarded by the authority. This maintains a vital level of competition within the system. Evidence suggests that bidding for routes might be a more effective way of producing genuine competition than the present deregulated bus system.
Finally—and this is something that applies very much in north Wales—many important bus journeys involve moving between local transport regions. For these journeys, we need the option of longer-distance, limited-stop regional bus services. This is especially important in areas without a local railway network. Regional bus services in those circumstances are crucial and should be seamlessly integrated with local bus networks. Where possible they should be routed through transport interchanges and railway stations. This integration is essential if public transport is to remain competitive in terms of timeliness compared to the motor car.
I am pleased to say that the Bill touches on each of these issues. In many ways, it addresses many of these real issues and recognises their importance, and I wish it well.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I reiterate the regret, expressed by the Front-Bench speakers from all parties, that Lady Randerson is not with us. We shall all miss her. Another person I shall miss is my noble friend Lord Prescott, whose funeral comes in a few weeks’ time. I served as a Transport Minister with him, and he would have some firm views on this Bill, I am sure.
As the Minister has indicated, buses remain, despite everything, the public transport form used most in this country, but the difference between the bus service in London, where I spend half the week, and the rest of the country, including the rural area in which I live, is stark. We need to extend some of the aspects of Transport for London, which the Minister is familiar with. I had occasional complaints about London’s transport during his time there, but in general it is much better than the situation in the rural areas of the south-west and many other areas of England and Wales.
That is wrong and this Bill begins to change it. The fact is that successive regimes have not taken the opportunity to improve the situation significantly. I acknowledge that the 2017 Act, to which reference has been made, made some improvements in franchising; on the other hand, it effectively closed down the scope for direct ownership of municipal bus companies, which this Bill, thankfully, revises.
I emphasise my support for the Bill and my respect for the Ministers—the previous Secretary of State and the current one—who have got the Bill into the legislative programme at a very early stage. That means we can work it through, address the secondary legislation that will be required and get a good bus service operating in most areas of the country within the lifetime of this Parliament.
I agree with the framework, although it will need some tinkering with, the relationship between franchising and local authority ownership, and the role of the Department for Transport. The framework is right—though like the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and others, I would have preferred to see more substantial support, and definitely multi-annual long-term funding and some rationalisation of the form in which funds come from both local and national government—and, in general, the Bill is moving in the right direction. However, I wish to raise three issues which are not significant in the Bill, and might well require yet another Bill—the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, has already used my joke in that respect—but which need to be part of the reformation of the bus system in the country outside London. Broadly, they involve the passenger relationship, in particular the ticketing system, the workforce and environmental provisions. I will take those quickly, one by one.
Concerning the passenger system, the majority of passengers outside London—certainly in rural areas and in many of our smaller cities—travel for free because they are old-age pensioners or students. People are not attracted to getting on the bus, so they use their cars in areas which would, objectively, be much better served by them taking the bus to the shops or to work. Among the reasons for this are the unreliability and frequency of the bus, and the interchangeability of the bus on routes that they have to take.
I referred to my time as a Transport Minister. I had one achievement that I have been very proud of: I was the very first person to use an Oyster card. I think it was in 1999, at St James’s Park station. We introduced that and extended it from the Tube to the buses and suburban trains. We need a similar system in other parts of the country, so that you would buy one ticket that you can use for a month or a year, and buy it at whatever regularity you feel fits your purposes, and then move from one bus to another without any difficulty. The cost is relatively small. Many of us will have realised that, once we have an Oyster card, we use it and use the car less, and probably walk less as well. We need something similar for areas outside London, particularly outside our cities.
A couple of years later, I introduced another system: the over-65 pass—or the old gits’ pass, as I used to call it, though I do not use that phrase so frequently these days. We introduced in a transport Bill in 1999 that these passes would be valid throughout the country. Although I occasionally face consternation from bus drivers when showing them my Dorset pass, it allows me to travel anywhere in the country for free. We need the same for those who do not qualify as students or old-age pensioners. They would have to pay for it, but the convenience that results would be a big attraction. We could regain the millions of bus passengers who have been lost over the last 40 years since deregulation and the growth in the use of cars.
We also have to ensure that we have an adequate workforce. The workforce has declined by 25%, in line with the usage of buses. The key factor here is that most of the drivers are relatively old and will retire relatively soon, while new drivers coming into the trade are relatively few. We need a system that attracts younger and newer drivers, as well as getting other drivers back into the bus trade. That is essential if we are to expand the whole range of services, which I hope the Bill will lead to. As far as this Bill is concerned, the only reference to training relates, rightly, to the safeguarding and protection of passengers. That is important, and I am glad to see it in the Bill, but we need a provision to ensure that there is adequate training across the country for drivers, mechanics and other staff, so that we have an adequate workforce for this service.
The third area, the environment, is mentioned in the Bill but not sufficiently. It is interpreted explicitly and specifically in relation to having zero-emission buses. That is an important aspect of the environment—it is right that it should be in the Bill and I agree with the timescale—but it is only one aspect. It will be important to see on our streets, as we are beginning to see in London, zero or near-zero-emissions buses, but that is only part of it.
Another serious issue is that buses contribute to congestion and pollution, particularly on our urban streets. That requires a rather better system of traffic management, which preserves and extends bus lanes, rather than what is happening in many of our cities at the moment. That is partly because of the extension of cycle lanes—I see my noble friend Lord Berkeley sitting here—but these should be introduced at the expense of motoring lanes, not bus lanes. The result, in London and elsewhere, is buses being delayed in traffic in what were previously free-flowing bus lanes. We need to make sure that traffic management in the towns and cities in which our buses have been constricted gives priority again to the introduction and sustaining of bus lanes.
Those are some of the things which I hope the Minister will assure me can be introduced within the framework of the Bill by secondary legislation, rather than in an additional Bill. They are essential to attracting people back to using buses, and to ensuring that buses are not idling in their lanes because of traffic jams, polluting the atmosphere, as well as holding up the rest of the traffic. We need to make buses much more attractive in this respect, so that they are quick, reliable, clean and healthy. If we can do that, and get at least a significant proportion of people back into using buses, then this Bill represents a very good start. I congratulate Ministers on it and will support it.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, first and foremost, I declare my interest as chairman of Transport for the North, as set out in the register. I very much associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on Baroness Randerson, who was a formidable transport spokesman. She never missed the opportunity to make the case in this House for better transport links, both in her area and in the world. The House will be the poorer without her presence.
Much reference has been made to the last buses Bill, which was in 2017. I had some responsibility for that, as the Secretary of State when it was introduced to the House of Lords in 2016, but I was not around as Secretary of State by the time it completed all its stages. I accept a responsibility for its birth, but I am not sure that I am quite responsible for its final framework when it passed.
The background to how that particular Bill came about is quite interesting. It was partly a Bill promised in a deal done by George Osborne, Sir Richard Leese and Howard Bernstein on the whole way in which devolution and mayoral powers were to be introduced and eventually transformed. We have had a lot of reference this evening to the Bee Network in Manchester, which really was the trailer, and that Bill allowed it to happen. We see it now in operation, with clear leadership from Andy Burnham as to what he wants and expects, leading a drive to see more people use public transport. It is worth remembering that a double-decker bus can take something like 70 cars off the road, and possibly be quite effective in reducing congestion.
I also think it is important—it has come through in today’s debate—to think about what we do not require. We do not need a straitjacket, because we need to allow local flexibility. I remember my mother’s life being transformed when a bus started to run around the estate. It enabled her to go into town, do her shopping and get back on a small bus that ran through the estate. That was not a community bus, but community bus transport is an area in which we can see possible improvements, particularly in rural areas.
When I was Secretary of State, I brought in a scheme to support community buses. They had to be small organisations; the larger ones could not take advantage of the scheme because of certain competition rules. Those were partly EU rules. We are free from those rules, so I urge the Minister to look at that scheme and see whether it can be resuscitated, because I think it is important.
There is no doubt as to the important role that buses can play, both in local economies and, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said, in the opportunities for employment prospects. There is also the fact that it is still one of the most used forms of transport today—not the train but the bus. I have seen the figure of 11 million journeys a day. The Bill extends bus franchise powers beyond metro mayors to all places and accelerates the franchising process, so there will need to be some very specific guidance.
In reading the debate on the Bill in 2016, which became the 2017 Act, I was interested that there was some criticism that it gave the Department for Transport a few too many powers as far as delegated legislation was concerned. As chairman of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I read with interest some of the attacks made on that Bill about those delegated powers. But there are some areas where delegated powers are absolutely essential, because things change and we should not be forced to wait for further primary legislation.
Buses remain the most used form of public transport in England. However, bus journeys have been in decline for many years in most of England. They dropped from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024. Journey numbers are also yet to recover to pre-Covid levels. In the year ending March 2024, bus usage was around 12% lower than in the year ending March 2020. It is important to remember that public funding accounts for 44% of all bus industry income. That is with the overall concessionary bus pass, other allowances and grants given by the Department for Transport. The rest of it comes from fares. This is similar to pre-pandemic funding levels.
Bus mileage is used as an indicator of how many bus routes there are. In England outside London, bus mileage in the year ending March 2024 was around 29% lower than in 2005. However, bus mileage in London has remained fairly stable over the same period, so London has managed to keep a level of service that the rest of the country has not seen. As far as the north is concerned, the latest figures for 2024 show that the north has 33% less bus mileage since 2010, including a 22% reduction since 2019, the last full year prior to the Covid pandemic. Bus patronage in the north grew to 703 million passengers in 2024, 8.1% more than in 2023, but was still some 18% lower than in 2019.
As we see more devolution, with more powers going to metro mayors and a growth in the number of metro mayors, they will take much more interest in how these services are being run and the opportunities there will be. I hope we can look at what happened in Manchester and understand some of the difficulties it faced, but also give guidance as to how the other areas can take forward their plans. We should not give a straitjacket saying that this should happen in all areas, because some areas will be different, particularly rural areas and county areas. What you can do in Manchester, Leeds or Sheffield is not the same as what you can do in some remote parts of Lancashire or Cumbria. Those areas need to be addressed as well, and opportunities in those areas need to be found.
I was encouraged by the way in which the Minister said that it was not one size fits all. On that, we are speaking the same language. We should give mayors—where there are county mayors or mayors of combined authorities—a good chance for the grants that will be available. We should also encourage different solutions in different areas, remembering that a journey does not necessarily stop at a county boundary. How you overcome that county boundary, so that workplace areas become much more important, will be one of the vital challenges.
For us to meet some of our environmental requirements and targets, public transport will need to play a very important role. I very much regret that the Government felt they were unable to continue with the £2 bus fare cap, but that decision has been made. We still need to find ways of encouraging more people to use the bus service, by giving them the confidence to use it and making it a reliable service. One of the most important things for public transport is for people to know it is reliable. If they know it is reliable, they will use it. If they think it is unreliable, they will not use it.
I wish the Minister well in his task. We are right to hold the Government to account on where the money will come from for future schemes, and exactly how that money is going to support a better public transport overall for the people of this country.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and join the widespread tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that we have heard from the Minister and around the House.
Noble Lords may be a little surprised to see me as transport is not usually my territory, but I can reassure them that my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb is recovering very well from her hip operation. She will hopefully be back on Monday. I expect that she will take forward later stages of the Bill, but in the meantime your Lordships get me.
Introducing the Bill, the Minister reflected on the fact that three parties had promises about bus services in their manifestos. I will have to add to that and say that the Green Party put bus services absolutely front and centre of its manifesto. I will highlight two things from that manifesto. One was a focus on village bus services. It promised a service to every village in the land. The second thing was free bus travel for under-18s. I point noble Lords to the success of the Scottish Greens. From their place in government, they were able to bring in free bus travel for under-22s in Scotland. That has seen a real step forward in introducing young people to bus services and building it into a standard part of their lives. That free offer has been really successful, really useful and really valued.
Quite a number of noble Lords have said, “Well, there’s the cities, and they can do these things, but we’ve got to be realistic about what rural areas can do”. It is important not to underrate the capacity of rural bus services and rural institutions to oversee them. I will give a practical example. After the shock of the Covid pandemic, the Green-led Herefordshire county council made all buses free at weekends and put on extra weekend services. They used £1 million from the Covid recovery fund to do that. Of course, we are talking about Herefordshire, a heavily rural area, with towns and villages. Nearly 170,000 journeys were taken on the 12 new Sunday bus services and, after the scheme ended, five of the most popular services continued to run seven days a week. So, if you provide the services and give people the real cost benefit of those services, they will adopt them and make them a regular part of their lives. That is as true of rural areas as it is of city areas.
Coming to the broader picture, I will revisit a figure that I suspect several people have already cited: in 2023-24, there were 3.6 billion passenger journeys. Buses are how people get around. But this figure has seen a massive decline. The mileage for the year to the most recent March was down a quarter since 2010. We have heard a lot of hot air over recent decades about the claimed “war on the motorist”, but, instead, we have actually had a butchering of the buses. I started with the figure from 2010, because I am afraid we know where the responsibility for that butchering of the buses lies: the party that was in control at the time. Behind that has been an ideological position where bus services, particularly outside London, have been run for private profit rather than for the public good. This is one more privatisation disaster that has absolutely failed. To a limited degree at least, the Bill is, happily, finally undoing that loss of local control and local democracy that was represented by privatisation.
Like a number of noble Lords, I will briefly focus on how buses are particularly important to lower-income households, jobseekers, women and older people. They are crucial for public health—I do not think anyone has used that phrase yet—because we have a widely acknowledged loneliness epidemic. If we think about one prescription to tackle that, bus services being readily available to people is an important part of that measure.
On that, I want to pick up a particular point with the Minister. We are coming back to funding, and I understand that this may not be central to the Bill, but it is an important and relatively cheap point. The statutory concessionary bus fare for free travel for pensioners and disabled people runs on weekdays between 9.30 am and 11 pm. We all know about medical appointments that may require travel before 9.30 am, and we know that many older people often provide childcare to enable family members to take paid employment. They may well need to travel before 9.30 am. Will the Minister look at making what would be quite a modest investment to ensure that that concessionary free travel is available to everyone, which would surely have a high level of public benefit?
Many people have raised the rise in fares from £2 to £3. It is worth highlighting that the £3 level is, under current government arrangements, due to end in December this year. That does not give people a long-term sense of planning. Surely, the sensible thing to do would be, ideally, to go back to £2 but at least to provide long-term certainty—for operators, local councils, communities and individual travellers—that the £3 bus fare will stay.
Like many noble Lords, I received a large number of briefings and will highlight those from the Green Alliance, the Campaign for Better Transport and the Urban Transport Group. The Green position, and that of those briefings, sets out that the Bill is heading in the right direction but is not going nearly far or fast enough. One thing that is missing is the failure to encourage the recovery of lost routes. Local authorities need to be able to identify where the holes are and to fill them in, but the Bill does not provide for that. Absolutely rightly, there is also a call for a bus service guarantee, to guarantee that all communities have a minimum level of bus service. That comes back to the village point that I started with.
Noble Lords would expect me, as a Green, to focus on the need for a firm date for zero-emission buses. This is such an obvious step both for public health and for reliability and certainty. For new buses, high levels of reliability are really important, as well as clean air.
Finally, we have talked quite a bit about bus stops. I will jump on a favourite little hobby horse of mine: the assumption that everyone has a mobile phone that will give them reliable information about bus arrivals. That is not true in London; it is not true at the bus stop that I use most mornings. Having signage at bus stops where possible, or at least proper guidelines and timetables, is crucial to enable people to use buses.
I have to highlight the situation in South Yorkshire, which has been terribly hit by that butchering of the buses. We have seen a bus mileage decline of 42% across the region. The bus services in South Yorkshire have got close to what you would have to describe as collapse. There is a plan to take franchising forward, but it will take a very long time. The Bill will possibly assist, but I would be interested in anything that the Minister can say particularly about helping South Yorkshire to put back those crucial services, in an area where people really need them to get to work and get around.
I will raise a point that I do not think anyone else has raised specifically. Some noble Lords may know about a campaign—it is starting in London but should apply around the country—for a London bus driver Bill of Rights to be included in the TfL framework bus contract. I am aware that this Bill does not cover London, but the issues that this campaign raises none the less apply for bus drivers around the country. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out that bus drivers are an ageing group of people, and we need to make sure that this career appeals to people coming in for the future.
I give noble Lords advance notice that, on 29 January, a march will start from Victoria station, where, a year ago, a pedestrian was killed by a route 13 RATP bus operating under contract for TfL. At least 87 other victims have been killed in preventable bus safety accidents in London since 2016. Of course, this is of great concern to the drivers, given the conditions of the contract, which they feel are dangerous. I note that the drivers will be marching to Parliament Square, so look out for them on 29 January.
The Bill does not have any of the data transparency or safety reporting requirements that the House of Lords tried to incorporate in the Bus Services Act 2017, so my noble friend will very likely bring up that issue in particular at further stages of the Bill.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I share the remarks made by a number of noble Lords about my late noble friend Baroness Randerson. I was her Whip. Her loss to us is incalculable. She was an exceptional politician and a great friend to us all. She will be greatly missed.
Although the Bill does not specifically mention home-to-school transport, it does touch on a vital part of that provision: the transport needs of children with special educational needs—SEND. They, along with many other children in North Yorkshire, will be affected by the changes proposed by my local council over the next seven years.
At present, there are 10,000 children across North Yorkshire who are entitled to free home-to-school transport. The majority of these are what we call mainstream children, but 2,500 of them are the most vulnerable SEND children. That is a quarter of the total, and it uses more than half the whole school transport budget. Most of these 10,000 children live in villages and hamlets scattered round the vast rural area of North Yorkshire. Up until now, they have all been entitled to free home-to-school transport to enable them to attend any suitable school within their catchment area. The vast majority choose to support local schools within North Yorkshire’s boundaries, rather than travel to our neighbouring counties of West Yorkshire, East Riding, Cumbria or Durham.
In July last year, the Government published updated guidance on helping SEND pupils to travel safely. NYC decided, very quickly, to use this as an opportunity to revise its school transport policy in an attempt to save money. It modelled various scenarios, but the model that it chose had a fundamental flaw: it predicted savings of around £4.2 million over seven years, but that was based on 100% of children opting out of home-to-school transport entirely. Until then, NYC had paid transport costs for children, including SEND children, to attend any suitable school within its catchment area. That changed in July last year, when it decided that, for the majority, it would pay transport costs to their nearest school only. That is seemingly a small change, but one that ignores the geography of North Yorkshire and fails to factor in the disruption it would create for families.
The implications of this decision are simply massive. Families may be forced to send their children out of the county to be educated, causing disruption to North Yorkshire schools, which will lose pupils and funding. We are already losing too many of our small schools, and our larger schools could be forced to cut teacher numbers and reduce curriculum choice. In vast rural areas, such as the Yorkshire Dales, many children will be required to travel on remote, high roads, often not gritted in the winter. North Yorkshire prides itself on having good, often exceptional schools. If it decides to send its children out of county to be educated, it will soon find itself struggling to maintain this quality.
In addition, this policy change will result in siblings being forced to attend different schools over the seven-year implementation period. This will cause upset for those children and practical problems for their parents, who are already finding life difficult enough without the added worry of managing different school uniforms, different term times, et cetera. The disruption caused by this policy is giving real heartache and distress to thousands of parents. Rural communities are worried about what this means for young families, a concern shared by the chair of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, which is working hard to keep young people in the dales. Ten parish councils have written in objecting to the policy change, as have teachers, school governors, parents, councillors and two of our county’s MPs.
Yet the irony is that there are no savings here. Indeed, the council will have to find even more money. More vehicles would be necessary over the next seven years to cover the increased number of routes. Children who previously would have been going on the same bus now will have to attend different schools based on the nearest school to their home. Indeed, depending on where they live, half the children in the same village may go to one school and half to another. It just does not make sense. This decision has been made without consideration for the geography of North Yorkshire and without a thorough impact assessment of costs and impact on families. An urgent rethink is therefore required.
The previous Government presented guidance, leaving it to each individual council to decide how best to implement it based on local considerations. North Yorkshire Council has, so far, failed to do that to a level that works for rural communities. Will the Minister consider firming up the guidance so that all councils have a clear idea of what is expected of them and implement their policies accordingly?
All Governments, be it local or national, want to save money, but no one should be doing that on the back of children’s safety and education.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I join the tributes paid earlier to Baroness Randerson, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on transport. As someone who has taken an interest in transport matters for many years, in my career in this House and the other place, I know that she was always knowledgeable and helpful. We agreed on so many aspects of transport policy.
I have spent much of my life involved in the transport world. More than 50 years ago, as a local councillor I was appointed to the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. I was a Front-Bench spokesperson on transport in the other place for a decade or so under John Prescott, to whom my noble friend Lord Whitty referred earlier. It was a fascinating experience, I might say, for anyone who knew John Prescott as well as I did. He is much missed, and I will be attending his memorial later this month.
Let us take a short canter through the history of bus services. The 1985 Act was brought into being by Nicholas Ridley, a man who had a high opinion of his own ability—I do not wish this to sound like any sort of attack—and not without justification. But he was a somewhat controversial figure, and when he introduced the 1985 legislation, he made it plain that he felt that the private sector could play a much greater role in running buses than the municipal one. He portrayed an image of lots of entrepreneurs with half a dozen buses or so introducing new routes throughout the country, particularly in the rural areas. The reality, of course, was somewhat different. The new routes that were introduced were invariably on the busier routes of the major bus operators. I became a non-executive director of a then employee-owned company in the West Midlands, called West Midlands Travel, and I was fascinated to see some of our former employees, one or two of whom had been dismissed on disciplinary grounds, acquiring elderly vehicles, which they then ran on the busiest routes in the Birmingham and West Midlands conurbation.
The 2017 Act referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, and others was an admission of the failure of that 1985 Act, for much of the country. It was not a failure, in that it was a success in this city. London was singled out as the place for bus franchising, whereas the rest of us were left pretty much to our own devices. Bus franchising is still an expensive business in London; the latest financial figures that I have seen indicated that, up until April last year, TfL was paying around £840 million for bus service provision in this city. I do not complain about that, but it indicates that franchising, whether in London or elsewhere, is not a cheap operation. While I welcome the Bill, my concern is that local authorities, particularly the ones outside the big cities, will struggle adequately to fund any franchising operation, should they wish to do so in their area.
Mention has been made, including in the Bill, of zero-emission vehicles. I have to say that they do not come cheaply either. I realise that the Green Party wants them to be introduced sooner rather than later, although the Bill makes provision for them to be introduced after 1 January 2030. The fact is that a new electrically powered double-decker bus costs in the region of £500,000—imagine buying a fleet of those in the short term. Cash-strapped local authorities—in and out of the major cities—will have great difficulty in paying the franchising bill, essential though it may be. If we are to have a fleet of zero-emission buses, we have to recognise that the Treasury will need to look a bit more kindly on some of the applications for funding so far as the financing of those vehicles is concerned.
My noble friend Lord Whitty referred to the provision of cycle lanes in some of our major towns and cities. Like him, I share an admiration for cyclists, though I cannot say that I have ever had a great desire to join them—indeed, watching the way that some of them behave as they go round Parliament Square, I can honestly say that my views have been somewhat coloured by their attitude to pedestrians and other traffic. But it is nonsense that we provide cycle facilities in many of our towns and cities at the expense of bus lanes. You have only to see the congestion on the Embankment since cycle lanes were provided there. They are, by and large, not particularly well used at this time of the year, for understandable reasons, yet buses carrying over 100 people on many occasions are trapped in traffic because of the lack of proper provision for them.
I have to say to my noble friend that it is about time that we had the courage to look again at the money we allow the car lobby to avoid so far as the fuel tax escalator is concerned. As a Labour Government, so far we have not managed even to restore the 5% reduction, let alone see that the fuel tax escalator is increased on a regular basis, in the way that it was designed to be. Of course, if we demand such provision and for that money to be spent on public transport, we will be accused of being anti-car. We hear a lot from the party opposite about the war on the motorist—“Hear, hear”, says the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Let me just remind him that this war on the motorist, if that is what it is, was started in 1993 by no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He introduced the fuel tax escalator in the first place, and it is only in recent years—I say “recent”, but it has been some 14 years—that is has been frozen, and indeed reduced by Rishi Sunak when he was Chancellor. That is not a war on motorists. Like most noble Lords, I drive a car but, if we are going to properly finance public transport, we must have the courage to say that freezing fuel duty for a decade and a half is not the way to do it.
We will discuss the ins and outs and intricacies of the Bill in Committee but, while I welcome its provisions and intend to participate—my noble friend may groan at the prospect—in Grand Committee when the Bill comes before us, I must say that the good intentions as far as future franchising is concerned are all very well, but unless it is properly financed, it will be no more a success outside London in future than it was in the past.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is a poignant moment as I reflect that our deliberations on this Bill will be done without our wonderful colleague, Baroness Randerson. To Jenny, public transport was not a theoretical consideration but a public service on which many depend. Her passing is an immense loss to our Benches and to the many causes that she espoused.
I have relevant interests to declare as a councillor in West Yorkshire and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. There is much in the Bill that is welcome. It is a genuine attempt to revive bus services across the country. It is positive that there is an inherent acceptance in the Bill that the 40-year experiment with privatisation has not resulted in a reliable bus network and that significant change is essential. However, the unanswered question in the Bill is whether the Government view the local public bus network as an essential public service to which all residents should have access, albeit at different levels of service. My first question to the Minister, therefore, is whether the aspiration of the Government is to provide such a widely available, reliable local public bus service.
All recent Governments have had policies to encourage a modal shift to cycling and walking. The policy has been supported with regular streams of government funding for cycle lanes—as we have just heard—and improved pedestrian routes. Do the Government intend in the medium term to have an equivalent policy to support a modal shift towards bus travel?
Despite these questions—criticisms, perhaps—the Bill does contain some important steps in the right direction. Local authorities, in the form of local transport authorities, are at the heart of this change. Outside London, as we have heard, bus services have been deregulated since 1986. Local transport authorities have very limited means to influence, or achieve change to, what is provided by commercial operators, or indeed to have the funding to support non-commercial services. The powers in the Bill for LTAs to adopt one of the new models of provision are positive and welcome.
However, this raises questions about local democracy. With enhanced powers should come enhanced accountability for decision-makers. In mayoral devolved authorities this is limited to a single person, the mayor, supported by the leaders of the councils in the area, and a transport committee to advise. As the decisions on local transport are very limited at the moment, this level of public accountability is probably sufficient. However, does the Minister agree that, as LTAs have increased responsibilities, including those of grant-funding powers, more elected councillors need to be involved? Given the government proposals for combined county authorities, does this mean that there will be delays in establishing new local transport authorities in these areas? For these largely rural areas, does this also mean that there will be delays in these authorities taking advantage of the measures in the Bill?
That brings me to the thorny question of funding. If the aim is for local bus services to be more frequent and more reliable, and to reach many more communities more often, this is unlikely to be achieved within the existing funding levels. Providing a bus service to remote villages will almost certainly rely on subsidy. The question to the Minister, therefore, is: will there be increased funding for LTAs to achieve these aims?
As has been said in this debate, better bus services are inextricably linked to economic growth. They provide affordable access to jobs, for example. I despair when I hear from residents in my council ward that the bus service is so unreliable that they have been threatened by their employer with losing their job. The result is that they buy a cheap car, which does not help their bank balance and nor does it aid the environment or congestion. To achieve reliable, affordable bus services relies not only on sufficient funding but on the efficiency and effectiveness of bus operators.
In my experience in West Yorkshire—I could tell the House of my waiting an hour in Leeds bus station at the end of a Friday afternoon, so in a peak period, for a bus that should come every 15 minutes but never came—too many services are cancelled without notice. On occasion, this is the result of road traffic congestion which so delays buses that they are unable to keep to the timetable. Does the Minister agree that achieving better bus services will involve improving reliability, and that that means addressing areas of traffic congestion? Bus lanes are only part of the answer, and not a very good part either. It would be good to hear what the Minister has to say.
Finally, I come to bus stations and bus stops, and the opportunity for by-laws to control behaviours there. Clause 21 has much to recommend it, as passengers are deterred from using buses by poor or intimidating behaviour. I welcome that Clause 21 seems to enable by-laws to control bus stations and bus stops. Clauses 23 to 26, on safeguarding and training, are very important. Too many drivers are on the receiving end of abuse. Equipping them to deal with it effectively will help to retain drivers and keep the public safe.
The Bill recognises how vital safe and reliable bus services are to many in our communities who do not have access to their own car. The reforms proposed in the Bill go some way to shifting the balance in favour of the public who need these services, and that is a good start.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff sent me a paragraph from an email from a member of staff in memory of Baroness Randerson, which I will read:
“Baroness Jenny Randerson was a dear friend since I started at the Millbank House Cafeteria in October 2011. I met her sister, husband and grandchildren from Brussels. She supported me when I had my hand surgery. She checked up on me by email. We joked and laughed and she was always positive. I did also send her emails to complain about the number 3 bus”.
So it is to buses we turn, with Baroness Randerson very much in our minds.
I must declare an interest: I love bus travel. The majority of my daily travel to your Lordships’ House is by bus and, as such, I welcome the Bill. I thank all those who sent me briefings: Tom Kearney, of LondonBusWatch; Kevin Mustafa, of the London Bus Drivers’ Bill of Rights campaign; and, as ever, the excellent House of Lords Library. I also thank the Minister and his team for the excellent collaborative briefing of yesterday, which was incredibly useful all round.
I always tell a visitor to London that the best place to see London is from the top of a bus. The 76 route is difficult to beat, particularly the view from the top deck when travelling over Waterloo Bridge at night. The Minister must take a lot of credit for the improvement in bus services in London. When I first came to London in the late 1980s, I used to wait a long time for a number 1 bus, then five would arrive at the same time. This is now unusual. We can look at bus times on dot matrix at bus stops or on our phone. London buses are iconic and work very well, but we need to take care before we send that model around the country.
As the Explanatory Notes say, and as the Minister repeated:
“The passenger should be at the heart of any process”—
but what about pedestrians and other road users? In the Bill, safety is about only crime on buses, and our thoughts are obviously with the family of the teenager killed on a bus in Woolwich yesterday. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has alluded to already, according to TfL’s own figures, in London, an average of three people a day are hospitalised after a bus safety incident, at least one of which is a collision. About every five to six weeks, someone is killed in a bus safety incident—again, mostly from collisions. We know this because TfL is the only bus authority that publishes its safety figures. As we talked about in the briefing yesterday, the Bill mentions data usage but does not mention types of data. I urge the Government to put a necessity to publish quarterly bus safety performance data, as TfL has done since 2014, into the Bill. If we are to learn from accidents, we need to know where and how these incidents happened.
We also know how important drivers are to the services. The Bill mentions staff in relation to training, but not driver safety and well-being. What about drivers who are under increasing pressure to keep on time, handling radio and text messages while on the move, especially in the new 20mph zones? Should driver welfare not be enshrined in the Bill? As someone who knows better than anyone how to drive a bus, perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
I quote the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, in Oral Questions:
“Bus companies sharing their data has been an enormous problem—anyone in the north of England knows that that helped prevent us bringing in an Oyster-style ticketing service across the north. It is crucial that we get this right and that all companies are obliged to share the information”.—[Official Report, 7/10/24; col. 1824.]
It is not clear from the Bill what information is to be reported. I have already talked about safety, and, as we discussed in the briefing, the difficulties of introducing Oyster-style ticketing—or the Oyster-style ticketing of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—in other regions. I urge the Government to encourage this, as it has been revolutionary in terms of travel in London. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rebuild England’s bus network based on the excellent London model. Let us just make sure that that model is as good as it can be.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I join other Members of the House in remembering Lady Randerson. It was with shock and sorrow that I learned of her passing at the weekend. I was fortunate enough to work with her on numerous Bills over the past decade and it was a privilege to be able to call her a colleague.
As this is the first time I have legislated with the Minister, I put on the record my thanks to him for everything he did to make the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games such a success. Transport was critical to the success of the Games. You had only to look at all the media coverage from the moment we won the bid to see that journalists believed that transport would ruin the experience of London 2012. It did not, and, more than that, it was one of the most successful Olympic and Paralympic Games from a transport perspective, and the Minister can take so much credit for that in the team he led at the time. Again, from my perspective, it was a privilege and a pleasure to work with him.
Turning to the Bill, I would like to talk about inclusion and accessibility. As currently drafted, the Bill leaves Clause 22 to do more than heavy lifting in this respect. I intend, with colleagues in Committee and on Report, to do my best to put a lot more power into Clause 22 to enable the task it has at hand.
I would like to talk about the core principle of inclusive by design. What does this mean? It is simple: from the first moment of conception of a service, product, vehicle, computer program or whatever it is, the needs of every potential user are taken into account, so that when that product or service lands, everybody in our society and our community can avail themselves of that good or service. When it comes to buses, much excellent work has already been undertaken, not least through audio-visual announcements and prompts—a clear example of something good and enabling for disabled people that also, as is always the case, benefits all people. For example, an international traveller in London or somebody not from a particular area benefits from those AV announcements. It was an honour to launch the Manchester talking buses almost a decade ago. We have great provision in London but, as has already been rightly mentioned around the House, we should always be conscious and cognisant of the situation right across the country, not least in our rural communities.
Those are the buses, and there is still much work to be done. What is the purpose in making buses accessible if accessing the bus itself is made unreasonably difficult and potentially impossible? This brings me to the whole question of so-called floating bus stops. What are floating bus stops? They are not bus stops at all, as you would know them. They are, if you will, pieces of foundation separated completely from the pavement by a cycle lane, rendering that potentially accessible bus completely inaccessible to board or alight. In reality, floating bus stops are not a great creation or a great enabler of transport and mobility across our society. They are a planning folly, an overly simplistic solution to resolving competing transport needs, inevitably resulting in performance and outcomes that are anything but inclusive by design.
As has already been rightly mentioned, buses can often be a lifeline, providing social as well as actual mobility and economic opportunities, enabling people into the labour market or to go to medical appointments —a bus can potentially play a part in any aspect of our society or economic activity. So-called floating bus stops completely sever that lifeline. Can the Minister explain the point in making buses accessible if it is nigh on impossible for huge swathes of the population to access those buses? Will the Government commit to a moratorium on all new so-called floating bus stops until there has been a clear review of all existing provisions—a key piece of research right across the country where all these floating bus stops have been installed—and a piece of work to set out the retrofitting of all those so-called floating bus stops to bring them back to inclusive by design, on a timeline that does not leave huge swathes of our population excluded from the public realm?
I have spent my life trying to enable buildings, the public realm and services to be accessible if they have not been designed as such—for example, the many buildings designed hundreds of years ago, when people had no sense of inclusion or accessibility. This very building in which we are debating is now pretty accessible, as is the 15th-century college where I studied, as a result of interventions. So much more frustrating is when something previously accessible and inclusive is made not so for the want of having in place the thinking that considers all members of our communities and society, which is ultimately all that “inclusive by design” is: just being considerate of everybody in our communities. I propose a moratorium on all new floating bus stops, a review into all existing sites and retrofitting all of them on a reasonable timeline. Does the Minister agree that a cardinal principle of any bus stop is that you can access the bus and alight directly on to the kerbside?
In conclusion, we do not yet have public transport in this country. We have transport accessible for some of the people, some of the time, but not if you are blind, a disabled person, an older person, someone with young children in a pram, or indeed someone who just does not want to have to run the gauntlet of a live cycle lane, with no assistance provided for them. We have transport for some of the people, some of the time. Can the Minister tell us when the Government will be able to say we have public transport “inclusive by design, accessible by all”? Now that would be something well worth the prefix “public” transport.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with the many noble Lords who have paid wonderful tribute to Baroness Randerson. I used to work with her very closely when we were in opposition, and we learnt so much from each other. She is a real loss, and I am so pleased that so many noble Lords have recognised this and spoken about it, because she is almost unique. We shall really miss her.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for taking the time to meet with me, and no doubt others, before Second Reading of this Bill because it is quite complicated. I have a few questions about it, most of which he will have heard already. We have had the opportunity of going down a good dose of memory lane, particularly with Lord Prescott’s integrated public transport, which many of us thought was a wonderful thing. Something has happened, but let us focus on the fact that much of it was needed to improve co-ordination and the passing of information between trains, buses, trams, minibuses—and we would probably include cycles these days, but I am coming on to that later.
On fares, most important is the emphasis in the Bill on community leadership and control, which we probably did not have before. When I opened the Bill, as I mentioned to my noble friend the Minister, I thought it was all very interesting. Clause 1(2) defines a franchising authority but, as I asked him, what is the definition of a bus or a bus service? We had an interesting little discussion about that. It clearly does not include trains, but we have to think about why. Is it because they use steel wheels as opposed to rubber wheels? What about the new tram system being developed in Coventry, a lightweight tram that has enormous potential? Is that a tram or a bus service? How much of the content of the Bill should apply to whoever is running that tram service? So many of the things in the Bill would apply to them as well, and I suspect many of them would accept it.
My noble friend has quite rightly been focusing on the community aspect. This is about local control, local flexibility and giving local leaders, as it says in paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Notes,
“the freedom to take decisions to deliver their local transport priorities. This is through … Empowering LTAs and reforming funding”—
that is an easy one, or not—
“Allowing every community to take back control of their buses … Accelerating the bus franchising process … Ensuring that the provision of socially necessary local services is considered appropriately”,
and encouraging public ownership.
I hope the Government will stick with encouraging local authorities to provide better local services, which is particularly important in the country. When the Secretary of State launched the Bill on 17 December, she stated:
“The introduction of the Bus Services Bill marks the next step on our journey to overhaul how bus services operate, delivering on our commitment to improve living standards across the country”.
The most important part is the bit about living standards across the country, and I hope my noble friend can give me some comfort that the Bill will include the capability of applying these things to the public transport services that people rely on across the country. We can go into services in much detail, but I do not think it is the time to do that now.
On devolution, there is a certain amount of uncertainty about who can be a local transport authority and the difference between what we would call the LTA, the franchising authority—if it is the same thing—the enhanced partnerships and even service agreements. This will probably all end up in debates about money, but also about who is actually in control. One of the questions put to the Minister was: Is it all very well that we have some local authorities around the country that are doing well, as we have heard about Manchester, and other places that, frankly—we have heard a few examples—are doing pretty badly?
A year ago, I had to go to a funeral in Dorset, so I thought I would catch a train to Sherborne, which seemed to be on a good timetable. The trains go every hour, quite happily, but the connecting bus to where the funeral was came every one and a half hours, not every hour. Conveniently, it left the station at Sherborne five minutes before the train arrived. I do not know whether Dorset Council—which is presumably responsible for that—knew what it was doing, or whether it just hoped that more people would drive their cars, but that is the kind of rubbish that I hope the Government will get a grip on. They must make sure that there is some integration and that the passenger, frankly, gets something they want.
On the money side, paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to grants and says that the Bill will provide the LTA
“with a power to make grants to operators”.
It is probably very naive of me, but where is the LTA going to get its money from, who decides what it is, how much control will it have over what it asks for, and will they get it? In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, mentioned that multi-year funding is a wonderful idea, but it is a question of whether it will happen or not. One has to ask, where does the revenue risk come in these different scenarios if the operator then decides it does not want to do it?
I feel that one or two of my colleagues have been getting at me about bicycle lanes—which is quite reasonable. The share of road space between these different needs is part of work which I hope my noble friend will be looking at. I was cycling around Germany about a year ago on something called a cycle lane. There was a bus lane next to it and a footpath on the other side. The cars ended up in one of four lanes and they were quite happy with that. People were obeying the law. Of course, the other side of it was that there was some enforcement, but this needs to be looked at again.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, talked about buses going down the Embankment. I do not think there has ever been a scheduled service on the Embankment since they took the tramlines out. There are lots of buses on it, but they are full of people who are looking at the sights. The cycle lane is fantastic. It is so heavily used that it is actually becoming slightly frightening in the rush hour.
This is a great Bill, and I am sure we are going to have lots of issues to talk about in Committee. My final question to my noble friend the Minister is: what happens if people living in the countryside manage to create a local transport authority from their local authority and it does not do what they think it should do? The easy answer is that people can get back in their car, if they have one—which is a very stupid statement; pardon me. However, they could elect a different group of people from whatever party at the next local election: people who actually subscribe not only to the bus Bill but to some of the other issues we have been talking about—such as lower fares, greater frequency, and reliability—and try to get timetables for buses and trains that actually talk to each other, and try to make it work. This is what Lord Prescott and my noble friend Lord Whitty were trying to do 20 years ago. Then, hopefully, people will leave their cars at home and use public transport.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I want start by echoing the many tributes to our friend and colleague Baroness Randerson, who died so suddenly last weekend. She and I came into your Lordships’ House at the same time, but we had known each other through Liberal and Liberal Democrat politics and gatherings for many years before that. Her commitment to her roles as a Minister in the Welsh Assembly/Senedd, then as a Minister in the coalition Government and, more recently, as a transport spokeswoman for the party was always evident. Her research was broad and deep, her contacts enviable and her knowledge of her topics revelatory. She combined all that with a delightful, practical way that always made working with her a pleasure, whichever side of the House you came from. She is already sorely missed. I want to send love and support to her family and many friends.
It was typical of Jenny that she was working last week, having various conversations with those of us on these Benches speaking today. Thus we are, despite our grief, well prepared because of her as our team leader. It is a pleasure to echo my noble friend Lady Pidgeon’s opening comments—of which I think she would have approved—that, while there is much to commend in the Bill, there are matters that we want to question the Minister about, and we may want to lay some probing amendments in Committee to enable us to have a fuller debate.
I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and thank those who sent us briefings, including the Library. I also thank the Minister for meeting some of us to discuss the Bill.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He raised the question of what a bus is. I notice that he omitted rural postbuses. I used to love my Highlands postbuses; they were not very frequent, but at least you knew when they would come past in the most rural communities. I have seen some of them in France, too. I want also to raise the issue of guided buses. I was on Cambridgeshire County Council when the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway was planned, and some—ahem—years on, it is successful, using part of a disused rail line. It is always full, with people using it as a fast way to commute into Cambridge because the busy roads around it are quite difficult.
My noble friend Lady Pinnock reminded us of the history of deregulation of the bus services. What is happening here is also a delayering of the complexities, which is helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, and others talked about the problems of rural bus services. The rural model is absolutely not the same as the urban. If the Minister takes one thing away from this Second Reading debate, it should be that, because so many noble Lords raised it. Can he say how the Government plan to deal with that problem? The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was right to focus on universal Oyster-type cards. As they are becoming rather old hat these days, I wonder whether new technologies might be a route to doing that. They might also be able to help with concessionary cards, which tend to be quite limited in areas for very particular specialist local types.
It was good to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of the Green manifesto commitment to bus services. I hope that she is encouraged that, from all parts of this House, we have all aspired to much of what her party’s manifesto said.
On Clause 9, can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that an “approved person”—which will replace the word “auditor” in the Transport Act 2000—has the right qualifications and membership of a regulatory body, if appropriate. We are talking about public money here—I think that the Minister talked about large grants going to either local government or via other routes. The “auditor” had a well-known and understood qualification and level of skill, so will there be any other deregulatory actions that will result in unintended consequences? He knows this, because I raised it with him when we met, but one of the unintended consequences of deregulating and changing the qualifications relating to fire protection inspections was that fire doors failed during the Grenfell Tower fire—and many others—because the standards had gone with the deregulation. This is not a safety issue, but, where public money is being spent, it is very important that the Government and the public can be assured that it is good value for money.
Can the Minister confirm that Clause 11—the amending of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023, SI 2023/1369—complies in its entirety with the Procurement Act 2023? Clause 11 simplifies the direct award of bus contracts to incumbent operators. I understand that this is only a temporary arrangement, but it could last up to five years, and that is a long time to have something that may not comply. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.
My noble friends Lady Pidgeon and Lady Pinnock raised the important issue of how real devolution is to local areas. The latter asked a very key question about the ambition of government. Is it universal across the country? If so, will enhanced resources come with enhanced partnership plans? I suspect that this is one of the areas that we may return to during the passage of the Bill. Powers with no funding are not real powers, and they will fail. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is also right that a multiyear funding settlement is absolutely essential. Local government has been asking for that from Governments of many political colours for many years.
Noble Lords mentioned the increase of the fare from £2 to £3, and affordable fares are certainly vital. Travelling in Vilnius recently, it cost me less than €1 for 60 minutes on the bus system. You can get 24 hours for €3.50, and for 240 hours it was €12. Technology tells when you check in and check out, so it is not an elapsed time; it is the actual time that you are travelling, and it stops calculating it when you stop travelling. Why does that work in Vilnius? The roads are empty, because the buses are so cheap and so reliable that everyone relies on them. I do not think that the UK bus market is anything like that now, but would it not be good if we could aspire to that?
Clause 19 adds provisions to the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. From these Benches, we welcome the publication of bus statistics to mirror those used in the rail sector. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked whether that would include safety information. That is an excellent idea, because it is amazing how behaviour changes when data is collected. I suspect that driver training, by being refreshed, would improve, too. I also want to know whether assistance data—easily obtainable these days because of the assistance apps that rail staff now use—can provide a lot of that data, including the mode of assistance required.
I am so delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wants Clause 22, on floating islands and bus stops, to be strengthened. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, omitted to mention that there are also problems for disabled people in his list of the problems with traffic islands between cycle lanes and the main highway. One joy I have on an island that I get off at regularly is that there is some random street furniture. If the bus driver does not line up exactly, when I am on a steep ramp coming off a bus, I cannot stop at the bottom. So I have to try to whizz round to the side of the street furniture to avoid crashing into it. Frankly, much more worrying are those islands where, if you keep whizzing, you can go straight into the cycle lane, which is a danger to you as well as to cyclists. A moratorium would be good until we can work out what should happen.
Clause 22, on guidance for the safety of bus stopping places, is not strong enough. In subsections (1), (2) and (3), the word “may” is used. A Secretary of State may choose not to do it, and the guidance appears not to be statutory, so bus franchisees could choose to ignore it. Can the Minister explain why “may” is used here, and why the Government would not want the safety of disabled people to be stronger?
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, raised the important point about accessibility at bus stops. While they are not as dangerous as islands, it is very frustrating being unable to use a bus shelter because there is not enough space on the pavement for a wheelchair to get into the bus shelter. As my noble friend Lady Harris said, children with special educational needs and disabilities are being affected in North Yorkshire. The statistics she cited were shocking. In addition to the question she asked the Minister, I ask: will he agree to meet his education counterpart? It seems that what she described is an absolute breach of the Children and Families Act arrangements for making statements for children with special educational needs. It was always intended that those travelling to and from special schools and special provision would not have to pay for it, because it is often so far away.
Clauses 24 and 25 cover the rights of bus and coach drivers, but only in the context of ensuring that staff are trained. Clause 24 deals with anti-social behaviour. I was somewhat surprised at the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, deeming it unnecessary, along with other oversight mechanisms, saying that he would come back to this and that it would be good to have a debate in Committee about this. Disability awareness is not the same as the rights of disabled people under the Equality Act 2010. That is clear from this Bill and from the Supreme Court judgment in 2016, brought and won by the wonderful disability campaigner Doug Paulley, where the vehicle to ensure accessibility—I do not mean vehicle in the sense of with wheels; I mean the legislative vehicle—for disabled people was enacted through bus driver regulations. They are not the same thing. The entire power rests with the bus driver, and I am afraid some of them treat disabled people raising issues as anti-social behaviour—I have had it in the last couple of weeks—because anti-social behaviour is part of the same regulation, and therefore I suspect it is part of the same training as driver training.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, referred to audio on buses. We need to remember that it is not yet universal, even in London. There is one bus route I use regularly, where I have to sit in a wheelchair space in reverse and there is no audio. It is potluck if you get off in time. Can the Minister say why the Government have not chosen to follow their own example in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill that your Lordships’ House debated in the autumn? I hope that they are prepared to consider that the Equality Act 2010 is added specifically.
In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was right in saying that we need a revolution in bus services in rural areas and towns. It is important that we address accessibility and rights—including, by the way, the drivers’ rights, which other people have spoken about. We need to make sure that the new franchise systems are value for money, truly accountable and truly devolved. From these Benches, we are looking forward to the next stages of the Bill and to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult—in fact, impossible, really—for me to add meaningfully at this stage to the many personal and emotional tributes that have been paid by noble Lords to the late Baroness Randerson. I knew her since I entered the House, but only rather distantly as a figure who spoke authoritatively and compellingly from the Liberal Democrat Benches on the subject of transport. But over the last few months, as I have taken on this role, I have had the opportunity of getting to know her better. Indeed, if I may say so, I developed over that period a degree of affection for her rather shrewd sense of humour. Others know her a great deal better than I ever achieved, and I regret that I shall not have the opportunity to develop the growing personal regard that I had for her. We shall miss her very much.
I thank the Minister and his officials for the time that they have given to briefing me on this Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
I turn to the Bill itself. Over Christmas, I had a message from a foreign friend asking me what it was like living in a socialist paradise, which led me to reflect a little on the nature of the Government. What strikes me about the Government, and it is present here again, is not really their socialism, though there is a degree of that; it is the fact that they are a Government who are almost solely and utterly focused on the public sector. The public sector is the solution to everything, and of course the policies of the public sector unions are determinative. So it is that we come to what is, in essence, a public sector Bill that is fundamentally driven by a rather narrow ideological approach. It is statist and anti-enterprise. It is also mildly nostalgic and backward-looking—a sort of return to the Attlee Government is essentially what we are being offered today.
Our first objection to the Bill, therefore, is that it is bureaucratic. It is anti-enterprise and, through franchising, it is likely effectively to snuff out a number of private sector businesses, which will be reduced to becoming not entrepreneurial entities at all but merely agencies of the state, operating to a fee and doing what the state instructs them to do in terms of routes, services and charging the fares that the state, through the local transport authorities, has set for them.
The Minister knows, from his time as the owner of a private bus company, the benefits to passenger service of private businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, and my noble friend Lord McLoughlin drew attention to the decline in passenger numbers, and the implication that certain noble Lords appear to draw is that it is a consequence of private provision. The same noble Lords, however, do not give credit to the private sector for the massive increase in usage of railways under privatisation. In that case they are probably right as well, to some degree. The point is that both bus and rail demand are subject to stronger fundamental forces. That is the fundamental problem that the Government have in trying to revive the sort of 1950s vision of bus services that we see in this Bill.
The fact is that in the case of rail, the Government hope to benefit from a secular rise in demand for rail passenger services. In the case of buses, they can hope only to prop up what is in fact a secular fall, a decline, in demand for bus services. A number of noble Lords have pointed out that that is very expensive to do. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, gave some illustrations of how expensive it might be. It is a random example and many examples were developed, but one of the first examples given in the debate was by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who referred to North Shropshire and the cuts in services there. Does anyone really imagine that those cuts can be reversed and restored without heavy public expenditure?
The Government’s chosen case studies, of which they are so proud, include London and Manchester. Going back to November 2024, shortly before her political demise, the former Secretary of State, Louise Haigh, wrote in the Sunday Mirror about London:
“This represents record capital investment to the majority of places and a once-in-a-generation reform plan that aims to deliver London-style buses to every corner of the country—including those areas that are usually overlooked”.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, said it would cost £850 million a year to sustain London buses. The figure I have is £738 million a year in 2024 but we are in, as the Americans say, the same ballpark. If I may be so bold as to disagree with such an experienced transport commentator as my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, there has in fact been a reduction in bus mileage in London of approximately 5% under the current mayor. There was a plan to reduce it by 7%. I do not think the full 7% was delivered, but it was certainly of the order of 5%. This is palpable to those of us who live in or close to central London in particular. In the case of Manchester, the Bee Network celebrated its first year of franchised bus services in September 2024. Passenger journeys in Greater Manchester grew by 5% in the first year of franchising.
By contrast, however, in the year ending March 2024—I agree this is not exactly the same period, but it is the best overlap I can get—national bus passenger numbers grew by 7%, and those figures are taken from the Department for Transport’s official statistics. I might say also in the context of secular decline that that also illustrates how little can be learned from simply looking at one year’s figures. The idea that Manchester demonstrates a huge success—outstanding, apart from the rest of the country—because of franchising needs to be substantiated. It is not necessarily very persuasive on the numbers given. As my noble friend Lord Effingham pointed out, the establishment of the Greater Manchester Bee Network required over £1 billion of central government investment. If you are spending the thick end of £1 billion a year sustaining the London bus network, you might regard a one-off payment of £1 billion to Manchester as mere small change, but replicate that around the country and you will eventually be looking at real numbers. The upshot is that any promise by the Government to give London-style bus services to the whole of the country is essentially a chimera. It is a bogus offer that the Government cannot afford to deliver.
Let us turn briefly to passengers, which is my next topic, if we move away from costs. We argued forcefully when we debated the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill that the focus of the Bill, its overriding purpose, should be to improve passenger services. It was, after all, a Bill—now an Act—about passenger services on the railway. However, the Government resisted that and overturned it in the other place. Similarly, this Bill makes no commitment to an improvement in services for bus passengers. It simply hopes that by making structural and procurement changes it will somehow achieve that. It has no overall duty on the Secretary of State to seek to improve passenger services. It says simply that perhaps the Secretary of State should.
Is the Bill going to work? In its manifesto, the Labour Party committed to reform the system for procuring bus services and to give local leaders new powers. The reality of the Bill is that the Government are not really giving local leaders new powers, but simply removing the Department for Transport’s role in confirming the appropriateness of franchising in other areas. It is our view that the Government’s decision to remove the Secretary of State’s discretionary power to grant franchising powers to local authorities risks too much, and we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to intervene where a local authority’s franchising model is failing, as a safeguard to protect services for local people where local leadership is poor.
It is essential to understand the differences between large concentrations of persons living in an urban area and the structure of a market that exists in rural areas. That was the logic behind the 2017 Act, which gave powers to certain conurbations, in effect, to franchise or take more control of their own buses but to deny them elsewhere. Extending that power throughout the whole country is, I am afraid, to take a chance and offer a bogus prospectus to the public. The vast majority of local transport authorities will not have the skills to plan routes, assess demand, set fares and introduce a ticketing system, No doubt we will be told that the Bus Centre of Excellence will be deployed to help them. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when he responds how many people are employed by the Bus Centre of Excellence. As other noble Lords have said, the consequence is that the Bill has no answer to the needs of rural communities.
We believe that some subsidiary elements of the Bill are welcome—for example, closing the loophole in the safeguarding of children who are being transported to school on independent school bus services—but we have other concerns, which I will briefly run through, because we will have an opportunity to discuss them further in Committee.
The first is the relative silence of the Bill on ticketing, which is remarkable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is always ahead of the game, said—to the rather older Members of the House, perhaps—Oyster cards are not where it’s at any more. Contactless payment, at the very least, is what one should be looking at, rather than a bespoke Oyster card-type system. But it is remarkable how little the Bill has to say about that and, as she said, about the ability to deploy that payment method outside a particular local transport area. Where is the Bill taking us on that; what do the Government have in mind?
Data collection is very important, but more important is its dissemination. In London, the data collected by Transport for London is available free to all app developers. Do the Government intend the same with the data collected nationally; or is it, heaven forfend, the secret plan of the Department for Transport to develop its own app to disseminate this on an exclusive basis? I think we would like to know.
The training of bus drivers in relation to disability in particular is very important, but as the Minister knows, because I have expressed this to him privately, I am concerned about the implications of the passage in the Bill on drivers being trained to tackle anti-social behaviour and potentially violent activity. It is my very clear view—and I suspect it is, on reflection, his—that it is not right for the public to expect bus drivers to put themselves at risk in order to confront incidents that the police would tackle by deploying two, three or four uniformed officers. We have to be very realistic about this, and we will want to explore the issue when the Bill is in Committee.
Safety is of course terribly important, as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, made clear. It is worth asking to what extent the franchise model contributes to a sort of aggressive bus management that might lead to buses being driven less safely than might otherwise be the case. I said earlier that the Bill has a sort of nostalgic “back to Attlee” flavour to it. One way of illustrating that is that it completely fails to mention anything to do with demand-led transport. The Bill very much envisages a fixed-route, traditional bus service but in fact, in many rural areas demand-led transport might well be and is already proving to be a much more effective way of providing affordable services to communities. The Bill as it stands contains almost no provision for that and makes no reference to it; it will be interesting to see how that fits with the franchising system.
I will conclude. This is an ideologically driven, backward-looking, bureaucratic and expensive Bill. We, for our part on these Benches, shall do our best to improve it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who have engaged in today’s lively debate on the Bill. I have listened carefully and with much interest to the excellent points being raised across your Lordships’ House. I will attempt to respond to some but not half as many questions and concerns as I would like to because of the time. We also have Committee, in which we can explore many of these issues in greater detail. In the meantime, I will follow up where I can as soon as I can on some of the issues that I cannot mention now.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his introduction, much of which was covered by what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just said, but I will say one or two things to him in passing. First, on the notion that bus fares increased by 50% from £2 to £3, it is of course a calculation that bus fares of £2 increased to £3, but many passengers do not travel on individual tickets. Also, as the industry trade body said, for the 26% of passengers who travel on individual tickets many fares for shorter journeys remain below £3. The cost of franchising in Manchester is not £1 billion; it actually cost, on a one-off basis, £135 million, much of that paid for by Greater Manchester itself. One of the reasons why it cost so much money is because it took six years, as the process was so convoluted. A clear aim of this Bill is to make franchising easier.
Also, as a point of issue, it is not only electric buses that get recalled by manufacturers. As a bus operator, I can tell your Lordships of many circumstances in which buses have rightly been recalled for safety reasons. I think it is inevitable that zero-emission buses will take over in future, and the Bill seeks to ensure that the industry recognises that. However, he is right in referring to a one-team ethos; I am not entirely sure that that sentiment was reflected in what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, just said, but we will do our best to get a good Bill out of this, I am sure, and I welcome that sentiment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her really helpful remarks. The devolution of funding and the statutory guidance given by the Secretary of State, under new Section 154A, we will debate in Committee. It is not the intention to apparently devolve funding and then put on such rules that in fact it is not really devolved. The intention of the Bill is to allow a much greater level of freedom for local transport authorities than they have had. It is also the intention of the Government in due course to streamline the funding streams above that. I recognise that point completely. Frankly, I am as confused as some noble Lords about how many streams there are. The noble Baroness mentioned some of them, and that would be better, but actually the result of this Bill is that to make it much easier at the point at which the money is distributed, which must be the right thing.
I recognise the points about young people’s fares. There are already local transport authorities that give concessions to young people, and nothing in this Bill will prevent that. The wider point, which we will come to again and again with this Bill, is that this is designed to give local transport authorities more freedom. A number of noble Lords have referred to that this afternoon and this evening. It is the right thing to do because buses are a local service, not a national service. I will come back to the specific remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at the end, but the clear intention of this Bill is to allow local transport authorities to decide what methodology of providing a service is best for them and then to do it.
I was much heartened by hearing that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, a former Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, welcomed multiyear funding. I will reflect with my colleagues in government on what his experience is of that. We have to wait for the Spring Statement to know what this Government are able to do in the straitened financial circumstances that they find themselves.
The noble Lord and other noble Lords have referred to open data, and I can certainly commit to the fact that open data is the intention of this Bill and of the Government. The intention of open data, reflecting the recent point by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is that it should be free. That is the right thing to do. If you want public transport usage to increase, the data should be available. I have a rather good story to tell the House about open data. At Transport for London, we searched for the person who developed the best open data app for the Underground. I said that I would like to see that person. It turned out that they worked for a bank in Melbourne, and it was not immediately possible for them to turn up in my office. However, it is a really important point.
The noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Hampton, and others, referred to integrated ticketing. I will write to them about that. It is obviously the intention to have integrated ticketing. One of the attractions of franchising is that it enables that to happen. One of the weaknesses of commercial bus provision outside London is the degree to which individual operators would rather offer that technology but only on their own buses, whereas the public and passengers want it to be available on every bus. I know that my noble friend Lady Blake has some experience of that from Leeds and West Yorkshire. It is obviously desirable for passengers, particularly in urban areas, to be able to use any bus and for the ticketing system to be consistent.
A number of noble Lords referred to training. There is already mandatory training for bus drivers. The intention of this Bill is to specify further mandatory training but to deliver it within that regime, which I think is absolutely right. A number of noble Lords referred also to the roads on which buses operate. It is quite right that the reliability and indeed the economics of bus operation are vastly altered by the existence of congestion and the ability of buses to get through traffic, whether through bus lanes or other things. One of the most notable things about the Manchester franchising is that a consequence of putting some of the bus service into the control of the Mayor of Greater Manchester, then to be reflected in the local transport authority, was that a vastly increased focus was immediately available on, for example, getting rid of temporary traffic lights and straightening out traffic management. There have been references this afternoon and this evening to what help can be given to local transport authorities that wish to engage in franchising. The Bus Centre of Excellence has been mentioned. It does not need full-time employees but for advice to be available when needed. One of the features of that is to give advice on traffic management so that buses can take their appropriate place in transporting passengers in local areas.
It is always a delight to hear from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin. He has made some excellent decisions in his time, including appointing me as the chair of Network Rail, though my wife was not similarly impressed by that appointment. Many of the points that he raised are obviously germane, in particular on the very sharp decline in passenger numbers in the north of England. He said that one size does not fit all, and he is absolutely right—I think that is much more to his point. This Bill enables local transport authorities in cities, towns and rural areas to choose the best way of going forward. It is not necessarily franchising. Even if it is franchising, it is not necessarily on whole routes. Some of it is about franchising in particular areas where a franchise mechanism might produce better public services. The Government do not want to dictate whether you should have a franchise; they want local transport authorities to use the best mechanisms that they can.
It was a delight to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and even better to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is recovering. I look forward to seeing her in her place. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a number of questions that will have to be answered either in Committee or in correspondence. She referred particularly to recovering lost routes. One of the real sadnesses of the last several years is that some bus funding has been available to start new bus routes when the old ones ceased, because they were not able to be funded through that arrangement. But it is better if routes are not stopped and then started again because, in the course of that, you can lose a lot of patronage.
The noble Baroness mentioned South Yorkshire. I can tell her that the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority has completed a franchising assessment, and the consultation on its scheme closes on 15 January.
I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I had an exchange with her previously about the circumstances in North Yorkshire that she raised, and her concerns are known to the Government. I am also aware of a petition tabled to Parliament from a Member for the area in the other place, and my colleagues in the Department for Education will respond to that shortly. I note, out of interest, that North Yorkshire is a Conservative council.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, referred to matters including the cost of zero-emission buses. One of the reasons for the Bill proposing both an effective ban on non-zero emission vehicles and the date of 2030 is that, as he knows as an experienced bus person, the cost of zero-emission and hybrid vehicles has gone down. The intention is to support sales, which this and the previous Government have strongly supported through funding to bring down the cost of those vehicles, such that they will be available and economical to run when that time comes.
A lot of points were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about bus services, many of which were germane. I have no doubt that we will discuss them in Committee. She asked whether I agree that, as local transport authorities have or will get more responsibility, more councillors should be involved. I am not sure that it is my job to decide that but, as has been mentioned before, help might be needed with some of these arrangements. I know—actually, it is quite well known—that the quality of passenger transport in local transport authorities depends on their having expertise. On that matter, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. One of the purposes of the Bill is to set out the choices, and the department is putting money and resource aside to help people make the right choices and institute them successfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised several issues about safety. I will consider the points that he and others have raised about whether safety data should be collected. I will certainly write to the noble Lord and I have no doubt that those matters will be raised in Committee.
I do not drive passenger service vehicles in service very often now, but my technique in keeping time was always secondary to road safety. My belief is that that is still widely true in the bus industry, if only because of financial reasons, because bus operators, and for that matter local transport authorities that choose to operate buses, will always be subject to the costs of insurance. We will have a further look at driver welfare and will no doubt discuss it. The noble Lord also raised data sharing, to which I have already referred.
It was extraordinarily kind of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to refer to London 2012, which now seems quite a long time ago.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It was a long time ago; the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and I completely agree. I wanted only to say that I do not claim particular credit for it; if you lead a team, you should give credit to the team that you lead and not take it all yourself.
The noble Lord’s more important points were about inclusion and accessibility. I absolutely recognise the points he made about the accessibility of the bus service to people with disabilities. I note his contention that Clause 22 does not go far enough, but I promise—and I am sure we will discuss it in Committee—to look at the degree and extent to which this clause can answer his points. He must be able to see that the intention of Clause 22 is to improve bus stopping areas and for the Secretary of State to give some guidance, which ought to be mandatorily taken into regard by local transport and highway authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised points about community control and who is in control. As I said, the point of this is to return control to local transport authorities. He also raised a question, which he largely answered, about what happens if local transport authorities do not do their job. One would hope that the citizens of the local transport authority would vote them out for not doing their job. That is the remedy. I do not think that the Secretary of State coming down on local transport authorities like a ton of bricks is a satisfactory alternative; we want to return control to the people who should rightly have it.
Incidentally, there have been bus routes down the Embankment since the trains went. I used to travel on route 109, but it does not go there any more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also raised some important points on the Bill. She raised Clause 9 on approved persons, which we will discuss in Committee. The intention is not to deregulate approved persons but to widen the range of them. I completely agree with her that they should have some qualifications. An unqualified person should not be able to make a judgment about whether a franchising scheme is right.
The noble Baroness asked whether Clause 11 complies with the procurement regulations. I am advised that I am able to tell her that it does.
The noble Baroness welcomed Clause 19 and referred to assistance data. I will take that away and see what can be done. Bringing data on bus service usage into the 21st century is quite important and I am sympathetic to the idea that, as long as it is not a burden to bus operators, or indeed local transport authorities, collecting data is the right thing to do, so that we know what is going on.
I note very clearly the noble Baroness’s comments on Clauses 24 and 25, that diversity training is not the same as the rights for disabled people, and on what we did, with her great assistance, in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, referring to the Equality Act. I will go away and reflect on that.
Lastly, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has some extraordinary views about socialist paradises and returning to the era of the Attlee Government. I find it particularly extraordinary because I know that the noble Lord has such a strong view about the autonomy of local authorities. The Bill intends to return bus services to the autonomy of local authorities and for the Secretary of State not to intervene so much in the provision of services.
I have to tell the noble Lord that there is currently a huge disparity in the provision of bus services across Britain. I was not only responsible for the bus service in London, as he knows, but, for a measurable length of time, I was responsible for the bus services in what was laughingly called south-east England but apparently included Norfolk, Northampton, Leicester and Southampton. Even within one bus group, 20 years ago, there was an extraordinary variation in the provision of services and the extent to which bus operators sought to maximise the network and the return on it, or cut off individual journeys, to the extent to which some towns and cities in Britain find themselves short of or even without bus services after 7 pm and on Sundays.
I think I know roughly how to run a bus network, and one of the things you should do, which is the feature of the best bus services run by the private companies outside London—I can mention some places, but I will not—is to seek to service the network and to take people to school, hospital, work, leisure and home. It is in those places where those services have drifted away that something else needs to be done.
That is also true of rural services. The noble Lord alleged, quite wrongly, that the Bill does not deal with demand-responsive transport. It very much does—that is one of the remedies open to local transport authorities, as it should be. It is not a particularly cheap methodology but it is there to be used and, in fact, there are some startlingly good examples of it. He refers to it as though it is an urban feature but his own Government instituted an experimental regime in Cornwall, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, knows, has produced rather a good bus service in Cornwall by having features of Cornwall Council’s activities that amount to franchising in the same way that the Bill will allow to happen.
I have come to the end of my allotted time. There is a limit to what I can answer here. As I set out earlier, the Bill is primarily about empowering local leaders wherever they are. It is a privilege to bring this forward to your Lordships’ House for Second Reading. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s debate. I welcome the support of those who have spoken in favour of the Bill’s measures and look forward to continuing the debate on the Bill in Grand Committee.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule, Clauses 11 to 31, Title.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 28th January 2025
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 54-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (24 Jan 2025)
The Earl of Effingham
“Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the amendment standing in my name seeks to insert a new clause into the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill explicitly setting out its purpose; namely, improving the performance and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain. It is imperative that we make this purpose clear, not just for the sake of the Bill’s integrity but because the millions of passengers relying on buses need action in addition to words.
As many noble Lords know, bus services are a vital lifeline for millions of people, connecting communities, supporting local economies and reducing congestion and emissions. However, we also recognise that in many areas the services are not meeting the needs of passengers. The Bill seeks to address those challenges and shortcomings, and this amendment seeks to ensure that the overarching aim of improving bus services remains at the heart of all decisions undertaken in its provisions. By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to this purpose, we are embedding into this legislation a commitment to improve bus services. This is not a mere formality; it is about setting a clear duty on the Secretary of State to put the improvement of bus services at the core of any decisions he or she makes under this legislation.
As we consider the purpose of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, I draw the attention of the Committee to a recent report prepared by KPMG in conjunction with the Confederation of Passenger Transport. This report underscores the vital economic, social and connectivity benefits that local bus services deliver across the United Kingdom. The findings are compelling. The bus sector contributes a staggering £11.3 billion annually to our economy, supporting 105,000 jobs directly and an additional 53,000 jobs in the supply chain. Beyond this, the ripple effects of bus services are profound, as bus passengers spend nearly £40 billion each year in our high streets, cafes, restaurants and leisure destinations.
For rural communities, which we will discuss in future days in Committee, buses are nothing less than an absolute lifeline. Over 680 million journeys per year begin in rural areas, where buses are often the sole form of public transport, providing critical access to jobs, education and essential services. Those passengers contribute £7.1 billion to local economies, while the availability of bus services supports £1.6 billion in economic benefits through improved connectivity and affordable travel. Please let us not overlook the societal benefits. Reducing social isolation, supporting volunteerism and ensuring access to healthcare generate an additional £500 million in wider societal benefits annually in rural areas alone.
These figures remind us that buses are far more than just a mode of transport. They are an engine for economic growth, a bridge to opportunity and a force for social cohesion. They also underscore why it is essential to ensure that the purpose of this legislation is clear and focused on the improvement of performance and quality in bus services.
However, I am concerned that the Government, in their haste to overhaul the system, are pushing us back to a pre-1980s model without providing any firm evidence that this will actually work in the context of modern Britain. The Government’s proposed measures lack the necessary data, analysis or proof that they will lead to real, tangible improvements in bus services. If this Bill is not a case of “public sector ownership is good versus private sector ownership is bad”, the burden must be on the Government to provide the evidence that their approach will deliver the outcomes that they promise. This is a move that forces a one-size-fits-all approach to our bus services, a model that fails to recognise the nuances of different regions and communities across the country. We cannot simply take the London model, a model for a city of 8 million people, and attempt to shoehorn it into every other part of the country without considering the vastly different needs of those areas. The assumption that what works in one city will work everywhere else must be challenged with a laser focus.
We have to ask why the Government are pushing for this. Why remove the Secretary of State’s oversight and impose a one-size-fits-all solution without taking the time to understand the specific needs of each area? Why assume that regional authorities, some of which, as they have said, have far less experience in managing transport systems, will be able to execute a franchise model as successfully as London?
It is worth noting that, not long ago, we anticipated that this legislation might carry the name “Better Buses Bill”, and while the name has since changed, I do not believe that this reflects any attempt by the Government to shy away from their commitment to improving bus services. On the contrary, I trust that the Minister, like all of us here in the Moses Room and beyond, is firmly committed to the goal of creating an efficient and affordable bus network that meets the needs of passengers across Great Britain, but there is nothing in the Bill that reflects that. That is why we are seeking to insert this unequivocal duty, so that all current and future Ministers put the improvement of bus services first.
Allow me to be crystal clear: this amendment is not about creating unnecessary bureaucracy—far from it. It is about ensuring that the Bill’s intent is explicit from the outset. The amendment would not impose any burdensome process or stand in the way of progress. Rather, it simply sets out the overall purpose of the Bill; namely, improving bus services. By doing so, we will ensure that the focus remains squarely on what matters most: delivering tangible improvements for bus passengers. There is no new red tape, no delays in implementation, just a clear statement that the purpose of the Bill is and always should be the improvement of bus services. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Can I ask the noble Earl whether this is going to be another Bill that the Tories filibuster to the point where the rest of us just want to slit our throats? Is this really going to happen the way it did with the rail Bill? I have had enough; I have other work to do. I have tabled good amendments that I want to see happen sometime soon, so are we going to see a load of nonsense from the Conservatives again? Perhaps the noble Earl can give a clear statement on that.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that in the same way that we saw her speaking to other noble Lords on the previous Bill, when she said this was happening in the Chamber, we should continue with the proceedings and listen to what everyone has to say, which is everyone’s right in this Room.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I will speak only briefly, but I want to raise a particular point with the Minister on which I would like his clarification. What I would say to the noble Baroness who has just spoken is that, having just arrived in this place from the House of Commons, I find it noticeable that the depth of scrutiny of Bills seems to be rather deeper here. In many ways, as a former MP, I regret that, as it should not be like that. It is important that legislation is scrutinised carefully and questions are asked. I think that this House plays a very important role in ensuring that legislation is as good as it possibly can be.
The issue I have to raise with the Minister is the reason I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I worry that ideology may sometimes get in the way of good service. I know that it would not happen in his case—I have the highest respect for the Minister—but I can quote one or two other examples in government, the future of academies, for example, where ideology seems to be treading on the toes of what is best for young people. I would not wish that to happen in the area of transport and buses, and I have misgivings about the Government’s plans to allow the setting-up of municipal bus companies. There is no obvious mechanism to ensure that there is a high-quality case for doing so.
I have also been quite worried about a simple principle. One of the things that has always attracted me to deregulation is the ability of an individual or a group of individuals to decide that the firm they work for is not doing a good job, so they will set one up in competition and do a better job themselves. I see no real reason why a simple clause such as this that places a duty on not just the Minister personally but those who work for him to ensure that the decisions they take, the interactions they have and the things that follow through from this legislation deliver high-quality, better bus services and are not just there for ideological reasons.
My noble friend mentioned London and the concern that certainly exists outside London. What makes London distinctive in bus terms is that it is vastly more subsidised than any other part of the country. I remember as Secretary of State being surprised to discover the level of discrepancy. What we all want is the best possible service. That is why I relaxed the franchising rules five years ago. I cannot see the objection to a simple clause that places a duty on the Minister and the teams who work for him to ensure that every decision taken is the best one for the passenger.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
As we start our detailed examination of this bus legislation, we should not forget that 1.6 billion passenger journeys were made by bus across England outside London in 2023 and that buses are essential for people to get to school, college, work or appointments and to have access to shops and leisure. A good bus service provides wider economic and social benefits for local communities, businesses and public services. As we start our deliberations today in Committee, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches overall welcome this legislation, which is looking to improve bus services, grow the number of passengers using buses and ensure a more reliable network connecting people and places. Our approach is to make improvements to the Bill to tackle the problem that bus services in many communities across the country fall far short of the required standard and level of service. As I stated at Second Reading, this situation must change. Reliable public transport is not a luxury. It is a necessity, especially for those who are most vulnerable.
Amendment 1 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely, to improve the performance and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain. It is similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, to the public ownership of the railways legislation last autumn. At face value, it is impossible to disagree with this statement. It is fundamental to this legislation and the range of areas covered in it that this is about improving bus services across the country, rather like the rail legislation was the Government’s first response to improving our railways. In many parts of the country, our bus services have reached a crisis point and, indeed, are virtually non-existent. Therefore, improved performance and quality of bus passenger services must surely be the clear aim of this legislation. This amendment would make it clear that the primary, but not the only, purpose of the Bill is to improve the performance and quality of services.
My Amendment 52, in the third group, would place a broad duty on authorities to promote bus services in their jurisdiction, with a lot of detail regarding measures to consider. A report every two years covers the point about improvement to services and, in my view, deals with this issue in a more comprehensive and devolved manner, which is much better suited to this legislation.
The comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, about one size fits all do not reflect the legislation before us today, which provides a range of options for local transport authorities to choose the best option for their area and community. This is not about putting the London bus model across the country; it is about using whichever model suits local areas. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will respond to this amendment, how they interpret these words and, if they do not support them, whether they have other words that they may bring forward instead.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, first, I apologise for not being present at Second Reading and not supplying explanatory statements for my many amendments. It was all finalised at short notice, at the last minute. I rise to speak to Amendments 75 and 76 in my name.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, if the noble Lord could wait until that particular group comes up, that would be appreciated. We are currently on the first group, which deals with Amendment 1 only. The noble Lord’s amendments will come up later in our proceedings.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, in looking at Amendment 1 and hearing the speeches on it, especially from the noble Lord who proposed it, I ask: what is the point of this amendment? It seems to me to be motherhood and apple pie and nothing much else. You can interpret the phrase “performance and quality” however you want—no doubt many noble Lords will link that phrase to some amendments that they will move or speak to later—but I really do not see it. Here is a Bill to improve passenger services and quality, clearly, but the noble Lord wishes to put in an amendment: Amendment 1. We will probably spend half an hour talking about it, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister has an answer as to why he does or does not like it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group after my noble friend Lord Effingham spoke, but I am prompted to do so by an earlier intervention.
It is very important that, when you make a large change, as is proposed here—the Government will claim that this is a significant change, I think, and rightly so—you are clear about what you are trying to achieve. We might assume that everyone wants better buses and so ask why there is a need to say it, but you need to be clear about what you are trying to achieve. Of course everyone wants better buses, but what actually constitutes better buses? When the railways were nationalised, everybody wanted better railways. They did not necessarily imagine that, in the 1960s, that would involve slashing nearly all the branch lines in the country and making a dramatic change to the way in which the railways operated by cutting them back.
I am in some sense trying to help the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, with his question on the purpose of the amendment. There is also a further question: if you have an objective, who is to be held to account for that objective? This seeks to hold the Secretary of State firmly to account and put him at the centre of the chain of being responsible for this Bill.
It seems to me that there is nothing else in the text of the Bill that explicitly puts passengers, passenger needs and the quality of the service they receive at its heart. I think that there would be great benefit in doing so. We know that the Government and local transport authorities are responsible to multiple stakeholders—not only the users of their services but their workers, trade unions, local electors and so on. They have to balance the large number of needs and demands on them. The amendment says that the requirements of passengers come ahead of those others and that the Secretary of State would be held accountable if the Bill did not work out in improving passenger services. I find it difficult to see, first, why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has difficulty understanding that point and, secondly and perhaps more importantly, why the Minister, should he be moved to resist this amendment, would want to do so.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the first group of amendments relates to the Bill’s purpose. At Second Reading, I set out the need for this Bill and explained why the Government are taking action to transform bus services across England. The Bill provides new powers for local leaders, so that local communities in England have greater control over bus routes and schedules. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their amendment and the opportunity to revisit the Government’s objectives.
Amendment 1 would place a direct requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to improving the performance and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain—in fact, it would make this the statutory purpose of the Bill. I absolutely support the reasons why noble Lords have drafted this amendment: they, too, want to achieve a better bus network that is more reliable and performs well. That is a shared goal. The reason we are here debating this important legislation is to reform the industry.
I recognise the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, about the KPMG report, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, about the benefits of buses to individuals and communities, as well as the inadequacies of the current arrangements. However, I am bound to disagree with the assertion that there is no evidence for the Government’s approach. There is plenty of evidence, some of which we have already talked about, such as the improvements in Manchester and elsewhere, including Cornwall, which is not a large conurbation. I also disagree with the assertion that there is public good and private bad in here. This is a very large menu of choices for local transport authorities. It is certainly not one size fits all.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, observed, during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Gascoigne, tabled a very similar amendment. It sought to insert a purpose clause setting out improvement of passenger railway services as the purpose of that Act. At the time, I explained that the Secretary of State’s and the Government’s wider plans and objectives for the rail network included improving performance but noted that this was not the sole purpose. I offer the Committee the same rationale for this Bill. The amendment to the public ownership Bill was not carried.
Of course the objectives of this Bill include improving reliability and performance. They are important aims, but the Bill seeks to do more. It seeks to improve safety and accessibility, to provide local leaders with the powers to make the right decisions for their local areas, to support reaching net zero and to put passengers at the heart of the Government’s reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, was kind enough to suggest that I would not let ideology triumph over the right solutions. In this case, the Government are not doing that, either.
The Bill contains a range of solutions for local bus issues, which allow local choices for the best solutions and would recognise, in appropriate cases, both the adequate provision of bus services by their existing means, with commercial operators, and the range of solutions, including both large and small operators. To single out one objective would undermine the message that the Government are trying to convey to local authorities, passengers, operators and the wider industry. Thus, I do not support the proposal.
Extending this requirement across Great Britain also presents significant difficulties. The Committee will have noted that most of this Bill extends to England and Wales but applies only in England, with a limited number of clauses that extend and apply to Wales and/or Scotland. In tabling Amendment 1, noble Lords appear to be seeking to apply all the Bill’s measures across the whole of Great Britain. That would raise the potential of cutting across the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Governments to decide how to run their own bus networks and what is best for their local communities. That would not be the right approach. It would mean the UK Government interfering in policy areas where the devolved Administrations categorically do not want that. It also potentially undermines their reform agendas; as some noble Lords will be aware, the Welsh Government are due to introduce their own Bill into the Senedd in the coming months, as they seek to introduce bus franchising.
This amendment would also have significant ramifications on time and resources. Local transport is devolved, so legislative consent Motions would be required. That would potentially slow down the passage of the Bill and the pace of the Government’s reforms, which would be a bad outcome for passengers, who desperately need better bus services now, for the reasons set out by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness earlier. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not want this outcome and therefore hope that this amendment will be withdrawn.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, but I cannot hide the fact that we are disappointed. The former Secretary of State for Transport in the other place, Louise Haigh, stated:
“Reliable, affordable and regular buses are the difference between opportunity and isolation for millions of people across the country”.
She went on to pledge that a Labour Government would empower every community
“to take back control of their bus services, and … support local leaders to deliver better buses, faster”.
Action speaks louder than words and we must see follow- up. That is why we must ensure that the Bill lives up to the expectations of those who rely on bus services every single day.
Promises will do little to help the millions who depend on reliable transport. They need tangible improvements and accountability to be enshrined in this legislation. I believe that placing this explicit duty on the Secretary of State would provide a valuable guiding principle throughout the Bill’s implementation. It would ensure that every step taken under the Bill would be aligned with the objective of improving bus services for all those who rely on them.
I remind all noble Lords that paragraph 1 of the Government’s Explanatory Notes for this Bill states:
“The Bus Services … Bill brings forward primary legislative measures intended to support the government’s commitment to deliver better buses”.
Please may I ask: what better way is there to show commitment to passengers than by committing to this amendment? If the Government do not feel that this purpose clause is necessary for the Bill, can the Minister please explain how they will make clear their wholesale commitment to passengers across the board? On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Lord Goddard of Stockport
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the Government on whether there is no longer any minimum period from which the provisions proposed by a franchising authority may be mobilised.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 2 and support my noble friend Lady Brinton’s Amendment 6, as well as my further amendment in this group, Amendment 12. I am seeking to probe the Government with my amendment as to whether there is no longer a minimum period from which the provisions proposed by a franchising authority may be mobilised.
In layman’s terms, can a local authority vary bus routes quicker than in the provisions for the Bee Network of Greater Manchester? The original term under the law then was six months to vary a bus route. That caused real difficulties for Greater Manchester when it was ready to implement new routes connecting communities, new rural routes, and much needed direct bus routes to, for instance, the specialist cancer hospital in Manchester, The Christie, and Wythenshawe Hospital. This legislation would not allow that to happen, and I seek clarity on whether the Government have acted to remove that anomaly.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 3, 5, 14, 15 and 16, which are supported by my noble friend Lord Effingham. With your Lordships’ permission, I will deal with them more logically than numerically, because they form a sort of logical suite.
The dramatic thing at the heart of the Bill is the possibility of the extension of franchising to all local transport authorities without any need for permission from the Secretary of State. It is true that other models are available, but enhanced bus partnerships already exist and simply making them a little more enhanced—although that might be valuable or lead to some sort of change—is not a dramatic intervention. As for the creation of municipal bus companies, that would be dramatic, but it is not what we are focusing on today. This group of amendments—mine in particular, but the whole group—is focused particularly on franchising, which occupies a large part of the text of the Bill, and understandably so because of the importance of it.
Yet I come back to this question all the time: why do the Government believe that franchising is a model—admittedly, one they are not imposing on any LTA; of course, I grant that—that they are willing to see any LTA, possibly every LTA in the country, adopt without any supervision, by-your-leave or check on the part of the Secretary of State? It is perfectly possible that as this Bill becomes law every LTA in the country goes for a franchising model. I am not saying that is going to happen, but theoretically it could, and nothing would prevent it.
So, the question we come back to, and this is what Amendment 3 is related to, is: why franchising? At the heart of franchising is the notion that a single controlling brain—yes, we are back to similar language to that which we used in relation to the railways Bill that we had before Christmas, but I do not apologise for that because a similar form of thinking is going on in this case—can produce a better service, a more rational service and a more socially friendly service than competition generated by the private sector in response to demand. There are arguments of course on both sides. This argument has been going on, as I think I mentioned in the railways Bill, since at least the 1920s. Our first attempts, or rather our success, in this country at regulating bus services go back to the 1920s with the establishment of the traffic commissioners. After they were established, their permission was needed, up until the 1980s, for any private company to run a bus service. They had to agree the routes and the fares. So we had a single controlling brain, and we went for a privatisation model from the 1980s, but the Government have simply failed to produce any evidence that this is a model that will work in all these LTAs and at a cost that the LTAs can afford without the subsidies that, notably, the Government are not promising.
When we ask for evidence, we are constantly pointed simply to Manchester and Cornwall. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, has of course given an eloquent explanation of how successful that model has been in Manchester, and I do not deny that success. It is possible that other noble Lords with roots in Cornwall will want to explain why the model has been such a success there—I do not know—but that is a very slender evidence base, if we are talking about all the LTAs in the country.
Amendment 3, therefore, is a probing amendment. It allows any private bus company to operate a service without a permit and it goes to the heart of the notion—it strikes a dagger at the heart of the notion—that a single controlling brain is necessary for good public service. It would wreck the franchising model that the Government propose—I admit that frankly—but its purpose today is to give the Government an opportunity to explain more fully why they think it is a perfectly acceptable outcome that franchising should be potentially adopted by every LTA in the country, without any regard to their experience, the size of the local transport authority or any other factor that might differentiate them significantly from Manchester and Cornwall.
With Amendment 15, I come to another point. Let us assume that franchising is okay and the case for it has been made—it has not, but let us assume that and move on, so to speak, logically. The amendment says that, before it embarks on an assessment for introducing franchising, the LTA must set out clear objectives as to what it is trying to achieve. At the moment, the Bill does not require it to do so; it is perfectly possible to embark on a franchising model without setting out for the public or for stakeholders what could be achieved and what is intended to be achieved, as well as what alternative structures and approaches might achieve the same objectives. The amendment would be a genuine improvement to the working of this proposed model because it would bring clarity right at the outset.
To move on in what is, I hope, a fairly logical order, Amendment 5 asks for data on performance and passenger numbers to be collected on a standardised basis across LTAs to tell us what subsidy is being expended per passenger in the operation of the franchising model—should they choose to take it up, of course. They might not do so, I grant you; we have discussed that already. The amendment would also require the setting out of the criteria that the auditors—I am calling them “auditors” while appreciating that the name may change as the pool of resource understandably widens—are to use when assessing the plan put forward by the local transport authority. Again, I think that those two things would be really helpful. We will want that data, and we will want to know that the auditors will be applying clear criteria standardised across the country—not the sole criteria that they will be applying but some criteria that will probably be nationally applicable. Those should be set out by the Government.
That brings us to Amendment 14, which takes us on to the point where the franchising model has been established. The franchise is running, but it is not working. In this Bill, there is no step-in power on the part of the Secretary of State in circumstances where bus services are manifestly deteriorating rather than improving as a result of introducing a franchising model. When this point was tangentially made at Second Reading—I think it was then; it cannot have been anywhere else—the Minister said that, because I had spent a long time in local government, I should somehow stick up for the autonomy of local government. I am perfectly happy to do that up to a point but, at the point at which services are manifestly deteriorating, there should be a power for the Secretary of State to step in. It exists in other respects with local authorities generally. We should have something of that order so that passengers and users of bus services can be protected. I would like to hear why the Minister thinks that that is wholly inappropriate, except on rather histrionic grounds around the autonomy of local government and principles of that character.
Finally, Amendment 16 is intended to provide a degree of stability in the local bus market in the event that a franchising assessment has taken place and been audited but, as a result of the audit, either it has been found wanting or the local transport authority has none the less decided not to proceed for whatever reason. At the moment, there is no limitation on the local transport authority starting the whole process again, if it chooses to do so, almost immediately. If that were the case, why would any private bus company continue to invest in or improve services if the axe, so to speak, could be dropped on it at any moment—that is, with them having gone through a process where they were told that they could carry on but the axe then being dropped again? Amendment 16 would put in a five-year ban on local transport authorities recommencing that assessment process to give some stability to the bus operator or operators in their area.
All these amendments, except for Amendment 3, which I admit is completely probing and would seriously damage the Bill, are good, sensible, practical ways of improving the franchising model that the Government are advancing with such enthusiasm. I very much hope that other Members of the Committee and, indeed, the Minister might want to say that they could support them.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, again I rise briefly to follow my noble friend on these matters and to ask the Minister to give some thought to some of them before we get to Report. I want to return to the issue of ideology. I have never taken an ideological approach to this. That is why we have franchising in Manchester; I legislated for it, and I am very pleased that it has worked. I think that the London model, although it is heavily subsidised, has proved to be very good. I am not convinced that it is viable everywhere in the country. I am very pleased that it works in Cornwall, but I am far from convinced that it would work in Surrey.
The issue is this: the Minister is a respected figure in the transport world, but he is part of a Government who are pretty ideological and part of a party that in local government is pretty ideological. Ultimately, ideology should never take precedence over what is right for the consumer or passenger, but sometimes it does. I shall give him a practical example. I do not believe for a second, outwith being a member of a Labour Government, that he would seriously argue that bringing Chiltern Railways into state control, given how well it has performed over the past 25 years, is genuinely going to lead to a quantum better service for passengers. All I am seeking to do in probing him on this is to ask him, perhaps today or perhaps on Report, to address the question of what the safeguards are if ideology treads on the toes of good service for the passenger. If a decision by a local authority or a mayoral combined authority is genuinely going to provide a negative or uncertain impact for the passenger, there should be at least a duty in the Bill for that franchising authority to have regard to quality and not simply exclude the private sector for ideological reasons because it wants to take buses into a municipal bus company or run it in a particular way. Ultimately, the interests of the passenger should always come first. I seek his reassurance. Perhaps he will give some thought ahead of Report to how he is going to ensure that some of the issues that my noble friend has rightly raised are properly reflected in the legislation so that the customer really will always come first.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
First, I apologise again for my premature interjection earlier. I was given the wrong running order. I should have checked it; I was stupid. I am going to speak to Amendments 7, 17, 18, 19, and 20, which are in my name, and talk about the potential effects on working men and women who run this fantastic service that we all rely on so much.
Although existing legislation extends service notice periods, they are much shorter than the time required to roll out franchising. There is no doubt about that. I believe that procurement of services takes around nine months, followed by a further nine months for mobilisation. Amendment 7 addresses the risk that unsuccessful or unscrupulous operators could run down services prior to new franchises, affecting service continuity and potentially putting members’ jobs at risk. Therefore, will the Minister commit to assessing whether further regulation is needed to ensure service continuity where local transport authorities pursue franchising?
Feedback from those involved in the rollout of franchising in Manchester, the only area outside London yet to implement franchising, is that early and meaningful engagement with trade unions is vital to its success. The Department for Transport has said that it would “expect” all local authorities to engage with trade unions. However, expectations are not enough. Amendment 17 seeks to learn from the experiences of Manchester and ensure that all local authorities take a consultative approach with the unions and have a joint staff forum in place as recommended. This ensures consistency across the country and best possible outcomes for franchising. Will the Minister commit to publishing a code of practice or guidance for local transport authorities to follow as part of the franchise process?
Finally, my Amendments 18, 19 and 20 would strengthen staff protection in areas where local authorities implement franchising. As the Bill reverses the ban on new local authority bus companies, Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that provisions around the transfer of staff apply. There is a risk that bus operators under franchise contracts will seek to drive down pay and conditions in a race to the bottom or employ new starters on inferior pay and conditions.
Amendment 19 proposes that workers’ terms and conditions will be maintained for the duration of the franchise to prevent the creation of a two-tier workforce by ensuring that new staff are not employed on inferior terms. Although TUPE will apply when services transfer to new operators, these regulations need strengthening so that staff are protected not just at the point of transfer but throughout the franchising process.
Amendment 20 would establish that as soon as a local authority launches its franchising consultation, the full coverage of TUPE will apply. Will the Minister commit to bringing forward the regulations or statutory guidance around protections for staff that Amendments 18, 19 and 20 seek to address?
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 61. I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that the Bill is about safety. All my amendments are about safety, but this is the briefest. It is very simple and builds on Amendment 6 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to make sure that those who make these decisions are qualified to do so. My amendment would simply ensure that franchising authorities responsible for the design have the appropriate IOSH and NEBOSH certificates so that they can judge what is and is not safe.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendment 6, which seeks clarification following the debate on changing an “auditor” to an “approved person” in assessing bus franchise schemes. It would ensure that within three months of the Bill becoming an Act, the Government will publish the qualifications required for an approved person under the Act and would also lay a regulation with that information in it prior to the commencement of the clause. This is because Clause 9 amends Section 123D of the Transport Act 2000 to remove “auditor”, a term synonymous with an appropriate level of qualification, registration and probity, with the more generic term “approved person”. An auditor, by contrast, must be a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
The Minister said in response to my noble friend Lady Brinton’s question at Second Reading:
“The intention is not to deregulate approved persons but to widen the range of them. I completely agree with her that they should have some qualifications. An unqualified person should not be able to make a judgment about whether a franchising scheme is right”.—[Official Report, 8/1/25; col. 790.]
The powers and responsibilities of the approved person are significant. Clause 9(2)(1) states:
“A franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, may not proceed with a proposed franchising scheme unless they have obtained a report from an independent approved person on the assessment of the proposed scheme (see section 123B)”.
I understand why the Government would like to broaden the scope of those able to provide assurance that an approved person will have, at the very least, a CIPFA qualification or its equivalent. However, one of the problems of loosening very specific language in previous legislation is that without sight of exactly what the new qualifications are some organisations will take advantage of the new scheme. From these Benches, we would want any new franchise proposal to have been assessed and reported on by a qualified person because this is about significant public money and assurance. On that point, I hope that the Minister can clarify today what qualifications the Government would expect for such a person in order to reassure these Benches.
My noble friend Lord Goddard clearly set out Amendments 2 and 12, which aim to ensure that we learn from the Manchester franchising experience and that best practice is shared more widely, making franchising more dynamic and responsive. Clarity is absolutely needed on whether there is a minimum period from which services or changes to services proposed by a franchising authority may be enacted. I hope the Minister can answer this point and provide much-needed clarity today.
Amendment 61 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, regarding the qualifications needed for officials working in franchising authorities who will be responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchising schemes, is welcome, given that it is important that staff have a clear understanding of health and safety issues. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, raised a number of points linked to employment rights, and I look forward to hearing a response to his specific concerns.
The amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, are a mixed bag, with many seeming, quite frankly, to be trying to put more obstacles in the way of any local transport authority that wishes to introduce franchising. They feel like an ideological response rather than genuine concern about bus service provision across the country. The noble Lord suddenly does not seem to believe in localism. I am not sure that he would have had the same opinion in his previous life as a local councillor and a deputy mayor of London.
If all local transport authorities want to move towards franchising, so be it. This is about devolution and local authorities deciding what suits their local communities. It is highly unlikely that everywhere will move towards franchising, but they should have that option. To want potential intervention from the Secretary of State feels an unnecessary and bureaucratic top-down approach, whereas this is supposed to be a bottom-up approach to bus services. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points raised.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points. I apologise to the Committee that I am Boxing and Coxing with another meeting this afternoon and that I did not table my amendment for today’s Committee. Formally, I support Amendment 17 tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley, but I will put it in a broader context.
The amendment deals with the relationship between franchising companies and franchising authorities and the trade unions, which is vital, but, as I said at Second Reading, we need a provision for planning the workforce of bus services across Britain in the same way that we do in other industries. I say to the Minister and his colleagues that the Government are attempting major reorganisations of several industries—energy, railways, buses—yet in the proposed legislation, there is no clear commitment to forward workforce planning. I would have tabled an amendment to that effect, and I hope that the Government will come forward with that in any of the Bills that I refer to, but particularly this one.
The workforce in buses has declined by 25% over recent years. With all due respect, it is a very skilled but elderly workforce. Not many new people are coming into it. We need a new forward system as part of this Bill and the processes it starts to ensure that there is an adequate workforce-planning dimension. Part of that involves the arrangements with the trade unions, which my noble friend Lord Woodley points out in Amendment 17, but it is broader than that and has to be national as well as local. I hope that before the Bill reaches its final stages it will have a clear strategic commitment to workforce planning for bus services.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, just before the Minister responds, several noble Lords have talked about the bus service in Cornwall, saying how wonderful it is. As many noble Lords know, I live there and I often use the buses. There is nothing particularly special about a service that runs on time, publishes timetables and has bus stops that work. They have managed to persuade somebody—I think the Department of Transport—to enable them to finance a group of double-deck buses for the trunk routes. They are very comfortable and even have conference facilities on the top deck, with tables and things. It is still working very well. I think all that was needed was some officials in Cornwall Council who knew what they were doing, led by a good friend of mine, called Nigel Blackler. He managed to persuade the Government and Ministers at the time that it was a good thing—as Cornwall is geographically long and thin with one railway down the middle and a motorway down the middle and lots of others. It is quite possible to do; it has not cost them an arm and a leg and it is very popular. Why not carry on doing it?
Lord Moylan (Con)
May I ask the noble Lord, briefly, if he believes that the whole success in Cornwall depends on a few people knowing what they are doing and being professional about it—I am sure he is right, he knows his area—would he not want to seek from the Minister the sort of assurances that I am looking for? That is that officers in other local transport authorities that adopt franchising are seen to have similar skills and abilities before they are allowed to do so?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
If am grateful to the noble Lord. I think it was probably at Second Reading, or sometime, that we discussed the difference in the quality of local authority management between Dorset and Hampshire or somewhere there. It is down to the local authority to make sure that they have the right people. I am sure Ministers will be very keen to ensure that they do have the right people, because otherwise you will get what I found in Dorset. The train goes every hour and stops at a station called Sherborne and, interestingly, the connecting bus departs five minutes before the train arrives. That is just the kind of thing we do not want, but I hope the local authorities will be sensible enough to learn from some of these mistakes.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this next group of amendments, as we have heard, relates to bus franchising. I will first turn to Amendment 8 in my name. This amends paragraph 9(3)(a) of the Bill’s Schedule, which sets out the procedure for varying a franchising scheme. It is minor and technical in nature. The amendment inserts the words
“which have one or more stopping places”
into this paragraph. This is the form of wording used elsewhere in the legislation, including elsewhere in the Schedule, to ensure that cross-boundary services are captured. This wording ensures that if a franchising authority reduces its franchising scheme’s area, it must consult all those operating cross-boundary services, as well as those operating local services wholly inside the area. This is an entirely appropriate requirement if a franchising authority is seeking to reduce a franchising area, and it is important that the language is updated to reflect that and to ensure consistency across the Bill.
I am not sure which amendment it would refer to, but I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his intervention about Cornwall. As a matter of fact, I was with the person he referred to, Nigel Blackler, the architect of the Cornwall bus scheme, this morning, and also Councillor Davis from Devon from the south-west. They are so keen on the Cornish experience that they are proposing, after the passage of this Bill, assuming it becomes law, to extend it to the whole of south-west England. This is a testimony to the broad level of support for these measures given, as no doubt noble Lords will know, the political composition of Devon County Council.
As to Mr Blackler’s experience, I think he has devised an extraordinarily good scheme for Cornwall, despite not having worked in either London or Manchester. The heart of that is the understanding of the local need for bus services, not necessarily the technical characteristics of a franchise. I commend him on the success of the scheme, as has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
Moving on to other amendments in this group, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for Amendment 2, which seeks to amend Clause 4. I understand that its intent is to test whether the Bill’s removal of the requirement that the mobilisation period be less than six months removes the requirement to have a mobilisation period at all. The mobilisation period is, of course, the time that expires between a franchising authority letting a contract for franchised services and those services coming into effect on the ground.
We want to give franchising authorities the flexibility to set the mobilisation period that suits their needs, so they are better placed to make the right decision for their communities, but I want to clarify that the Bill does not remove the requirement that a franchising authority sets out a minimum mobilisation period. While a franchising authority could make this period as short as it chooses to because of the Bill—for example, a minimum of one day—this determination will be based on the practicalities applying to individual franchising authorities on the ground. It is therefore best left to those authorities’ devolved decision-making. There is also, incidentally, no removal of the requirement for a minimum mobilisation period in the transitional provision in this clause. I hope that this clarification satisfies the noble Lord and allows him to consider withdrawing his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has tabled Amendment 3 on service permits. He readily admits that this amendment, if it were included in the Bill, would largely wreck the franchising model. Of course, I respect his knowledge of the history of road services licensing from the 1930s, as well as the long and distinguished history of London Transport and its successors. As he is aware, service permits provide franchising authorities with a mechanism to allow bus operators to provide commercial services within franchising scheme areas, including important cross-boundary services. The measures in the Bill add further tests that franchising authorities can use when determining whether to grant a service permit.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that these new tests allow franchising authorities to consider a wide range of benefits that these commercial services could provide, therefore giving authorities more scope to grant service permits and harness the additionality that the market can provide. The amendment would remove not just the new tests proposed by the Bill but the existing test already in legislation. It would mean that franchising authorities would be required to grant all applications for service permits, including those which compete directly with franchised services, for example. Because this amendment would undermine franchising authorities’ ability to run coherent and affordable schemes, I ask the noble Lord to consider not pressing it, noting that it does allow, in appropriate cases, commercial services to be provided as a matter of additionality.
Amendment 5, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to include the data and criteria that can be used by an independent assessor when reviewing a franchising assessment. It must be for the local transport authority to decide which data it will use to carry out the franchising assessment and determine its affordability, not the independent assessor. The remit of the independent assessor is limited to ensuring a robust assessment of the information that the franchising authority has used. The local transport authority is best placed to understand the issues it faces, as it did in Cornwall, and how best to assess these from the available datasets. New datasets, fortunately, become available frequently as technology develops. This amendment is therefore unnecessary and I look to the noble Lord not to press it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, spoke to Amendment 6, brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. This proposes a change to Clause 9. As noble Lords know, as part of the Government’s commitment to improve bus services and hand more powers to local leaders, the Bill aims to accelerate and lower the cost of the franchising process. To that end, the Bill will remove the existing requirement that those conducting independent assurance of authorities’ assessments must be auditors. This requirement has significantly restricted the pool of people able to undertake these reports. Instead, qualifications and other experience enabling someone to undertake reports will be set out in secondary legislation.
The amendment seeks to
“inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the ‘approved persons’ role in the near future”.
Clause 9 will come into force by regulations at a time the department chooses. The intention is to bring it into force only when secondary legislation is ready. My officials are engaging with a range of stakeholders to identify appropriate qualifications and will work in a collaborative way to bring forward secondary legislation in due course.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also seeks to ensure that any secondary legislation is subject to the affirmative procedure. Because the qualifications that would enable a person to conduct assurance reports are likely to change over time, it is important that the secondary legislation remains agile and responsive to such change. These changes are technical in nature and therefore I do not believe that the affirmative procedure is proportionate.
I hope that reassures the noble Baronesses that the Government seek to work co-operatively with the House to ensure that appropriate secondary legislation is brought forward in a timely manner and that, therefore, the need for appropriate qualifications will be addressed. As a result, I hope they will feel able not to press their amendment.
Amendment 7, from my noble friend Lord Woodley, intends to remove the time limit of 112 days on the notice period for varying or cancelling the registration of an existing bus service in an area that is transitioning to franchising. The existing time limit is essential in ensuring that the franchising process moves forward within a reasonable and predictable timeframe. It serves to maintain momentum in the implementation of franchising schemes, which is essential for creating certainty in the market. The time limit also helps safeguard the interests of passengers by minimising disruption.
Without the time limit, there is a risk that the franchising implementation process could be drawn out unnecessarily, leading to prolonged uncertainty for both operators and passengers. Such delays could cause operational instability and undermine the benefits of a timely transition. I will, however, consider further the point raised by my noble friend Lord Woodley, about the early withdrawal of service. But for the moment, the amendment is unnecessary, so I ask my noble friend not to press it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for Amendment 12. I recognise the history of the determined effort of Manchester—including the efforts of the late, great Sir Howard Bernstein—to take control of its bus services. I am delighted not only with the success of what has been achieved but because a former colleague, Vernon Everitt, who has been mentioned and who is now the transport commissioner for Transport for Greater Manchester, has helped to deliver what is demonstrably a better bus service, with increasing passenger numbers, as the noble Lord observed.
Amendment 12 would require franchising authorities to publish an evaluation report no later than one year after franchised services are first delivered through a scheme and to set out the scheme’s costs and benefits. I point out to noble Lords that a key purpose of the Government’s franchising guidance is to provide authoritative best practice. For instance, the revision to the franchising guidance published in December 2024 includes new content based on feedback from Transport for Greater Manchester and other mayoral combined authorities seeking to adopt that approach. The department will continue to undertake this best practice-focused approach to developing further iterations of the guidance. I therefore hope the noble Lord will consider not moving his amendment and not placing an additional requirement on franchising authorities.
On Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I think this is the right place to directly challenge the noble Lord’s assertion that the permission of the Secretary of State should be needed for local transport authorities to go down this road. He is a distinguished local government politician, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, observed, who fiercely—in my time at least—fought undue central influence. I am astonished to now discover that he advocates such interference, not even up to a point. Mind you, he might have been subsequently converted by being a very distinguished deputy chair of Transport for London.
Lord Grayling (Con)
Will the Minister accept a challenge on that point? He will know that, in terms of the current role of local authorities in areas such as mine, if that happens, they will step in and provide a service where the private sector cannot do so. It is not as if there is a total vacuum and the local community is completely exposed to the decisions taken by the bus operator.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his interjection. In his case, it is true, but there are other cases where the market has shown a considerable inability to respond across the country.
To conclude on Amendment 14, it is for the reasons I gave that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not to press his amendment.
Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require a local transport authority to carry out a preliminary assessment if it was considering franchising its bus services. Much of what the noble Lord has proposed to be included in the preliminary assessment is already included in the current legislation and must be included in the local transport authority’s franchising assessment. An assessment may or may not conclude that franchising is the best option. The assessment would then be published if an independent assessment had been carried out and the decision was that franchising was the best option. This amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I would welcome the noble Lord not pressing it.
Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to impose a five-year moratorium on repeating franchising scheme assessments in the same area if the previous attempt was unsuccessful. The aim of the Bill is to simplify the process for authorities wishing to pursue franchising, ensuring that decisions are made at the appropriate level and in a timely manner. This amendment would introduce unnecessary constraints on local transport authorities by adopting an overly rigid approach. There are many factors that might lead an authority to decide against pursuing franchising initially, only to reconsider this later; indeed, the period of time suggested by the noble Lord would in some cases exceed the cycle of local authority elections, in which a different party that chooses to do something different might be elected. Imposing a blanket restriction limits authorities’ ability to respond flexibly to evolving conditions and opportunities. Assessments are costly and time-consuming so will not be undertaken lightly. This amendment is unnecessary; I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, on that point, the Minister has made in his response no reference whatever to the private sector. We are talking about circumstances in which buses are provided by the private sector in a particular area and the local transport authority, using powers to be created under this Bill, enters a franchising assessment model with a view to terminating the business of that bus operator—not terminating its activities but terminating it as a business and turning it into, simply, an agent of the local transport authority operating to instructions for a fee of some sort. That is one of the potential outcomes.
If you face that threat to your business, so to speak, and if the Government are equanimous in thinking that that is an appropriate threat to impose on the private sector, surely, if the decision at the end of that assessment is not to proceed, that private company deserves a degree of stability. Indeed, without that stability it is very unlikely to invest in any of the things we would like to see happen. Those might concern improved buses or better technology, but also better training for staff, proper recruitment, investment in the workforce and so on. An answer entirely focused on how the public sector might behave totally misses the point of what this amendment is trying to achieve.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Of course I respect the noble Lord’s view, but the needs of local communities as expressed through local transport authorities are continuous and there are many examples across the country, unfortunately, of private sector operators choosing, for legitimate commercial reasons, to significantly vary the bus network in their area with the minimum statutory notice. They are quite adept at changing their business in accordance with market circumstances, whereas I think it is quite right to afford local communities the chance—through their elected local transport authorities—to choose to take a view about whether the bus service they are being offered is good enough to continue in its present model, or whether to choose to do something different. If there is a degree of jeopardy attached to this, that jeopardy can be expressed by the continuous need for commercial operators in those circumstances to continue serving the local area well. That would therefore make it unnecessary for the local transport authority to pursue franchising, when there are already remedies in the Bill and a mixture of measures offered to local areas to achieve their aims.
The next four amendments are from my noble friend Lord Woodley, and Amendment 17 is the first of these. He has been joined by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who also spoke about this. It seeks to place a requirement to establish a joint forum between the franchising authority, bus operators and trade union representatives. However, current legislation states that franchised services must be provided under a local service contract between the bus operator and the franchising authority. It is then for an individual bus operator, as an employer, to discuss and determine staffing and employment standards within the bus company, in consultation with staff and their trade union representatives. It is also for the franchising authority to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services.
It should not be for the Government to dictate how a local transport authority should run its services. I know that noble Lords are concerned about driver welfare standards, and I am pleased to tell them that this issue is covered in the current franchising guidance. I will consider further what is said in the guidance about consultation with the workforce, and workforce planning, as a consequence of this discussion. For the moment, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary and I ask my noble friend not to press it.
Amendments 18, 19 and 20 were also tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley. They raise the important issue of ensuring that employee rights are protected when a local authority bus company is established or during the transfer to franchising. This country already has robust legislation in place to safeguard employees. As noble Lords know, the transfer of undertakings regulations apply to employees of businesses in the United Kingdom. Should a local transport authority choose to establish a bus company, it would be necessary for it to consider the application of TUPE regulations, which are supported by additional guidance to help employers and employees understand their respective responsibilities.
Similar principles apply to franchising. Section 123X of the Transport Act 2000 already provides for the TUPE regulations to apply to staff transfers resulting from the introduction or transfer of a bus franchise, meaning that proposed Amendment 20 would add little or no value beyond what is already in place.
Furthermore, the franchising statutory guidance offers detailed advice on how to determine whether a member of staff is “principally connected” with a service. In line with existing regulations, this guidance advises franchising authorities to work collaboratively with local operators and employee representatives to agree on criteria for determining which staff are principally connected with affected services. For example, such criteria could include the amount of time that an employee spends working on franchised services or whether the employee is part of a specific group assigned to those services. TUPE would then apply to employees identified as being principally connected.
It is of course worth emphasising that, like some other public service employers, existing local authority bus companies often go beyond basic statutory requirements to support their employees. This is particularly true for individuals from protected groups, with many local authority bus companies offering attractive terms and conditions, such as higher rates of pay, flexible working arrangements, and generous holiday and maternity and paternity provisions. However, as I said in respect of the previous amendment, I will consider further what is said in guidance in this respect beyond what is already there. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press these amendments.
The final amendment in this group comes from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and I note and welcome his interest in safety on the bus network. He will be aware that some of the most important parts of the Bill for passengers are around disability and addressing crime and safety, which includes provisions on training for front-line and wider bus staff. However, this amendment specifically relates to training for officials from franchising authorities on IOSH, which is about providing managers with the tools to maintain a safe environment, and NEBOSH, which is a qualification in health, safety and environmental management— I refuse to say either of those as an acronym.
The effect of this amendment would be an increase in the cost and time it takes to franchise, if staff had to undertake this specific training before starting the franchising process. We all understand that safety is paramount for bus staff, passengers and the wider public but there are only a small proportion of franchising cases and those involved in franchising where having such qualifications would be relevant. It may also be that some of the training for holders of an operator’s licence, the Driver Certificate of Professional Competence, might be equally appropriate.
Part of the reform is to simplify and speed up franchising and drive down costs. This amendment would disproportionately impact authorities in considering franchising, including those in smaller towns and rural areas. This would disenfranchise local authorities, which goes against some of the core tenets of the Bill. Nevertheless, I will consider further what might be said in guidance about these important qualifications for those involved in this process who should hold them. As a result, I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Does the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, have any more to say, or does he wish to withdraw his amendment?
Baroness Pinnock
“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit “and”;(A3) After subsection (2)(b) insert “, and(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.”(A4) After subsection (6) insert—“(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.””
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my local government interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Extending bus franchising to all of England is a principle that we Liberal Democrats support. The consequences of the deregulation of bus services in the 1980s have been catastrophic for some, particularly rural communities. For those in urban areas like my own, the result has been a relatively good service on main bus routes but a steadily declining one elsewhere. Bus services in the evening are often non-existent, even in small towns, and early morning and weekend services have been steadily curtailed.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
I rise at this moment to introduce the subject of traffic congestion. That is the biggest enemy of the bus, and traffic speeds are declining throughout the country. They have now reached a stage where the bus is an unattractive alternative even to walking. This, of course, generates expense, in that more buses have to be provided to maintain any sort of frequency of service. I have spent a good deal of my life in the bus industry and have managed large and small bus companies. I worked for a local authority and I know what I am talking about.
The problem of congestion happens in cities and towns throughout the country. It is a problem that will not be solved by building new roads. Even in New York, where they have built roads wider and wider, they have now got to the stage of having to introduce traffic management, because it is the only way to get over the problems of congestion.
There are many forms of traffic management. Some local authorities have not even moved to the first stage of decriminalising parking, and parking on the street is, obviously, a big enemy. However, there are other authorities that have been progressive in introducing bus gates, bus lanes and workplace charging. There are hundreds of different examples. I want the Minister to try to devise a system that would encourage local authorities that are increasing bus speeds by adopting traffic management methods.
Funding comes from two sources: a local authority and central government. The funding of the bus industry is woefully inadequate. I know there is a comprehensive spending review coming along. It is important that it understands the large number of people who are dependent on buses. We spend a lot of money on railways and aeroplanes, yet the bus industry gets very little money. As some of those funding streams are bound to come from central government, there should be a condition linking the money to the speed of buses in the local transport authority or franchising area, so that those that introduce measures to improve bus speeds get rewarded by getting a greater share of the money that is available, which is certainly not enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns, said at Second Reading that funding should be available over a long period of time so that you are not living from year to year as to whether you know you will be able to afford a bus service in the next financial year. When the money comes, I hope it comes with a few years’ life in it, so that people can invest in the expense of traffic calming and, of course, in new vehicles and the other things that are so necessary.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I support my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. That is part of what we have done with the Bee Network in Manchester. We now have park-and-rides in parts of the borough where you can park your car all day and the bus comes and takes you straight down the very busy routes. We have increased bus lanes and camera alterations mean that as the bus arrives, traffic lights respond to it. It is that certainty, especially for people going to hospital and other places, that they know they can get there if they leave the car, perhaps a mile or a mile and a half away. It stops congestion at peak times throughout the borough. It is that foresight that local authorities have to embrace.
It is a good idea that if money comes from the Government, it comes with a proviso that you are providing evidence that you can reduce traffic and increase productivity by moving people from A to B without, as my noble friend Lady Pinnock said, waiting hours and hours for a bus that could eventually cost you your job. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to four amendments in this group, Amendments 30, 31, 32 and 69, although, again, I will speak to them out of numerical order. This week I stand down as chairman of the Built Environment Select Committee, and this morning I chaired my last meeting. It is quite curious that somebody very kindly gave me as a memento and a keepsake an original edition of the government-commissioned report, largely written by Colin Buchanan, Traffic in Towns. It warned that traffic would clog up towns and get in the way and strongly suggested that measures should be introduced. The interesting thing, perhaps, is that the report was published in 1963, 60 years ago. It was a very influential report, but obviously not influential enough if we are still, essentially, making the same claim today. It is possible that there is a political explanation of why the measures that Traffic in Towns proposed have never been implemented as fully as might be wished.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, first, I want to speak to Amendment 33. It is one that Jenny Randerson had marked up in her paperwork for this Bill, so we felt that it was really important to table it for her.
Although there are many bus operators across the country—as of last October, there were some 367 in England—the reality is that around three-quarters of bus services are run by a handful of large companies. This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants, thereby helping to promote diversity in the sector. Some local, smaller operators may know the area and community far better than a large company; we felt that it was important to acknowledge this when looking at the grants that a transport authority may choose to award.
Such operators are also more likely to provide services in rural and less connected areas, including those that will be deemed socially necessary routes. For example, bus routes in Bishop’s Waltham in Hampshire are particularly poor. Despite it being a sizeable town, it lacks adequate bus connections to Winchester and the surrounding area. A small operator may be able to provide this service in a way in which the larger operators are clearly choosing not to do currently. Additionally, such grants may enable small operators to invest in cleaner, more modern vehicles, contributing to environmental goals and improving the overall quality of service. This amendment is designed to support a competitive and dynamic transport market that ultimately benefits passengers.
Amendment 52 would provide a duty on relevant local authorities to promote bus services in their area. With this new focus on improving bus services, it is right that they are properly supported and that their benefits to the local environment, as well as their wider social and economic benefits, are promoted locally. Promoting bus services will help reduce the number of private vehicles on the road, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality. Reducing congestion can help improve the local economy and ensure a more reliable bus service, thereby facilitating access to jobs, education and other services. Although this is a probing amendment, its aim is to ensure that there is wider thinking about what happens beyond this legislation if we are to have the step change in bus services across the country that all sides of the Committee, I am sure, would support.
With Amendment 4, my noble friend Lady Pinnock has raised the elephant in the room: the adequacy of central government funding to support local bus services. Although this legislation gives local transport authorities a choice of options in providing services, money is needed for that, and this is not just coming from local and regional government. One of the large operators, Stagecoach, has flagged with me that bus services can be successful only if they are properly funded, irrespective of the delivery model. Securing long-term clarity and certainty around funding for this sector will help enhance the benefits delivered to local communities—exactly the point that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has just made. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, also touches on funding allocation in his Amendment 31, on which he spoke in great detail.
The Bill also talks about net cost for contracts that are direct awards, which implies that the revenue risk sits with the operators. It is not clear how that sits with control of fares being within the remit of the local transport authorities. Perhaps the Minister can explain the thinking regarding these contracts and funding from government going forward. My noble friend Lady Pinnock has also touched on the enforceability of by-laws, the need for model by-laws and staff training if by-laws are going to work in practice. Operators are concerned about the requirements for training and whether additional funding will be provided to cover this new requirement. Again, we are back to the elephant in the room: funding.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw has spoken with his extensive experience and knowledge about the need to improve the reliability of bus services and ways to incentivise this through conditions in any financial support.
A wide range of other amendments in this group pick up improving the passenger experience with what we would expect from a modern bus service, whether that is wifi, charging or accessibility improvements. We do not know what we will need in the future. Things will move along. At the moment, we think about plugging things in to charge them up. Technology moves at such pace. I am not sure whether these are needed in the legislation, but perhaps they should be in the guidance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that point.
I would like clarity from the Minister, on the record, about demand-responsive bus services. I raised this at Second Reading, and it was made clear in the Minister’s letter in response that this legislation enables demand-responsive bus services. They may well be the solution in some parts of the country, but I want assurance that this legislation enables that rather than prevents it. I look forward to hearing detailed responses from the Minister to these important points.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will now address the amendments relating to local authorities, specifically the Bill’s grant-making powers, functions and duties. Before I address the amendments tabled by your Lordships, I will talk to the government amendment in my name, Amendment 81. This makes a minor change to Clause 30, providing for the provisions under Clause 21, on local transport authority by-laws, to come into force by regulations. Clause 30 sets out the commencement details for each clause of the Bill. The majority of clauses will come into force on days appointed by the Secretary of State by regulations. The current exceptions are Clause 21, “Local transport authority byelaws”, which is due to come into force two months after Royal Assent, and Clause 23, “Safeguarding duty: drivers of school services”, which comes into force six months after Royal Assent.
Clause 21 empowers local transport authorities to make by-laws addressing anti-social behaviour on their bus networks. It also allows the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance about the exercise of enforcement functions in relation to local authority by-laws. Bringing Clause 21 into force by regulations, rather than two months after Royal Assent, is imperative to ensure that officials in my department have time to develop meaningful guidance to aid local transport authorities and their officers in undertaking enforcement functions. If the change cannot be made, local transport authorities may make by-laws before the guidance can be issued, or there may be insufficient time to develop comprehensive guidance that will be of the most use to local transport authorities and their enforcement officers. It is therefore an important change to make.
I move next to Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I thank her for her recognition that the Government’s recent settlements for local transport authorities are comprehensive for the moment. Her amendment seeks to include further consideration of funding requirements in the scheme assessment that authorities must undertake when developing a franchising scheme. I reassure her that consideration of the affordability of proposed franchising schemes, and therefore funding, is already a central part of the assessment. The existing legislation states that the assessment must include consideration of whether the proposed scheme would be affordable to set up and operate. As for a requirement for a specific analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve services for all communities, I stress that the legislation already requires the proposed franchising scheme to be properly costed and compared to another course of action, such as an enhanced partnership.
Finally, I note that both the franchising assessment and the independent assurance report must be published alongside the consultation. This ensures transparency around the local transport authority’s decision.
The Government have set out their ambitions to consolidate and simplify bus funding streams and to provide the long-term certainty that local transport authorities and bus operators have been calling for. The forthcoming multi-year spending review provides a real opportunity for the department to assess the sector’s funding needs so that bus services are adequately funded to support economic growth and, in particular, to overcome the barriers to the Government’s missions. Of course, any future spending decisions must be subject to the outcome of the spending review process. For all those reasons, and with that statement, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister makes a very important point there. When the last grant was allocated—in round numbers, of £1 billion, £250 million went to bus operators and £750 million went to local authorities—a new methodology was introduced for allocating it. It was based on three factors; I cannot remember what they were but, in a way, that does not matter, because the important point that I raised was that there was no evidence underlying the choice of these three factors. Although it is true that the Minister answered my point in the Chamber, he offered no rationale or evidence for the choice of those three factors; they will come back to me the moment I sit down.
However, that is not my main point. My main point is not to drag over the coals of what was discussed in the debate we had on that Statement but, rather, to point out that the Minister now appears to be saying that the same unevidenced methodology, with no rationale to explain it—a third this, a third that, a third the other—will be applied when the department comes to distribute whatever funding it has available for buses as a result of the upcoming spending review. That is a very important point, if he is making it. Does he want to confirm that that is what he meant? Or did he, perfectly understandably, fall into a momentary lapse that he would want to withdraw? We really need to know.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention; my response to him will probably be very similar to what I said at the time. First, the allocation methodology was far more transparent than the previous Government’s allocation methodology: it allocated money to all local transport authorities in England for bus services when, previously, there had been occasions when money was competed for via a long and tedious process not necessarily winding up in success. I, too, am struggling to recall all three of the criteria, only because my mind is currently full of these amendments, but two of them were population and bus mileage, which are self-evidently the sorts of indexes that you would use for this process.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. I thank him for his further intervention; we got there between us, even though neither of us could remember to start with.
Those are pretty central ways of allocating that funding. I will not necessarily commit the department precisely to that methodology in future because, obviously, we have the right to consider the matter further. Equally, we would of course be open to any other proposed indices to consider against population, deprivation and place need, but, in my view, those seem to be pretty good ones; I cannot see that they are obviously wrong. In conclusion to this little excursion into this matter, it is certainly better than partial allocations and competing for money without local transport authorities being certain of success—I am certain of that.
It is important to note that much of the funding to local authorities and local transport authorities is consolidated. That funding is not hypothecated by central government, thus it is for the local transport authority to determine how to apportion its funding. For example, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provides local authorities with funding through the local government funding settlement. Money from that can currently be used to support bus services, for example by tendering. In future, it is possible that a local transport authority could choose to put some of that funding towards a bus grant using the powers proposed by Clause 16. The same is true for funding provided through the Department for Transport’s bus service improvement plans. Local transport authorities can decide how to allocate that funding towards a variety of bus initiatives.
Local authorities also have access to other sources of funding, including council tax money and retained business rates. Some of this money could be used to establish a local bus grant without recourse to funding provided by central government. The Government do not wish to tie the hands of local transport authorities by specifying the total funding to be used to carry out the functions under this section. It is for them to work out how much they wish to spend on such grants from within their wider allocations.
The powers proposed under Clause 16 are optional and would be available to local transport authorities if they chose to use them. It is thus hard to see how the statutory guidance—which may be published but its publication is not mandatory—could contain the information that would be required by the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lastly, I fear that the amendment does not fully recognise that the statutory guidance provided for by Clause 16(6) is intended to set out factors that a local transport authority should consider when choosing to design and pay a grant to bus operators. The local transport authorities will be very aware of their financial situation when doing so. The amendment is therefore not needed and I ask the noble Lord not to press it.
Turning to Amendment 32, it is good to see that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, recognises the important role that demand responsive transport can play in contributing to local public transport provision. The amendment takes a belt-and-braces approach—both proposed subsections would have the same effect by ultimately requiring local transport authorities to think about flexible bus services, a form of demand responsive transport, if they chose to use the powers that would be granted by Clause 16 to design and pay grants to bus operators. I contend that neither the belt nor the braces are needed. There is nothing in Clause 16 to prevent a local transport authority choosing to use the powers therein to have regard to, and to support flexible bus services, to the extent that they meet the definition of “service” in Clause 16(2). I am happy to have that on the record, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, requested.
Other types of demand responsive transport—for instance, that provided using private hire vehicles—are not likely to fall within the definition of “service” in this measure. Indeed, in our drafting of Clause 16 we have deliberately made it possible for local transport authorities to support a wider range of bus service types than the Government can through the existing powers available to the Secretary of State under Section 154 of the Transport Act 2000. This is because we want local transport authorities, in line with the devolution agenda, to be able to design grants that best support the outcomes that they see as important. That is key to help ensure that local bus services are able to contribute to economic growth and to breaking down barriers to opportunity.
Noble Lords will also be aware that Clause 16(6) gives the Secretary of State the option to publish the statutory guidance. If we feel that the guidance is needed, we will publish it.
Local transport authorities will be best placed to determine whether demand responsive transport is a viable option for their areas. The Bill and other aspects of our devolution agenda—including building on the devolution deals introduced by the previous Government —are aimed at giving local authorities more freedom and flexibility. However, given that flexible bus services are a key part of the bus offering in some areas, and will continue to be an important option for local authorities when considering the appropriate mix of services, it would seem strange for the statutory guidance, if it were published, not to contain references to flexible bus services. I hope I have demonstrated that the amendment is not needed and I therefore request the noble Lord not to press it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 33. I note with sadness that the late Lady Randerson is not here to be able to debate it herself. It is a terrible shame. As noble Lords will all be aware, economic growth is one of the core missions of this Government, and the amendment rightly highlights the important role small and medium-sized enterprises have to play in delivering growth. The Bill supports the economic growth mission by giving local transport authorities greater freedom in deciding how they support their local bus services to boost economic growth and remove barriers to opportunity.
The amendment is intended to ensure that local transport authorities that choose to use the new powers to design and pay grants to bus operators think about the needs of small bus operators when designing those grants. However, the amendment is not needed because under the grant-making powers given to them by the Bill, there is nothing preventing local transport authorities designing grants that prioritise and support smaller operators of bus services, subject to other competition and subsidy controls. Because most local transport authorities are in enhanced partnerships, they will be best placed to understand the needs of small operators. They will certainly know those in their areas and whether such grants would be appropriate.
As public authorities disbursing funding, local transport authorities will, however, need to ensure that any grants they design, using the powers that would be granted by the Bill, comply with relevant subsidy controls to ensure that they are not distorting their local market or the national market. I hope that assurance allows the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, not to press her amendment.
Lord Snape (Lab)
If I may intervene on my noble friend on that point, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, painted a picture of small local authorities taking on routes that the major operators do not, to paraphrase her, and filling in gaps that they have left. If that were the case, why did they not do it after the 1986 Act? That Act said that anybody could run a bus service anywhere they liked, provided that it was registered with a traffic commissioner.
The reality was, of course, that these smaller operators used clapped-out vehicles and non-union staff, while providing none of the facilities that the major operators did. One well-known case in the West Midlands, which ended in front of a traffic commissioner, was about one of these smaller operators whose idea of a break for the driver was for him to get out of his cab at the end of the journey and urinate against the front wheel. We had to put up with that sort of smaller operator in the area where I was involved in a bus company, the West Midlands. Can my noble friend point out to the noble Baroness that, sincere though she might be, the reality of life was somewhat different? What would my noble friend put in the legislation to ensure that these smaller operators abide by the normal regulations, treat their staff properly and recognise trade unions?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. The real security in this—at least for passengers, and indeed for local transport authorities—is actually with the traffic commissioners. We will no doubt come to this later on in another of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. In fact, the process that my noble friend referred to is an elegant example of where the activities of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, if followed up with the traffic commissioners, place a burden on operators to behave properly—to treat their staff properly and offer an adequate and safe service to the public. That mechanism of inspection by the DVSA and subsequent action by the traffic commissioners, should it be necessary, is a very elegant method of regulation. It is, incidentally, also strongly supported by the industry at large.
Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, would require local transport authorities to publish a review when proposing to create new by-laws under the provisions in Clause 21. The purpose of this clause is to address a current inconsistency that means only some authorities have powers to make bus by-laws. The requirement for a review before exercising these powers would place additional burdens on local transport authorities, increasing costs and slowing down the implementation of by-laws, and that is not desirable. The inclusion of this clause comes from the Government’s engagement with local authorities and an understanding of the tools that they need to best operate safe and inclusive bus networks for their local communities. It is also not necessary because similar powers to those proposed by the Bill are available to some local transport authorities and railway operators in operating their rail and light rail networks, so there is some experience of this.
I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the engagement with local authorities and existing by-laws in answering her question about whether these by-laws would work. The procedure in Clause 21 draws on and is analogous to that found in existing legislation, including the Railways Act 2005 and the Local Government Act 1972. Neither Act imposes requirements on local transport authorities or operators to undertake a similar review. I undertake to go away and consider with colleagues whether there are, or should be, model by-laws available. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press Amendment 34.
On Amendment 50, it is a real pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in his place this afternoon. I understand the point that he is making about his proposal to place a statutory duty on local highway authorities or other authorities to take, create, implement and report on a traffic reduction strategy with the aim of improving bus journey times—I should have said that he is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. Improving the reliability and frequency of local bus services is a key part of the Government’s plans for buses, and the Bill helps give local transport authorities the right tools and levers to do that.
However, I do not believe that this amendment is the right way to do that. For example, local transport authorities are already obliged under the network management duty, established by Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, to consider the reduction of congestion and improving traffic flow in how they manage their roads, so this new duty would in effect replicate that. It would also go against the principles of devolution—giving more freedom and fewer obligations —that we have committed to with the Bill. Local transport authorities are already able to effect positive changes in bus reliability through enhanced partnerships with operators of bus services in their areas.
The recent experience in Manchester of franchising has served to illustrate, at least to me, that the power of franchising has very quickly drawn to the attention of the authority—in that case, Transport for Greater Manchester—those elements of the management of the local road network that need to be improved in order to drive a safe and reliable service.
The noble Lord’s amendment links the production of this traffic reduction strategy to any financial support issued by the Government,
“for the provision of bus services”.
This brings a range of funding streams into scope beyond just grants that are intended either to support bus services themselves, such as the bus service operators grant, or to improve infrastructure, such as bus priority schemes that could improve bus journey times through the bus service improvement plans. Some government funding—for example, grants to make buses more accessible—may be caught under the broad wording of this new measure. There is, of course, no obvious link between this kind of grant and traffic reduction, and it would be inappropriate in such cases to produce a corresponding traffic reduction plan. However, I understand the noble Lord’s point, and I will consider further how and in what way we might address the very valuable point that he is making. On that basis, I ask him not to press his amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has brought forward Amendment 52 to place a duty on authorities to promote bus services and publish regular reports detailing progress towards achieving that objective. I firmly believe that all authorities and operators are interested in promoting their bus services in their local areas and that it is not necessary to bring forward an amendment that places a direct requirement on authorities to do so and to report on how they have met their objectives.
The Transport Act 2000 already places a duty on the local transport authority to develop and implement policies which promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport in their area. Buses form part of that duty, and we know through bus service improvement plans that local transport authorities are already doing this. A local transport authority also needs to have wider monitoring and evaluation plans in place to assess the outcome of its policies. It also has to answer to its communities.
The Bill is all about providing choices to local transport authorities and ensuring that decisions are made at the right level ultimately to improve the bus network for their communities. It should therefore be for the local transport authority to decide how it will measure its successes. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
I turn lastly to Amendment 69, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for bringing forward. The amendment would require local authorities to promote the adoption of customer-facing technology. The Government remain committed to ensuring services are continuously improved for passengers. I agree with noble Lords that it is important that passengers experience good access to technology, such as free wi-fi and charging facilities. As noble Lords have noted, many operators already seize these opportunities. We would be keen to encourage further adoption, albeit that we can have little control, given that operators would need to assess its cost impacts.
From a passenger-information perspective, the Government are committed to delivering better bus services, and part of this work is working closely with bus operators and local transport authorities to improve the information available to passengers about their bus services. The Bus Open Data Service was launched in 2020 and requires all bus operators of local services in England to provide passengers with high-quality, accurate and up-to-date passenger information including timetables, fares, tickets and vehicle location information. As part of this work, the Government understand the importance of having real-time information widely accessible in a range of spaces that passengers use and are conscious of the need to continually consider new ways to improve access to real-time information, while staying in line with wider government digital and data strategies. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, says about the continuing progress of technology and the difficulty of specifying now what it might deliver in the future.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, will understand that I do not wish to cut across the work which is currently underway. On that basis, I would ask them not to press Amendment 69.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and the clarity of his answers to all our amendments. I remind the Committee that my Amendment 4 seeks to encourage the Government to respond positively to the need for funding, such as TfL has enjoyed. I note that Amendment 30 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is using funding to discourage enfranchising. There is quite a world of difference between us.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
If I may finish my point before the noble Lord can come in, I thank the Minister for his assurance on funding. I am going to wait for the figures to come out of all that, but I am especially disappointed that the ministry has asked him to point towards local government funding as a source, when that funding is under huge stress at the moment. With that, I wish to withdraw Amendment 4 in my name.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I think that the noble Baroness said Amendment 30 when she probably meant Amendment 31, but that is a minor point.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It is complete nonsense to misrepresent my point in the way that she has done. I am really beginning to wonder, as I say, if the purpose of the Liberal Democrats is to use this Committee to attack the Conservatives rather than hold the Government to account. It is very odd indeed and might merit some discussion outside the Committee.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment brings paragraph 9(3)(a) of new Schedule 9A to the Transport Act 2000 into line with paragraph 5(4)(a) of that Schedule.
Lord Woodley
“(a) either—”
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 9, I will also speak to Amendment 10 in my name. Although the Bill removes the ban on new local authority bus companies, they will still have to operate within the existing framework and compete with commercial bus operators. Amendments 9 and 10 would allow local authorities to directly award the provision of their local bus services to their company instead.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 13 standing in my name. I can see the role of direct awards as a matter of principle in certain cases. They have the effect of removing from the process competition between potential bidders for a contract, but there are benefits to competition. I know the Minister wants me to imbibe and regurgitate great chunks of Lord Ashfield’s writings from the 1920s and 1930s, in which he could barely tolerate the word “competition” without using the adjective “wasteful”, but there are some benefits that might arise from competition that even the Minister might admit to.
I am willing to accept, if the Minister gives this assurance, that taking competition out of the process can be consistent with existing procurement legislation. He started to make that argument at Second Reading. I will not challenge him and say that this is contrary to procurement legislation—possibly it can be made compatible with procurement legislation, but he needs to explain how. However, I am concerned, in cases where there is more than one incumbent operator—which may well be the case, especially where local transport is for more geographically dispersed areas—about how a direct-award process might work in a way that was seen to be fair and did not expose the process to potentially awkward, difficult and unpleasant legal challenge and things of that character.
Essentially, I am trying to get more clarity from the Government about how direct awards will work in the more difficult and complex circumstances. I am seeking explicit assurances about the compatibility with procurement legislation, which I suspect the Minister can explain convincingly, but it needs to be put on the record.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s comments. The difficulty with direct awards is that sometimes they are genuinely necessary. We experienced that on the railways—where circumstances change, a business fails or there is simply a need to take greater control for reasons that come along unexpectedly. The danger is—I go back to what I said earlier about ideology —that the requirement for a direct award caused by circumstance is overtaken by direct award driven by ideology.
I am afraid that that is at the heart of the noble Lord’s amendment. I understand the principle he represents, but it would not be right to have a situation in which a local authority was able, unfettered, to set up its own bus company and make a direct award to it, regardless of whether it was any good or not—there have been many occasions in history where the local municipal bus company has not been good at all.
In the world the Government seek to create, where in my view there is a role for direct award, on occasions, when it is necessary, I too would like to understand how the Minister would ensure that that power is used in a way that is right and proper, and, ultimately, as I said earlier, beneficial to the passenger.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Woodley and Lord Moylan, show both ends of the spectrum in this area—one wanting to make it easier for a local authority bus company to be directly awarded a service, and the other wanting the Secretary of State to be involved and lots of bureaucracy to make it even harder. But I absolutely agree that these amendments throw up some real questions around direct awards, and I hope the Minister can provide some clarity.
Direct awards can be made to existing operators where the post award services are deemed “substantially similar” in the context of direct awards. What criteria will be used to determine that? What is the precise definition of “substantially similar” services? How will the requirement for operators to take on real operational risk be defined and enforced under a direct award? As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just rightly stated, in situations where multiple operators currently run services, what are the criteria for selecting an operator to receive a direct award? Will all existing operators be awarded a direct award? What guidance is going to be provided to local authorities regarding the structure of direct award contracts? What flexibility will they have in negotiating terms?
The bus industry welcomes this legislation but it will want some certainty. I hope the Minister can provide that in his response to this group of amendments.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will first address Amendments 9 and 10 from my noble friend Lord Woodley. The option of a direct award is designed to support the transition to bus franchising, bringing forward some of the benefits of franchising while delivering service continuity to passengers. Expanding the scope of direct awards to include local authority bus companies under all circumstances would not meet these objectives, which are limited and designed to deliver continuity and would, in the case of his amendments, prevent fair competition with private operators. With respect to my noble friend, these amendments are unnecessary and I would ask him to withdraw Amendment 9 and not press Amendment 10.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for tabling Amendment 13. It is up to local leaders to determine how to run their bus services best and to assess the effectiveness of the delivery of their franchising contracts. Franchising authorities using direct awards are subject to comprehensive reporting requirements and the Bill does not change this. The additional requirement would create unnecessary additional burdens.
Noble Lords asked whether the clause complies with the Procurement Act 2023. As I said in my letter to all noble Lords, Clause 11 is limited to the direct award of net cost contracts, also called concession contracts, where the operator provides franchise services in return for the fare revenues. These contracts are exempt from the Procurement Act 2023—see paragraphs 21 and 37 of Schedule 2 to that legislation—and instead fall under the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023, which the Bill is amending. Therefore, this clause does not impact on the Procurement Act 2023.
On the questions raised about there being more than one operator, this is a transition arrangement in order that the passengers involved, the customers of bus routes, and the operators get more certainty in the transition than might otherwise be the case. Clearly, the provision of direct award can be useful to authorities seeking to move to a franchising model both now and in the future. It also provides flexibility to stagger the full implementation of franchising, for example, tendering competitive franchise contracts at different times. It can be used only for the first franchise contract in an area to support the transition. Direct award contracts will have a maximum duration of five years, and in many cases a shorter duration will be appropriate. Long-term franchising contracts will be competitively tendered in the usual way. For clarity, in areas where there is more than one operator, only the incumbent operator can receive a direct award contract for the same or substantially similar services. It is uniquely placed to provide service continuity to passengers during this transition.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, would create unnecessary additional burdens on local and central government to complete the assessment. I therefore ask them not to press their amendment.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 11th February 2025
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 54-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (7 Feb 2025)
Lord Moylan
“(1A) A franchising authority may not make a direct award of a public service contract under this regulation until it has conducted an evaluation of the operator’s previous performance in meeting accessibility targets, including specific improvements to service accessibility for disabled passengers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that franchising authorities evaluate the incumbent operator’s past performance on accessibility metrics, including improvements for disabled passengers, before granting a direct award.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Despite that enthusiastic welcome, and despite the fact that it is normally a great privilege to speak first to any group of amendments being debated in Committee, I am fairly inadequate in opening this group, given that many noble Lords who wish to speak have direct experience of issues to do with disability and access to the transport system. Consequently, if noble Lords do not object, I intend to speak briefly to the two amendments in this group in my name, and I will then take the opportunity to respond later to remarks made by others who have amendments in this group.
Amendment 11 is about a condition that we propose should be placed on a local transport authority before making a direct award of a franchise, which it is allowed to do under the Bill. The direct award means that there will be no competition, no tendering of the franchise: it will be given to an incumbent operator, and perhaps even to an in-house bus company set up for the purpose, but without competition. There is considerable anxiety and concern about this proposal in the commercial sector generally, because of its non-competitive character. Our suggestion is that, where there is an incumbent operator whose services you can examine and there is a proposal to make a direct award, at the very least, there should be an additional condition whereby an evaluation has to be made of the services it provides to people who are disabled, of the need for accessibility targets, and of what specific improvements it might make to its existing services to meet accessibility targets. I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment or look at something very similar to it. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
Amendment 42 is also related to accessibility and fits into the broader picture of demand-responsive transport. When I said on Second Reading that the Bill has an old-fashioned, nostalgic air reminiscent of the Attlee Government, I instanced that it seemed to make no reference to demand-responsive transport, which many people feel is at least one of the ways we could provide a public transport network, especially in less populated areas. The Minister seemed to be affronted and said, in effect, that the Bill was full of references to demand-responsive transport. I could not find any, so I am trying to sneak at least one in here. The amendment says that the guidance the Government expect to issue under the Bill on bus infrastructure, stopping infrastructure, stops and so on should at least look at demand-responsive bus services in meeting the needs of disabled bus users. I hope the Government will accept that argument, although I fully take the view that a larger rewriting of the Bill is required not simply on accessibility but to give it that reference to demand-responsive transport that the Minister thinks is there but I think is absent.
Those are the two amendments I wish to mention at the moment. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say, and I will respond to their amendments later, on behalf of the Official Opposition. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moylan. I will speak to Amendments 35 to 39, 43, 45A and 79A, in my name. I thank the noble Lords who have countersigned my amendments. I also support all the amendments in the name of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and have signed them to that effect, but will leave their introduction to her in due course.
Amendments 35 to 39 are on floating bus stops. It seems only right and proper to start by answering the question, “What are floating bus stops?” In essence, where a blind person, wheelchair user or, in fact, anybody has to cross a cycle lane that is part of the pavement to get to the bus, or has to cross part of the carriageway to get to an island representing a bus stop some way into that carriageway, those are floating bus stops. In reality, they are dangerous and discriminatory—a disaster for inclusion and accessibility, not just for blind people, wheelchair users and disabled people but for all users: parents with toddlers in pushchairs and prams, older people and younger people. In fact, anyone who crosses a live cycle lane takes their life in their hands, with not just pedal cycles but e-bikes and delivery bikes going in both directions, often at speeds of 20 mph and above.
So-called floating bus stops were born to fail, built to fail and bound to fail. Why? Tragically, they are predicated on a simplistic solution to a relatively complex issue. They fail on “inclusive by design”, on “nothing about us, without us” and on any concept of accessibility for all road users.
My amendments suggest that the Bill include the concept of inclusive by design. Without it, how can we have anything in this country that is worthy of the title “public transport”? If we continue to have floating bus stops, we will have transport for some of the people some of the time, which is transport for some of the people none of the time. That cannot be the society, communities and transport system we want in 21st-century Britain.
Similarly, there is an even more unfortunate concept at the heart of so-called floating bus stops. It is the sense that, because of this planning folly of a change, a piece of the public realm that was previously accessible and could be used independently, not just by disabled people but by all people, is no longer accessible and can no longer be used independently and safely.
I suggest in further amendments that we should look at issues of accessibility, wayfinding, advice and audio and visual signals around bus stops. I suggest that the guidance principles set out currently at Clause 22 need significant strengthening to the extent that there need to be cardinal principles in the Bill, not least that the bus must be able to pull up to the kerb—not the kerb at the side of a cycle lane but the kerb of the pavement—and that users need to be able to access the bus from, and alight it to, the pavement without having to cross any cycle lane.
I suggest that we need to have proper, meaningful and ongoing consultation around these so-called floating bus stops. Will the Minister say what happened to the consultation around LTN 1/20? How can we have these pieces of public realm imposed on us without effective, meaningful consultation, not least with DPTAC, organisations of and for disabled people, disabled people and all citizens who rightly have an interest in this matter?
In Amendment 45A, I suggest that on the passage of the Bill we have a moratorium on all new so-called floating bus stops and a review and a refit programme of all existing unsafe, non-inclusive sites. We need a retrofit within a year of the passage of the Bill because floating bus stops are not fit for purpose, not fit for inclusive by design and not fit to be part of a public transport system.
Finally, in Amendment 79A, I suggest that all buses up and down the country have meaningful audiovisual announcements on board within 12 months of the passage of the Bill. Yes, this is a question of accessibility and, yes, this is a question of inclusion, but more than that the great concept underpinning all this is that when you make a change that, on the face of it, is seemingly presented as just for disabled people, everyone benefits. From tourists to people new to an area, audiovisual announcements benefit everyone. I very much look forward to this debate and to the Minister’s response in due course.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to have members of the National Federation of the Blind of the UK with us today. I am going to speak to my amendments in this group, Amendments 40, 56 and 57, and I will take them in reverse order because it means that we are dealing with the overarching issues and coming down to more detailed points.
First, I thank the Minister for meeting me and discussing the amendments that I submitted for Committee last week and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his two amendments. The only comment I would make on Amendment 11 is that I think it would work only if many of the other amendments about data are also accepted, because the one thing we know we do not have is data about bus services. On the amendment on cost-effective alternatives and ensuring demand-led bus services, many disabled passengers would say that some of the demand-led services available with rail replacement leave a lot to be desired. I have suddenly discovered that there is a rail replacement at 7 pm on a Saturday evening and that there is no wheelchair taxi available within 100 miles to get me somewhere, so I have had to stay the night. The problem about a community having a franchising authority using only demand-led responses, important as they are, is that most disabled people just want to use the ordinary bus service like everybody else.
It is therefore a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and to support his amendments, which set out a number of mechanisms to ensure that disabled passengers, especially those who are blind or visually impaired, and those of us using wheelchairs, are able to use bus services safely. All my amendments in this group are to try to clarify and strengthen the right of disabled passengers to be able to access and use bus services, which is not, I am afraid, clear in law.
I start with the last of these, Amendment 57, because, as I said, it represents an overarching change to the Bill. I start by saying that I am very grateful to the Minister for the amendment that the Government laid for the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, stating in the Bill that railway services must observe the public sector equality duty, or PSED, under the Equality Act 2010. My Amendment 57 in this group states:
“In Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading ‘Transport’, insert … ‘A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation’”.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I signed several amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I would have signed those of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which are very good. I speak as somebody who has always loved floating bus islands, because I have no disabilities—other than not being capable of keeping my views to myself—and there seems to be a degree of real safety for cyclists going past them. But, obviously, since we have been discussing this, I have become very aware that floating bus islands are in some quite dangerous situations and difficult places, and I have now changed my mind—which is a rare thing for me to do.
There are probably three reasons for me to support these amendments. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, everyone benefits when we make things safe—that is absolutely obvious. When you have an increasingly older population, as we do in the UK, that is incredibly important. There is also the question of fairness. I want a fair society; I know we are a long way off it, but it really is something we should aim for constantly. Lastly, I have family with invisible disabilities, and I do not even know how we can help people who have those. But, clearly, as much information as possible, given as often as possible, will be part of that.
Finally, I cannot see anything in these amendments that the Minister would disagree with, so I very much look forward to the Government accepting them all and saying what a good job the Opposition are doing.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I will pick up on the points my noble friend Lord Moylan made about demand-responsive buses. I acknowledge what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said. The key point of those buses is not that they are for disabled people but that they are a fundamental part of the future of transport in many rural areas. It is enormously important that, as local authorities migrate to a new way of doing things under the terms of the Bill, they encourage the development of demand-responsive buses. The reality is that they are an important way to bridge the gap between many rural communities and local towns, given the absence of public transport. It is important that buses do not develop in a way that excludes those with disabilities. We need to encourage local authorities in this respect.
I agree that currently, demand-responsive buses are significant for the elderly and the disabled, but that is not how it must be in the future. It is important to transition to the new arrangements in a way that does not forget the important role the demand-responsive system will play for disabled people as well. It must be part of local authorities’ responsibilities to be mindful of how that happens. That may involve vehicle standards or other provisions, but demand-responsive buses and disability must go together in the context of a new world where such buses are simply a part of our public transport system.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
I rise to speak strongly in favour of all the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and Amendment 56, to which I have added my name.
We are trying to get to the position where more disabled people can travel by bus. A good bus network has a positive impact on the local community. KPMG and ITS Leeds found that a 10% improvement in local bus service connectivity is associated with a 3.6% reduction in deprivation, leading to measurable improvements in health, skills and income. However, many disabled people have poor experiences of using buses. I have had my own.
On New Year’s Eve, a driver refused to put the ramp down, let everyone else on, and then argued that there was no space for me to get on. We were then left with the potential issue of two people with buggies and I arguing over who was able to use the space. The driver refused to engage with me and tried to split my family up; my daughter is an adult, so, fine. The driver then suggested that we all get off and wait for another bus behind—who knows when? I was having a discussion about all this when an amazing woman with a young child in a buggy who was only going one stop further got off, so that I could get on and take a much longer journey.
A number of people have been in touch with me about problems such as having been refused service, ramps not working or drivers not wanting to pick them up. There is also the issue of where the ramp is positioned when buses stop to enable a safe set-down. London buses seem to be in a much better position than others around the country, with induction loops, audio announcements, LCD display screens and information posts, but people should not have to try to count the number of bus stops in order to get to where they are going. In a survey of blind and visually impaired people using TfL, 65% of blind or partially sighted respondents told the Sight Loss Council that making transport accessible was the most important thing to them.
I am briefly going to cover floating bus stops, because they are a massive issue for all people. They are dangerous at busy times of day. When I get off a bus, once the ramp goes down I have to pull a wheelie so I can control the speed. But often, there is not enough space for my wheelchair to fit at the side of a floating bus stop. On Westminster Bridge, which I cross at least a couple of times a day, on many days I see bikes not stopping and running both sets of red lights, and where the floating bus stop is located. Indeed, this morning I saw a delivery driver riding the wrong way over Westminster Bridge in the bike lane. Those getting off the bus would not even think to look both ways. They were in quite a dangerous position.
I agree, slightly, with noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about cyclists. The situation is dangerous for them, although I find myself turning into a woman of a certain age, shouting at cyclists who run red lights and cause a lot of problems. We have to take into account that TfL’s own published figures suggest that 60% of cyclists do not obey road rules by giving way to pedestrians at crossings. When you factor this into floating bus stops, you can see why the situation is so dangerous.
Evidence has been collated by the RNIB, which is keen to highlight how dangerous floating bus stops are for blind and partially sighted people. Government research shows that when London’s floating bus stops were designed, blind and partially sighted people were not involved in the street design process. Wheels for Wellbeing is worried about the number of disabled people who, because of that, could be discouraged from using buses. I am going to use a phrase that I normally use for my experiences of travelling by train: I just want the same miserable experience of commuting as everybody else. We are not quite there yet, but making it better for disabled people makes it better for everybody.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 35 to 39, which I have put my name to. I have no problem with any of these amendments, particularly Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in which she talks about data, which I will get on to later. I apologise for degrouping, which I know has been weaponised recently. I degrouped mine because there is a subtle difference, and I did not want the two amendments to compete with each other.
Rather controversially, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who said that floating bus stops are discriminatory. They are not: they are dangerous for everybody. I cycle, walk and catch buses. I avoid floating bus stops if I can because they are just terrifying. We have a chance to set a template here. I keep banging on about this. London works really well, and we are moving this out to other parts of the country. Accessibility and inclusive design need to be there, so that we can put it out to everybody.
Guide Dogs for the Blind and UCL did a lot of research recently, which they sent us, on floating bus stops. We should get people back on the buses any way we can. There are people sitting here who cannot use buses any more. We will talk later about rural areas, but buses are the ultimate form of travel. They should be quick, easy and pleasant to use. We must do everything we can do to make that everybody’s experience.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. The debate about floating bus stops—I heard the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others—all depends on the dimensions and who is around.
The noble Baroness mentioned Westminster Bridge, where the floating bus stop is on the far side of the bridge. The cycle lane there is a complete waste of time because it is full of pedestrians. The pedestrians are going on the road. It is a question of how much space is allocated to cyclists, to pedestrians, to people trying to get on and off buses—often with wheelchairs, which need to be level—and to vehicles. We have something to learn about that.
The opposite example is the other side of Victoria Station, in London, where, probably 20 years ago, a mayor put in a cycle lane but it was so narrow that you had to slow to a dead stop before you could turn a little corner. It is a question of design. A moratorium on these floating bus stops would be a great shame. Many cycle lanes, floating bus stops, and so on need a regular review depending on how many people are using them and how safe they are. Safety has to be balanced between cyclists, people in wheelchairs, able-bodied people and the foreigners who do not understand that we keep left, before we make changes. There are good places for floating bus stops and there are probably some bad ones.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this one of the most important groups we are debating on this legislation. I will first speak to Amendment 41, which addresses disability training across the sector. Bus services are a lifeline for many people, providing essential access to employment, education, healthcare and social activities. However, for people with disabilities, navigating the bus system can present significant challenges. It is therefore really important when we consider legislation to look to make improvements, to ensure that public transport is accessible and inclusive for everyone. By incorporating comprehensive disability guidance into staff training, we transform the whole passenger experience.
Years ago, I attended bus driver training at one of the bus garages in Camberwell in London. I have to say, to describe it as not fit for purpose would be an understatement. I know significant changes have taken place since then, but we need quality training across the country. For example, training will increase understanding and equip staff with the knowledge and skills to understand the diverse needs of passengers with disabilities, ensuring the right support and assistance. It will also help staff identify and address barriers to accessibility, ensuring that buses and related services are designed and operated in a way that supports all passengers, including those with physical, sensory and cognitive disabilities. When staff are well trained in disability awareness, it leads to a much more positive experience for all passengers, so I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that amendment.
We have already heard some powerful case studies as we have discussed these amendments, in particular the detailed one of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I saw an interesting story in my press cuttings this morning concerning a freedom of information request Transport for All had published in London. It showed that wheelchair users were denied access to London buses 441 times in the last year due to inaccessibility. In some 56 instances, the bus ramp failed, and in 385 the user was refused admission for other reasons. That is why this discussion today is so important: people are being denied access to public transport when they are in a wheelchair or have other disabilities.
Many other amendments in this group have been clearly detailed and powerfully set out by my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. All of them would strengthen the Bill considerably. All are aimed at tackling accessibility issues, whether that is training, bus stops or bus services, but there is a serious issue we are discussing today, and that is bus stop bypasses. In designing something to keep cyclists safer on our roads, so they are not at the point where buses pull out, and to keep them away from motorised transport, a barrier for blind and visually impaired passengers has been created. While keeping cyclists safe is very important, it is also important that we keep blind and visually impaired bus passengers safe. Design has to be inclusive, as we have heard. I will be really interested to hear how the Government plan to address this serious concern, because consistency of design and design standards is essential.
We must look to create a truly accessible transport network that is for everyone. I look forward to hearing the detailed response from the Minister to the many points raised in this important group of amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, before I commence my response, I would like to update your Lordships on progress since day one of the Grand Committee. I have met with several noble Lords to discuss the Bill, including exploring matters that were the subject of amendments debated in your Lordships’ House. I am also considering the role of guidance, such as bus franchising guidance, in providing clarity on the department’s expectations. I thank noble Lords for offering their thoughts on these issues and look forward to continuing our discussion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, did, I welcome the presence of representatives of the National Federation of the Blind UK, to whom I spoke at the end of the last Committee meeting.
I begin by taking government Amendments 44 and 45 together. Amendment 44 makes a minor change to Clause 22 to clarify that where it refers to a public service vehicle, it means a public service vehicle as defined in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. In practical terms, this is the standard definition of a public service vehicle, referenced in the Transport Act 1985 and used in other legislation, whether relating to accessibility or otherwise. This amendment seeks to ensure consistency of understanding between this and other clauses and existing legislation. It does not change the intention or function of this measure.
Amendment 45 is intended to future-proof Clause 22 by anticipating the use of autonomous vehicles in local bus services. Clause 22 currently requires specified authorities to have regard to guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. Facilities in this context include those that assist a driver of a public service vehicle to enable passengers to board or alight from the vehicle. The feature most commonly used to do this is the painted cage on the roadway, which keeps an area free of obstructions to enable the driver to position their vehicle flush with the kerb, but it is conceivable that, in future, there may be facilities that support the autonomous alignment of the vehicle without the involvement of a driver. As such, this amendment seeks to remove the reference to a driver in the relevant definition of facilities. It is clearly important that we make legislation for not just the services of today but those of tomorrow and, where possible, avoid the need for future amendments to primary legislation.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for Amendment 11. The intention behind the option directly to award contracts is to support the transition to a franchising model. As part of the direct-award contract, the franchising authority can stipulate the accessibility requirements that it expects the operator to deliver. There is existing guidance in place that supports this. This amendment would be likely to delay the transition to bus franchising and increase the burden and cost on the franchising authority, and for these reasons I believe that it is unnecessary.
I turn now to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, has tabled to Clause 22. He is one of the many champions in this House for inclusivity and accessibility in transport, and, of course, I absolutely respect his views, as I do those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, given the experiences that they have talked about today and elsewhere, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I will respond to each of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in turn.
Amendment 35 seeks to amend Clause 22 by including a power to make guidance to ensure that inclusive design principles are complied with in full. I know that the noble Lord supports the premise of this clause, including our intention to ensure that new and upgraded bus stations and stops are inclusive by design. I am concerned, however, that the amendment as drafted would place unnecessary constraints on how the guidance can be drafted and might make it more challenging for local authorities to implement it effectively. Instead of providing authorities with choice, the guidance would need to encourage the adoption of a single set of principles that might not be relevant in every circumstance. It would also constrain the collaborative development approach that we intend to take. I assure the noble Lord that we have included Clause 22 because we know that stopping-place infrastructure must be more inclusive. However, I am concerned that his amendment would frustrate our ability to achieve this rather than support it.
Amendment 36 seeks to emphasise the importance of independent travel for disabled people. Clause 22 currently allows the Secretary of State to provide guidance for the purpose of facilitating travel by persons with disabilities. This amendment would clarify that it is for the specific purpose of facilitating independent travel. As currently drafted, the clause allows the Secretary of State to provide guidance to facilitate travel by all disabled people, whether travelling independently or otherwise. The amendment could have the undesirable effect of requiring guidance to focus principally on those not travelling with companions. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that bus stations and stops should be safe and accessible for everyone, and I believe that the current clause draft is more appropriate for achieving this.
Amendment 37 seeks to specify in greater detail what stopping-place features can be covered in statutory guidance. It does this by providing a list of specific stopping-place features that the noble Lord considers to be important to cover. However, Clause 22 already specifies that guidance can cover the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and related facilities. That list is intended to be permissive and overarching. It is important for the decision on what facilities to cover and what advice to provide to be informed by specialist input and stakeholder engagement. We will work closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, or DPTAC, as we develop the guidance. We will also engage with other organisations representing disabled people and others to ensure that the guidance covers the right subjects and can be effective in supporting provision of safe and accessible infrastructure. It seems likely that the features that the noble Lord identifies, as well as others he has not, would be highlighted to us as important for inclusion, regardless of whether his proposed amendment is accepted.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
To correct the record, Amendment 41 was in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, not in my name.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am so sorry to both noble Baronesses. That is my error.
Amendment 42 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, seeks to protect access to local transport services by requiring the statutory guidance to recommend the use of demand-responsive transport, or DRT, where other options are not viable. As I said on the previous day in Committee, DRT has the potential to improve the local transport offer. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, that demand-responsive transport is not mutually exclusive from accessibility. Accessibility must be part of that offer, where it is part of the local transport offer. I agree that authorities should consider a range of transport options when reviewing the future of services, but I am not convinced that the stopping places statutory guidance is the right place for this recommendation.
Clause 22 is principally about ensuring that stopping places provide a safe and accessible environment. There may well be times when it is appropriate to consider the role of DRT when planning such work; however, it is more appropriate when considering service provision generally, which is beyond the scope of the statutory guidance about stopping places. I reassure noble Lords that the Government have a strong interest in DRT for areas without regular fixed-route connections, many of which—though not all—might be rural. The department is currently undertaking a monitoring and evaluation exercise on the DRT rural mobility fund pilots and will produce best practice guidance to support local transport authorities interested in setting up DRT services in their areas.
Amendment 56 seeks to require relevant authorities to publish a report on the accessibility standards of bus services within their boundaries, including an assessment of how satisfactory they consider them to be. I fully support the spirit of this amendment, which is designed to incentivise local authorities to take responsibility for driving up accessibility standards in their areas. It is precisely because of the need for greater focus and consistency in the provision of safe and accessible infrastructure that the Government are requiring authorities to have regard to the statutory guidance on safety and accessibility at stopping places.
However, throughout the process of developing Clause 22, the Government have been clear that the clause and subsequent guidance need to consider a variety of factors. That is why the requirement has been designed to be both proportionate and flexible. In contrast, this amendment as drafted would place an unreasonably high reporting burden on local authorities. It would also introduce significant duplication, with authorities with overlapping jurisdictions required to report on the same matters. For instance, both Eastbourne Borough Council and East Sussex County Council would be required to report independently on the accessibility of bus services in Eastbourne.
Achieving compliance could entail a lot of work with little benefit for authorities, which would be asked to report on services for which they are not responsible. For instance, a district council with no responsibility for bus services would still be required to report on the accessibility of services in its area. While I recognise the accountability and positive change that noble Lords seek to encourage, I am not convinced that this is a sufficiently proportionate way to achieve it. As I have indicated, I will think about it further and talk to noble Lords to identify how we can help authorities take decisions on local transport provision with a sufficient understanding of the impact of services on disabled people.
Amendment 57 seeks to bring bus operators explicitly within the remit of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. The amendment proposes to achieve this by adding bus operators providing services to the list of public authorities in Schedule 19. Local transport authorities are already subject to the public sector equality duty as listed public authorities in Schedule 19, and this would include franchising authorities. The duty must also be met by an entity that exercises a public function, even if it is not explicitly listed in Schedule 19. This would include any bus company that exercises such functions, such as a local authority bus company.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I would like to ask a brief question about the Minister’s Amendments 44 and 45. They refer to automated vehicles. Those of us who worked on the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 will remember that Section 83 disapplies taxis, private hire vehicles and buses in their entirety because of the issues about driver versus non-driver vehicles. I am not asking the Minister for a reply now, but could he write to me in light of Section 83 and say how that would sit with this Bill?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, and I will certainly write to her on that basis.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, inspired by the Minister, I shall be brief. Much as I expected, there were many valuable insights in this debate, particularly from public transport users who are disabled. We all learned a great deal from what was said, although, for many of us, very little of it was new because we have heard it before—though we are not always hearing sufficient progress in response.
That meant it was all the more disappointing that the Minister, although he is known to be sympathetic to this agenda, responded to the debate by saying no to everything. He appears to be programmed by the department to say no to every amendment that is put forward. There is always an excuse why each amendment must be turned down. When we return to this Bill on Report, if amendments are put forward as they have been debated in this group, this side of the Committee will consider them very carefully for support. If my noble friend Lord Holmes puts forward amendments based on his current Amendments 38, 43 and 45A, the Official Opposition would certainly be there to support him.
There was a great deal of reference in the Minister’s speech to private meetings he is having with Members of your Lordships’ House and to the prospect of discussion and debate after the Bill is passed about statutory guidance. This will suit the Minister and the department, but we should say—I hope I can speak for every Member of the Committee—that we are here as Members of this House to hold the Government to account in this forum. If it is not possible for us to make progress with amendments in Committee, that is a further reason for saying that we will want them debated and passed on Report or even at Third Reading. Private meetings and promises of consideration when statutory guidance is produced are not enough. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon
“(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, or(v) schools, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that primary health care services are considered under the provisions of ‘socially necessary routes’.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak about Amendment 23. The new “socially necessary” routes clause is incredibly important in ensuring that bus services across the country provide services that meet the needs of local communities, rather than simply those which are profitable. Sadly, that has been the case outside London for decades since the deregulation of buses in the 1985 Act. We welcome this new clause but want to improve it through these amendments in two clear ways.
Amendment 21 would ensure that access to healthcare services, whether primary, such as GP or community, or acute, such as hospitals, are added to the locations that a local service must enable passengers to access alongside schools. We felt it was really important to pull out and add these specific services, as they are so important. I am really pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has added his name to this amendment.
The need for children and teachers to have access to schools is obvious, but it should be a service that gets them to school on time. In Tonbridge in Kent, bus services have been cut so much that school bus services either drop children off far too early, leaving them hanging around the streets before school, or they arrive too late for school. This is unacceptable and impacts on children’s education and safety.
Access to health services is fundamental to keeping communities healthy and fit. When someone is diagnosed with a condition or illness, they may require regular routine appointments at a range of health buildings, not just at the main hospital but right across the community. In rural areas, these can be spread out over some distance. It is therefore crucial that socially necessary services are explicit to ensure that patients can get to appointments at different health locations without having to rely on family or volunteers to drive them there and back. At Second Reading, I highlighted the situation in Fleet in Hampshire where there is no bus route to the local hospital from neighbouring areas, yet the hospital car park often experiences 45-minute queues. Our amendment aims to address these common concerns.
Amendment 23 seeks to clarify that the relevant local authority has a duty to implement a socially necessary service, as far as is reasonably practical, should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support, if needed, and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established. We on these Benches felt that that was important, given that the Bill allows for a clear definition of socially necessary routes but gives no clarity on how these routes will be provided.
If, either through franchising or enhanced partnerships, it is proven impossible to secure a provider for a service, what happens? In many ways, this is a last-resort clause. We felt that it was important to ensure that such crucial services for communities are picked up and provided so, as part of this process, the local authority would establish the service itself and produce a report within six months that would set out details of the operation and whether the authority is unable to meet the financial cost of operating the service. This is where the new burdens doctrine would kick in, and thus the Secretary of State would have a duty to consider appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure that the socially necessary service can be provided.
From talking to some of the larger operators, they make it clear that socially necessary services will be able to achieve the aim of protecting hard-to-serve areas only if that is underpinned by funding. I am sure that where franchising is used profitable routes will be franchised together with socially necessary services to ensure that a comprehensive bus service is provided overall. However, our amendment picks up those services that are not securing an operator to ensure that communities have access to essential services. I am pleased to note that Green Alliance supports of our amendments around socially necessary local services.
I hope that the Government will respond positively to these amendments, which seek to enhance the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 22, which is a delicate, small nudge that suggests that, if you are trying to replace bus services or create new ones, looking at previous scrapped bus routes might be a way forward because, presumably, they were the last to go. I do not live in a bus desert, but obviously a lot of people do so outside London. It is a sad state of affairs when people are forced to use their cars, as so many are in the countryside. Bringing back bus routes that existed and were clearly used before various cuts would make sense.
The CPRE report, Every Village, Every Hour, nearly four years ago, set out what a comprehensive bus network for England could look like and the scale of investment needed, which, of course, is a bargain in how much it benefits communities, social enterprise and so on. If the Minister has not read that report already, I suggest that he does so. I agreed also with the previous amendments.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I was delighted to add my name. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, criticised the Bill on the first day in Committee as being mildly nostalgic and backward-looking, a sort of return to the Attlee Government. I have quoted him so many times on this that I really need to start paying him royalties. However, I would like the Bill to be nostalgic and backward-looking. I would love it to go back to the pre-Beeching glory days when buses turned up on time with smiling children. I do not know whether that actually existed.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I will not comment on the noble Baroness’s age. The Bill is an opportunity to help breathe life into rural areas, to get children on buses going to schools and to get people to hospital. We keep banging on about the elderly and people with disabilities who rely on buses to get to hospitals and GPs. This amendment and Amendment 49, which is not in this group, are absolutely right. I would like to hear how the Government are looking to regenerate areas of so-called social deprivation. I realise that, with bus companies, there is an issue with funding, but I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of mankind to work this one out.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 22 in the name of my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do so because, in simple terms, it seems logical and sensible to go to what we could describe as the Beeching bus routes. They obviously had sense and users at the time. It seems a logical place to stop, alight from the vehicle and consider how they could be brought back into being. When the Minister responds, will he agree that when considering the cost of not having such bus routes, that cost should be measured economically and also socially, environmentally and psychologically, not least the impact on the mental well-being of that local area?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in this group we are debating one of the principal means by which local transport authorities can intervene in existing provision in order to change it. They would change it by the use of socially necessary routes and networks. That potentially means that it has very powerful ripples in how the rest of the market operates.
I have a number of amendments in this group. In my Amendment 24, I take the opportunity to keep hammering away at demand-responsive transport as a potentially important way forward in trying to ensure that local transport authorities consider demand-responsive services, not simply fixed-route services, as means of meeting social necessity and social need. Again, this is an important point that is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bill, so I have inserted it here as a means of meeting social need, which it must be. Surely anyone who thinks about this for a moment must regard demand-responsive transport as simply being something that whoever drafted the Bill just forgot about. Anyone who understands transport and how it operates nowadays must realise that that has to have its place in the Bill, not least in relation to socially necessary routes.
My Amendment 25 considers a different angle and concerns competition in the market. How are the contracts for these socially necessary routes to be awarded, and to what extent will they effectively allow large operators to lever off existing resources to exclude smaller operators entering the market? No consideration is given to these market issues in the Bill. It is simply assumed that with the state in charge, everything will be absolutely fine. That might be so if you had a completely communist system where all the buses belonged to the Government and nobody was allowed to run a competing service, but that is not what we will have as a result of the Bill. We will have a mixed system, and the effects of the big beast, which is the state throwing itself around the room, on the rest of the market system need to be considered, and it seems that no thought has been given to them. This is one of the areas where those effects might be biggest.
My final amendment, Amendment 29, goes to the heart of the problem that this Bill presents us with, which is that socially necessary routes are possible only if somebody is going to pay for them, and there is no funding in this Bill. Of course, I would not expect a funding package to be in the Bill itself, nor am I proposing that one is inserted into it. My amendment does not do that, but it requires reports on the funding that is being made available for these socially necessary routes. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no promise of funding for this. The £1 billion that was allocated in the October Budget—£750 million to local authorities and £250 million directly to bus companies—is spent. A much larger amount is going to be needed if these provisions are going to have any real effect. Of course I know that a spending review is happening and that the Minister will not be able today to pre-empt it, but unless he addresses these issues head on and give some sense to the Committee and your Lordships’ House on Report that there is real money behind this, he is simply holding out a bogus prospectus to the public. That is why I have tabled Amendment 29, so that the Government would be under an obligation to report on the money that they are making available to support socially necessary services. I think that is the heart of the whole thing in this group, and I hope that the Minister has more to say about it than he was able to say at Second Reading.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendments 26, 27 and 28, which have been tabled by the Government. A review of enhanced partnerships is under way and is due to conclude in the summer. The objective is to identify areas of improvement to deliver a better minimum standard of bus services across the country. Amendment 26 supports improvements to enhance partnerships designed to enable the enhanced partnership scheme to include a broader set of measures that are directed at improving services generally across the entire local area—for example, setting consistent reliability targets across the entire area rather than on specific routes.
Amendment 27 supports the improvement of enhanced partnerships and relates to situations where a local transport authority develops interventions, such as bus lanes and traffic light priority. Where these interventions result in direct and indirect savings to bus operators, it will now be possible for local transport authorities and operators to include measures in the enhanced partnership scheme requiring this additional revenue to be reinvested. This will support the delivery of the bus service improvement plan objectives and improvements for passengers and ensure that the reduction in operating costs is not entirely absorbed by bus operators as profit.
The Government’s final amendment in this group is Amendment 28. Most enhanced partnerships have developed a bespoke variation process through which they can make changes to the scheme rather than rely on the variation process in the Transport Act 2000. However, there may be circumstances where this bespoke mechanism is not working for everyone. This amendment therefore provides local transport authorities with very limited circumstances where they can utilise the statutory variation provisions instead of the bespoke variation mechanism in the EP scheme to make changes to their scheme.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow local transport authorities to make an application to the Secretary of State when an operator is acting unreasonably and has objected to a proposed variation that would be made under an existing bespoke variation mechanism in an EP scheme. If on application by the local transport authority the Secretary of State is satisfied that the variation cannot be made, due to unreasonable or obstructive behaviour by one or more operators, or that the variation would benefit the people using the local services, they can direct the parties to follow the statutory variation process instead. The measure is designed to provide some protection to local transport authorities to deal with deadlocks in partnership negotiations and to enable changes to local services that are in the best interests of the people who use them.
Amendment 21 would alter the definition of socially necessary local services in the Bill to explicitly include entities that have a healthcare or educational aspect. I reassure noble Lords that the definition of “socially necessary local services” includes areas outside large towns and cities and that it includes local services that enable passengers to access essential goods and services. As such, the definition already encapsulates access to healthcare and schools, but I shall look further at what the noble Baroness has said on this matter.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for her Amendment 22, which looks back at services cancelled in the last 15 years to look at socially necessary services in the present and future. I recognise that there have been services recently discontinued that may be considered by a local transport authority as addressing the needs of some of the communities they serve. I shall take that away and look further at what we do in this respect.
Amendment 22A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to ensure that when a local transport authority provides a tendered service, it receives the same level of protection as a commercial service. On the assumption that the reference to tendered services refers to services subsidised by the local transport authority, these already receive the same level of protection as other commercial services under this measure. Clause 12 does not differentiate between a tendered service and one provided on a commercial basis. If a local service is considered to be a socially necessary local service, Clause 12 requires the local transport authority to list it in their enhanced partnership plans, irrespective of whether it is tendered or purely commercial. On this basis, the amendment is unnecessary.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 23. This would have the effect that, where a socially necessary local service has been cancelled, the local authority will step in to provide a service when another bus operator cannot be found. It also sets out the implementation steps once the local authority establishes a replacement service. I reassure the noble Baroness that under Clause 12 when an operator wishes to cancel or amend a service, they will need to consider alternatives to mitigate any adverse effects of changes to such services.
I point out that local transport authorities are already under a duty to secure public passenger transport services that they consider appropriate to meet the requirements of the area and which would not otherwise be met. This is likely to include socially necessary local services. Clause 12 should result in additional transparency by identifying the socially necessary local services in enhanced partnership areas. This will provide the Government with additional information to inform decision-making around funding for local bus services. Local transport authorities have the best understanding of the needs of their local communities. Any additional obligations introduced through legislation would place an undue burden on local authorities and undermine their independence.
I turn to Amendments 24, 25 and 29 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Amendment 24 proposes that demand responsive bus services be specifically considered as a measure for mitigating the possible adverse effects caused by the cancellation of a socially necessary local service. I consider that such considerations should be left to the local transport authority. The Bill sets out that enhanced partnership schemes must include requirements that apply when a socially necessary local service is cancelled or materially altered. These must include consideration of alternative options to mitigate the effects of a cancellation. This will include how demand-responsive bus services could be deployed.
The purpose of Amendment 25 of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is to ensure that local transport authorities have regard to maintaining a competitive market. I believe this amendment to be unnecessary because there are existing legislative protections that will ensure that local transport authorities sufficiently consider the impact of their actions under this measure on the market. The decision about how to manage the local network rightly rests with the local transport authority. In making decisions around what measures to include in their enhanced partnership, local transport authorities will need to consider impacts on competition. Existing legislation also requires LTAs to consult with the Competition and Markets Authority when varying their enhanced partnership under the new clause. If the local transport authorities were to decide to set up a local authority-owned bus company or provide service subsidies to fill a service gap, there are wider legislative and regulatory frameworks that will apply and are sufficient.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and for the fact that he said he would look further at the detail in Amendment 21. On that basis, I hope we can meet to tease out some of those details, and I therefore withdraw Amendment 21.
“Measures specified in schemes(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 138A(6)(b) (contents of schemes), for the words from “routes in” to “local services” substitute “local services in the whole or part of that area”.(3) In section 138D(2)(a) (measures specified in scheme), omit “serving the routes” (in both places).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment widens the measures that can be taken by a local transport authority under an enhanced partnership scheme so that they can relate to any local services in the area concerned.
“Passenger benefit requirementIn section 138C of the Transport Act 2000 (requirements in respect of local services), for subsection (9) substitute—“(9) The requirements that may be specified in an enhanced partnership scheme also include requirements—(a) as to operators of local services establishing and operating arrangements that facilitate the operation of the scheme;(b) that persons using local services in the area to which the scheme relates benefit from any reduction in the cost of operating those services that results from facilities provided or measures taken by—(i) the Secretary of State,(ii) a local transport authority, or(iii) any other person exercising functions of a public nature.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows an enhanced partnership scheme to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers in return for public expenditure on facilities or measures that will reduce operating costs.
“Variation of schemesAfter section 138K of the Transport Act 2000 insert—“138KA Variation where scheme includes provision under section 138E(1) A variation of an enhanced partnership scheme may not be made under section 138K in a case to which subsection (2) of this section applies unless—(a) the Secretary of State has directed the authority or authorities concerned to make the variation, or(b) the variation is one that the authority or authorities are required to make bysection 12(4)(b)of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025.(2) This subsection applies to any case specified in the scheme as one in which the scheme may be varied in accordance with the scheme (see section 138E).(3) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if, on an application made by the authority or authorities, the Secretary of State is satisfied that—(a) the variation cannot be made in accordance with the scheme because of unreasonable or obstructive behaviour by one or more operators of local services, or(b) persons using local services in the area to which the scheme as varied will relate will benefit from the variation of the scheme.(4) A direction under this section does not affect the application of the other requirements that must be met before the scheme can be varied under section 138K.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that where an enhanced partnership scheme can be varied in accordance with the scheme, a variation can be made under section 138K only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that operators have behaved unreasonably or obstructively or that the variation or revocation will benefit users of local services.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I move that Clause 18 do not stand part of the Bill. I also wish to move that Clause 19 do not stand part of the Bill and, with your Lordships’ permission, I will speak briefly to both clause stand part notices at the same time and once only.
Clauses 18 and 19 are concerned with information that is to be extracted from local transport authorities but also from bus operating companies. I am perfectly happy with the notion that we should try to have as much information in the public domain as possible, and of course I do not intend—as I think noble Lords will understand—that these clauses should disappear entirely. This is a probing amendment, so to speak, to try to find out exactly what the Government think they are doing in this regard. I will speak very briefly to them.
First, quite a lot of the information being sought here, not least on the costs of particular routes and the revenues per route, would be commercially sensitive and belong to a particular company. The fact that Clause 19 allows that to be published in the name of the company is significant. These companies may well be operating a route for a particular local transport authority and another route in an adjacent area, very close by, in an entirely commercial sense. The information sought of them can have real commercial consequences. Nothing here assures me that the Government are respecting companies’ entitlement to have their commercial information protected in what they propose.
There are some difficulties in requiring this information. Having had a long association with the board of Transport for London, I am trying to think of a bus route in London where TfL could produce its cost and the revenue from it just like that. That is not entirely how bus services operate normally. Perhaps revenues do, but costs come down to a lot of questions about allocations that can be highly contentious.
Quite apart from the difficulty of extracting this information, the main purpose in these two Motions that the clauses do not stand part of the Bill relates to the protection of commercial confidentiality, to which private companies are entitled. There are circumstances in which one can imagine private companies choosing not to bid because their existing business would be threatened by the information they would be required to produce about particular routes. It is important that the Government should be clear about their intentions, what they expect and how they will protect that information, before we proceed with these clauses as drafted.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I was rather surprised to see these latest amendments, which seek to remove whole clauses from the Bill.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
If I can continue without being heckled, I am assured that they are probing and that the noble Lord does not want to see these clauses completely removed. He has raised an interesting point about commercially sensitive data. As we know, in running a transport network, data and information are absolutely crucial and transparency is key. All this helps us improve services, so I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response, particularly around commercial sensitivity.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on Clauses 18 and 19.
On Clause 18, there is currently no one single source of information for passengers about bus service registrations or similar information about services that operate outside traffic commissioner-administered areas. Information on local bus services is fragmented, and this clause seeks to improve this state of affairs. As such, it enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring franchising authorities to submit information about services operating in their areas. This information will be similar to that provided on the registration of a service with the traffic commissioner, and it will be provided to the Secretary of State.
Together with Clause 17, Clause 18 lays the groundwork for a new central database of registration information, bus open data and information about services operating outside traffic commissioner-administered areas. This will provide passengers with a single source of information about local services. It is important to clarify that this provision does not reinstate the requirement for franchised services to be registered with a traffic commissioner. Rather, it provides the power to require franchising authorities to provide information to the Secretary of State, thereby enabling its inclusion in the new central database.
In addition, Clause 18 broadens the categories of data that the Secretary of State may collect regarding local services and the vehicles used to operate them. This power extends to gathering information from franchising authorities concerning franchised services and allows the department to collect additional data aimed at improving transparency within the sector. It might be said that the clause would answer the earlier intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about whether all buses actually conform to the PSVAR regulations and, therefore, it would be useful in that respect, too.
Crucially, Clause 18 also empowers the Secretary of State to collect data that will support the monitoring of local service operator performance and assist in the effective exercise of ministerial functions. That might include, for example, information relating to the costs associated with operating a service and the number of staff involved in its operation. I hope that explanation is sufficient to allow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to withdraw his opposition to the inclusion of the clause.
On the noble Lord’s opposition to the inclusion of Clause 19, the clause works in tandem with Clause 18 to support greater public transparency, and thus accountability, over local bus services. While Clause 18, in part, provides for greater information collection going forward, Clause 19 ensures that equivalent historical information already held by the department can be published. The clause achieves this by amending the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 to insert two new sections to enable the publication of existing operator-level bus data. It also provides for the Secretary of State to give notice to industry prior to the publication of such data.
Section 9 of the Statistics of Trade Act requires the consent of individual undertakings before information identifying them can be published. The newly inserted Section 9B disapplies Section 9 of the 1947 Act in relation to information about relevant local services that has been collected under Section 1 of that Act from PSV operators’ licence holders, or their representatives. This disapplication applies during a qualifying period, beginning on 1 May 2015 and lasting until the day when this clause of the Bill comes into force. Disapplying the requirements in Section 9 will allow the department to publish operator-level information collected during the qualifying period, even in cases where consent cannot reasonably be obtained from the large number of individual operators concerned. That point is crucial. The requirement to obtain consent from each individual operator would result in inconsistent data provision. This, in turn, would mean some communities not having access to the same level of information about local bus services as others, or indeed equivalent information for all services within a single community.
The newly inserted Section 9C requires the Secretary of State to publish a notice specifying the information intended for publication at least 30 days in advance, and further details the locations where such notices must be published. These provisions will enable the timely and transparent publication of operator-level bus data, improving access to information while maintaining appropriate safeguards.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is of course right that in a commercial undertaking, this information might be considered commercially confidential, it is also essential for the local transport authority representing the users of these services to be able to access such information in order correctly to plan bus services in their areas, for the benefit of all the people who live there. That is the justification for this clause, so I hope he will accept it and withdraw his opposition to it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I did not hear anything in what the Minister said that remotely addressed the question of commercial confidentiality. The practical effect of this Bill is likely to be that some areas, possibly quite few, take up franchising as an option, while others continue with enhanced bus partnerships. One or two may even set up a municipal bus company, although I doubt whether many will. The fact is that a great part of the bus services provided in this country will continue to be provided by private companies, very often on a commercial basis. The Government’s whole strategy depends on a healthy, prosperous, well-functioning private sector being able to continue. To treat it in this way, as if its commercial considerations were an afterthought, bodes very ill for the way the Government are approaching this topic.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I think the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is missing the point slightly. We talk about who is running the buses; people who see the way that Bee Network buses are run in Greater Manchester will unlock the questions that the noble Lord is asking. How do we get to rural routes? How do we cover the distances to schools? How do we go where the privatised bus companies will not, because the profit is not there? Where do you find the money to fill those gaps to make those routes work?
If you bring the buses under your control, the profit that would go to big companies is reinvested. That then funds rural routes and routes to hospitals and schools and for the disadvantaged. It is a simple mathematical thing: instead of putting profits in the hands of shareholders, you put them in the hands of local authorities, which can then do exactly as the noble Lord wants, which is to run the buses profitably.
It is a myth—people have seen what has happened in Greater Manchester and will happen in Yorkshire and other areas—that a transport authority with very little vision will decide that it is easier to go its own way than to deliver what is clearly a better, more punctual service, with better public satisfaction and cheaper fares. Those are the benefits of going down the road that we have taken in Manchester, and I hope the Bill enables other transport authorities to partake of it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I beg the Committee’s indulgence for a moment to respond to that magnificent expostulation of a classic Marxian view of the world. It is very hard to see how the noble Lord has found himself on the Liberal Democrat Benches when he believes that one has just to eliminate the profit for the surplus released to pay for everything you might want. The truth is that you need an awful lot of subsidy to run socially necessary services to places that have insufficient passengers to justify commercial services. Those subsidies are necessary, whether you release the modest profits that bus companies make or not.
Most of the country relies on private bus operators. Manchester is a special case because of the density of the population. We rely on private bus services and those companies need to flourish. The Government are not remotely thinking about their interests; they are an afterthought. It bodes very ill for the future of bus services in this country that the Government are so inconsiderate of them.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I feel compelled to respond to the last point.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will finish it by feeling compelled to respond to the last two interventions. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to his doubt that you could see the cost and revenue for each bus service in London; I beg to differ, because I was responsible for running the thing for 15 years. I absolutely assure him that we knew, to the nearest penny, the revenue and cost allocation for all the routes. That enabled us to provide a broadly acceptable service, in very different circumstances, over the considerably varied area of Greater London.
I also assure the noble Lord that that knowledge is collected by any responsible bus operator in the rest of Britain. The point is that it ought to be available to local transport authorities which are keen to offer comprehensive bus services in circumstances where a number of bus operators do so. Many of them are not competed against by others, because they cannot match their comprehensive standards. That means that the local transport authority does not have the information to understand what might be substituted in its place for communities that have a very poor service.
I defend both these clauses very strongly. I think good information about this is absolutely necessary. This is not about selling biscuits or buckets; it is about providing public services for people in this country who wish to go about their business and go to work, school, hospitals and other places.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the definition of “facilities” so that it captures facilities provided to assist with the positioning of both automated and non-automated public service vehicles.
““public service vehicle” has the same meaning as in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (see section 1 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a definition of “public service vehicle” into the clause.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, at Second Reading I expressed very serious concerns about part of Clause 24. In opposing the clause standing part of the Bill, my approach has been not to rewrite what the Government have proposed in the Bill—and therefore to provide them with an alternative policy—but to ask them seriously to consider and explain their current policy as it stands in the Bill. To that extent, this is like my previous clause stand part probing notices. But, on this particular issue, it is very clear that we are likely to come back on Report with specific amendments to change the text of the Bill, unless we hear something that explains it more satisfactorily than it has been so far.
My understanding is that Clause 24 inserts into the Transport Act 2000 a new obligation on the holders of PSV operators’ licences in relation to training. I have no objection at all to the idea that there should be an obligation to train staff, and I have no objection to Clause 25, which has a similar sort of effect but relates to training about disability. All of that is to the good.
My specific concern is with subsection (2) of what would be new Section 144F in the Transport Act 2000, where the training requirement under consideration is specified as:
“the person has completed training the aim of which is to assist the person to identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”—
that, after all, is a large number of criminal offences—
“and … anti-social behaviour, within the meaning given by … the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003”.
The person to whom this is directed can be only the driver of the bus, as buses run with one person operating them almost exclusively in this country. So the driver of the bus is expected to be trained, and the public are encouraged to think that the driver of the bus will be trained, to a point where they can
“identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences … and … anti-social behaviour”.
That potentially places a burden on bus drivers that is wholly inappropriate, given their role and their salary, and given that they will almost certainly be on their own on that bus when something happens. Many of the incidents that one can easily envisage would be encompassed by this training would be incidents that, as I said at Second Reading, the Metropolitan Police Force or another police force would respond to with one, two or three uniformed officers. Yet the implication is that a bus driver on their own will be able to
“identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences … and … anti-social behaviour”.
The Minister well understands bus operations—that goes without saying—more perhaps than any other Minister who might come here would understand them, but he cannot seriously mean what it says in the Bill. It is possible that he will say, “Oh no, you must misunderstand—when we talk about training and identifying, that is all really so that the drivers know how to report it to the appropriate people”. They have radios and they can communicate to their higher operator and the police, and things like that—and that is the appropriate response that we would be talking about here. But that is not what the words say; they say “where possible, prevent”, which goes a great deal beyond simply telling a bus driver to operate responsibly and take note of what is going on.
I am utterly baffled by what the Government are considering here, how it would work in practice and how these words are appropriate in this Bill. Something should and could be included, I agree, about training drivers so that they can identify, respond to and take account of this sort of behaviour, which is sadly all too common on buses nowadays. But the words as they stand put bus drivers in a completely impossible position. Apart from anything else, it would make recruitment very difficult indeed.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I have had conversations with bus operators and bus drivers, who are very worried about this issue. Bus drivers tell me that the very act of opening a door to walk out and face a passenger is seen as aggressive. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is absolutely correct on this one.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I completely agree with his sentiment, but I think that he has misunderstood what this clause seeks to achieve. There is absolutely no intention whatever that, as a result of this clause, drivers or other staff should be asked to put themselves at risk.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister suggested that I had misunderstood the clause and then gave an explanation of it that sounds very reasonable—and one could probably go along with it. The reason why I have misunderstood the clause is, quite frankly, that it does not say in words in the Bill what the noble Lord said. For example, there is no consideration given to telling the driver to conduct himself safely. The words could be quite easily amended to express what the Minister said, which is what this particular paragraph does not do.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to indicate on Report either that the Government will table new wording that will express what he just said much better—I think that would be the better option—or that he would be willing to accept wording drafted by the Opposition that sought to do the same thing. It would be better if the Government came forward with their own wording. It cannot be accepted that this wording stands in the Bill when the interpretation of what it means is so very different from what might be called the natural language interpretation of what stands here.
Lord Moylan
“(4A) Local transport authorities must ensure that, in the implementation of this section—(a) the availability, affordability, and reliability of local passenger transport services are not adversely affected,(b) passengers in all areas, including rural and underserved regions, continue to have access to essential services, and(c) sufficient support is provided to bus operators to enable compliance with zero-emission requirements while maintaining service quality.(4B) Before implementing any changes to local service provision under this section, local transport authorities must—(a) assess the potential impact of such changes on passenger services, and(b) consult with operators, passenger groups, and other relevant stakeholders to ensure minimal disruption to service accessibility and affordability.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on local transport authorities to ensure that the transition to zero-emission vehicles does not compromise passenger service availability, reliability, or affordability. It also requires LTAs to consult stakeholders and assess the impact of such changes.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, a small number of amendments here in my name relate to zero-emission buses. I am concerned that the requirement for them is being imposed with excessive harshness and cliff-edge characteristics upon the bus industry. Amendment 47A, which I will talk about first, creates a form of exemption—a continuation that local transport authorities can put in place, particularly for rural services and in locations where battery-powered buses would be inappropriate because the distance that the rural service is running might be more than it could sustain. Generally, it might be appropriate in some rural areas to continue running diesel or hybrid buses for a further period beyond the cut-off that the Government envisage. That would be a relaxation of the requirement and would be welcomed in many parts of the country.
Amendment 47 provides a similar consideration on a broader basis—again, I am not being excessively harsh about all this. Amendment 48A requires the Government to justify their policy on public health grounds by publishing data in relation to the sorts of improvements—particularly air-quality and noise-pollution improvements—that they expect to achieve, for the travelling public and local people, with the changes that they envisage in relation to net-zero buses.
It would be helpful if the Government could take an approach that was a little less ideological and more tailored to what might suit particular areas and populations. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
Amendment 48 is a small but important amendment picking up on a potential anomaly within the Bill. It is something that Baroness Randerson flagged with us before Christmas. The Bill is clear that it wants to see cleaner zero-emission buses providing bus services across the country, and that is something that I would have thought the majority of noble Lords would support. However, this requirement does not seem to cover mayoral combined authorities. This amendment, therefore, seeks clarification from the Government on whether the provisions of new Section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles also apply to mayoral combined authorities. If not, this amendment should be agreed to ensure that every authority is covered.
Transport is a significant contributor to pollution in the UK. In 2021, transport was responsible for producing 26% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions, and the majority of those emissions come from road vehicles, which account for 91% of domestic transport emissions. Getting more cars off the road and more people using quality bus services is essential, as is ensuring that those bus services are as environmentally friendly and zero-emission as possible. I hope that the Minister can provide clarity in this area and put on record today clarification about the subsection at the bottom of page 29, which states:
“The date specified under subsection (2)(b) may not be before 1 January 2030”.
Those I have been talking to in the bus industry are concerned and I think are misunderstanding what is meant by this. Some clarity on the record would be helpful for all concerned.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments cover zero-emission buses, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, have rightly said. The restriction on the use of new non-zero emission buses will not take effect any earlier than 1 January 2030, but the clause places a restriction on the use only of new buses. The noble Baroness is right to raise this issue; I myself have heard some misapprehension about what this actually means. It is about new vehicles, and the flexibility to determine when to replace diesel buses with new electric buses will remain, because if the date were to be 1 January 2030, all vehicles in service on 31 December 2029 would be able to carry on in service.
I will shorten the speech I have been given because it replicates some arguments about the use of electric vehicles, but it is common ground between all those who have spoken on this issue today that the operation of zero-emission buses is a really good thing. I do not think we need a complete assessment from local transport authorities. The important point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made is that there are circumstances in which there can be some further exemptions. In fact, the Bill already provides for the Secretary of State exempting certain vehicle types or routes from the restriction. That is the proposed amendment to the Transport Act 2000, new Section 151A (3)(c), which states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations … specify local services or descriptions of local service in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply”.
There is a considerable flexibility here, in particular the recognition that there may still be services where zero-emission buses at the date at which the Secretary of State sets may not for some reason be capable of operation. However, I hope the noble Lord recognises, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, does, that this is generally seeking to do the right thing in respect of air quality and local bus services.
Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, probes the scope of Clause 27. I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns she raises. The clause will apply to mayoral combined authorities but as drafted, it will not apply to franchised bus services within such areas. I offer assurance that the Government are actively looking into potential options to address this. I hope to return on Report with an update and, were I to need to speak to the noble Baroness, I hope she would be happy if I did so.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and I am glad he acknowledged that there are areas of concern. We may want to return to this, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Thursday 13th February 2025
(5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 54-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (12 Feb 2025)
Baroness Pidgeon
“Impact on rural areas(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of the provisions of this Act on rural areas.(2) For the purposes of this section “rural” refers to areas so defined by the Rural Urban Classification.(3) The report in subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—(a) an assessment of the level of bus service provision in rural areas including frequency, coverage, and accessibility;(b) an evaluation of how the provisions of this Act affect access to public transport for residents in rural areas, with a focus on affordability, reliability, and inclusivity;(c) a review of the potential economic, social, and environmental impacts of any changes in transport services or infrastructure in rural areas as a result of this Act;(d) recommendations for any further actions or policies that may be required to ensure that rural areas are not disproportionately impacted by the provisions of this Act.(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to mitigate negative impacts on rural areas, if applicable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months on the impacts of the Act on rural areas.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
Amendment 49 picks up on a crucial issue that I highlighted at Second Reading and said would be a key theme from these Benches: ensuring that rural areas receive a proper bus service for those often isolated and smaller communities. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for signing this amendment.
Rural areas remain severely underserved when it comes to bus services, with provision often unreliable and inadequate. As I have mentioned previously, in areas such as North Shropshire an estimated 63% of bus miles have been cut since 2015. These reductions have had a significant impact on communities.
In general, urban local authorities have above-average levels of bus use per head when compared with rural areas. Department for Transport data shows that, for the year ended March 2024, in Brighton and Hove there were 147 passenger journeys per head of population, alongside Nottingham on 126. This compares with rural areas such as Rutland on three per head, Cheshire East on seven, and Somerset and Shropshire on eight per head of population. That is hardly surprising when these areas have seen significant cuts to their bus services in recent years.
Our amendments on socially necessary bus services, which we debated on Tuesday, would help address this issue, but so would this amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Act on the impact it is having on rural areas. We hope this focus on our rural communities will help to drive the integration and quality of bus services that our rural and smaller communities and villages deserve. This analysis would be a timely assessment, allowing for a prompt evaluation of the legislation and its impact on rural communities, and would help inform decision-makers, including local transport authorities, and ensure that rural communities’ needs are being met, improving their quality of life and access to services.
I draw attention to the evidence submitted to the Commons Transport Select Committee by the Campaign for National Parks, which flags that visitor travel is an important element of rural transport but that this aspect is often overlooked when considering the role of buses in connecting rural communities with nearby towns and cities. It particularly flagged the access to national parks by public transport. This adds another dimension to our amendment when considering rural bus services.
There are further amendments in this group that also look at rural bus services and villages and cover other important areas, to which I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 62. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which she has just spoken, is a very relevant one, and I think I spoke a little bit about it previously.
I suggest that it is important to know what we mean by public transport. This buses Bill is a great development of that, because it is designed to take people who do not have cars, or perhaps do not want to use cars, to shopping, to doctors and hospitals, to visit friends and relatives or whatever—to get around for communication. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, it is just as important in the rural areas as in the cities.
One element that I have discussed briefly with my noble friend the Minister is if people cannot get across because there is water in the way. Some of the water has bridges; some does not. Some has big ferries and some has small ferries, and, of course, many of the bridges are tolled. The River Tamar has a tolled ferry and bridge combined. The toll is not very high and you pay it only one way, which is interesting. There are smaller river crossings in Cornwall and many other places where people pay a few pounds to get across. Many people moan at the cost, especially if the tolls are private-sector operated, but they have to cover their costs and most of them are pretty reasonable.
There is a big campaign at the moment about the cost of ferries to the Isle of Wight. There are several of them, as noble Lords know. I do not express an opinion on the campaign or the cost, but people are suffering from an unreliable service, which affects them going to work, college, hospital and so on. For a big population—it is probably more than 100,000—that is quite significant.
On the Isles of Scilly, where I live, there are only 2,500 people but they still have to get to hospital and go shopping when the shops on the islands do not provide what they want. The costs there are pretty mind-boggling. In the summer, you cannot get from the mainland to the Isles of Scilly for less than £100 single. For some people, such as those on the national minimum wage, that is quite significant. If you want to fly, which has the added advantage of being a bit quicker—although it does not like the fog very much and so gets cancelled quite often—the cost sometimes goes up to £150.
This may be a situation where there should be some kind of public service obligation for a ferry, which is probably the cheapest and most reliable form of transport, but the ferry does not go in the winter. You can go on a jet boat, which carries 12 people and takes a couple of hours. If it is not bumpy, it is quite comfortable; if it is bumpy, I leave that to noble Lords’ imagination. Something needs to be done to provide some kind of reasonable public service for the 2,500 people who live on those islands and many others like them.
My Amendment 62 is designed to ask my noble friend to produce a report within six months. I am afraid he will be busy if he accepts all these amendments, but I would very much welcome some response. This is a problem for people who have less access to what is properly proposed in the Bill, which I very much support.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this is an eclectic mix of amendments. My Amendment 53 focuses on effective governance arrangements, which are key to an effective transfer of powers to local transport authorities, leading to effective delivery of these significant and welcome changes to improve public bus services. The Government’s devolution proposals to create strategic authorities will, I presume, transfer responsibility for bus services from the existing arrangements to these new authorities. At the very same time, those areas of England with a two-tier system of local government will also be undergoing major changes as district councils are abolished and unitary councils are created.
Together, these reforms will result in considerable change in the administration of both local governance and elected governance, decision-making and accountability. Clearly, this is also happening—all three things together—at a time when the responsibility and accountability for public bus services occur and major powers are transferred to local transport authorities. Hence Amendment 53 in my name, which is there to probe what consideration the Government have given to providing guidance and support to those areas of local government that are subject to these significant changes.
Can the Minister share any insight into the arrangements that will be put in place to support councils during this transformation of their local transport responsibilities? For example, it is often necessary to aid effective change with initial additional resources, whether funding or access to experience and knowledgeable advice. The measures in the Bill will transform public bus services but, in my view, what must not happen is transformational change failing or being beset with difficulties for want of preparation on the governance side of the equation.
I feel quite strongly that this is an important area of the change that will take place but that it has perhaps not been given sufficient thought in the Bill, as it is presented to us. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I rise to speak in particular to Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, as well as Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I remind the Committee of my interests as president of the Rural Coalition and a vice-president of the LGA.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Bill works to the benefit of rural communities. Transport in rural areas—and, often, the absence of it—has been a persistent problem. Poor service planning in rural areas, cuts in services and ill-considered centralisation have been repeat offenders, and we must make sure that the Bill does not miss the opportunity to improve things. While other government departments carry on planning their services based on urban delivery models, the costs they save by doing so are passed on to the providers of rural transport or rural individuals themselves.
Rural transport cannot be left to the market alone, even where there are state-directed requirements for socially necessary services to be taken into consideration. Franchising has the potential to be a solution to the rural public transport problem, but it must include cross-subsidy between rural and urban areas, and seasonal cross-subsidy when visitor income can be used to support wider community needs. It is vital that the requirement in the devolution White Paper not to leave orphaned rural areas off the map of strategic authorities also applies to bus franchising.
When and if bus franchising is done right and rural public transport can be meaningfully relied on by residents, it is a step towards enabling the rural economy’s productivity to increase and for it to make the contribution it is capable of towards national growth. Without tackling this, it will continue to lag behind. The Rural Coalition, of which I am president, recently published a Pragmatix report looking at the huge untapped potential of rural areas in contributing to the economy of our nation. But we need to get certain things right, of which transport is one.
For these reasons, it is not only prudent but urgently necessary that the Bill includes requirements to produce a rural impact assessment, as outlined in Amendment 49 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Government policy has an unfortunate track record of not appearing to rural-proof things properly. I have pressed the Minister in the Chamber on this a couple of times recently, asking for help on the strategies and matrices being used by government departments on rural-proofing. So far, I cannot get any information on that. This amendment, alongside Amendment 78, would help us move forward.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 49, to which I added my name. I will also speak to Amendment 78 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. These are two very similar amendments saying pretty much the same thing. Their timeframe is different, but if we are to have this new Jerusalem of connected bus services that help people—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, commented about the outer fringes—we really need to know that this is happening. We need to concentrate it and we need it reported back to us.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 49, to which my name is attached, and remind your Lordships that I am president of the Local Government Association. From 2011 to 2023, England saw a 20% reduction in bus service provision, adjusted to a 28% per capita decrease amid population growth. The withdrawal of essential bus routes has isolated residents, particularly the elderly and vulnerable, from critical services and social opportunities. Despite overall national decline, particular regional disparities have hit areas such as North Yorkshire, Rutland, Shropshire and Slough. The government investment of £3.5 billion since the pandemic into initiatives such as the £2 fare cap and examples of community-led efforts to subsidise services demonstrate awareness of the problem, but this alone cannot create a more comprehensive bus network.
Transport for All believes that the Government’s proposed increase in funding is an opportunity to address the challenges faced by rural areas. However, in rural areas disabled people are more likely to rely on buses than non-disabled people. They are often impacted by inaccessible bus stops and poor connectivity, but buses are essential for accessing employment, healthcare and social inclusion. Rural bus services often exacerbate isolation and inequality, highlighting the urgent need for reforms that prioritise accessibility and inclusivity as an absolute must. In a survey carried out by Transport for All, 48% of respondents cited barriers to access on buses.
The English national concessionary travel scheme—ENCTS—is fantastic, but it cannot be used before 9.30 am, which creates barriers to employment for disabled people in these areas. New funding has been announced for rural and smaller authorities to provide for ENCTS enhancements. This would promote greater accessibility, similar to that in areas such as London and Merseyside, where disabled people can travel for free at any point of the day. It is really important that we look at this in rural areas—otherwise, it is going to exclude lots of people.
On the second day in Committee I covered issues on the accessibility of bus stops, ramps and shelters. This is even more important in rural communities, where there might be several hours between bus services, but we should also recognise that buses are critical to the local economy. Buses are socially necessary in rural areas, and it is vital that these services are maintained and expanded to meet community needs, especially for disabled people.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, it is impossible to disagree with the amendment that the Committee is discussing. We have heard the usual comprehensive proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I rise only to ask that if she is not happy—and none of us could be happy about the decline in rural bus services—how can that decline be reversed and who will be responsible for reversing it? Presumably, the Government will be expected to adequately fund the sorts of services that the Liberal Democrats and the right reverend Prelate envisage. We all know that is not going to happen in the short term. No doubt, it will enable the Liberal Democrats to blame somebody else—
Lord Snape (Lab)
Well, life is not fair. These are the realities of running bus services. I just remind the noble Baroness who accuses me of not being fair that I used to chair a major bus operator. It was employee-owned for much of the time and faced the same financial constraints and problems under the coalition Government—of which, if I remember rightly, the Liberal Democrats were a part.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Stop being snide. I am sorry—I should not intervene, as I came late.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
As far as I have heard on this third day in Committee and at Second Reading, there has been a majority consensus for the Government’s proposals. What we are trying to do is to draw out those issues that we hope the Government will be able to address. One, as we have heard this afternoon, is rural bus services—and, indeed, access for island services. Equally, we understand that that will probably mean more funding. We had a debate on that on an earlier day in Committee. This is not about criticism or blame; it is about pulling out the issues.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I wonder if I could interrupt the noble Baroness to say that I hope that she realises that this Bill does not give the Government powers to run bus services. The whole point of this Bill is to give powers to local government to run bus services. When she says, “We want the Government to address these issues”, it is unclear to me to what she is referring. If she says that she wants the Government to provide funding to address these issues, that is fine, but if the funding is to be specific and hypothecated to particular purposes—say, to the crossing of bodies of water or certain rural services—then what is the point of giving the powers to local government? They should be making those decisions, wherever the funding comes from. I find the Liberal Democrat position on these provisions very difficult to follow.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I am not sure who is giving way to whom at the present time. I will come to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in a moment or two, because I would be fascinated to hear his summing up of this matter—I wait with bated breath. Having gorged on those subsidies when he worked for TfL, while his party denuded the rest of the country of bus services, his response will be absolutely fascinating.
I ask the noble Baroness—I hope without causing too much offence—that if these proposals are to be properly implemented, who will provide the finance? It has to be either local or central government. The reality of these matters is that, in the short term, there will not be a massive improvement in rural bus services once this Bill becomes law. I only wish that the opposite were true. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can reassure me that it will be true. However, until we know exactly how funds will be allocated and how great those funds are, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that, as ably as she moved this amendment, it is, as far as I can see, rather typical of the Liberal Democrats—all motherhood and apple pie.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I mentioned at Second Reading that I had been chairman of the North Wales Transport Commission in 2023-24. I spent a lot of time in north Wales looking at the performance of the bus services there. I am wholly persuaded of the merits of a franchising system in rural areas as well as in more urban areas, because we all know the problems that the existing system has created. However, I should point out—this follows the previous intervention—that doing this work and deciding which routes need to be run and where people wish to go is a time-consuming business. It will take a significant period to monitor where the car journeys are presently being taken and what kind of network is best going to meet the needs of people. I find the notion that there should be review of this within six months or even two years very ambitious, because in the work that I was engaged in it was time-consuming to get anywhere near a feel of how to create an integrated network rather than just a set of buses that were serving individual parts of the of the area.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. We on our side are supportive of the importance of taking into account the needs of people dwelling in rural areas. Indeed, we have our own amendment to a very similar effect in a later group, which could have been disposed of here. Our proposal to the Liberal Democrats was that it be wrapped up with their proposals, but that was rejected, so now it is going to be debated as a separate group, somewhat repetitiously, towards the end of the list. So we generally support this.
A lot of what I wanted to say has been anticipated. I know that he does not like the fact that he and I agree on quite a lot of things, but the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has brought a dose of sensible realism to the debate, for the first time, perhaps, in our Committee. He was supported in that endeavour by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with his practical knowledge of having examined the bus routes, the lack of bus routes and the potential bus routes in north Wales.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said that this Bill will transform bus services. As shorthand for an aspiration, that is fair enough, but the Bill in itself is not going to transform bus services at all, although that might be the aim. What it is going to do is transform the governance of bus services in two ways, both of them subject to the provision of very large amounts of money, which can come only from central Government and which is not apparent at the moment, although we are all aware that a spending review is in hand. Who knows what will happen? You stick in your thumb and pull out a plum. Who knows what is going to arrive for bus services or rural bus services when the Chancellor has completed her work? At the moment, we cannot say. We can say only that a large amount of money will be needed.
The two respects in which the governance will be changed to which I wish to draw attention are, first, that operational decisions about the running of buses are going to be transferred fundamentally from managers of bus service companies, who have a great deal of experience, to committees of councillors with very much less experience. They will take advice, no doubt, and the Government have said that they are going to offer them the advice of the Bus Centre of Excellence to do the sorts of things that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to. They include, particularly, route planning, but these councillors will also be responsible for fare setting, and fares and ticketing is a great skill and art. We might all think that it is terribly easy to decide on a bus fare, but the whole business of fares and ticketing is a professional and skilled business. There is a great deal that they are going to have to do which they will now be responsible for, which previously they were not, with very little skills support because the Bus Centre of Excellence is a relatively small operation.
The other way in which the governance is going to be transformed—and this is what relates to my three amendments in this group, which I will dispose of briefly in a moment—is that for the first time, effectively, the Secretary of State is going to be issuing guidance that will shape the provision of bus services in a way that simply is not the case when bus services are provided privately. As far as I am aware, that is not the case in Manchester, let us say, where there is no great guidance coming from the Government. Manchester has adopted franchising powers already. But there will be guidance and the local transport authorities, in providing bus services, are going to be subject to it.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 78 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seek to place a statutory requirement on reviewing the Bill’s impact on rural areas and villages. I also heard clearly the point from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—and, incidentally, I agree with him about the need for cross-subsidy to help bus routes that are not in themselves profitable.
I note and understand the importance of serving villages and rural areas. Indeed, the Government intend the choices available to local transport authorities in the Bill to address just those points—including, for the avoidance of doubt, as we discussed this on a previous day, the appropriate use of demand-responsive transport.
The monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, which include the impact on rural services, will be completed as part of a wider evidence review of bus franchising. It will take several years—up to five years—for local authorities to transition to a franchised network or to form local authority bus companies, so any review prior to this would not be able to consider the full impact of any such transition. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I have very high regard for the work that he did in both south Wales and north Wales; he made elegantly that very point. In addition, the full impact of franchising is not expected to be seen until franchising schemes have been operating for some time. Therefore, the timing of a full assessment of impacts on local services needs to reflect that timeline.
I say to my noble friend Lord Snape that while a dose of realism is always a good thing in a discussion about the future, the evidence from the stages of franchising in Manchester is that a remarkable change in both the reliability of the bus service and the volumes of patronage and revenue has been seen as a consequence of the introduction of franchising in various phases.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I respectfully point out that Manchester is scarcely a rural area, and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, specifies rural areas. It might be a bit more difficult to run cross-country services in rural areas than it is to run a franchising operation in cities such as Greater Manchester.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Indeed. I am grateful to my noble friend for that observation. I should have also mentioned the situation in Cornwall, which is more or less franchising and in an area that can be called rural, where the consequence of a decent set of organised services in a rural area has been a considerable increase in patronage. My noble friend’s point about realism is right, and I think the real point of what he was saying is that these things take some time to mature and come into effect.
On rural areas, there is no doubt that considerable damage has been done to public transport by an approach necessitated by the previous Government’s funding mechanisms, which have reintroduced routes that were withdrawn, withdrawn again routes that were reintroduced and given a lack of continuity to services that need it in order for people to rely on them.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for bringing forward Amendment 53 about statutory changes to local council powers. The Government believe that such changes will be wholly beneficial to communities in the United Kingdom. There may be legislation in this Session that alters the powers of local councils to provide them further powers on transport. Given the proximity in timing of any such legislation to this Bill, it would not be appropriate to provide such a review, as the powers would not have had sufficient time to be in force.
I appreciate that this Bill and the English devolution Bill, as well as the forthcoming railway reform Bill, will or may have related provisions to enhance the role of local councils, and we will work closely across and between departments to ensure that they most effectively give local councils control over their own transport networks. In respect of buses, the extensive guidance already available on enhanced partnerships in franchising from government, and the Bus Centre of Excellence, which has been referred to previously, will be available.
Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley would introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to review within six months the Bill’s impact on certain local transport services. I refer to the remarks I have already made about the length of time it would take to take a good view about changes. I know that my noble friend is a long-standing campaigner on ferry services and the important role they play in connecting communities. I also note his description of the ferry service to the Isles of Scilly as “bumpy”, which is undoubtedly true. I agree that these services provide a crucial lifeline for many communities and ensure that people can access essential services, as he says.
The noble Lord also asked at Second Reading about tram services. Again, they are an important part. However, the meaning of this Bill is clear: it is focused on the provision of local bus services and a tram is clearly not a bus—a ferry is even less so. On ferries, though, I understand that the Isles of Scilly Council has been in touch with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regarding both this matter and broader support for the islands. I hope that the noble Lord will note that I have said that.
Turning to Amendment 73, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for bringing it forward. The Committee will have heard the noble Lord’s remarks about the handling of passenger complaints. The Government remain committed to ensuring that services are continuously improved with passengers. This amendment is consistent with our approach to rail, for which guidance on how to resolve complaints already exists. I agree with the noble Lords that it is important to deal with complaints properly, but it is my view that, apart from the handling of the original complaint, the resolution role sits with passenger watchdogs. The department is in the process of undertaking work with existing passenger watchdogs—Transport Focus and London TravelWatch—and bus stakeholders to identify issues and make recommendations on embedding standardised complaint-handling processes, ensuring that passengers have clear escalation. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that the way to deal with complaints is not to file them in the waste-paper basket, but I do not wish to cut across the engagement that is currently under way.
I shall now address the points from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about help for local transport authorities in route planning and fare setting. Of course, he has missed the fact that virtually every local transport authority in Britain has existing experience in both since, for the past 40 years, they have had to tender services that have not been found by commercial bus services to be worth running. I cannot believe that there is a local transport authority in the country that does not have some experience of both route planning and fare setting.
Amendment 79B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to impose new requirements on the provision of real-time passenger information. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that ensuring that passengers can access high-quality, real-time information about their services is critical, but he will, I hope, be aware that there are existing obligations on bus operators. The Public Service Vehicles (Open Data) (England) Regulations 2020 provide the foundation for those obligations and, from these regulations, the Bus Open Data Service was launched in 2020 to facilitate the provision of high-quality, accurate and up-to-date passenger information across England, outside London. The Government will continue to work with local authorities and the sector to help drive improvements in real-time information.
I know that the noble Lord will have noted the part of our earlier discussion about the requirement in this Bill to ensure that real-time information is available on an accurate basis; the worst thing you can have is inaccurate real-time information. However, this Bill is also about empowering local areas. Part of that is trusting them to take decisions on what is best for the communities that they serve and working with them constructively, particularly in areas where there are existing regulations to ensure that services are improved. This is why I believe that the noble Lord’s Amendment 79B is not necessary.
Turning to Amendment 79D, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing it forward. As he said, it is about working with local transport authorities and airport operators, but I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. My department is currently carrying out a call for ideas for the integrated national transport strategy, which will set out a single national vision. This will have people who use transport and their needs at its heart and will empower local leaders to develop integrated transport solutions. As part of the Bill, we want better links across modes—links that connect people and businesses and support the economy. We are working with operators, local authorities and passengers in that way to deliver more reliable public transport networks in general. The noble Lord will, I hope, understand that I do not wish to cut across the engagement on the integrated national transport strategy that is currently under way.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his remarks in response to my amendment. He said in passing that a tram is not a bus, which is of course true, but it often fulfils the same role as a bus by moving lots of people in relative comfort. A lightweight tram scheme is now being built in Coventry, which I hope will be working in the next few years. It is very much cheaper to build, which is excellent, because it needs lighter track work. However, the question of who decides the timetable and fares of that tram and any bus service that Coventry City Council might wish to encourage will need looking at in future. Has the Minister’s department thought about that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. First, the ultra-light tram development in Coventry is still a tram—it has steel wheels on steel rails, so it is still a tram. Secondly, all those schemes, even ones that will, I hope, produce a relative reduction in capital cost, have to be considered through the Transport and Works Act orders and other mechanisms for building infrastructure. The consequence of that is that those schemes are generally under the control of public authorities and are almost always in urban areas. One of the consequences of the freedoms that this Bill will give to local transport authorities will be the introduction of franchising, binding together all the public transport services in those conurbations, including both timetables and fares, to give an integrated service to citizens who live in those towns and cities.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
The Minister has clearly heard the strength of feeling from across the Committee about rural communities and the importance of connectivity and access to bus services. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Snape, about funding are important, because funding is always the elephant in the room. But what we are discussing are new measures, including franchising, which will be the new tool to help local government and local transport authorities to address some of these socially necessary routes—not profitable routes—as part of bus route packages. Our amendments simply try to improve this legislation; we are very supportive, overall, of its aims. I am reassured to have heard from the Minister about this wider review and ensuring that rural communities and areas are part of that, so I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Review of bus fare impact on patronage(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a comprehensive review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage within their jurisdiction.(2) The review may assess—(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends,(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures,(c) potential changes to improve accessibility and increase patronage, and(d) potential benefits, if any, of the simplification of ticketing systems for the purposes of increasing bus patronage.(3) The first review must be completed and published no later than six months after the date on which this Act is passed.(4) Subsequent reviews must be conducted at least once every three years, and made publicly available.(5) In conducting the review, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, and community representatives, and any other stakeholders deemed relevant by the local transport authority.”
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 51 would require local transport authorities to carry out a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger numbers within their area. The review must look at how fare levels are influencing numbers; the social, economic and environmental outcomes of the current fare structure; ways to simplify ticketing systems; and changes to increase bus patronage and improve accessibility. This review should be carried out within six months of the Act passing and every three years, working with all key stakeholders.
We feel that there is a significant gap in the Bill relating to fares. The final-stage impact assessment states:
“Increased fares, unreliable services and fewer routes would likely drive more people away from buses, further reducing passenger numbers”.
Helen Morgan, Member of Parliament for North Shropshire, told me that Shropshire has lost more bus routes than any other county and that the £2 fare cap was not introduced in Shropshire. Fares are significantly higher and a six-mile journey into Shrewsbury can cost as much as £6.20. It is therefore essential that local transport authorities assess the impact that fares are having, alongside other factors, in the provision of local bus services following the implementation of this Bill.
I also have Amendments 74 and 80 in this group, which together place a limit of £2 on single journey bus fares, which can be reviewed every three years and adjusted by statutory instrument. The increase in the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 has created real barriers for passengers, particularly those on low incomes who rely on buses to go about their everyday lives. The £1 rise per journey adds up quickly, straining already tight budgets and forcing difficult choices between transport and other essentials. For rural communities where alternatives are few, the impact is even greater. Without addressing fares in this Bill, we risk deepening existing inequalities and leaving many people isolated. I remind Members that the final stage impact assessment states:
“There may also be benefits associated with increasing bus usage through lowering fares”.
We also strongly believe that affordable public transport promotes greener travel choices. It helps to cut carbon emissions and eases road congestion. In many parts of the country, it remains cheaper to drive than to take the bus. This is a disincentive, and putting a £2 cap on bus fares would go some way to helping to address it. This legislation is about improving bus services and enabling local authorities to have a choice about how local services are provided, but unless there are affordable bus fares, there is a huge hole in this plan. I hope the Minister can address these concerns and respond to our proposal to keep bus fares affordable across the country.
On the previous group we had a discussion about real-time passenger information and open data. Another issue linked to the price of fares is the accessibility of purchasing tickets. There has been a transformation in purchasing rail tickets, despite the fare structure being incredibly complex, through tech innovation and apps. One would want to see, as part of these changes to improve bus services, bus retail being opened up to third-party organisations to allow innovation and the ability for passengers to purchase bus tickets or rail-bus packages. When the Minister comments on our amendments, will he also reflect on improving the Bus Open Data Service and on how opening this area further might transform the passenger experience? I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this group is full of sensible amendments. I will speak to the two in my name, Amendments 77 and 79. Amendment 72 is about the concessionary travel scheme—the £2 fare cap—which has been an immense success. In the village where I live in Dorset, it has changed people’s lives. All sorts of people now do not use their cars, which saves them an awful lot of money that they can spend on things such as heating. They do not need to use their cars, they do not need to pay for parking, and they do not need the maintenance of their cars. It has made a huge difference, and many of those people are not looking forward to it going up at the end of the year to £3. It definitely increases usership. It was interesting to read Amendment 63 from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, presumably in support of the £2 fare cap, which I think is wonderful.
Amendment 79 is about a slightly different issue. It is about encouraging children to start using buses. Most children in the area I live in have to use buses to get to school if their parents cannot afford a car or cannot afford to drive them. I think it is very good practice to get children on the buses early and encourage them to understand that it is something that everybody can do. Also, to some extent, it is a little bit of independence for them. As a Green, I struggle slightly with the idea that any travel should be cheaper than walking and cycling. However, in this instance I think it is sensible to make bus travel free for children, simply because there are so many other accumulated costs on their parents. I think this would be a very good move.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 63 standing in my name. We are fully aware that fares must contribute to funding our public transport system, particularly when it comes to meeting essential social needs. However, we must also acknowledge the significant impact that fare levels have on passenger demand. This is especially relevant given His Majesty’s Government’s recent decision to raise the bus fare cap by 50%.
We are proud of our own record, particularly in extending the £2 bus fare cap throughout 2024. That policy, as we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, provided crucial support to passengers across the country, especially in low-income areas where bus services are a lifeline for many. It is therefore imperative that we fully understand the impact of increasing fares on those who rely most on these services.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government carry out and publish a comprehensive impact assessment on the economic and social consequences of removing the £2 bus fare cap. This assessment must include, but not be limited to, the potential impact on passenger numbers; the financial implications for local transport authorities; the effect on accessibility for those who depend on bus fares for essential travel; and the impact on passengers’ ability to reach socially necessary services, as defined in Clause 12.
We do not believe that His Majesty’s Government conducted such a detailed assessment before announcing the increase to the fare cap. However, they still have the opportunity to do so now. By undertaking that assessment, the Government can ensure that future decisions are based on sound evidence and a clear understanding of the impact on those who depend on public transport the most. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to consider this amendment and commit to a full and transparent assessment of the impact of increasing the bus fare cap.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think I will offend too many people if I say that no one could object to this amendment. Fares play an important role, but I do not think we should overemphasise the role they play. Travel West Midlands, a company with which I was involved for some years, did regular passenger surveys—largely a tick-box exercise, for obvious reasons, handed out by the driver or staff at bus stops. Funnily enough, fares never topped the list of complaints; reliability, congestion and safety all came before fares for passengers in the West Midlands. That is not to play down the impact of fares on passenger carrying, but it should be kept in perspective.
As for the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, I kept count at Second Reading, and that is 11 different reviews, reports and committees that the Conservative Party has so far advanced in the debates on this legislation. I hope that management time—or ministerial time, for that matter—can perhaps concentrate more on running effective services and less on producing reports to the demand of the Conservative Party, largely about matters that its period in office considerably worsened for the bus industry.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am again very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke. I am surprised that I have to help the noble Lord, Lord Snape, understand that very frequently in Committee, as a way in which to provoke some sort of debate or to probe the Government’s intentions, it might be appropriate to ask for a report without necessarily wanting to amend the Bill in that direction when we come to Report—ill named, perhaps. I am sure he realises that his jibe against the Conservative Party has fallen flat.
I was rather pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that she would welcome opening things up to the private sector to develop interesting, innovative and technological apps and ways of paying. I think that is the first thing we have heard said in favour of the private sector in Committee so far.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and, in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Snape—what he was saying was to some extent a response to what the noble Baroness had been saying—bring us to the heart of a debate that most politicians try to run away from: how bus services and other public transport are to be paid for. What is the role of fares in paying for them?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 51 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would require local transport authorities to review the impact of bus fares on patronage. Where a local transport authority has delivered fare interventions to encourage patronage, such as Cornwall’s bus fares pilot and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority Mayor’s fare intervention, they have already commissioned independent evaluation reports to measure their success. Bus service improvement plans already in place also include measures addressing bus fares to encourage greater use of buses. We must recognise that changes to fares are usually delivered at the same time as other transport interventions that support and improve bus services. It would therefore be challenging to attribute any change in patronage solely to a change in the fare charged to passengers.
Your Lordships will have noted that the Government are in the process of negotiating the outcomes for which local transport authorities will be held accountable in respect of buses, as part of their recent respective comprehensive funding settlements. In addition to outcome monitoring at a local level, we will continue to monitor fare impacts at a national level to inform future fare cap decisions.
In passing, I note the noble Baroness’s observations about whether Shropshire adopted the £2 fare cap. I am informed that all except six bus services in Shropshire were covered, although I would not say that the bus network in Shropshire was either adequate or satisfactory. One of the effects of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be to enable local transport authorities to do better by the various means embraced within it. I therefore submit that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, is unnecessary because of the actions already taking place.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for Amendment 63, which seeks to examine the impact of ending the £2 national bus fare cap. The department has prepared a full monitoring and evaluation report of the £2 national bus fare cap, which has just been published. The report is available to read and I will make sure that noble Lords present have the link to it. It suggests that urban populations are more likely to have used the scheme, where of course journeys are shorter and fares are more likely to be £2 or less. In fact, the average fare payable on buses prior to the scheme’s introduction was between £2 and £3. The Government’s adoption of a £3 cap, and the added safeguard of increases above £2 being limited to the rate of inflation, do a great deal, at the cost of £150 million, to continue to ensure that millions can access better opportunities and get greater bus use.
Lord Moylan (Con)
A study of the effect of the £2 bus cap would be very valuable—let us remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said that in her rural part of Dorset it was transformative; I think that was the word she used about it having a significant effect in that part of the world—and we look forward to reading it. But my noble friend Lord Effingham was also asking for a study of what the effect of increasing it would be when that is introduced, which would be equally valuable and show the other part of the equation, if noble Lords see what I mean. I press the Minister because I do not want him to miss the point inadvertently. Is a similar study of the effect of increasing the cap to £3 after an appropriate period—six months or a year—something to which he can commit himself today to illuminate that picture for us?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that. I will certainly think about whether, and at what stage, the department would look at that further. I am certainly not going to commit to it today, because we are looking at wide-ranging legislation about bus services in general, but I wanted to inform the Committee that the work on the £2 bus fare cap is now published.
Amendments 74 and 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also concern the £2 bus fare cap, which I have just addressed. They are clearly intended to seek its reintroduction. Bearing in mind what the average bus fare is, that the Government are proposing to continue with a £3 cap and that fares between £2 and £3 will go up only by the rate of inflation, I hope she will agree that those amendments are unnecessary. However, the noble Baroness referred to the wider retailing of bus tickets, which is obviously a good idea; from time to time, I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Access to bus services should be widely available, and not understanding the fare structure or being able to buy a bus ticket are the worst reasons for not using the service.
In my view, and in the Government’s view, the provisions in this Bill that allow local transport authorities a choice of enhanced partnerships or franchising, or even their own bus companies, will enable local transport authorities to look at wider retailing. Of course, the ultimate aim is not to sell bus tickets at all but for people to use credit cards or bank cards directly as means of payment. We want the bus industry and bus services to move towards that, and I believe that this Bill will facilitate it.
Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, looks for a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme. The Government want everybody who needs it to have access to public transport and are committed to improving the system. The English national concessionary travel scheme costs about £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations, such as the hours in which the pass can be used being extended, would need to be carefully considered. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on a previous occasion in the Chamber, the Government are not considering changes to the scheme at the moment.
However, local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations. We see this in London, where individuals aged 60 and over are eligible for the 60+ Oyster card, and similar schemes already exist in other parts of the country, where local authorities have chosen to provide specific support to their communities through offers that go beyond their statutory obligation. That ability for local transport authorities will continue, and no part of this Bill will restrict it. A review into the English national concessionary travel scheme concluded in 2024, and my department is currently considering the next steps.
Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of making buses free for children. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money to taxpayers while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people. Bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. In fact, youth concessions are currently offered by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of the 85 local authority areas in England outside London. Local authorities also have powers to introduce concessions or discounts for young people. Since buses are local and the Government are committed to devolution, that is where we believe that such choices should be made in respect of free and reduced-rate travel for children.
Finally, I note the observations by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about demanding or wanting reports following my noble friend Lord Snape’s helpful intervention. This Bill has been carefully thought through. The first requirement when it becomes an Act of Parliament will be that it works for local authorities, communities and bus passengers. No doubt there will be reports in due course but, frankly, I am not looking for any of them to be carried out now or in the immediate future because, as my noble friend observed, our efforts ought to be concentrated on running the bus service better rather than writing reports about why it does not work.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister. I am reassured by him saying that the Government ought to continue to monitor the fare impact at a national level and will circulate the link to the review of the £2 cap. That is to be welcomed. I hope that he will drive forward the point about ticketing and modernisation because it is important for passengers.
However, I go back to the comments that I made earlier. The hefty report that I have here, the final-stage impact assessment, says:
“There may also be benefits associated with increasing bus usage through lowering fares”.
We have heard today about Cornwall’s hugely successful pilot but, if you read the trade press, it is clear that there are concerns about it continuing, and this goes back to the funding point that we discussed earlier. Probably for the first time in this Committee, I strongly disagree with the Minister about the £2 bus cap. We think that it is essential. The Minister described my amendment as unnecessary. We do not agree with that, we think that it is very necessary, but, at this stage, I will withdraw it. I am sure that we will come back to it at a future stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“Training programmes on provisions in this Act and their impact on local transport authorities(1) Local transport authorities must establish and maintain training programmes to ensure staff and relevant stakeholders are informed of the provisions in this Act and their impact on the powers and responsibilities of local transport authorities.(2) Such training programmes shall—(a) provide a comprehensive overview of relevant legislative provisions in this Act,(b) focus on the practical application of these powers in policy development, planning, and service delivery, and(c) ensure compliance with legal obligations and promote effective decision-making.(3) Training must be made available to—(a) elected representatives overseeing transport functions,(b) officers responsible for the implementation of transport policies, and(c) any other individuals or organisations directly involved in delivering transport services.(4) Local transport authorities must review and update the training programmes regularly to reflect changes to this Act. (5) Authorities must publish a summary of the training programmes and participation rates annually to ensure transparency and accountability.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires local transport authorities to develop training programmes to ensure staff and stakeholders are informed about the provisions in this Act and their impact on the powers and responsibilities of local transport authorities.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Grand Committee at this stage that I am a serving councillor.
The changes proposed in the Bill, as we discussed earlier in the amendment on governance, will require councillors serving on local transport authorities to make a range of decisions—the noble Lord, Lord Snape, was able to list some of them—that are currently not within their purview. That is positive. It will mean that democratically elected representatives will make the essential funding decisions that underpin bus services. It enables transparent decision-making and, in turn, that enables local people, as taxpayers, to question those decisions.
Creating an open, transparent and accountable process in the bus franchising system is essential. Local transport authorities are not used to operating in this extensive way. What LTAs do now is to try to support as best they can some socially vital services when bus companies say that they are not profitable. When the measures in this Bill are enacted, the role of the LTAs will change considerably. There will be major decisions to take on the shape of bus services and the balance of provision between running profitable routes and providing a public service option for smaller communities, as well as consideration about services at night, in early mornings and at weekends. Given that none of those serving on local transport authorities is likely to have had extensive experience of the new franchising arrangements, ensuring that a training programme is available for all involved is important.
Now I come to the more radical bit. Amendment 54 in my name seeks to go a step further and require mandatory training for councillors and staff, particularly councillors serving on local transport authorities. Councillors currently serving on planning and licensing committees are making decisions within a legal framework. Exercising that responsibility within that framework while raising the concerns of the people they serve is not straightforward. Many councils, mine included, have a mandatory training requirement for any councillor who serves on a planning or licensing committee. That has helped to raise the standard of discussion, debate and decision-making. Not every council has a similar training requirement for those committees, but doing so helps everyone to focus attention on the choices available, rather than simple opposition, which, when operating in a legal framework, is often unsuccessful.
There will be many difficult and challenging decisions to be made by local transport authorities as they seek to balance routes, rural routes, fare prices, congestion and time-tabling reliability. A lot of that is within a legal framework. Therefore, an extensive training programme would benefit those sitting on those committees and help those making those difficult choices to do so in a way that they can respond to effectively when they are challenged about why they have made a decision. There will be a lot of that, I think: “Why haven’t you got a rural route for me?” or “Why haven’t you cut the fares?”. If there was that training, it would be the background for them effectively to explain the decisions that have been made. Given that, I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the merits of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 55 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I tabled this as a probing amendment to continue the discussion on training to help to improve it and to try to mitigate the failures. I realise this is a rather generic amendment and lacking in much detail, but it is about getting the widest possible number of people to understand the impact on a disabled person of not being able to get on a bus.
I receive a number of emails every month from disabled people who are unable to access a service. It may be due to a broken ramp, although the bus should not leave the depot if the ramp is not working. It is also hard to get any traction on complaints, and a lot of disabled people feel that their issues are simply not understood. The issue with the space between wheelchairs and buggies is ongoing. I have experienced it myself, regardless of the High Court case of FirstGroup plc v Paulley. That does not seem to have moved things on as much as I had hoped. Then there is the issue of visually impaired people who have guide dogs, and understanding the space required for them is really important.
I recognise that a whole pile of training already happens, but I think it needs to be better. The impact of a disabled person not being able to get on a bus leads to isolation. In many cases, it is not possible for them to rely on taxis or other unsustainable modes of transport. You might be okay with taxis in a big city where they are accessible, but in lots of places around the country they are not. I probably receive emails every month from disabled people who have been refused access to taxis or charged more because of their impairment. Fewer disabled people are able to drive. Twenty-eight per cent of disabled adults live in a household without a car and only 61% hold a full driving licence, compared to 80% of non-disabled adults. This is why buses are so important.
I already mentioned how hard it can be to get redress. It is very hard to complain to the driver, especially if they just drive off, having refused access. It is also really hard to complain to the companies. They will often give an apology, but that does not fix the issue of somebody not being able to get on in the first place.
I am really interested in looking at what we can do to improve the quality of training. As an aside, I am chairing the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group for the Department for Transport, and training is the number one thing that we are looking at. We are not at the point of writing up our recommendations just yet, but we are exploring raising the bar on standards and ensuring it is equally delivered across the country.
I realise the vagueness of my amendment is probably not helpful, but I look forward to continuing the discussion about how we can make it more possible for disabled people to have the same experience as everybody else.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
This group of amendments is really important, because training is an essential part of this new move to different models for providing bus services across the country. I particularly wanted to highlight the important amendment from my noble friend Lady Pinnock, because local transport authorities will be taking on significant new powers. We must not underestimate that, and it will be vital that their staff, stakeholders and members who sit on the authorities have a comprehensive training package, so they understand the legislation, framework and landscape—and accessibility and what that truly means, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, rightly highlighted. I liken this to thinking about planning and licensing requirements and what has transformed local government over the last couple of decades in terms of training and the quality of decision-making in that space: we need to look at this in a similar way. I really hope the Minister will respond positively to these amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate. I have great sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, as she knows. We will support her in her continuing campaign, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, to put the case on behalf of disabled people for proper consideration in relation to public transport services.
I was mildly tickled by the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. One of my deep concerns, which I have tried to express in as gentle a way as possible throughout this Committee, has been the adequacy and competence of local councillors to take on the role envisaged for them by this Bill. I had not imagined that a vice-chairman of the LGA should give such ringing endorsement to my concerns, to the point where she actually said that training should be mandated by statute for those who will take part in making those decisions. We are at one on this in our concern.
None the less, I am not entirely sure—here I suspect that I will sound a bit like the Minister, and I speak as a former local councillor—that the idea of a statutory training programme in this area would be appropriate. There is a false analogy with training for the exercise of planning and licensing functions, because those are almost invariably what are referred to as quasi-judicial functions that relate to individuals making applications relating to their property, business, premises or whatever. They need to be taken in an appropriate legal framework, rather than a political framework. It is appropriate that councillors are given training in that legal background where they are called on to make those decisions.
The sort of decisions that will be made here are not in that category, so I wonder whether this approach is necessary. In fact, even it were appropriate to have statutory training, I would not have training on the provisions of this Bill, which is what the amendment calls for but, rather, training of the sort that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Snape, could provide: training in how to run a bus company and make the hard, crunchy decisions that you will be confronted with about how to manage your resources in a way that maximises your revenue while allowing you to provide as many, but not necessarily all, of the socially important services that you would like to provide. Those are the hard, crunchy things that people will need to be trained in, rather than understanding the legal background provided by this Bill.
In a way, I am delighted to find myself holding hands with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this topic, but I am not sure that I can support her on the wording of this amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I will address Amendments 54 and 55 together. I listened carefully, as I hope that I always do, to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who talked about her real experience of travelling by bus. Anything less than 100% accessibility is unacceptable, and I completely agree with her.
The Government are determined that power over local bus services is put back in the hands of local leaders across England. That is why the department recently allocated over £700 million of bus grant for local transport authorities in 2025-26 by formula. Funding for bus services is also provided through the local government finance settlement. In fact, specifically, the 2025-26 funding included money for additional officer capability, for either additional officers or help equivalent to additional officers, to help each local transport authority in the choices that this Bill will give them.
The Government have also established the Bus Centre of Excellence, which I am sure we will continue to return to. Work is also under way to provide even more active support to local transport authorities that wish to explore franchising. I take this opportunity to make noble Lords aware of the Government’s plans to pilot different franchising models particularly suited to more rural areas. This funding, along with potential local transport authority bus funding in future financial years, is available to support implementation of the Bill’s measures.
It is, of course, wholly reasonable to expect the people who deliver policies and support services that help disabled people to understand their legal rights, needs and expectations. This afternoon, we will come on to the primary training needs of bus drivers, who are the visible front line of the bus service. The Government are clearly committed to helping authorities deliver the service improvements that we all want to see, whether it is through tailored assistance, the additional funding to which I have referred or the Bus Centre of Excellence.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this mini-debate. In particular, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her important amendment; again, it rightly raises the issue of access for those with disabilities. I always think that if we get access for people with disabilities right, we get access for everybody right. The noble Baroness has placed an important amendment before us to make us think about that.
In my councillor role, at the moment, I am trying to help a resident who is in a wheelchair. There are three wheelchair users on her estate and only one can get on the bus at any one time, so she is unable to get the bus if they are there at the bus stop; she has to wait another hour to get a bus. Somebody said to her, “Well, get a taxi”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, will know, the answer is frequently no. There are no accessible taxis in my town, so that resident is stuck. We need those issues to be at the forefront of this debate, which is why the training is so important; otherwise, we will get it wrong. That would be both a terrible mistake and a loss of an opportunity.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I can understand why he stepped carefully around the issues of local government requirements and training for those on local transport authorities. I thank him for saying—sort of—that he will think about this. I hope that he will, because better decisions are made when folk understand the parameters within which they are operating. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hampton
“Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert— “144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS) for drivers of PSVs(1) Local authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 58, I will also speak to my Amendments 59 and 60. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, for their help along the way. I degrouped these from the original groupings, as they are more about safety than accessibility and inclusivity. I felt that they were important enough that they might get a bit lost in a larger group.
On 29 January, bus drivers marched from Victoria to Parliament to protest about driver conditions and present a petition, signed by over 29,000 people, calling for the acceptance of a bus drivers’ bill of rights, which is about giving bus drivers the basic rights of employment that they feel are being eroded. It was timed to commemorate the death of Kathleen Finnegan, who was killed by a London bus while crossing at Victoria Station. Driver welfare should be the cornerstone of any legislation. I have had meetings with representatives of bus driver groups who feel that there are some working practices going on that they are unhappy about.
My Amendment 58 would mandate that everyone has access to a confidential incident reporting system. CIRAS is one, but there are several bona fide reporting systems available. TfL has had that in place since February 2016; once again, we go back to the fact that TfL does a very good job, so let us roll that out. In my conversations with the Minister, for which I thank him, he felt that this could be brought in and would help a lot with driver safety concerns. If this were a requirement for every bus company, one would hope it meant that any driver safety issues could be thoroughly investigated. That would be great for transparency, passenger confidence, workers and politicians.
I turn to Amendment 59. On the first day in Committee, the Minister said that this Bill is about safety. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, referred to that as well in talking about passenger surveys. However, except for a section about how to deal with crime on buses, there is very little in the Bill about safety.
My amendment would force bus companies to publish their safety data regularly. I talked about this at length at Second Reading, so I will not repeat myself but, in reply, the Minister said that all the data nationwide is already available on STATS19. I am afraid that I will ask the Committee to buckle in and follow me closely on this, because it will get quite granular. The Minister said in his letter that,
“It should also be noted that STATS19 data is a comprehensive and robust public record of personal injury incidents and includes a wide range of data that can be used to support future improvements to safety. A further set of safety data is collected by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Authority, who also collect data on incidents or collisions involving Public Service Vehicle … licence holders. By law, all PSV operators must report fatalities, serious injuries, allegations of a safety defect, serious damage as a result of the incident, a safety critical component failure or history of the same component failing, and a vehicle catching fire”.
I have to say that I did not find STATS19 to be user-friendly, on quite a brief look, and nor did it seem to regionalise data.
In response, the very excellent Tom Kearney, of LondonBusWatch—if there is anyone you need to granularly look at data, it is Tom Kearney—said this. I will quote him exactly:
“Compared to London’s published data, the DfT’s STATS19 Data is seriously deficient and undercounts the number of people killed and injured in Bus Safety Incidents. Even a casual review of STATS19 Data … reveals that is neither published as frequently or in as much useful granular detail as the Bus Safety Data TfL has published on its website every quarter since 2014 … Because STATS19 data combines incidents involving Bus and Coaches and does not include injury incidents involving Buses that have taken place on private roads or land (entrances/exits to and at bus stations) as far as Bus Casualty Data Reporting is concerned, STATS19 is both inaccurate and misleading. STATS19 also does not include injury incidents (Trips & Falls) onboard buses that might not have been caused by a collision, yet produce a lot of casualties (including fatalities) and are an important indicator of Bus Safety Performance”.
He continues by saying that an analysis of TfL’s published data reveals that, for the period from 1 June 2016 to 31 December 2023,
“Collisions from London Buses at Bus Stations have injured 133”
and sent 87 people to hospital.
In addition, between 1 January 2014 and 31 January 2024,
“6 people have been killed from Collisions from London Buses at Bus Stations. None of these fatal or injury incidents involving Buses are recorded in STATS19 Data; Out of the 120 Preventable Bus Safety Deaths that have occurred over the period Q1 2014-Q2 2024 that TfL’s published, 27 … don’t get reported in STATS19 because they occurred at Bus Stations … or resulted from onboard falls … or ‘other’ preventable safety incidents”.
TfL does not provide any details on those. Tom Kearney concludes:
“We have FOI requests that prove that the DVSA collects but does not publish data and the Traffic Commissioner neither collects nor publishes data”.
If the Committee has followed that, this issue is at best muddy.
Could we, as the users, have this data on a dashboard divided by LTA? STATS19 is neither easy to use nor, as far as I can see, divided across the regions. The Minister said that it might well be possible for franchises but was doubtful whether it would work where there was no franchise in place. These days, we are being told that data is gold. Surely companies should be mining this data anyway to analyse their performance—and if not, why not?
When I spoke to Go-Ahead, it was also concerned that much of the accident data is not the fault of buses but might be used as a headline number to dent passenger confidence. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of mankind to separate fault from no-fault accident data and learn from it. Again, we are talking of transparency and public confidence.
On my Amendment 60, from my conversations with bus drivers, again, they are really concerned about tiredness and things changing with shift patterns. They feel that they need more time. Again, since my conversation with the Minister, I realise that there are very different patterns in being an HGV driver and a bus driver. This is more of an amendment to push for an idea of the reporting. We really need to look at driver welfare and I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raise some really important points about the safety of bus services and are important for our considerations. Bus safety performance data being shared in a clear, simple and transparent way is important if we are talking about driving up performance. The complexities that we have heard clearly outlined show why this is so.
I am particularly interested in Amendment 58. It is a good suggestion that all bus drivers should have access to the confidential incident reporting and analysis system known as CIRAS. Over my years of working on the London Assembly, we heard evidence time and again from drivers suffering from fatigue and stress and, in some places, of there being a culture which really did not support reporting of concerns and practices. Many drivers feared for their jobs and we heard similar things about the tram network as well.
CIRAS describes its role on its website:
“We listen to the health and safety concerns of people in transport. We protect their identity when we share their concerns with the right people to act. When we listen, we learn. We help our members share good practice and promote an even stronger culture of listening. And our members learn from valuable safety information they might have otherwise missed”.
This is important as we seek to improve bus services across the country. I really look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this group of amendments, particularly the point around CIRAS.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, with his amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has opened up one of the most important and least discussed areas to do with bus operations in a way that presents many of us who have experience of responsibility, one way or another, for bus services—in my case, a non-executive responsibility for a number of years—with real challenges and difficulty. The question we must ask ourselves is whether bus operators have the right mentality about safety. I say that in the light of what has been achieved in the construction industry, for example, over the past 20 years, where a focus on zero accidents and injuries has transformed the way of working. Of course, zero is never quite achieved, but very close to zero is now achieved on construction sites. A deliberate programme and a deliberate change in mentality has brought that about. On the railways, there is a strong focus on that mentality, and I wonder whether it exists on the buses: are we, in fact, way out of date in our attitudes towards safety?
I want to mention that I have just become an officer of the newly reconstituted APPG on Women in Transport. The relevance is that many of these issues to do with safety are women’s issues. There is the obvious question of violence against women and girls on buses; the APPG will look at that, but there is the broader issue of safety in general. I do not have up-to-date statistics, but it used to be the case, admittedly some years ago, that a very large percentage of women over the age of 65 presenting at A&E were there because they had suffered an injury inside a bus—not from a bus collision but inside a bus, very often because of aggressive or inappropriate braking on modern buses, which have very sharp brakes. The safety regulators, of course, think, “Yes, we must have the sharpest and most modern brakes, just as for a motor car”, but in a motor car you are sitting down and strapped in, whereas on a bus you are frequently standing up, because buses are designed to carry standing passengers. Sharp braking results in people falling over. Very often, proportionally, it is elderly women who are falling over and being injured. Do we take proper account of that? Are we recording it? Are we thinking actively about what we should do about it? The situation has not improved in the 20 years or so that I have been making this point about elderly women inside buses.
Then there is the question, which is very pertinent to the Bill, of the way in which franchise contracts operate. My experience is somewhat out of date, but it is a London-based experience where franchising is used, and to some extent the London model is the basis for the Bill and is being rolled out elsewhere. The emphasis in the contracts is on keeping to the timetable, and that is very difficult in urban areas because of congestion and unpredictable events, including roadworks and so forth. Very often, drivers are under pressure—they have a clock and are in direct communication with their control—to make up time because gaps in the service have arisen, and they can do that only by going faster and braking more sharply. Quite apart from the potential effects on passengers inside the bus, which I have already mentioned, the risk of knocking into something, often with very serious effect if that something happens to be a human body walking in the street, is increased.
We are all here saying how wonderful it is—not all of us are saying it with the same level of enthusiasm, admittedly, but there are people in the Room saying how wonderful it is—that we are extending a franchise model, but the structure of the contract on which those franchises will be based needs to be looked at carefully in the light of safety considerations. We should all be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for bringing up this issue.
In relation to Amendment 60, I am not persuaded that we should have a new and separate statutory provision about working time in the Bill, when we already have quite extensive and elaborate working time legislation elsewhere. There is a lot to be said in favour of Amendments 58 and 59. I have a suspicion that they will reappear on Report; if they do, they will deserve very serious consideration indeed.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 58. It seeks to require local authorities to ensure that bus operators provide their drivers with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System, which I will refer to as CIRAS.
The Government are always concerned, as they should be, about any safety incidents in the bus sector, or indeed any other public transport sector. That is why a number of official routes exist to allow anyone to provide confidential, anonymous reporting on safety and standards in the sector, backed up by enforcement. Anyone may anonymously report a lack of safety or conformation to standards in the bus sector to the DVSA intelligence unit, which may use this information to investigate the situation, including by working with other government departments and agencies, as well as police forces.
Comprehensive standards bridge all aspects of bus operation, across the roadworthiness of vehicles, operation of services and driver standards. As I said, they are enforced by a number of organisations, principally the DVSA. The operators of the vehicles are licensed by the traffic commissioners, who consider non-compliance issues seriously and ensure that operators are effectively regulated. The judicial process of the traffic commissioners can and does result in depriving people of operators’ licences and depriving managers of their certificate to run bus operations.
CIRAS provides another route for employees to report concerns. Both Transport for London and Transport for Greater Manchester are members of CIRAS. Being able to report such concerns in a confidential manner is clearly important, and I would encourage employees of member organisations to consider using this service where appropriate. But CIRAS is a third-party service, and it would not be appropriate to include it within the scope of the Bill.
However, I did a bit of personal research on this, and I will say that if we are asking people to report bus safety issues to the DVSA intelligence unit, it would make a lot of sense for access to it to be freely available. When I looked at it, it was quite difficult to find, which is really unhelpful, so I commit that we will see what needs to be done to make sure that the route to report directly to the government agency responsible for safety on buses is as efficient and easy as possible.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing forward Amendment 59. Road safety is a priority for the Government, of course, and we expect bus operators, as I hope I have just said, to adhere to the highest standards of safety. Buses are one of the safest modes of road transport in Great Britain, and my department remains committed to improving safety with appropriate vehicle construction standards and ensuring the safe operation of vehicles. As we have heard, franchising authorities report safety in detail, and I expect that a consequence of this Bill, as it enables other franchising authorities to be established, will be to enable them to report safety in a similar way to how London and Manchester already do. In effect, the franchising authority is taking responsibility for procuring and delivering a bus service.
In respect of operations that are not part of franchise bus services, we have heard this afternoon that this is carried out through the STATS19 framework, which relies on reports from the police. These reports are based on locations identified by geographical co-ordinates. This is a role that cannot be delegated to local transport authorities and ought to stay with the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency because it relates to PSV operator licensing requirements. However, I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in respect of accidents away from public roads, which I will go away and have a close look at. I am not familiar with that nuance, but it is clearly important. Trying to divide any sorts of accidents into fault and no fault is fraught with difficulty. In fact, it must be subjective, and therefore I am not sure that we would want to go down that road. I understand his point about recording accidents on public service vehicles wherever they occur, and I will go away and see what can be done about that.
Amendment 60 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to change long-established rules about daily driving time on regular bus services. There are two sorts of driving time rules: one for services that do not go beyond 50 kilometres and one for services that do. These daily limits are well and long established, and I think the gist of my conversation with the noble Lord was that he was looking for an ability for people to report scheduling requirements on bus drivers that make drivers feel that they are not safe. That is a matter that could well be drawn to the attention of the DVSA because it goes to the heart of the repute of the operator. I understand that there may well be drivers who feel that what they are being asked to do is potentially or actually unsafe. That goes back to the process that I have referred to and the ability to report it to either CIRAS, if the people responsible for the operation are members of it, or the DVSA if they are not. I note what he said about this amendment seeking to draw to our attention this important matter.
The noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Moylan, talked about the timetable. No bus timetable in Britain should have any requirement for people to drive unsafely or exceed the speed limit. As a seasoned operator with some background in this, I say to them that very often, certainly in urban areas, what you are in fact looking for is not the timetable to be operated but the reliability of the bus service to be as good as it can be. My experience is that drivers should not feel under pressure to return to the timetable. In many cases, any substantial delay makes that impossible. The training given to bus drivers is about driving safely, having absolute regard to the safety of passengers and, in practice, maintaining the regularity of the service rather than the timetable.
If there are cases where drivers feel that they are being asked to drive unsafely, either by schedule or in practice, it is the reporting mechanism that we need to address because there are people trained in this stuff who can address those issues.
Lord Moylan (Con)
With the Minister’s permission, I do not think that we are disagreeing and, therefore, I do not think that what he just said about timetables is quite the answer to my point. It may be my fault for expressing it in the way I did. I am sure that I talked about adhering to the timetable—I will look back at it—but he has cast it differently. He said that reliability—that is, the frequency between buses arriving—is what operators seek to maintain, but that is precisely what can lead to the sort of pressure on drivers where a controller says, “Hurry up because the gap between you and the bus ahead has got too large”. That is really what I was talking about and what I meant to express, although I used the language of timetabling.
The key question that the Minister will need to address is to what extent does the contract reward that behaviour? To what extent is reliability rewarded in the contract? In many cases, companies and people behave according to financial incentives. If your narrow margins as a bus operator or a franchise depend on maintaining certain levels of reliability and certain gaps between buses along the service, that is what you will be pushing your staff to do. It comes back to this question of what the contract says and what it rewards.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Before I got to the railway, I spent most of my adult life trying to encourage people who control bus services not to rely on the timetable but to adhere to a regular frequency. Of course, the truth is that in most urban areas, once you have lost time, the chances of ever regaining it are, frankly, pretty small, and they are even smaller with the increasing use of speed limits of 20 miles per hour. I take the noble Lord’s point but, in the end, this is about people either being required to drive unsafely or believing that they are required to do so. It is certainly possible, and I have seen it done to encourage people to attempt to make time up but, in my experience over the 50 years I have been driving buses—now and again, more recently—it is very difficult to do so.
Let us go back to the safety aspect of this. Where the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is going rightly concerns finding a way for bus drivers to express that they are being either expected to drive unsafely or encouraged to do it. I take his point about that very clearly. As I said before, there are all these requirements on franchised authorities, which will report on safety because they are procuring the service. CIRAS is available, where people have chosen to join that third-party organisation, but, where they have not done so, it is about making the route to complaining clearer and more available. I very much hope that that answers the noble Lord’s points. I will leave it there.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I genuinely thought that this was this place at its best, and I realise that I have trespassed on a landscape of real expertise, but I think we got some cross-party consensus that we really need to push safety to the front of the Bill if it is not there already. I think the implication was there, but it is not in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, talked about zero injuries in the construction industry which was very interesting, and we need to take that on board. Once again, we have got back to this: we need a really good reporting mechanism that people can use, and we need to publish what data is coming out as much as possible. I trust the Minister when he says that he will go away and think about this a lot. In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Effingham
“Financial inclusion in public transport policies(1) Local transport authorities (LTAs) must ensure that all guidance, regulations, and policies implemented under this Act take into account the principle of financial inclusion.(2) In particular, LTAs must have due regard to—(a) the affordability of bus services for passengers on low incomes,(b) the availability of payment methods, including cash, that are accessible to all passengers, including those who do not have access to digital or contactless payment methods, and(c) measures to prevent financial barriers from excluding any groups of passengers from accessing essential bus services.(3) LTAs must publish a report every four years on steps taken to promote financial inclusion in bus services, including measures adopted to ensure access to cash payment options and affordable services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on Local Transport Authorities to prioritise financial inclusion in their public transport policies. It requires LTAs to ensure affordability and accessibility, including access to cash payment options, and mandates periodic reporting on progress.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 64 in my name. This amendment places a responsibility on local transport authorities to ensure that bus services remain accessible, not just through affordability but through the diversity of payment methods available. The reality is that different passengers have different preferences on how they want to pay. If we take rural areas, for example, we know that public transport services are often limited in these regions, and buses may be the only form of transport available. For many elderly residents in rural areas, cash is their preferred method of payment. If we remove cash payment options from bus services, we could unintentionally exclude a significant portion of the population, especially in rural and isolated areas where public transport is already sparse. This would not just inconvenience elderly passengers but severely restrict their ability to access essential services such as medical appointments, local shops and social support in the community. For these passengers, financial inclusion is about the ability to pay for their travel in a way that works for them. This amendment is not about one-size-fits-all solutions; it is about recognising that different passengers need different options. The elderly, the digitally excluded and those on lower incomes should be catered for in our transport policies. By ensuring that cash payments remain an option and that services remain affordable for all, we are creating a system that truly works for everyone, not just those who have the latest technology. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 71 and 72 in this group, with a slightly different angle on this interesting topic of payment, which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Effingham. Normally, I like to give the Government a good roasting, criticise them and explain why it is that I am so much further ahead in my ideas than they are. On this occasion, since I have tabled these amendments and made further inquiries, I am glad to say that this will be an easy ride for the Government because they are doing quite a lot on this already and things are going generally in the right direction.
My first amendment relates to the payment by concessionary fare holders, and the second relates to contactless payment. The two may seem to be roughly the same, but they are very distinct. Contactless payment using a bank card, debit card or credit card cannot be used by those who have concessionary rights to travel on the buses because, obviously, if you are going to use a card, that right has to be evidenced by some identifier.
Let me give an example: those who have a national bus pass will have a photo card of a distinctive style, with an English rose on it; I remember that that was an important feature when it was designed. It is a card of a distinctive style with your face on it, and you need it in order to demonstrate your right both to the bus driver, who probably takes no notice of what is on the card, and, certainly, to a revenue protection officer were they to board the bus and check. This cannot be done with a bank card. One therefore needs two types of technology involved, which I want to deal with separately.
In London, the system that was developed for concessionary fare holders was originally the system used for all contactless payment. This was the Oyster card technology, which is still used for concessionary card holders. That includes not just the elderly—the national bus pass people—but also those with freedom passes and young people who have free travel as well. That technology is used.
However, when the national bus pass was introduced—by Gordon Brown’s Government, as I recall—that technology was not used and the DfT preferred its own technology, which goes under the name of ITSO. TfL regarded it as rather clunky, but the fact is that TfL then had to fit all of its bus card readers with equipment that could read two separate technologies in order to read what is going on. This was a very foolish way of going about things. The purpose of Amendment 71 is to suggest that, as this matter develops, there should be a single system that is applicable to concessionary card holders.
Amendment 72 relates to contactless payment. Contactless payment is widely used in London and was promoted by TfL in collaboration with the banks. In fact, it is quite likely that the banks would never have taken the risk of introducing contactless payment into the country if it had not been for TfL turning up and saying, “We have 4 million transactions a day; if we were to get together, maybe we could make contactless work. It will de-risk it for the banks, to some extent, and will give us something even cheaper than the Oyster card system”. I mentioned it being cheaper.
We should bear in mind that the driver of this, from the bus operators’ perspective, is the cost of collection. The point I would make—I would never disagree with what my noble friend Lord Effingham says—is that inclusion is very important, but one has to remember that cash is expensive to collect. It is much less for electronic payments. Of course, you have to pay the banks, but TfL was quite lucky because it had a proposition for the banks, which meant, I think, that it could negotiate a very good deal with them in terms of what it paid per transaction. Certainly, it is much less than the cost of cash collection, or even of Oyster card operation. If you are an ordinary passenger on TfL services nowadays—not a concessionary fare holder—you must notice that all the advertising encourages you to use contactless and not to get an Oyster card at all. That is the direction in which everything is going.
Outside London, however, contactless payment is still rare. The reasons for this are partly that the different bus companies all have different back offices, and the system needs to work in such a way that it will work with all the different back offices. I am perhaps pre-empting what the Minister will say, but I am delighted to be able to say that I have had some very interesting and valuable conversations with Midlands Connect, which is the non-statutory transport body for the West Midlands and the east Midlands. On behalf of the Government, it is carrying out work to develop a system that would work with all the different back offices of the various different bus companies so that it is possible that, over time, we could have contactless payment on buses throughout the rest of the country. That would be very welcome. It would be useful if the Minister could say in his reply what the timetable for that is; how much resource the Government are putting into it; what level of priority they regard it as having; and how they will now work with the multiple LTAs up and down the country, which will be running the buses, to make sure that this is adopted in a coherent way.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, can I use this opportunity to point out that one of the great benefits of the contactless system is the ability to have integrated fares across a region? One of the things that I discovered in North Wales was the frustration of many people—again, particularly in rural areas—when they were taking several journeys to get to their destination. The ability to have this all taken care of within one transaction is of enormous benefit. Of course, as we know from London, it gives also you the opportunity to have daily caps on the prices of tickets and a great deal of improvement in the experience of people who are making complicated journeys, often across different modes but certainly across different bus journeys.
I see this as an important part of the future. If we are to have an integrated public transport system, we need an integrated fare structure as well. The contactless system is an important step on the way to achieving that important part of the pricing mechanism for the future. Despite the issue that we heard about earlier in terms of the £2 fare cap, my own view is that having an integrated system of the kind we enjoy in London is one of the most important things for the future usage of buses.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their amendments; I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his remarks just now. The Government know how important affordable and reliable bus services are in enabling people to access education, work and vital services. We also know that buses are particularly important for people in the lowest-income households, who make nearly twice as many bus trips as the average, and for younger people, who are much more likely to use buses than other age groups.
The Government also understand the importance of making payment methods on buses accessible and available to all. This is why we have provided guidance to local transport authorities and bus operators on developing their bus service improvement plans, which encourages both parties to work in partnership on improving the provision of fares and ticketing to ensure that the needs of all local bus users are taken into account. To this end, local transport authorities are also encouraged to capture local information about cash usage and electronic payments to inform the development of their bus service improvement plans. The bus franchising powers in the Bill will also give local authorities greater control over fares and ticketing while, through their enhanced partnership arrangements, they can work closely with bus operators to ensure that fares and ticketing policies are inclusive for passengers.
I should just add that, from my own experience as the person who was at the time responsible for the removal of cash payments from buses in London, contrary to the belief of the then mayor that it was the poorest people in London who habitually paid cash, it was completely the reverse: the poorest people in London had already worked out the value of Oyster cards and of daily, weekly and monthly ticketing. In fact, it was the ABC1 males who insisted on trying to pay the enhanced cash fare. When we withdrew it, they immediately moved to Oyster cards themselves. We have already discussed better ticketing once this afternoon, of course.
Amendment 71 looks to have integrated ticketing across the bus network; I note that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, largely took Amendments 71 and 72 together. His sentiments are right: it is good for passengers, as well as for the bus network, its operators and franchising authorities, to have the most modern methods of payment with the lowest possible transaction costs. I completely agree with him.
What we do not want is to try to force people to do things that they cannot currently do while the work in progress that the noble Earl described is going on, to make payment methods as easy as possible. He asked me for a timetable, which I am not sure I can give him, but the multiplicity of back offices across the bus and railway networks in Britain needs to be untangled, and substantial work is going on within the department to enable multimodal ticketing, particularly in Manchester and the West Midlands, outside London. The consequence of that will be—I hope in time, and as quickly as possible—to allow the back office, in the way that he wants and as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, described, to provide seamless ticketing across bus networks. That work continues, and will take some time. He is, of course, right that in London the volume of transactions was so great that the credit card companies were willing to come to the table very easily. Outside London, it is a bit different, but the department is working very hard to do it.
Since the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, rightly says that the Government are moving quite well in that direction—and he also observes, as I can confirm from observation just now, that the English national concessionary pass has the English rose on it, because mine has it on—I submit, on his own assurance that the Government are moving quite fast, that neither amendment is necessary.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the Minister, who have all contributed to this short debate. It really is critical that we ensure financial inclusion for everyone. Based on what the Minister has just said, we will look at this issue further, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Effingham
“SEND pupils and home-to-school buses(1) In discharging their duties under this Act, local transport authorities must have due regard to the needs of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) when planning, commissioning, or providing services for home-to-school buses.(2) In particular, local transport authorities must take into account the following when providing home-to-school bus services for SEND pupils—(a) the specific travel requirements of SEND pupils, including but not limited to the provision of accessible vehicles, safe travel arrangements, and appropriate support during transit;(b) the need for flexibility in travel arrangements to accommodate the varied needs of SEND pupils, including those with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities;(c) the availability of transport options that support the inclusion of SEND pupils in mainstream education, ensuring they can access education on an equal basis with other pupils;(d) the potential for tailored travel arrangements, such as assistance with transfers, escort services, or adaptations to vehicles, to ensure the safety and comfort of SEND pupils during their journey to and from school.(3) Local transport authorities must also ensure that—(a) there is clear communication with parents, carers, and guardians of SEND pupils regarding bus transport arrangements and options available to meet their child’s specific needs;(b) where applicable, there is collaborative working between the local transport authority and educational institutions to ensure that home-to-school bus travel arrangements align with the pupil’s education plan or needs assessment.(4) The Secretary of State must, by guidance, specify further details on the best practices and requirements for local transport authorities to meet the needs of SEND pupils in the provision of home-to-school bus travel, with regard to accessibility, safety and effectiveness.(5) The Secretary of State must, every three years, publish a report on the adequacy of home-to-school bus travel provisions for SEND pupils, including any identified gaps in provision and the steps being taken to address them.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) must consider the needs of SEND pupils when arranging or overseeing home-to-school bus travel services.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
I shall speak to all the amendments in this group standing in my name.
We must support our most vulnerable people, and we believe that His Majesty’s Government should prioritise SEND pupils when considering school bus services. Amendment 65 would place a vital obligation on local transport authorities to have due regard to the needs of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities when planning, commissioning or providing home-to-school bus services. We often speak in your Lordships’ House of our duty to ensure that every child has access to education, yet for many SEND pupils the journey to school is fraught with obstacles. Transport is not merely a logistical issue; it is a fundamental enabler of equality. Without suitable and reliable transport, education itself becomes inaccessible.
This amendment acknowledges a simple but often overlooked reality: that children with SEND require transport that is adapted to their needs, ensuring safety, accessibility and dignity. It is not enough to assume that standard transport provisions will be sufficient. Many of these pupils require accessible vehicles, safe and structured travel arrangements and, in some cases, specialist support during transit. Without these measures, their journey to school can be distressing, unsafe, or even impossible. Flexibility is key. The needs of SEND pupils vary widely. Some require physical adaptations, while others need assistance due to sensory sensitivities or cognitive challenges. A rigid, one-size-fits-all approach will not work. Local transport authorities must recognise the diversity of needs and build flexibility into their transport planning, ensuring that no child is left behind.
This amendment also speaks to the broader issue of inclusion. If we are to uphold the principle that SEND pupils have a right to mainstream education on an equal basis with their peers, we must ensure that they can physically access their schools. The provision of suitable transport is not an additional benefit—it is a necessity. This is not about adding burdens to local authorities; it is about embedding fairness and inclusion in our transport system. It is about ensuring that SEND pupils are a priority in our transport planning.
With Amendment 66, we must ensure that pupils attending schools outside their local transport authority’s boundary are not disadvantaged. This amendment requires LTAs to work collaboratively with neighbouring authorities to co-ordinate travel arrangements that are reasonable and accessible. Given the potential impact of franchising in certain areas, there is concern that changes to bus routes may inadvertently disrupt essential school transport services. This amendment ensures that LTAs take this issue into account when making transport decisions.
It is crucial that the Secretary of State provides guidance on co-ordinating cross-authority travel and evaluates its effectiveness at regular intervals. This will help to address any barriers preventing pupils, particularly those with SEND, accessing their education due to inadequate transport links.
Amendment 67 also comes in the context of a wider concern, which is His Majesty’s Government’s VAT on private school fees. The implementation of VAT on private school fees has caused financial strain on many families, but particularly those with SEND children. The Telegraph has reported that inconsistencies between Treasury and HMRC guidelines have resulted in some private schools having to add VAT to fees for essentials such as school lunches. Furthermore, the decision to push through the VAT levy during the academic year, without providing schools adequate time to adjust, has placed additional burdens on families. Not all SEND pupils have education, health and care plans. This means that many parents have been forced to pay transport fees out of pocket to ensure that their children’s needs are met.
We are simply asking for a review by the Secretary of State and consideration of an exemption on bus services for SEND pupils. As I said earlier, this is not about adding burdens to local authorities; it is about ensuring that SEND pupils and those who travel across authority boundaries are a priority. The Government have said they want to ensure that all children have the best chance in life to succeed—and that is, of course, absolutely correct. Fairness should extend to all pupils, particularly those with SEND, regardless of where they receive their education.
On Amendment 68, please let me highlight the critical issue raised in this amendment, which seeks to review the impact of national insurance contribution increases on transport services for those children with special educational needs and disabilities. The proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions will create a serious financial strain on private bus operators that provide SEND transport services. Many of those providers already work within narrow financial margins, and the increase in employment costs will likely make it financially unsustainable for some of them to continue offering their essential services.
The Confederation of Passenger Transport has estimated that this will cost the bus industry a total of £100 million. For a bus driver earning £30,000 per annum, the additional cost will be approximately £800 per year. This is a significant burden for small and medium-sized private operators, many of which already struggle to remain profitable in an industry with tight margins. If these private providers can no longer afford to maintain SEND bus services, local councils will be forced to step in, which means they will need to retender thousands of contracts—an administrative process that could take months. Delays in retendering would cause disruption to transport services, leaving vulnerable children without the critical support that they need to attend school. Such delays could also affect the quality of services, as new providers may not be able to offer the same level of expertise or flexibility that the private operators previously provided.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, has raised some serious concerns and this group of amendments picks up a point raised at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond. She described the ongoing situation with school bus services and pupils with special educational needs in North Yorkshire, and the terrible impact it is having on families and children. It is vital that bus services support children attending school and college, whether within their local authority area or further away, which is often the case with specialist education provision. This is an area of much concern. I hope the Minister is able to provide some assurance in response to this group of amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I heartily endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lord Effingham and the support given by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. To be crystal clear, the fundamental issue is not the increase in national insurance rates as such, but the reduction in the threshold at which national insurance becomes payable.
Many of the people who drive special educational needs buses are part-time semi-volunteers. They may be working a few hours in the morning and a few hours in the afternoon, and their overall salary, as things currently stand, brings them in below the level at which national insurance contributions are payable. That is approximately £10,000 a year; I am using a very rough figure there, as I do not have the actual figures at hand. The Government’s proposal is a reduction to £5,000 a year of the point at which national insurance contributions become payable—again, an approximate figure. It is that reduction which brings these people within scope of national insurance contributions, which is potentially fatal to the operation of many of these services. They will simply not continue. The best that can be hoped for would be a more expensive service, after a lengthy period of retendering and disruption, in which maybe the same or maybe different operators are providing a more expensive service to the local education authority in many cases.
Separately, there is also the question of private schools and putting VAT on the bus services they provide, which would be bizarre because no other form of transport is subject to VAT, as far as I am aware. It is one of the consequences of the Government’s vindictive action against private schools. But the SEND issue is not simply about private schools; it is about the whole range of schools, and it is crucial that it is resolved soon.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Before I address the amendments in this group in turn, I wish to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Harris of Richmond—who raised her concerns at Second Reading—for raising the importance of home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs. Although this is not directly within my department, my officials continue to work with the Department for Education to understand the issues and how they are best addressed. No child should struggle to get to school because of a lack of suitable transport.
Your Lordships may already be aware that the Government are clear that the system for educating children with special educational needs and disability—SEND—requires reform. The Department for Education will work with families, schools, local authorities and other partners to deliver improvements so that children and young people can access the support that they deserve. It acknowledges that challenges in the SEND system extend to the arrangements for home-to-school travel and has committed to ensuring that more children can receive the support they need in a local mainstream school. This will mean fewer children needing to rely on long and complex journeys to access education.
Turning to Amendment 65, home-to-school transport is the responsibility of local authorities with education functions, not local transport authorities. For example, Transport for Greater Manchester is the local transport authority for the Greater Manchester region but responsibility for home-to-school travel rests with the 10 local councils within the region. The Education Act 1996 places a statutory duty on local authorities to arrange free home-to-school travel for eligible children. A child is eligible if they are of compulsory school age, attend their nearest suitable school and would not be able to walk there because of the distance, their special educational needs, a disability, a mobility problem, or because the route is not safe.
It is for local authorities to decide what travel arrangements they make for eligible children. For example, they might provide them with a pass for free travel on public transport or arrange a dedicated bus, minibus or taxi. However, to meet their duty, the travel that they arrange must be suitable for the needs of the child concerned. The Department for Education provides comprehensive statutory guidance to help local authorities meet this duty.
The Government already expect local transport authorities to take account of the needs of all people travelling, including children travelling to school. Effective collaboration between local transport authorities and local authorities delivering home-to-school transport may bring benefits, but it would not be appropriate to place a duty relating to home-to-school transport on local transport authorities when statutory responsibility for that service rests elsewhere. For these reasons, Amendment 65 is unnecessary.
Amendment 66 relates to children travelling outside their local authority boundary to access a suitable school place. The statutory duty that requires local authorities with education functions to arrange free travel for all eligible children applies regardless of whether a child’s school is outside the council’s boundary. Where a child with special educational needs has an education, health and care plan, the school named in that plan will almost always be considered to be their nearest suitable school for the purposes of assessing their eligibility for free travel. It is already commonplace for local authorities to arrange free travel. For this reason, this amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 67 concerns the application of VAT to transport for pupils with special educational needs who attend private schools. These services may already be exempt from VAT; for example, passenger transport in a vehicle with 10 or more seats does not pay any VAT, and operating a vehicle that has been constructed or modified to cater for the special needs of people with disabilities may also not pay any VAT. The Government’s ambition is a state-funded school place for every child who wants one, whether they have special educational needs or not. The Department for Education’s reforms, which I have already mentioned, will deliver an inclusive mainstream system that meets the needs of as many children and young people as possible in their local community.
I also draw the noble Lord’s attention to the consultation on the national insurance contributions Bill, which says at paragraph 2.13:
“The policy intention is to only capture education services and vocational training supplied by a private school, or a ‘closely connected person’, and closely related boarding services. The government recognises that other goods and services ‘closely related’ to education, such as school meals, transport, and books and stationery, are integral to children accessing education. As a result, other ‘closely related’ goods and services other than boarding (i.e. goods and services that are provided by a private school for the direct use of their pupils and that are necessary for delivering the education to their pupils) will remain exempt from VAT”.
I therefore consider this amendment unnecessary.
Finally, Amendment 68 concerns the impact that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will have on bus services for children with special educational needs. The Government recognise that the increase to employer national insurance contribution will have a varying impact across sectors but had to make difficult decisions to help restore economic stability.
As I have remarked already, local authorities are responsible for arranging home-to-school travel and deliver this through a range of providers. Department for Education officials engage regularly with local authorities to understand the challenges that they face and will continue to monitor this situation. It is expected that private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes to their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations.
My noble friend Lord Livermore, at Second Reading of the NIC Bill on 6 January, said in response to a question about NICs and special educational needs transport:
“The right reverend Prelate also asked about SEN transport. In the Budget, the Government announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26. This includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which covers special educational needs home-to-school transport schemes”.—[Official Report, 6/1/25; col. 601.]
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that that is true for special educational transport needs provided directly by local education authorities using their own employees but not for contracted services, which are very widely used?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I was referring to support to local authorities for home-to-school transport schemes. I will take that away and come back to him with the clarification that he seeks in this respect. I can say that the Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment as the amendment suggests. I do not think that it is required.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, my noble friend Lord Moylan, and the Minister for their contributions in this debate. We have heard so much in the Chamber about how SEND pupils may be adversely affected by various new government policies, so we feel that a review, or an impact assessment as per these assessments, is a fair and reasonable request. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Lord Moylan
“Transfer of functions of Traffic Commissioners to the Department for Transport(1) The functions of the Traffic Commissioners established under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, in so far as they relate to buses, are transferred to the Secretary of State for Transport.(2) The Secretary of State may establish a dedicated division within the Department for Transport to carry out functions previously exercised by the Traffic Commissioners and transferred by subsection (1). (3) All references to the Traffic Commissioners in any relevant legislation, regulations, or guidance, in so far as they relate to buses, are to be construed as references to the Secretary of State or the dedicated division established under subsection (2).(4) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the commencement of this provision, publish a report outlining the structure, roles, and responsibilities of any division established under subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment abolishes the role of Traffic Commissioners in so far as they relate to buses and transfers their functions to the Department for Transport. The Secretary of State will be responsible for implementing these functions through a dedicated division, ensuring streamlined and consistent governance.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I suppose you could say that this is a modestly frivolous proposal because I do not suppose for a moment that the Minister will agree to it, but I thought it would give us an opportunity to take a little excursion into the history and byways of English bus history and to consider how it is that institutions, once established, can take root in a fashion that means they are almost impossible to abolish. Indeed, they can even engender a degree of affection that means they become almost inbred in the national consciousness, not that there are many people outside the transport industry who are conscious of the traffic commissioners. It is worth bearing in mind that they arose in the bad old days of corporate capitalism and monopoly capitalism, which prevailed particularly in the 1920s when what Americans called trusts were thought of as the rational way of delivering goods and services in the private sector. We adopted that idea, creating monopolies wherever we possibly could in the private sector, unregulated monopolies in many cases, and encouraging them.
So it came to be that the thought that capitalism unbridled would produce reckless and wasteful competition arose in the bus industry nationally—or among those observing the bus industry—that it needed to be properly organised on a rational basis and that the way to do this would be to appoint an authority that would be able to decide who could run a bus, where they could run the bus and what fares they could charge. As this was a gentle form of English socialism, it was not a national authority but rather 12—I think it was 12— regional authorities in the shape of a traffic commissioner, whose job it was to do all this work and decide who could run a bus and where.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I have seen the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is not addressing it; he is giving us a history lesson. We had this in the football debate where we had 25 minutes of someone describing the difference between a badge and a crest. It was an excellent presentation on the fleur-de-lis and the history of football crests, but it served no purpose whatever towards the football Bill and, at the end, the amendment was withdrawn. I think that sometimes Members need to be mindful of the time and effort that other Members put into sitting in these Committees and should perhaps use a bit less frivolous description just to prolong the meeting. It is absolutely contrary to the spirit of how these Committees are supposed to work. To probe the Government is fair, but to go into a history lesson on the role of traffic commissioners is unacceptable.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Well, that is a very serious rebuke on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I nearly wilted and decided to curtail my speech as a result of that intervention, but I have found the strength to continue. I remind the noble Lord that there is no question of time being spun out here. We are in day three of a four-day Committee, and we are very likely to finish the Committee today. We are going at rapid speed, and any suggestion that any member of this Committee has been using the time to spin out the debate is preposterous and is denied by the facts, so I will return to what I was saying.
This was the purpose of the traffic commissioners; they were set up for that purpose. So we come to 1985. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, considers 1985 an historical date or one that is part of the modern and contemporary world; for me, it is fairly contemporary, but I would not want to comment on the noble Lord’s age or experience of these matters. Of course, in 1985, all those functions in relation to buses were taken away from the traffic commissioners. By then—this is important—they had acquired functions in relation to the freight industry, as well as certain safety functions on top of that, so there was a reason for continuing the traffic commissioners then.
The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, will have noted, in his careful scrutiny of my amendment, as will have other noble Lords, that it refers only to the bus functions of the traffic commissioners. There is nothing here that would abolish them entirely. That is a pity, in my view, but I was advised by the Public Bill Office that an attempt to abolish them entirely would be outside the scope of the Bill.
The commissioners survived 1985, although there was really very little need for them. The Government are returning to a sort of 1920s view of how buses should be run in the Bill before us, but not giving the same functions back to the traffic commissioners. The decisions about where the routes should run, who should have a special licence and what the fares should be will in effect fall to the local transport authority, not the traffic commissioners, but they are to continue. Their functions include enforcement on safety matters, yet their budget for that is derisory and, effectively, there is very little enforcement. A lot of that work is done, in relation to freight at least, by the DVSA and not by the traffic commissioners.
Generally, it would be a good time to have a bit of a clear out of the bureaucracy that encrusts our modern society. I would like to see the traffic commissioners go entirely and what functions they have transferred to the Department for Transport, but the proposal today, for scope reasons, as I said, is slightly more modest. I do not expect the Minister to accept it, but it is a proposal that those of us here in Committee with a slightly more revolutionary spirit—I am sorry that does not include the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, or maybe it does; we shall hear when he comes to speak—should embrace to see some real change, at last, at the seat of government.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might briefly address one of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I was present in the Chamber, as I frequently am, during the Football Governance Bill. I appreciate that he might not be that interested in the difference between the crests and the arms, but the College of Arms is run by my noble kinsman His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, and I can tell him that the argument put forward as between crest and arms is relevant and has implications. It is important to realise that. He may well want to look into it; I am happy to explain to him why it is important, if he is interested.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the imminence of the recess suggests to me that I should not challenge the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his knowledge of the history of the traffic commissioners, but I will do that over a drink some time. I am less interested in the development of the Road Traffic Act 1930, or indeed the Transport Act 1985, than I am in the future of the bus service in the 2020s.
Traffic commissioners play an important and strategic role in the transport sector and, these days—principally but not wholly—in road use safety. I certainly refute completely any suggestion that there is an absence of enforcement; the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency does that. Traffic commissioners are an admirably economic and cost-effective way of dispensing justice to bus operators and bus drivers—those who are licensed to provide these important and, indeed, safe services—in a way that is widely celebrated in the industry and regarded as far more effective than any other solution. Indeed, the independent review of the traffic commissioner function undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, published in May 2023, found that
“the Traffic Commissioner function generally operates effectively”
and noted a strong level of support from the industry for functions continuing to sit with the traffic commissioner. The truth is that for a regulatory arrangement to be so widely celebrated by the industry it regulates is something to be celebrated, rather than abolished.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister not rather concerned that the regulator is so widely celebrated by the industry it regulates?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
One of the reasons why is because it is not in the industry’s interest to have poor-quality operations competing with it; that is true in respect of both the goods sector and the passenger transport sector. When the traffic commissioners take enforcement action, including depriving drivers or operators of their licences or curtailing them, it is widely celebrated by those operators who do take account of the law and operate safely. That is what is important.
On our earlier discussion about the safety of bus operations and bus drivers, finding a mechanism that is effective for disciplining those drivers and operators who transgress the law—sometimes with no intention of complying with it—is very effective. I encourage noble Lords to consider the alternative mechanism of taking taxi drivers in front of magistrates’ courts, which are often found by everybody looking at the actions of the magistrates to be excessively lenient and persuaded by drivers’ explanations of their behaviour that would never pass muster with the traffic commissioner. It is a very important judicial function, and the commissioners need to be supported.
Returning to the Bill, your Lordships will have noticed that some limited changes are proposed to the functions of the commissioners. These include changes to services operating under service permits with enfranchised areas and powers to act against bus operators who breach the mandatory training requirement. The Bill is about empowering local leaders to take decisions on how best to run bus services in their areas. The presence of traffic commissioners across the regions of England—and, for that matter, Scotland and Wales—is complementary to this Bill’s objectives. They are well placed to use local knowledge to take the decisions they do in the execution of their powers, and I certainly do not believe that the noble Lord has made any case for change in the way that this amendment suggests.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for Clause 21 of the Bill to be brought into force by regulations instead of coming into force two months after Royal Assent. This is to allow sufficient time for guidance under new section 144D of the Transport Act 2000 (inserted by Clause 21 of the Bill) to be prepared.
The Earl of Effingham
(4A) Sections 1 to 15 may not come into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament the report required by section (Impact assessment on rural areas).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment combined with another ensures that the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the impact of sections 1 to 15 on rural areas before they come into force.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I am aware that we have already discussed various aspects of this amendment in the debates, so I will be brief. Before we move forward with significant changes to our bus services, we think it very important to pause and ask: what will this mean for rural communities? That is precisely why this amendment is so important. It would ensure that before Clauses 1 to 15 of the Bill take effect, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the impact on rural areas.
This report is not about delaying progress; it is about ensuring informed progress. We need to understand whether these reforms will improve rural connectivity or unintentionally make services even harder to access. Will funding be allocated fairly? Will small operators that serve rural routes still be viable? Will local authorities have the powers and resources needed to support these services? These are critical questions that must be answered before the Bill comes into force. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his remarks on Amendment 82. I also thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and all other noble Lords for the issues they have raised in Committee. I have found the exchanges useful in discussing the purpose of the Bill and considering issues raised across your Lordships’ Committee. The Bill reflects how important it is to improve local buses for passengers across the country, including those who are woefully underserved in rural areas. Throughout this process, the needs of people living and working in and visiting rural areas have been integral to policy development.
Government officials have worked hard to publish a thorough and comprehensive impact assessment that has been rated green by the independent Regulatory Policy Committee. The assessment covers every one of the Bill’s measures in detail, including in the context of rural areas, so I am afraid I would struggle to justify why a further duplicate assessment is required. Although the noble Earl says this is not about delay, the amendment would have the potential to delay progress on the Bill and therefore to delay its introduction in areas that need its provisions.
It is important to remember that the freedoms allowed by the Bill to franchise and set up a local authority bus company are entirely optional. These powers simply give local transport authorities more choices in how their bus networks are operated. If a rural authority decides to establish a local authority bus company, it will have the flexibility to scale the company to match the needs of its local passengers, its ambitions for the network and the available funding. Additionally, it is important to highlight that the Government have allocated funding to build LTA capacity and capability on buses, including, but not limited to, the Bus Centre of Excellence. They also plan to pilot different franchising models that may be particularly suited to rural areas.
I conclude my remarks there, and once again thank all noble Lords for the excellent debates across the days we have shared in Grand Committee. I look forward to further debate on Report.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Berkeley, whose amendments in the first group were relevant to my amendment. I do not think we need to discuss further and, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 26th March 2025
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (25 Mar 2025)
18:36 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 238 / Noes: 156 - Amendment 1 agreed.
19:31 - Division on Amendment 12 - Ayes: 133 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 12 disagreed.
19:45 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 129 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 13 disagreed.
20:15 - Division on Amendment 17 - Ayes: 155 / Noes: 127 - Amendment 17 agreed.
20:33 - Division on Amendment 17A - Ayes: 150 / Noes: 126 - Amendment 17A agreed.
21:01 - Division on Amendment 20 - Ayes: 54 / Noes: 125 - Amendment 20 disagreed.
Lord Moylan
“Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group fall into three parts. Amendment 1 stands on its own and Amendments 2 to 8 work together to a single effect and will be dealt with as such. Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks clarification. All I will say on it is that I look forward to hearing both what she has to say and what the Minister has to say in reply. I will attempt to be brief, given the hour and the amount of business that we have to get through.
Amendments 2 to 8 give me an opportunity to thank a group of people who have been largely ignored in debates on this Bill: the private companies, entrepreneurs, capitalists and workers—the people who invest their money in providing a service for this country and who are being simply rubbed out as businesses by this Government and will become merely servants of the state, not entrepreneurs or businessmen, as the Minister was when he ran a private bus company. They are not to have those opportunities but simply to be wiped out. The work they do should be acknowledged because they have worked diligently for us over the years.
We are told that what we will get in its place is something better, run by the Government, and we are pointed to places such as London for examples. In London, when the subsidies run out—there are hundreds of millions of pounds of subsidies to operate the buses—we see routes sometimes being cut altogether or having a cut in their frequency. This group of amendments would allow private bus companies to continue to operate without seeking a special permit so as to meet demand. I do not intend to press this group of amendments to a Division. I am sure that the Minister will explain that it is all going to be sunny and wonderful under the state-managed regime, but it is not. We know that from our experience of when the subsidies run out.
In that connection—the notion that it is all going to be better because the Government, or, in this case, local transport authorities, will run the buses—I turn to Amendment 1. There is nothing in the Bill, nor have the Government even made the case, as to why it is going to be better, what the purpose of this Bill is, what it sets out to achieve and what the prime focus is. We know that the unions want to see this happen. We know that many, often Labour-run, local authorities want to see this happen, but they should not be the heart and the driver of the way we manage our public transport services. The heart and the driver should be the passengers, in this case bus passengers. Amendment 1 gives us a purpose to the Bill and puts bus passengers at the heart of it.
I am grateful, incidentally, for an earlier amendment, now withdrawn, from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which reminded me that accessibility needed to be included alongside performance and quality of service with regard to bus passengers. That has improved the amendment and gives us what we see today. I strongly believe that this Bill needs such a purpose. The Secretary of State needs to be required to put the passenger at the heart of the Bill. There is no sign that that is the intention at the moment. There are only promises and pledges, but nothing in writing. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for recent meetings with him and his officials. I have tabled Amendment 61 in this group and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his kind comments about my previous amendment—I thought his revised one looked a little familiar.
Amendment 61 is not only about disabled access to buses, which is why I wanted to debate it right at the start of Report. Rather, it would confirm the importance of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to bus operators, local transport authorities and, of course, passengers. The Equality Act 2010 sets out, in Section 149, the public sector equality duty of public bodies delivering services to people. Anyone under it must have due regard to the need, and take steps to advance, equality of opportunity, not only for disabled passengers.
In this Bill, it is the local transport authorities which are under the PSED directly and plan, implement and monitor bus services in their area, as outlined in Section 108 of the Transport Act 2000. LTAs’ responsibilities are not limited to contracting for certain franchised bus services but include the responsibility for planning services for all their passengers, including the non-franchised. That does not mean that LTAs run the free market commercial bus routes, but they must ensure that everyone in their area has usable bus services.
In Committee, the Minister said that the regulation for public sector vehicles—PSVs—includes the duty to make reasonable adjustments. However, in practice, it is often a “best efforts” provision, leaving many disabled passengers frustrated when they cannot access a bus service. The actual compulsory provision includes wheelchair spaces, announcements and visual displays on the next stop, et cetera, and is way stronger than just reasonable adjustments.
I have continued to meet some pushback in meetings with government officials outside your Lordships’ House on the formal powers that all PSVs have to comply with. There seems to be something of a mindset that the commercial bus services are not included, but it is clear that they are covered by the Equality Act, which does not say that the definition is about commissioned or franchised services; it is any bus service that qualifies as a PSV, and its work must be monitored under another part of the Equality Act—the PSED—by the local transport authority, which will assess whether bus services in its area are meeting the needs of the people.
I have checked the case of FirstGroup Plc v Doug Paulley. The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered in January 2017, sets out in paragraphs 11 and 12 the position that the bus operator had
“failed to comply with its duties under the Equality Act”
and confirmed that it was a public service vehicle under the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000. The House of Commons Transport Select Committee’s report, Access Denied: Rights Versus Reality in Disabled People’s Access to Transport, published last week, explains in paragraphs 10 to 17 the entirety of the law, including how the Equality Act—and within that, the PSED and the PSV section—and the PSV regulations I mentioned all fit together, as well as retained Regulation (EU) No. 181/2011.
The key to all this is the Equality Act, and my amendment simply restates that, as barrister Catherine Casserley said in evidence to the Commons Transport Select Committee, rights to accessible transport
“should be enforced in the same way as any health and safety requirement. As part of any operation, any business has to comply with a range of obligations. These should be no different”.
The Select Committee concluded that, despite the legal framework, much needs to happen to improve compliance and practice on a daily basis. Disabled passengers agree. We need to remind bus operators and LTAs that the Equality Act duties are at the heart of provision for truly accessible bus services. It needs to be in the Bill.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I have spoken in the House before about the need to increase bus speeds. In discussion, the Minister has come forward with a method of bringing some discipline to local authorities with bad congestion problems that make the running of a proper bus service almost impossible—I note Oxford, Cambridge and London as among those places where this is the case.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 1 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act—namely, the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services. I am grateful that His Majesty’s Opposition has taken onboard the amended wording from my noble friend Lady Brinton to include accessibility in the purpose of the Bill.
At face value, it is impossible to disagree with this statement. It is fundamental to this legislation, and the range of areas covered in it, that it is about improving bus services across the country. As we heard in Committee, in many parts of the country our bus services have reached a crisis point and are virtually non-existent. Therefore, improved performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services must surely be a clear aim of this legislation.
My noble friend Lady Brinton’s Amendment 61 would extend the public service equality duty to cover all aspects of bus services, and it is really important. Whether bus services are run commercially, as is the current situation, or as part of an enhanced partnership or a future LABCo, there is the potential that not all aspects of bus services are fully covered. This will ensure that buses and bus services are covered by the public service equality duty. It is an important amendment.
On the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, regarding service permits, I am not convinced by the arguments put forward and see them as trying to compete with the franchised service in a problematic way. These feel like they are creating unnecessary bureaucracy and diktat from the centre, rather than allowing local transport authorities to provide the best service that suits their local communities and letting local government thrive. It feels at odds with what this Bill is trying to achieve. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, before I begin to address the amendments, I thank noble Lords for their continued contributions to the Bill. It remains clear to me that we share a common goal to improve bus services for passengers. This is precisely why the Government introduced this Bill: to empower local areas to design the bus services that their communities need, and to reverse decades-long nationwide trends in declining patronage and services.
Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said earlier, there are real choices in the Bill for local transport authorities, and rightly so. Nor is the Bill a threat to good private sector operators in the way the noble Lord implies. He referred to the entrepreneurial period in my own career. He should note that it was very largely in the provision of contracts for one of these evil public sector authorities—none other than London Transport—that the company I ran made a modest amount of money.
Your Lordships have provided insightful views and challenge throughout the Bill’s passage through this House. As I noted in my letter to all Peers, the Government have taken the time to reflect on the arguments put forward by noble Lords to strengthen the Bill’s measures in detail. I will speak to amendments that have been tabled in my name during this session. It is my view that these amendments would improve the Bill, and I hope they will be welcomed by your Lordships.
I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for the recommendations in its 13th report. I note that the Government have welcomed and taken on board the suggestions therein.
I will take this opportunity, if I might, to briefly update the House following an exchange in Committee about the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency reporting channel for bus safety incidents and standards in the sector. I noted in Committee, in response to an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that this channel could be more user-friendly. I have since written to the DVSA, which has confirmed that it is in the process of updating all online reporting forms to improve accessibility and streamline the reporting process. Changes will be designed to allow direct reporting to the DVSA intelligence unit, including from the staff of operators, which should enable more timely interventions. Following updates to heavy goods vehicle reporting, the DVSA will be prioritising public service vehicle and coach reporting. This will include carrying out user research, to ensure that the revised forms enable the accurate and timely reporting of issues. I hope this is a helpful update and that it addresses any outstanding concerns about the adequacy of this reporting channel.
I thank the noble Lord for Amendment 1. This would place a direct requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to improving the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain as the main purpose of the Bill. As I stated in Committee, I understand why the noble Lord has drafted this amendment. I absolutely share the aim to achieve a better bus network that is more reliable, improves accessibility and performs well.
During the passage of what is now the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Gascoigne, tabled a similar amendment. At the time, I explained that the Secretary of State’s and the Government’s wider plans and objectives for the rail network included improving performance, but that this was not the sole purpose. I offer the House the same rationale for this Bill.
The objectives of the Bill of course include improving reliability, accessibility and performance; these are important aims. However, the Bill seeks to improve safety, provides local leaders with the powers to make the right decisions for their local areas, supports reaching net zero and puts passengers at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. To single out a limited number of objectives would undermine the message that the Government are trying to convey to local authorities, passengers, operators and the wider industry. I would not support this idea or place it in the Bill.
Extending this requirement across Great Britain, as the amendment seeks to, would presents significant difficulties with devolution. In tabling the amendment, the noble Lord appears to be seeking to apply all of the Bill’s measures across the whole of Great Britain. That would raise the potential of cutting across the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Governments to decide how to run their own bus networks and what is best for their local communities. I am sure noble Lords opposite would not want this outcome. As some noble Lords will be aware, the Welsh Government are due to introduce their own Bill into the Senedd in the coming months. I hope the noble Lord understands the reasons why I do not believe this amendment should stand, and therefore will withdraw it.
I will briefly address Amendments 2 to 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on service permits. As the noble Lord knows, the Bill introduces new tests which franchising authorities can use to assess service permit applications. These applications are made by operators seeking to run commercial services in a franchising area, including cross-boundary services. The new tests set out in the Bill give franchising authorities more scope to grant service permits. They do so by allowing authorities to consider a wider range of benefits that the proposed commercial services could provide, and then to weigh these up against any adverse effect on franchised services.
While some of the noble Lord’s amendments would remove these new tests and others would alter them, the impact would be the same: franchising authorities would be significantly restricted in their ability to take into account any adverse impacts on franchised services made by the proposed commercial service. This would open the door to authorities being compelled to grant service permits for commercial services which directly compete with franchised ones, undermining the coherence and financial viability of franchising schemes.
I underline again that I recognise the additionality that commercially operated services can provide and how they can complement franchised networks; that is why the Bill gives authorities more freedom to tap into this provision. However, these amendments would diminish franchising authorities’ ability to control their networks, and they would likely make franchising as a model unviable. This is not in the interests of places with franchising schemes or of providing all local transport authorities with a range of tools to deliver the best possible bus services.
Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to prevent bus services being provided in a manner which discriminates against disabled people. I hear the noble Baroness’s concern about the barriers that disabled people continue to face when making day-to-day journeys on local services, and I absolutely share her determination that they must be overcome. As she says, we have had several substantial discussions about this topic.
However, as I know the noble Baroness will be aware, Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 defines the concept of discrimination arising from disability, and Section 29, in turn, places requirements on service providers to not discriminate against users, including where arising from disability. This already applies to operators of local services, as it does to local authorities. Furthermore, requiring authorities to ensure compliance with the duty contained in this amendment could only ever have effect where authorities exercise direct control over the day-to-day operations of bus operators—control which does not exist in relation to the vast majority of services, except in franchising.
Here, it would be helpful to clarify remarks I made in Committee. The Bill permits local transport authorities to decide whether to pursue bus franchising and enhanced partnerships, or to set up new local authority bus companies. No single model is mandated; that is a decision for local leaders to take. This is directly relevant to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 makes local transport authorities subject to the public sector equality duty. These are listed as public authorities by that Act. That means, for example, that franchising authorities which have assumed responsibility for contracting their bus services are clearly within scope of the public sector equality duty.
Furthermore, noble Lords versed in the provisions of the Equality Act will know that an entity that exercises a public function is subject to the public sector equality duty. Therefore, any bus company that exercises such functions, which includes a local authority bus company, would be captured by the duty. This means that a new local authority bus company, enabled by the Bill, would be expected to consider the public sector equality duty whenever exercising public functions.
The situation is less clear-cut when it comes to enhanced partnerships between LTAs and private operators. As I have explained, bus companies are captured by the public sector equality duty to the extent to which they are exercising public functions—this would include privately owned bus companies. However, enhanced partnerships will include services that are commercial. Ultimately, it is not for me or the Government to determine what constitutes a public function—that is a question for the courts.
Therefore, although I am sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s concerns, I am unable to stand at this Dispatch Box and confirm that all bus operators must comply with public sector equality duty requirements even when not exercising public functions. In fact, to make private entities subject to the duty would be likely to require a substantial rewrite of the Equality Act. I hope that noble Lords would agree that this Bill is not the right place for that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; I listened carefully to what he said. On Amendment 1, he says that we can trust the Government that performance, accessibility and quality of service for bus passengers are safe in their hands and those of local transport authorities, and that this does not need to be in the Bill. Yet, when one looks at Marshalled List, there are half a dozen—welcome—amendments on accessibility. Why are they there? They are there because the Government forgot about accessibility when they drafted the Bill. They are there because of the work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, and others, who, in Committee, put this issue right at the heart of the discussion.
The truth is that there are a number of drivers influencing the Government in their direction on bus policy. They include the unions, local authorities—many of which are Labour or left-wing led—and the passengers. But the passengers should not have to compete with other parties. As I and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, have said, passengers’ interests should be at the heart of the Bill. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 1.
Lord Moylan
“Franchising statementIn section 123A of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The power in subsection (1) cannot be exercised until the franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, has published a statement, subject to the requirement in subsection (1B), stating—(a) their objectives in making the franchising scheme, and(b) their reasons and evidence for believing that the making of such a scheme is the best option for achieving those objectives.(1B) It is a requirement that a statement in subsection (1A) must be published before the franchising authority complies with the requirements in sections 123B to 123G.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that before initiating the formal franchising process under sections 123B to 123G of the Transport Act 2000, franchising authorities must first publish a statement outlining their objectives, reasons, and supporting evidence for believing that franchising is the best option to achieve their aims.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this group consists of three amendments that are sufficiently related to merit being included in one group but are each distinct from each other, and each requires a degree of explanation that, given the hour, I shall try to keep as short as possible, and I hope I will do a sufficiently good job at explaining what their purpose is.
Amendment 9 carries forward the notion of accountability that was contained in Amendment 1 relating to the purpose of the Bill. Amendment 1 related to the Secretary of State. Amendment 9 would place upon a duty upon a local transport authority that was considering embarking on a franchising proposal to make a statement as to what their objectives were in doing so. The franchising process itself is set out in some detail as a result of the amendments here to the Transport Act. I have no quarrel with the process, which is quite elaborate and involves half a dozen steps, including an external audit. It starts when a local transport authority, singly or jointly, decides to start it, and it concludes when that local transport authority decides whether or not to make the scheme. It is perfectly lawful for the local transport authority, having gone through all its process, to reach the conclusion that it should not make the scheme and not therefore proceed with franchising. But at no point does the local transport authority have to say to the public, although it may do as a matter of politics and local communications, what its objective is in doing this, what success is going to look like or what it is trying to achieve. Amendment 9 requires that. I think that is very sensible, and should be welcomed by the Minister, so the public know exactly what their local authority is embarking on and with what purpose.
Amendment 12 relates to the effect of the franchising scheme on incumbent private bus operators, which are companies that have staff and that have to make investment decisions and so forth. It says that, if having gone through that franchising process a local transport authority quite legitimately decides that it will not make a scheme, then it is not allowed to re-embark on the process for another five years. I would be open to persuasion if the Minister were to say that the period should be three years or even two years, but there must be a period of respite for the incumbent private transport operators during which they and their employees know that they can get on with a future, with a prospect, with reasons for investment and know that they are not necessarily going to be taken into a franchise arrangement. Otherwise, they could live in a state of perpetual uncertainty, with all the effects that would have on investment, business planning and staff morale. Amendment 12 intends to prevent that happening. It involves no criticism of anybody and would be the result of a perfectly legitimate outcome of the process as it stands. But it would be an adverse effect if through change of control, which of course does not have to follow an election in a local authority—change of control happens quite often without elections taking place, because councillors defect or change to one side and coalitions change in local authorities—the bus company does not have that period of respite.
Finally, we come to Amendment 13, on which I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say. The Bill does not contemplate giving the Secretary of State any power to step in if everything goes horribly wrong. What I mean by horribly wrong is something equivalent to bankruptcy of a local authority. In that case, the Government have the power to send in commissioners to rescue the situation. A situation of perpetual drift and financial incoherence will not be allowed to persist because that would not be good for the local people served by that local authority. Commissioners are sent in, and everything is somehow brought back into order so that services and so forth can continue. What is contemplated in this amendment—and it is carefully worded—is that
“If, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there is a persistent failure”—
not a bad weekend—
“to deliver a service specified by the contract, the Secretary of State may”—
it is permissive—
“take over the management of the service”.
In exercising this power, he may become the counterparty to the contract and continue to do this until
“a new contract is let, or … another permanent solution is found”.
The Secretary of State should welcome having this power because it is possible for things to go horribly wrong. You can imagine a situation where bus services in a particular area simply collapse and stop running. What is to happen if that was to occur? This gives an answer to that question and gives the Secretary of State the power to step in.
I want to listen very carefully to what the Minister will say because it is just conceivable that he has this power or an appropriate power he can use. I have had the advantage of a brief discussion with him about this beforehand. The Transport Act, which this Bill amends, is a very large document and I do not have the resources of the Government Legal Service at my hand ploughing through it, looking for the necessary power. If the Minister replies that he has such a power and can point it out, my amendment would fall away. If not, it is something that I would want to press and something he, I hope, would welcome. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the variety of amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seem to put even more obstacles in the way of any local transport authority which wishes to introduce franchising or any elected representatives who decide to franchise services. It feels to me that it is even more bureaucracy. These amendments feel like an ideological response rather than a genuine concern about bus service provision.
Local government should have the tools to implement what it assesses is suitable for its area and will be judged on whether it is providing the service that local communities need. Ultimately, the electorate will decide what they think of their services through the ballot box. I do not think we need the Secretary of State to intervene. I have confidence in local government to deliver what is needed for its communities. I am sure the Minister may have a similar viewpoint. I am interested to hear whether the Secretary of State does have a power if it is ultimately needed, but I await the response with interest.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, requires authorities to publish a statement outlining their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence. My department has established franchising guidance to support authorities through the franchising process. Requiring local authorities to provide an upfront statement is redundant as at that point franchising is still in the exploratory stage, making the statement premature. The franchising scheme assessment provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise. While local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to start with, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The amendment undermines recent efforts by my department to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective. I believe the amendment is unnecessary and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Amendment 12 seeks to impose a five-year moratorium on repeating franchising scheme assessments if the previous attempt was unsuccessful. The aim of this Bill is to simplify the process for authorities wishing to pursue franchising, ensuring decisions are made at the appropriate level and in a timely manner. I would contend that this amendment introduces unnecessary constraints on local transport authorities by proposing and adopting an overly rigid approach. Many factors might lead an authority to initially decide against pursuing franchising, only to reconsider later. Imposing a blanket restriction limits the ability to respond flexibly to evolving conditions and opportunities. Assessments are costly and time-consuming, so they will not be undertaken lightly. The noble Lord referred to a change of control, which might happen more frequently than five years, which is one possibility. Another possibility is that commercial bus services in the area, presumably served by an enhanced partnership, change over time, so that franchising becomes, in the local transport authority’s view, the best way of dealing with bus services in the locality. Since bus operators can give but 42 days’ notice of quite radical changes to bus services, including large-scale withdrawals, it would be extraordinarily unfortunate to have a situation where a commercial bus company had given notice on quite a large number of services and the local transport authority found itself unable to propose a franchising scheme as a consequence in any reasonable time. For those reasons, I would say that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope the noble Lord will not move it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for what they had to say. I do not intend to press Amendment 9. I think it is a missed opportunity on the part of the Government. It certainly is not, and was never intended to be, an obstacle—how could it possibly be an obstacle to embarking on a franchising scheme that one has to issue a notice explaining what one is doing?
However, on Amendments 12 and 13, I am simply unconvinced by what the Minister said. You can be totally devoted to local decision-making and still expect the Secretary of State to have the power to appoint commissioners in the case of a failed local authority. That happens—and of course it should happen—rarely and in appropriate circumstances.
I think the Minister almost sounded frivolous. Let us say people were stranded in the Yorkshire Dales, waiting for a bus that never comes because of the persistent mismanagement of their local scheme. We would be able to quote the Minister and tell them that it is entirely a matter for local democracy—that when the local council elections come, in two or three years, they will be able to put this right, and the bus may then come and collect them. That is complete nonsense.
When the time comes, I may wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendments 12 and 13. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit “and”.(A3) After subsection (2)(b) insert “, and(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme;(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.”(A4) After subsection (6) insert—“(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I point out that it is not my choice that this is the single amendment in the group. I believe there was some degrouping, which left this amendment stranded as the sole survivor of a group.
The principle of bus franchising is one that we on these Benches fully support. The reason for abandoning the privatised model introduced 40 years ago is that it has quite simply not worked. There is no competition between bus companies, as each has gradually dominated particular routes and given up on those that are less well used. Under that model—which exists everywhere in England, except in London—there is a spiralling downwards of the expectation of a regular and reliable bus service. The consequence is the growing frustration of those who absolutely rely on buses, and it puts off from using buses those who would like to.
Franchising will provide the powers for local transport authorities to ensure growing improvement in bus reliability and connectivity. It will not be achieved overnight, but progress will stall without additional funding from the Government. The £670 million that the Government announced will be allocated in the coming financial year for improving bus services is a start, but the majority of that funding, as I understand it from government figures, is earmarked for capital expenditure. What is desperately needed is revenue funding to support more operators in providing additional services on which people can rely.
My concerns are shared by professionals in the industry. Graham Vidler, head of the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents the bus industry, said:
“In most franchising arrangements it’s the local authority who takes the revenue risk, so if passenger numbers aren’t where they expect to be, they and their council tax payers take the hit”.
I am sure the Minister has this in sight, but my concern, which is shared by the industry, is that it will be left without funding to get this franchising scheme on the road and working well—hence my Amendment 10 asks for an assessment of the adequacy of central government funding. This must include an evaluation of funding sufficiency and
“an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve”
bus services everywhere.
I hope the Minister can say that there is a big pot of money waiting in the Department for Transport, which he has the keys to, and that he will unlock it and enable us to have the bus services that this country deserves but does not have. Bus services that people can rely on will enable more people to move out of private transport on to public bus services, to the benefit of the environment as much as anything else. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I support the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It gave a dose of realism—there is nothing for free in this world and we all know that.
In Committee, enormous numbers were bandied around on the cost of franchising, so I did some research. The Greater Manchester franchising bill was £134 million. That money came entirely from Greater Manchester; there was not a penny of government money involved, so it can be done. In Greater Manchester, they did it with £78 million from the mayoral earn back fund from GMCA’s devolution agreement; £33.7 million from the mayoral precepts; £17 million from local authorities; and £5 million of existing and forecast business rates. It can be done from within, but, where there is not a mature combined authority, it is more difficult. That is where the Government need to step in and give funding.
The question might be asked: why would we do that? From the very start, this debate has been about the public and making transport more accessible and reliable. All I can tell you from Greater Manchester is that patronage, revenue and punctuality are up and the cost of running the network per kilometre is one-third lower than when it was run by private operators. If we had not franchised in Greater Manchester, we would have a smaller bus network, which stifles growth, and a more expensive network, which supports no one.
This is not a lot of money, and I just hope that the Government can look at this. Everything is about capital expenditure, but sometimes you have to create the opportunity for revenue, which can be delivered by having a better bus service going where people want it to go: hospitals, outlying villages and where people live and commute to work from. That is the difference. In Greater Manchester, we now have a night bus that goes to north Manchester—it never did before, but for people to get employment and jobs it is invaluable. It shows that, with imagination and the right funding, franchising does work, but sometimes it needs a bit of help from the Government.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Goddard have raised, with Amendment 10, the elephant in the room: the adequacy of central government funding to support local bus services. While this legislation has the potential to transform bus services and empower local transport authorities, ultimately money is needed for this. This is not the view just of local and regional government—they would say that, wouldn’t they?—but the bus industry as well. Securing long-term clarity and certainty around funding for the sector—revenue and capital—will help enhance the benefits delivered to local communities. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on this amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have only two things to say. First, I look forward to the Minister confirming that the Greater Manchester franchising scheme was carried out without any government subvention at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, explained to the House was the case. It is something of a revelation to me, but of course I may be wrong and I look to the Minister to say whether he was right.
Secondly, I am surprised and saddened that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, whom I see in his place, has not intervened in this debate because, at Second Reading, he was voluble in explaining what we all know: that this Bill will make no difference at all if a very large amount of government money is not made available throughout the country to support it. Yet one listens to the Chancellor today with some sadness on behalf of the country that she has not been able to announce the growth rates she was hoping for, that inflation is higher, that growth rates are lower and that the tax yield is less. Where is this money to come from in these sad circumstances that we find ourselves in?
I do not know whether “elephant in the room” is the right expression, but the Bill is to some degree bogus, and the House is grateful, I am sure, to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for pointing that out so acutely.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his intervention. It is helpful of him to have quoted those figures, which I concur with, if only because, earlier in the process of this Bill, some completely different figures were quoted—very high ones—which were incorrect. One reason why the figure in Manchester is so high is that the franchising process that the Mayor of Greater Manchester has had to go through has been tortuous. That is one of the reasons why this Bill is in front of this House—to make franchising simpler and easier to carry out. It is a great achievement for Transport for Greater Manchester and the mayor to have got to the place that they have. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, remarked on the success of the bus service in Greater Manchester, with night services, more reliability and greater revenue than anybody expected.
I am sure that noble Lords will recall that I had the pleasure of standing here at the end of last year to announce a settlement of just under £1 billion to every local transport authority in the country. That was the first for some time; previous settlements had been partial and selective between different local transport authorities. Of course, the majority of that money could now be spent rather more economically on a faster franchising scheme, if that is what local transport authorities want to do. Some of them will not want to do that, because it is clear that bus services are a patchwork across England and plenty of towns and cities have adequate local bus services provided through enhanced partnerships. I have no doubt that a local transport authority will see no need to change them in those circumstances. I can name some of those places, but it is probably better if I do not.
In any event, the affordability of the proposed franchising schemes, and therefore funding, is already an integral aspect of franchising assessment, which is hard-wired into this legislation. Assessments’ financial case should include consideration of funding available from government, as set out in the statutory guidance. Indeed, the guidance for franchising schemes allows local transport authorities to choose whether it applies to all or part of their area, or to some small part of their area, for a necessarily much smaller expenditure. The franchising assessment must be published alongside the independent assurance report if an authority decides to proceed to a consultation, and that will ensure transparency about the proposed scheme’s financial viability and impact on communities.
For those reasons, although I absolutely respect the noble Baroness’s regard for the general measures in the Bill, I hope she will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The noble Lord referred to the £1 billion last year. Of course, £250 million of that went to bus companies, and £750 million went to local transport authorities, of which there are roughly 140. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that it was about a £5 million one-off sum to local transport authorities. I am not sure how far that takes you in terms of franchising and the subsidies that go with it, given that in London the subsidy is closer to £700 million than £7 million. If this Bill is to go forward, can the noble Lord give us any assurance that sums of that order or greater will be offered to local transport authorities in the future—or have we seen the best of it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord quotes a subsidy figure for London, which is a world city of 10 million people. A choice is made by the Mayor of London in respect of the balance between fares and subsidy, amounting to the balance of subsidy that needs to be put into the network. The subsidy in Manchester will be nowhere near what the Mayor of Greater Manchester thought it would be, because of the relative growth in patronage after a long period of decline. I cannot promise any particular numbers, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, well knows, because that is a matter for the Chancellor, for future years and for a spending review. But I will say that that funding, and the fact that it was universally awarded to every local transport authority, is a clear indication of the Government’s commitment to devolution and local bus services in a way that was not apparent with the previous Government.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the positive way that he always responds to our queries and concerns. My concerns are based on the fact that effective, reliable and regular bus services are essential for people to access employment and the growth agenda that the Government are rightly pursuing. They are also essential to help reduce the number of cars on the road and move people to using public transport more often to help our environmental agenda. That is the backdrop to my concerns. I live in West Yorkshire, and we are desperate for a bit of extra funding to support schemes for franchising there. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Duty to consult persons with disabilitiesIn section 123E(4) of the Transport Act 2000 (consultation), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consult disabled persons, or organisations representative of disabled persons, before making a franchising scheme.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to a series of four government amendments which place requirements on franchising authorities relating to accessibility. The first of these amendments, Amendment 11, requires that where an authority gives notice of its intent to make a franchising scheme and begins a consultation, the people and organisations with which it must consult includes disabled people and organisations that represent them.
The remaining three amendments require that, when a franchising scheme is varied, local transport authorities must consult with disabled people or with organisations representing them. The only difference between them is the type of franchising scheme they relate to. Amendment 62 applies the consultation requirement where schemes are varied to add to the existing area that they cover; Amendment 63 applies it to variations affecting the extent of the franchising scheme but not resulting in the addition of new areas; and Amendment 64 applies it to all other forms of variation. For all three categories of franchising scheme variation, the Bill already proposes that organisations representing passengers must be consulted, as the authority sees fit, but Amendment 11 requires specifically that disabled people and organisations representing them be included.
Together, these measures will help to ensure that the voice of disabled people is heard by local transport authorities when franchising schemes are varied, with the aim of ensuring that plans take proper account of the needs of those people. With that in mind, I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment, as well as the wider package of accessibility amendments that I have tabled in my name. Once again, I thank your Lordships for making the interventions that have helped shape the Government’s approach.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his Amendments 11, 62, 63 and 64, all of which add to the Bill a duty to consult local disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Will that cover not just the geographic area of the local transport authority but the range of disabilities? In particular, will it ensure that a range of local disabled people’s organisations are consulted. There is a real frustration when, for example, only one particular disabled organisation is talked to.
On my train this morning, I talked to a woman with vision impairment who said that she has real frustrations in this regard. She is on the co-production committee in Hertfordshire, and she said that too often, one organisation for disabled people is gone to, and it is assumed that it understands all the different needs of, say, blind people, deaf people, people in wheelchairs, people with autism—I could go on. I would be grateful for an answer to that question, but on balance I am grateful that these measures are here. They are helpful, but they are not what I was seeking in my earlier amendment, which I shall not go over again.
Amendment 18 covers enhanced partnership schemes requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities. I note that new subsections (1) and (2), relating to the enhanced partnership schemes, use the word “may”, not “must”. If an enhanced partnership does not specify, for example, how safe a bus stop area is, or that bus stop areas must be safe, will it still have that responsibility, given that Section 174(1)(a) of the Equality Act states:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations … for securing that it is possible for disabled persons … to get on to and off regulated public service vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty”?
It says, “may make regulations”, but the point is that there is a duty to ensure that disabled people can get on and off buses easily. If one of the enhanced partnerships decided not to check in a rural area, for example, whether there was street lighting or a pavement wide enough for a wheelchair to 2get off, would that be regarded as acceptable by the Government? There is no compulsion on the enhanced partnership to consult on that.
Amendment 19 says that local transport authorities in England must make a bus network accessibility plan. We on these Benches think that is helpful. It is a shame, though, that there is no common framework. It also means that the background behind a plan, who they consulted and what the details were, can continue to remain private.
My Amendment 37 is slightly different, in that it proposes an annual report with a common framework, according to which all LTAs would have to compile that report, using certain types of data and looking at certain types of accessibility issues. I said in Committee and I say again now that sometimes, there is nothing like an authority being required to consult, create and publish a plan with its results every year, in order to make the change we were talking about in group 1. We have heard from the House of Commons Transport Select Committee that there is much to do in practice, not just on buses themselves but on LTAs enforcing proper accessibility. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on that.
On balance, I am grateful for these amendments, but they are not the legislative sureties that I was looking for in the earlier group.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments is very important and improves the legislation. I am pleased to read the many amendments from the Government, picking up the issues that many of us raised in Committee, for which I am grateful. But far more consultation and engagement with disabled persons and representative organisations is essential as franchising and enhanced partnerships are adopted by local authorities, and as routes are amended or changed and a new way of working settles down.
I am also pleased to see government Amendment 19, which ensures that local transport authorities in England make a bus network accessibility plan. That responds in part to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton in Committee. However, as my noble friend has set out in Amendment 37, we need to take that further; it is essential that we get changes across the bus sector. We hope that the Government respond positively to that amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Official Opposition welcome and support the government amendments in this group, and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to the very pertinent questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in relation to her Amendment 37.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on the Government’s amendments. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, had to say and her comparison of Amendment 37 with government Amendments 18 and 19. The Government believe that tabling these makes a real difference to the provision of services for disabled people. Amendment 19 in particular, which relates to the bus network accessibility plan, will enable local transport authorities to provide properly for people with disabilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to the range of organisations in areas, and I am very comfortable with reassuring her that the intention here is that there should be such a range; it is not that local transport authorities should choose only one or two organisations, which does not seem right to me. I need to think about what she said on the wider duties to ensure that disabled people have access to all places. We will come on to accessible bus stops and how they should be dealt with in this legislation. I look forward to the opportunity—probably not on this day of Report, but the following day—to debate that, and I shall respond very carefully when we get there.
In the meantime, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this worthwhile debate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, still feels able to withdraw her Amendment 37 in favour of government Amendment 19, so that we can have a package of measures for people with disabilities that covers the whole range of solutions for local transport. I hope that noble Lords can accept the amendments in my name.
Lord Moylan
“Franchising scheme: restrictionWhere a franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, prepare an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme under section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 but fail, for any reason, to make and publish a scheme under section 123H of the Transport Act 2000, they must not initiate another franchising assessment for the same area, or a substantially similar area, for a period of five years from the date on which the assessment was prepared.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents franchising authorities from repeatedly conducting franchising assessments for the same or substantially similar areas within a five-year period if they do not proceed to make and publish a franchising scheme.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the private sector—the private bus companies—will remain absolutely integral, even under a franchising arrangement and certainly under an enhanced bus partnership, to the provision of bus services in this country under the Government’s scheme. It is incumbent on us to treat them properly and with respect. They cannot be held constantly in a state of suspension, potentially not knowing what their future is, as a result of repeated franchise operations.
Amendment 12 is absolutely necessary in order to maintain the sense of investment and purpose that private bus companies need if they are going to go forward, and for that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Moylan
“Poor performance of franchising(1) If, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there is a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by the contract, the Secretary of State may take over the management of the service.(2) In exercising this power, the Secretary of State may substitute themselves for the franchising authority in the relevant contract.(3) The Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service until such time as—(a) a new contract is let, or(b) another permanent solution is found.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is common ground between the Minister and me that, in the event of a local authority failing financially, it is possible for the Secretary of State to send in commissioners to sort out the matter. It is also common ground between us that, in the similar event of a local transport authority failing financially and not being able to deliver the bus services that it has contracted, or a franchisee falling into bankruptcy, the Secretary of State would have no power under this Bill, and no power under the Transport Act that the Bill amends, to step in and do anything about it.
I think that every noble Lord in this House would agree, if they were entirely disinterested, that that is a power the Secretary of State should have. Amendment 13 would simply give the Secretary of State the power to step in, in those limited and prescribed circumstances, in the interests of passengers. It has been barely an hour since the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that the interests of passengers were absolutely at the heart of the Bill. Of course the Secretary of State should have this power, and for that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Pidgeon
“(iv) health care services, or(v) schools and other educational institutes, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that health care services, schools, and other educational institutes are considered under the provisions of “socially necessary routes”.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, one of the main purposes of this legislation is to transform bus services across the country. The deregulation of buses in the 1985 Act has seen bus route after bus route thinned out and then cut completely, especially in many rural and suburban areas such as Shropshire and Hampshire. That is why the new socially necessary routes clause in this Bill is so important to ensure that bus services provide the routes that meet the needs of local communities rather than simply those which are profitable.
Amendment 14 specifies that access to education, including schools and colleges, and health services, from a GP surgery and primary care to an acute medical setting such as a hospital, are included in the definition of a socially necessary route. These seem to be obvious places to connect communities to in a timely manner. But, as I highlighted in Committee, this is not the current case. In Tonbridge, Kent, bus services have been cut so much that school bus services either drop children off far too early, leaving students hanging around the streets before school, or they are actually late for school. Naming education institutions as part of socially necessary routes will help to address this as we move forward.
As a Londoner, I am very fortunate to be able to access local health facilities and world-leading teaching hospitals with ease on public transport. But this is not the case across the country. If we want communities to stay healthy and fit, they need good access to health services wherever they are located.
I am sure we all know family and friends who have been diagnosed with a condition or illness. They often require regular, routine appointments at different health buildings throughout their treatment. These are not just in a traditional hospital setting but right across the community. In rural areas, these can be located some considerable distance away. That is why we believe that socially necessary services need to be explicit regarding health services to ensure that patients can get to appointments at different locations without having to rely on family or volunteers to drive them there and back.
Amendment 16 in this group puts a duty on local authorities to implement a socially necessary service as far as is reasonably practical should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established. We on these Benches felt that that was important, given that the Bill allows for a clear definition of socially necessary routes but no clarity on how these routes will be provided. If, either through franchising or enhanced partnerships, it has proven impossible to secure a provider for a service, what then happens? This is the back-up clause, but we felt it was important to ensure that such crucial services for communities are picked up and provided.
I have no doubt that, where franchising is used, local authorities will package profitable routes with socially necessary services to ensure that comprehensive bus services are provided. But our amendment picks up those services which are just not securing an operator, to ensure that communities have access to essential services.
I hope the Minister will be able to respond to these important points shortly to ensure that socially necessary bus routes properly serve local communities. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on their amendments in this group and I beg to move Amendment 14.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
For those listeners with visual impairments, I state that my name is Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I have Amendments 15 and 53 in this group. I will speak to Amendment 53 first. As we have heard a lot during the progress of the Bill, we need buses in villages. Having them does all sorts of things. It boosts people’s health because they do not use their cars as much and it improves air quality within the villages themselves. It is quite an important aspect of village life to have good buses to good services. Here, I am slightly nervous about asking for a review, because reviews take time and cost money and we have to be sure that they are properly targeted. However, I care about this, I think we could tweak it and perhaps it will find acceptance from the Minister.
My Amendment 15 basically cuts out the need for a review, because it states that bus services that were in place should be replaced. That is an option that we could look at. I take buses all the time and it seems to me that, when we reduce bus services, we reduce all sorts of opportunities that people cannot access any more. So I feel very strongly about this and I hope to hear that the Minister looks favourably on these amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has put her finger on what might be described as the other elephant in the room. The whole purpose of this Bill is defeated if it does not result in uncommercial services being run on the basis of subsidy. We have discussed in a previous group the complete absence of any information from the Government about where those subsidies are coming from. In this amendment, the noble Baroness draws attention to the types of routes that should be included and what a socially necessary service is.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I say that no party cares for villages more than the Conservative Party. While I cannot sympathise with her attempt to resurrect bus routes as old as 15 years, I have great sympathy with what she has to say about villages. I hope that the Minister shares that and can reach out to her to achieve the sort of compromise that she is offering—and which can only improve the Bill.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 14. I know through discussions with her that she has a keen interest in protecting vital services, especially those outside large towns and cities. The Bill sets out that a socially necessary local service is a local bus service which
“enables passengers to access—essential goods and services … economic opportunities (including employment), or … social activities”
and which
“if cancelled, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access those goods, services, opportunities or activities”.
However, as there has been concern that not all essential services are covered by this definition, particularly healthcare and schools, I want to confirm through this statement to the House that “essential goods and services” includes healthcare, schools and other educational institutions. Therefore, a socially necessary local service may include a bus service which enables passengers to access healthcare and schools. The Government intend to produce detailed guidance to assist in the interpretation and application of this measure. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness also for Amendment 16 and want to reassure her that under Clause 12, when an operator wishes to cancel or amend a service, the operator and the local transport authority will need to give due consideration to the benefits that a bus service provides to the local community. LTAs will also need to consider alternatives to mitigate any adverse effects of changes to such services. Under the Transport Act 1985 and the Transport Act 1968, local authorities are already under a duty to secure public passenger transport services that they consider appropriate to secure to meet the requirements of the area and which would not otherwise be met. This is likely to include services that have been identified as socially necessary.
Clause 12 should result in additional transparency by identifying the number of socially necessary local services in an area where an enhanced partnership is in place. This in turn will provide government with additional information which can be used to inform the decision-making around funding for local bus services. Local transport authorities have the best understanding of the needs of their local communities. Any additional obligations introduced through legislation would place an undue burden on local authorities and undermine their independence. They should be able to consider all the possible options to deliver the best outcome for passengers.
On Amendment 15 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, there was a similar amendment in Committee. I reaffirm that this Government recognise that local transport authorities are best placed to understand and address the needs of the communities that they serve. This Bill is about giving them real powers to decide what is best for their local area. We can recognise that a service that has been cancelled within the last 15 years may no longer be a service that would meet the current needs of the community given that these will inevitably change over time, but I also recognise that some might still be relevant to the needs of the community. As local transport authorities address need for their communities, they can of course consider former routes if they believe that they would represent a contribution to socially necessary local services. In that, I recognise the rather unfortunate nature of some of the funding for rural bus services in recent years, which has provoked new services, cancelled old ones, had the new services withdrawn and had the old ones brought back. She is right in her assumption that local transport authorities should look at the recent past in considering the best pattern of socially necessary services.
I also recognise the need to serve villages just like the rest of the communities in a local transport authority area, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out that this is rather more about making sure that the socially necessary services chosen by local transport authorities serve the complete community, including villages, and rather less about a review which, as she said, generally costs time and money—almost certainly, such reviews do. In terms of this Bill, however, it will take up to five years for local transport authorities either to transition to a franchise network or to form a bus company, with a period for the review itself. I agree that it is much better for local transport authorities to consider the needs of villages in their areas and the right options of routes to serve their local communities. I hope therefore that she will not press her amendments.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for his clarification on socially necessary bus services and his confirmation that healthcare, schools and education institutions are covered by this. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the Conservative Government maintained a cap on individual bus fares of £2. We pledged in our manifesto—and had we been re-elected we would have put into that effect that pledge—that we would continue the £2 bus cap. I suppose that I do not need to remind noble Lords that the Conservatives did not win the general election last year.
When the cap expired, the current Government replaced it with a £3 cap, with no examination whatever of the effect that might have. We are now in a position, as the months have rolled by, to carry out a review of its effect. We know from studies done independently by Frontier Economics and SYSTRA when the Conservatives were in power that the £2 fare cap delivered significant benefits. The report concluded that the scheme had had a positive impact on bus patronage and had helped to support the cost of living by reducing travel costs. It also noted an increase in the number and proportion of single bus journeys since the scheme began.
It would be a very strange thing indeed if the Government said that they did not wish to know the effects of their own policies. The Conservatives wanted to know, and commissioned reports to find out, what the effects of their fare policies were, but the current Government simply do not want to know. I cannot believe that that it is the response from the Front Bench. This amendment requires the Government to carry out that research and bring it to the House so that we can all understand the effect of this large increase in the bus fares cap. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches were saddened that the Government cancelled the £2 bus fare cap. It was an incredibly successful scheme that saw an increase in passengers on buses and made bus travel more affordable. I have an amendment to bring back a £2 bus fare cap scheme, which we will debate next week. I believe it is far stronger than this amendment before us today.
However, I am glad to see that His Majesty’s Opposition are highlighting this issue through an assessment of the scheme. As I said earlier, the key issue here is always the level of funding for bus services and, indeed, the costs to the passenger. If we want more people out of their cars and using buses, we need to ensure that fares are more attractive and services are provided where passengers need to go. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this amendment.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said that he deplored the fact that the £2 bus fare had been increased to £3. This is, even for him, an act of great cynicism. The £2 maximum bus fare was introduced by the last Conservative Government on 1 January 2023 —coincidentally, of course, in the run-up to the next election. It was initially introduced for three months. There is nothing that makes the bus industry despair more than this sort of short-termism. You cannot plan ahead for three months so far as bus services are concerned.
That £2 limit was increased on numerous occasions in the run-up to the election, and if the Opposition spokesperson is going to tell us that it would have remained at £2 in the foreseeable future, I would be more than impressed. I suspect that this is a plot that has succeeded in luring the Liberal Democrats into the same Lobby. The House would be better served if we waited for the actual debate on the Liberal Democrat amendment rather than suffered what is, I repeat, a cynical operation on the part of the party opposite.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I will make just a few points about the former £2 national bus fare cap. The first is quite obvious. The previous Government left no forward funding for that scheme at the time of the election and, indeed, left a rather large hole in the public finances, which, in effect, prevented its continuation.
The second point is that it is very easy to assume that somehow the maximum cap of £3 meant that all fares went up by 50%. The vast majority of travellers on bus services travel for a short distance and many of them paid less than £2 in any event. Fares between £2 and £3 went up only by inflation, and the cap still applies to longer-distance journeys that would cost more than £3.
In any event, in February, the Government published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 fare cap. Evidence from that suggests that the scheme had a relatively greater impact on leisure trips compared with those for education and employment and was, in fact, rather poor value for money. So I believe that a legislative requirement for further evaluation is unnecessary and, on that basis, I would ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to be drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, who intends only to provoke me. But I am to some extent provoked. I am provoked to the extent of pointing out that there was a solemn pledge by the Conservative Party in its manifesto to continue the £2 bus cap and that the Conservative Party keeps its pledges. He should not find that astounding.
As far as the Minister is concerned, we suddenly discover that leisure trips on buses are of no account and no real value. “It is much better if people use their cars for leisure trips”. I mean, really, this an astonishing convolution of his arguments: “Now we don’t value leisure trips”. Of course we want people to use buses for leisure trips—and not merely people who are economically active. This is something the Government should understand properly. They should look into the effects of their own policy. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Moylan
“(5) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the impact of the level of employers’ National Insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and lay it before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require for a review of how the increase in National Insurance contributions from 6 April 2025 would affect socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in the last week or two, your Lordships’ House has occupied itself extensively with the effects of the increase in national insurance contributions on various parties, often vulnerable and small operations. One of those is the private sector providers of special educational needs transport. They are vulnerable to the increase in national insurance contributions, for reasons that have been spelled out at considerable length in earlier debates on another Bill.
In the end, it seems likely that your Lordships’ House will, with its customary sense of responsibility, give way on the NICs Bill and allow the Government to have their way, and to do so very shortly. After all, in the end, the King’s Government must go on and the King must have supply; it is a financial matter. Fortuitously now, we have in front of us a Bill on bus services, where we have an opportunity to return to the matter—I shall speak only briefly, because it has been well aired—and come forward with a measure which is not financial in character and against which the other place will not claim financial privilege.
Amendment 17A simply calls for an assessment by the Government of the consequences for SEND transport of the increase to and changes in national insurance contributions. Noble Lords will not need reminding that it is not merely the rate that has an effect but the threshold at which the national insurance contributions are payable. In a way, this is the least the Government can offer, after the way in which your Lordships’ House has, as I say, indulged them with its customary sense of responsibility.
We should look at this carefully. This form of transport is absolutely crucial to schools and it is part of the bus service, in the broadest sense. I hope very much that the Government will be able to support this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches have consistently advocated for sufficient funding to meet the transport needs of those requiring accessible services, particularly those relying on special educational needs and disabilities—known as SEND—bus services. Given our support on this issue, in this Bill and other legislation, we feel it is essential to assess the impact of NICs increases on these vital services.
A review would ensure transparency, protect accessibility for SEND passengers and mitigate financial pressures on operators that could jeopardise these services. Without a proper review, there is a real risk that rising costs could force operators to cut routes or reduce service levels, leaving many SEND passengers without reliable transport. This would undermine efforts to create an inclusive and accessible bus network. A thorough bus assessment would help identify any necessary mitigations, to ensure that SEND services remain sustainable, well-funded and fit for purpose.
Protecting these services is a matter not just of policy but of fairness, ensuring that no one is left behind due to financial pressures beyond their control. We therefore support this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 17A concerns the impact that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will have on socially necessary bus services, including those for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant effect on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment that this amendment suggests.
Local authorities are responsible for arranging home-to-school travel and delivering this through a range of providers. Department for Education officials engage regularly with local authorities to understand the challenges that they face and will continue to monitor this situation. It is expected that private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes to their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations.
The Government have already announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26, which includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions. This is not ring-fenced funding, and could therefore be used to fund contracted services should a local authority wish to. Moreover, I understand that a large proportion of special educational needs and disabilities transport operators are self-employed and therefore exempt from this charge. The Government are protecting the smallest businesses and charities by increasing the employment allowance to £10,500. Next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions at all, more than half of employers will see no change or will gain overall from this package, and employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance contributions.
On socially necessary services more broadly, excluding special educational needs and disabilities transport, the Government have already confirmed, as I said, an additional £925 million for the 2025-26 financial year to support and improve bus services in England outside London. The Government recognise that local transport authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their communities and can use the £925 million to introduce new bus routes, make services more frequent and protect crucial bus routes, ensuring passenger access to essential goods and services. I contend that this amendment is not required.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a sorry reply from the Minister. The modest amounts of money he splashes around seem to have an awful lot of work to do, since they are the response to nearly every group of amendments we have discussed. It is very sad that he does not want to accept this amendment, and, in that light, I feel I am obliged to test the opinion of the House.
“Requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 138C (requirements in respect of local services) insert—“138CA Requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities(1) An enhanced partnership scheme may specify under section 138A(5)(b) requirements about enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort.(2) The requirements may include requirements about securing alternative means for the carriage of a person with a disability where—(a) the person cannot travel on a public service vehicle being used to provide a local service because the vehicle’s wheelchair space is occupied and cannot be vacated readily, and(b) it is possible for the person, together with any wheelchair, mobility aid or assistance dog which the person has with them, to be carried in safety and reasonable comfort to the person’s intended destination by a taxi or private hire vehicle.(3) Before making an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services that have one or more stopping places in the area to which the scheme relates.(4) In this section—“assistance dog” has the meaning given by section 173(1) of the Equality Act 2010;“mobility aid” has the meaning given by section 164A(6) of that Act;“persons with disabilities” means persons who have a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of that Act.” (3) In section 138F(6) (consultation), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”(4) In section 138K (variation), after subsection (8) insert—“(9) Before varying an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme as varied will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services that have one or more stopping places in the area to which the scheme as proposed to be varied relates.(10) In this section, “persons with disabilities” means persons who have a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”(5) In section 138A(5)(b) (requirements which may be specified in enhanced partnership schemes), for “section 138C” substitute “sections 138C and 138CA”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a local transport authority to consult disabled persons before making an enhanced partnership scheme, and to impose requirements to enable travel by disabled persons on local services independently and in safety and reasonable comfort.
“Bus network accessibility plansIn the Transport Act 2000, after section 113B insert—“Bus network accessibility plans: England
113BA Bus network accessibility plans(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England must, before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, publish a bus network accessibility plan in relation to the authority’s area.(2) A bus network accessibility plan must—(a) identify what (if any) provision is made to assist persons with disabilities to travel on local services that have one or more stopping places in the authority’s area;(b) set out the extent to which, in the authority’s opinion, the provision made in the authority’s area enables persons with disabilities to travel on such local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort;(c) describe what (if any) further action the authority intends to take to enable persons with disabilities to travel on such local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort.(3) The authority must review the plan—(a) if there is a substantial change to the provision of local services in the authority’s area, and(b) in any event, at least once every three years.(4) The authority must alter the plan—(a) following any review carried out as required by subsection (3)(a), or(b) if the authority considers it appropriate to do so for any other reason.(5) The authority may replace the plan as they think fit.(6) In preparing and reviewing a bus network accessibility plan, a local transport authority must consult—(a) persons operating local services in the authority’s area, (b) such persons with disabilities who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority to represent such persons, as they think fit, and(c) any other persons whom the authority considers it appropriate to consult.(7) In this section “persons with disabilities” means persons who have a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for local transport authorities in England to make a bus network accessibility plan.
Lord Moylan
“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—“(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will agree that in my speeches so far this evening I have been as brief as possible. This amendment is of some technicality and legally quite complex. Not being a lawyer, I hope that I can get it right and explain it correctly in as brief a compass as possible, but if I go on a little bit longer than I have otherwise, I hope noble Lords will indulge me.
I will start at some distance from the Bill, with European Union procurement law, to which we were subject for so many years. Anybody involved in local government or any departmental procurement will remember that it obliged us to put out to tender any contracts that were above a certain threshold. We had to advertise them and go through what was known as the OJEU process.
At that time in European law, a question arose: what was the situation of a public authority which had set up its own company? Could it award work to a company which was its own subsidiary, without going out to tender? This case, which was called Teckal, went to the European Court of Justice, which determined that in certain circumstances, especially those in which the subsidiary was doing substantially most of its work for the public authority, contracts could be awarded to it without the need for any tendering. So, you have a public authority which has a subsidiary, the subsidiary does most of its work for that public authority, and contracts can be awarded without going out to tender—the Teckal exemption.
Of course, we left the European Union and in the course of time we replaced that procurement legislation with our own Procurement Act, seen so ably through the House, if I may so, by my noble friend Lady Neville- Rolfe. That procurement legislation carried forward the provisions of the Teckal exemption—I do not know whether it is still called that but I am going to call it that because everybody in the procurement universe does—so that the situation I described still pertains in UK law.
The Bill offers to local transport authorities three ways of carrying forward the provision of bus services: through an enhanced bus partnership, through the franchising route, or through establishing their own bus company subsidiary. It is manifest to me, even as a non-lawyer, that a bus company that was established and owned by a local transport authority, which inevitably would provide practically all its services to that local transport authority, would qualify for the Teckal exemption —that is, work would be given to it without going out to tender. I am going to park that for a moment.
Let us now travel to a different part of the Bill, relating to the franchising route. Permission is given to local transport authorities to make initially what is called a “direct award”, which is to give to the existing incumbent bus company the contract to carry out the franchised service without going out to tender. This provision would apply for only a limited period. One understands the Government’s thinking on this: if you are going to adopt a franchise model and you have only one bus company operating, then perhaps you should be able to give it to that company for the sake of continuity and smooth operation and then develop the market later, so that when you next arrange your franchising there is a market into which you can tender. The direct award route is not in itself objectionable— I am not saying that anything in this is objectionable.
I come to the interaction of the two, because the anxiety is that the legislation is so drafted—not deliberately, I imagine, but I will come to that—that it may be possible for a local authority on the one hand to use the route of setting up its own subsidiary bus company: a so-called LABCo, which seems to be the terminology that is going round; I depreciate it as much as I think the Minister does, from the shaking of his head. On the other hand, a local authority could then use the direct award mechanism to give the whole contract to its own subsidiary immediately and without any tendering.
I think the Minister can respond to what I have said by saying one of three things. Fortunately for him, I have given him my own inadequate explanation of this case in advance, so he has had some time to think about it. He can say that I have got the law wrong—he has the benefit of the Government Legal Department behind him, and I have my poor resources, so that may be the answer. He will be able to explain why I have got the law wrong and put the House right as to what the legal position is. That is one thing. He could say that I have alighted upon a loophole and a weakness in the legislation which should be addressed, that he is going to take steps to address it, that my amendment is therefore unnecessary and that something will be done between now and Third Reading. Or he could say words to the effect that I have got the law right, the loophole exists, and he is going to do nothing at all about it. In the last case, I give notice that I suspect I would want to the test the opinion of the House, but in the first two cases, if I was corrected on the law or if the Minister said that he agreed with me on the law and was going to do something about it, then I would of course expect to withdraw my amendment.
I am very interested to hear what noble Lords have to say about this exciting argument that could, for all I know, provoke widespread debate in the House, but I am particularly interested to know what the Minister has to say when he comes to reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
This is a rather technical amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, stated, and one about which I have received several pieces of correspondence in the last 24 hours. Although I understand the intent of the amendment, I am not sure that it is actually necessary. I find it hard to imagine that local authorities, which often struggle with capacity and the financial means to deliver, will want to suddenly introduce their own bus company just ahead of awarding contracts directly to this new company. I hope the Minister can clarify the situation and allay any fears.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Amendment 20, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, seeks to prevent new local authority bus companies—I will not say LABCos; I cannot make that work—from being able to directly award franchising contracts using what he described correctly as the Teckal-style exemption in the Procurement Act 2023.
Clause 18 will help to support public ownership where desired by repealing the ban on new local authority bus companies, but the Bill is not prescriptive about the structure of any of those new companies. Local authorities can consider a range of options for structuring a new bus company. One of these options could be to establish a new company as a Teckal company, which would, as he says, allow a local authority to directly award service contracts to that company without the requirement for a competitive procurement exercise at any time.
The noble Lord referred to Teckal as a loophole, but it is part of a much wider landscape of public procurement law, which, as he says, was enacted in the Procurement Act 2023 by the previous Government. Use of the Teckal exemption is complex and subject to challenge, given that it allows contract awards outside the usual controls imposed by the public procurement regime, and specific and rigorous tests are required to use the exemption. Local authorities must be careful to ensure that these companies are within the Teckal parameters if they pursue this option, which would likely require significant funding and investment in organisational capacity and capability, as the noble Baroness referred to. All this means that any local authority looking at Teckal would need to consider very carefully whether this is appropriate for its local context.
Existing precedent for Teckal local authority bus companies in the UK, while limited, is that Teckal has been used only in scenarios where private operators are not interested or fail—for example, as an operator of last resort. For existing Teckal companies, the exemption is utilised only in the event of private operators being unable to do so, rather than as the default option for providing local bus services. Teckal is open to all public bodies that own any type of commercial company; it does not apply only to local authorities, only to local authority bus companies, or only to transport companies. Removing Teckal as an option only for new local authority bus companies would be an unusual—and, I believe, unnecessary—departure from the status quo around existing procurement legislation. As it stands, there does not appear to be a compelling reason to isolate new local authority bus companies as the only type of public company that cannot use Teckal, and no evidence has been provided to support what would be an extraordinary diversion from established procurement rules.
My department plans to publish guidance on local authority bus companies after the Bill comes into force, which will address the use of the Teckal exemption. We will of course work very closely with stakeholders when developing and drafting the guidance to help ensure that the exemption, if used, will not be about local authority bus companies having the upper hand over the private sector but about genuinely improving bus services for local passengers in that area. I therefore hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
It might be convenient if I briefly move on to Amendments 21, 22 and 23, tabled in my name, which are also about helping to provide a level playing field between new and existing local authority bus companies. Clause 18 gives all local authorities the freedom to set up a new bus company if they choose to. Under this clause, new companies are not subject to restrictions regarding how they might secure funding or financing. This is at odds with the five existing local authority bus companies that are. Restrictions, as set out in the Transport Act 1985, mean that the existing local authority bus companies are unable to access private finance, which creates inconsistencies. My department has engaged extensively with stakeholders while developing the measures for this Bill and feedback has been strongly in favour of greater parity between how new and existing local authority bus companies can finance their operations.
The amendment will remove restrictions on existing local authority bus companies accessing private borrowing, if they are doing so for the purposes of, or in connection with, providing local services. As I have mentioned, this will help to provide a level playing field for both new and existing local authority bus companies. It will provide greater choice for local authorities in how they potentially fund a local authority bus company, which will give them more freedom to achieve ambitious and far-reaching improvements to local bus services. Amendments 21 and 22 are consequential to Amendment 23.
I finish by saying that I do not believe that there is likely to be a large-scale establishment of new local authority bus companies, but the powers contained in this Bill are necessary because, frankly, the bus market is not what it was. There is not much competition in some areas, and in others there is none. In those cases, a new local authority bus company might well be the way in which a local transport authority seeks to provide bus services in the future. It would be, as a postscript, a fitting riposte to some of the excesses of previous eras of competition in bus companies. I will not repeat it now, but if noble Lords were to look at the sorry story of the Darlington bus wars, where a perfectly satisfactory municipal bus company was reduced to being put into liquidation by the predatory activities of private companies, they would see why there might be some interest in local authorities to set up new local bus companies in the future. There might even be a little interest in using Teckal to do so.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not addressing in my opening remarks the government amendments in this group, which I am happy to say I am content with. I mean, if one is as short of money as the Minister and his department probably are then giving local transport authorities the power to borrow money is probably the best that you can hope to get away with. We have no objection to those amendments.
I am disappointed—well, not entirely disappointed; I am rather thrilled—that the Minister has more or less agreed that I got the complex legal position right, but I am disappointed that he feels that the loophole should stay open. It should not. One of the purposes that the Government have set out is to encourage competition, where it can be stimulated, between bus service providers. To allow those two provisions to operate together in a way that would exclude competition would be an abuse. The abuse should be closed down. It is simple to do so: they could just say it was not going to be allowed. It would not upend procurement law. It would not overturn the sacred rules of procurement. It would simply say, in this specific case, because of the way these two statutes will interact, you cannot actually do the thing that would be an abuse. So I am sorry to say, because I know it is getting on—actually, we have made good progress and there is time—that I am afraid I am going to have to ask the House’s opinion on this matter, because I do not think the Government should be allowed to take this lackadaisical approach.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 14, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 14, line 27.
“(ii) after that subsection insert—“(5A) Subsection (3)(b) does not apply in relation to borrowing money for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision of local services by a public transport company to which subsection (5B) applies.(5B) This subsection applies to a public transport company the controlling authority of which is—(a) an authority the functions of which are exercisable in relation to an area in England, or(b) two or more authorities the functions of which are exercisable in relation to areas in England.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the restriction on public transport companies in England borrowing money where the money is borrowed in order to provide local services.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 20, page 17, line 9.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this group covers data provisions. Before I speak to the amendments in my name, I note that there have been questions from stakeholders about releasing commercially sensitive information. I reassure noble Lords that the department will be mindful of publishing information that could be seen as commercially sensitive under the powers in Clauses 21 and 22. Officials will engage with industry on the Government’s intentions for and the use of this data before exercising the power. I will be as brief as I can on the other amendments in this group—Amendments 24, 25, 26 and 29.
Amendments 25 and 26 are necessary to clarify that regulations made under Section 6 of the Transport Act 1985 that may involve the processing of personal data do not operate in contravention of data protection legislation. This is engaged due to the potential for information being processed under these provisions to contain personal data. Amendment 24 is consequential on Amendment 26. Amendment 29 does the same job as Amendments 25 and 26, and for the same reasons, in respect of regulations made under Section 141A of the Transport Act 2000.
Amendment 27 enables the traffic commissioners to share existing registration information with the Secretary of State and enables it to be uploaded to the new registration database. It enables registration, variation and cancellation applications which are pending when this clause enters into force to be uploaded to the new database once they have been processed. Like Amendment 28, which I will turn to next, it supports our ambition to provide the public with the right information to help them make better-informed travel decisions.
Amendment 28 has been tabled to ensure that the Secretary of State can receive the same information about franchised services as other registered bus services are required to provide. In essence, the amendment creates consistency in the data provided by franchised and non-franchised services, enabling the public, via a new registration database, to make better decisions regarding their journeys. It also future-proofs the power in Clause 21, ensuring that, if changes are made to the information gathered under the 1986 regulations, this is reflected in what can be gathered for franchised services under Clause 21.
Amendment 33 is a further minor and technical amendment. It is necessary to ensure that Clause 24 functions in a manner consistent with the provisions in the Data Protection Act 2018. Amendment 24 is consequential to this amendment.
Amendment 43 to Clause 27 clarifies that provisions made under the powers in new Section 144F of the Transport Act 2000 that may involve the processing of personal data do not operate in contravention of data protection legislation. That is necessary due to the potential for information being processed under Clause 27 to contain personal data, given that it includes requirements to keep records about staff who have undertaken training in relation to crime and anti-social behaviour.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to see these amendments from the Government around the issue of data transparency and the use and processing of personal data relating to the bus sector. I am assured by the Minister’s introductory remarks on this group of amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, we have no objection to these amendments.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I commend these amendments to the House.
“(13) Where regulations under this section impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(14) In this section “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that provision contained in regulations under section 6 of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to the processing of personal data does not operate in contravention of the data protection legislation.
“(c) after that subsection insert—“(7A) Where the regulations impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).”;(d) in subsection (8), at the appropriate place insert—““the data protection legislation” , “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly;””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that provision contained in regulations under section 6I of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to the processing of personal data does not operate in contravention of the data protection legislation.
“(4) Information received by a traffic commissioner under section 6 or 6I of the Transport Act 1985 before this section comes into force may be provided by the traffic commissioner to the Secretary of State (in which case the information is provided without restrictions on its disclosure or use).(5) Subsection (4) does not authorise the disclosure or use of information in contravention of the data protection legislation (but that subsection is to be taken into account in determining whether the disclosure or use does contravene that legislation).(6) In this section “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables certain registration information held by the traffic commissioners when this clause comes into force to be published by the Secretary of State.
“(g) any other information which may be prescribed under section 6(2)(a) of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to the registration of a local service under that section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to obtain the same information under section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 as may be obtained under section 6(2)(a) of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to local services which are required to be registered under that section.
“(6) After that subsection insert—“(8A) Where the regulations impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(8B) In subsection (8A) “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that provision contained in regulations under section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the processing of personal data does not operate in contravention of the data protection legislation.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that new section 144A is inserted in the correct place in Part 2 of the Transport Act 2000.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 35, tabled in my name, seeks to apply the local transport authority by-laws powers contained in the Bill to London. Clause 24 will enable local transport authorities to introduce by-laws to tackle anti-social behaviour on vehicles, as well as within and at bus-related infrastructure. Giving these powers to all local transport authorities is intended to give them the flexibility they need to effectively enforce against anti-social behaviour on the transport network and ensure that there is greater consistency across England.
When I first introduced the Bill, these powers did not apply to London. However, after engagement with Transport for London, it asked to be included in these provisions. This is because, while its officers can deal with anti-social behaviour at bus stops and bus stations under existing by-laws, it cannot easily enforce against anti-social behaviour on buses themselves. Closing this loophole will give TfL the same powers as other local transport authorities in England, and it will help make buses in London safer for passengers and staff.
While on the subject of bus by-laws, I will speak briefly to three further amendments tabled in my name. Amendment 30 is minor and technical. Its purpose is to ensure that the powers being granted to local authorities to make bus by-laws are inserted correctly into the right part of the Transport Act 2000. Amendment 31 intends to ensure parity between by-laws powers being granted to LTAs and London. In expanding the application of the local transport authority by-laws measure in Clause 24 to London, it was necessary to take account of the prevalence of smart card payments. This is reflected in the drafting of Amendment 31. However, the Government have also identified the need to allow local transport authorities outside London to deal similarly with smart card payments on bus services in drafting bus by-laws. That is what this amendment achieves. Amendment 32 is consequential on this amendment. I beg to move Amendment 30.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this Bill has been about bus services outside the capital, yet at this stage there is suddenly a lengthy amendment about London and giving Transport for London the powers it needs more easily and effectively to support by-laws on London buses. The Minister has provided clarity on this and the other government amendments in this group; they have provided the assurance needed, and we are content with them.
“(za) with respect to tickets and other things (whether in physical or electronic form) which authorise a person to enter and travel on local services;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that byelaws made by local transport authorities can allow for the use of smart card tickets on local bus services.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 24, page 20, line 15.
“(3A) Subsection (3)(a) does not operate to require or authorise the processing of personal data in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but that subsection is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the duty to give reasonably detailed particulars in a fixed penalty notice does not operate in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation.
““the data protection legislation” , “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines terms used in new section 144E(3A), inserted by my amendment to clause 24, page 23, line 41, and is consequential on that amendment.
“TfL byelawsIn the Greater London Authority Act 1999, after Chapter 8 of Part 4 insert—“Chapter 8ABus byelawsLondon local service byelaws
244A Power to make byelaws for London local services(1) Transport for London may make byelaws regulating one or more of the following—(a) travel on London local services;(b) the maintenance of order on London local services;(c) the conduct of persons while travelling on London local services.(2) The byelaws may, in particular, make provision—(a) with respect to tickets and other things (whether in physical or electronic form) which authorise a person to enter and travel on London local services;(b) with respect to the evasion of payment of fares or other charges;(c) with respect to interference with, or obstruction of, London local services;(d) prohibiting vaping by persons on London local services;(e) with respect to the prevention of nuisance.(3) The byelaws may provide that a person contravening them is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding—(a) level 3 on the standard scale, or(b) such lower level or lower amount as is specified in the byelaws.Enforcement
244B Powers of authorised persons(1) An authorised person may—(a) issue a fixed penalty notice (see section 244C) to anyone who that person has reason to believe has committed—(i) a bus byelaws offence,(ii) a premises byelaws offence, or(iii) an offence under this section; (b) require a person who the authorised person reasonably suspects of committing or attempting to commit a bus byelaws offence to do one or both of the following—(i) to give their name and address;(ii) to leave any vehicle in relation to which the byelaws under section 244A apply.(2) An authorised person may use reasonable force to remove a person who has failed to comply with a requirement under subsection (1)(b)(ii).(3) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1)(b) commits an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the exercise of functions under this section and section 244C, and Transport for London and authorised persons must have regard to the guidance when exercising those functions.(5) The Secretary of State may at any time vary or revoke guidance issued under subsection (4).(6) The Secretary of State must publish—(a) guidance issued under subsection (4), and(b) any variation or revocation of the guidance.(7) In this section—“authorised person” means a person authorised for the purposes of this section by Transport for London;“bus byelaws offence” means an offence under byelaws made under section 244A;“premises byelaws offence” means an offence under byelaws made under section 25 of the London Transport Act 1969 committed on premises used by a London local service.244C Fixed penalty notices(1) A fixed penalty notice issued under section 244B is a notice offering the person to whom it is issued the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty to Transport for London.(2) Where a person is issued with a fixed penalty notice in respect of an offence—(a) no proceedings may be taken for the offence before the end of the period of 14 days following the date of the notice;(b) the person may not be convicted of the offence if the person pays the fixed penalty before the end of that period.(3) A fixed penalty notice must—(a) give reasonably detailed particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence;(b) state the period during which (because of subsection (2)(a)) proceedings will not be taken for the offence;(c) specify the amount of the fixed penalty;(d) state the name and address of the person to whom the fixed penalty may be paid;(e) specify permissible methods of payment.(4) Subsection (3)(a) does not operate to require or authorise the processing of personal data in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but that subsection is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(5) An amount specified under subsection (3)(c) must not be more than £100.(6) A fixed penalty notice may specify two amounts under subsection (3)(c) and specify that, if the lower of those amounts is paid within a specified period (of less than 14 days), that is the amount of the fixed penalty.(7) Whatever other method may be specified under subsection (3)(e), payment of the fixed penalty may be made by pre-paying and posting to the person whose name and address is stated under subsection (3)(d), at the stated address, a letter containing the amount of the penalty (in cash or otherwise).(8) Where a letter is sent as mentioned in subsection (6), payment is regarded as having been made at the time at which that letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.(9) In any proceedings, a certificate that—(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of Transport for London, and(b) states that payment of the fixed penalty was, or was not, received by the date specified in the certificate,is evidence of the facts stated.(10) In this section“the data protection legislation” , “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).””Member's explanatory statement
This clause will allow TfL to make byelaws local bus services in London. It also provides for those byelaws, and TfL’s Road Transport Premises Byelaws, to be enforced by authorised persons, including by means of fixed penalty notices.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 2nd April 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (1 Apr 2025)
17:09 - Division on Amendment 36 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 216 - Amendment 36 disagreed.
18:27 - Division on Amendment 53 - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 53 agreed.
18:39 - Division on Amendment 57 - Ayes: 240 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 57 agreed.
18:50 - Division on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 226 / Noes: 142 - Amendment 58 agreed.
19:01 - Division on Amendment 60 - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 148 - Amendment 60 disagreed.
Lord Blunkett
(c) enabling persons with disabilities (within that meaning) to travel on local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables guidance about safety and accessibility of stopping places to include guidance for the purpose of enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services independently and in safety and reasonable comfort.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 35A I will speak also to consequential amendments on the Order Paper in my name. Before I do so, I pay tribute to all those who have been campaigning, as organisations and individuals, over a substantial time on this critical issue, long before I became engaged with it.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on his part and his commitment and dedication. One of the reasons I signed his original Amendments 36 and 38 was to ensure that pressure was brought to bear on the Government, and the Government have responded. I pay tribute to other Members who have signed his amendments, and those who have campaigned, present and past, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, the late Baroness Randerson, who did an enormous amount on this issue, and my noble friend Lady Hughes, who got the attention of the House back in the autumn by moving a Motion to which she spoke which focused attention on this critical issue, as did the Transport Select Committee in the House of Commons, just a few weeks ago.
I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has been prepared to listen and to respond. It is a tribute to him that he has worked diligently to ensure that we could make some progress. I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, with whom I have had considerable negotiations, to not allow us to make the perfect the enemy of the good. With the amendments I am laying today, with the support of the Government, we are making genuine and real progress. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, tabled his original amendment. How could I not, as I signed it? Having signed it, I wanted to ensure that the Government were prepared to move. It is in that spirit that I am moving Amendment 35A and speaking to its consequential amendments this afternoon.
I ought to make it clear that, if the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, were to push his amendments to the vote and they were carried, my Amendments 39A and 61A would automatically fall. Those amendments are about the consultation arrangements and the immediate progression that is consequent on Royal Assent to the Bill. That would be deeply regrettable, because all of us are aligned in wanting to make genuine and rapid progress in getting to grips with something that is dangerous for people with a range of disabilities and particularly for those with little or no sight. That is why I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to make it absolutely clear from the Dispatch Box that those organisations working with and for, and speaking on behalf of, people who are blind or partially sighted will be front and centre in that consultation.
This also affects cyclists. My attention was drawn earlier this week to a cyclist who came across one of these floating bus stops opposite the British Library. Its colour coding was so bad that, although he does not have poor or no sight, he did not see it and his bike was wrecked. Fortunately, he was not hurt. My attention has been drawn again and again to the appalling example of what we are talking about just across Westminster Bridge. We really need to understand that this is an issue for everyone, not just for those with sight or motor difficulties, and that we need to get it right.
It is in that spirit that I move this amendment today. Crucial to the nature of what we do when we vote, Amendment 35A refers to how we approach ensuring the safety of individuals. It talks about the right
“to travel on local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”.
The commitment in the Bill to travel in safety requires a complete change to these floating bus stops. Emphasis is being put in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on retrofitting. I am entirely in favour of that, although the timing of how it can be achieved and the practicalities that need to be put in place should be explored, which is why I have been prepared to compromise. We need to make sure that we make progress quickly and effectively, rather than thinking that we will make progress only to find that we do not.
There are alternatives to completely scrapping the floating bus stops, in places where it is possible to ensure safety for all concerned. Some years ago, I did a project on the yellow school bus network in the United States—Donald Trump has not yet decided to do away with it. It has a facility which stops traffic once the bus itself has pulled in. I believe that creative and imaginative technology could do that, in circumstances where it is extremely difficult to reconfigure what exists in relation to how people reach the bus or alight from it. There are ideas which we can make work, with a little thought and innovation.
In that spirit, I hope to have the reassurances of my own Front Bench—both on the nature of consultation and on the speed with which we will operate in giving the guidance and ensuring that the information is then collected, collated and published, and that authorities are therefore held to account, not least around what I describe in Amendment 35A if it is passed and added to the Bill, and therefore becomes applicable and enforceable—and that we actually can make progress this afternoon. Again, I thank everyone who was on to this long before I was. With some temerity, I commend this set of amendments in my name.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it may be convenient if I inform the House that we have a number of sight-impaired visitors with us in the Gallery. To increase the inclusivity of their experience, it may be convenient for noble Lords to identify themselves when they speak. To that end, I am Lord Holmes, a Conservative. As with all moves of an inclusive nature, everybody benefits. I am sure that a number of Members are now going, “Ah, so that’s Lord Holmes”.
It is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has been and continues to be a role model for millions, not just in the UK but around the world. He was a first-class Secretary of State and a man who has transport in his bones, right back to the excellent bus subsidy scheme that he introduced when he was running Sheffield.
I want to speak to Amendments 36 and 38, which are in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for co-signing them. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, regrets not being able to be with us for these discussions, but she was insistent that I made her support clear. She gave me a lot of evidence from her personal experience and what others had relayed to her about floating bus stops. I also thank all the organisations which have been campaigning on this matter since the inception of floating bus stops.
Perhaps it would also be to the convenience of your Lordships if I gave a brief description of what floating bus stops are. In essence, you take a bus stop and move it some way into the carriageway, at a distance from the pavement and with a cycle lane running behind it. Similarly, there are bus stop bypasses—another design. In many ways, it is the name “bus stop bypass” which gives us the greatest clue as to how these parts of our public realm came into being. For most of us, we are not bypassing the bus stop at all; we are simply barred from accessing the bus stop.
I have described floating bus stops and bus stop bypasses, but what are they in reality for blind people, wheelchair users or parents with pushchairs—any of us who do not want to take our life in our hands crossing a live cycle lane? So-called floating bus stops are dangerous, discriminatory and a disaster for inclusive design. They are dangerous by design, prima facie discriminatory by design and disastrous for inclusion by design. They are built to fail and bound to fail. Why? They are an overly simplistic solution to a relatively—I emphasise relatively—complex issue. They could have never solved the issues because they were not predicated on being inclusive by design and ignored the concept of “nothing about us without us”. They say nothing about accessibility.
On my Amendments 36 and 38, perhaps I should first say what these amendments are not. They are not anti-cycling. I am pro-cycling—pro-cycling for all those who can. But I am no more pro-cycling than I am pro-pedestrian, pro-bus passenger or pro-parent with pushchair—in short, I am pro-inclusion.
If we have a continuation of these so-called floating bus stops, we will have a continuation of a lack of public transport in this country. We will have transport for some of the people some of the time. Much more concerningly, we will have transport for some of the public none of the time.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support those two amendments. For the benefit of those with sight impairments, my name is Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and I am from the Green Party —yay.
I have been working for three decades or more on the issue of safety on our roads and road danger. I do not know whether that pre-dates the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but it seems like a very long time, and it has been a very long slog. I have worked with amazing campaigners of all kinds. I have to admit that when I started, I was concerned primarily with cyclists. At the time we had a lot of cycling injuries and deaths and relatively few cyclists; I wanted to get more people cycling, get them off buses and out of their cars and make London cleaner—get the air cleaner with fewer cars. That was my driver at the time. Obviously, as I continued working, preventing deaths and injuries of all kinds—of walkers, cyclists and drivers themselves—became paramount.
When floating bus stops were first mentioned, I thought, “What a fantastic idea to get the cyclists away from the heavy vehicles and buses”. It seemed like a really good idea and I was a huge fan, but I have now seen the light. I have examined particularly the two bus stops over on the far side of Westminster Bridge. They are quite interesting, because one of them is awful—absolutely dreadful. I have almost got mown down by a cyclist there, and I am fully sighted and fully mobile. The other one just about works most of the time, so I can see that there is an option for making all the floating bus stops we have viable. The one on this side is next to St Thomas’ Hospital, and it has a much better layout, better visibility and so on. Also, cyclists zooming up the bike lane perhaps realise that there are people crossing into St Thomas’ who may not be as mobile or as able, and so perhaps they take greater care. So I can see the possibilities, but—and this is a really big but—we have to accept that many of these bus stops are flawed, and we need a huge look at them all to make sure that they are viable.
It is wonderful that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is able to agree to these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I also thank the Minister for the 30-second chat we had in the corridor earlier today—it was very beneficial. This is a step forward, but it is just not far enough. Having lived this for 30 years, I really feel that we have to do something bold and dramatic. There are other ways to traffic-calm, which is what I am aiming to do. We could, for example, tax SUVs. These monstrous vehicles are extremely dangerous; they make people inside them feel incredibly safe, so they drive differently—they are also difficult to park and so on. We need better roads policing. We have some at the moment, but it goes through phases of being very good and then not so good. Of course, we also need good planning; that is paramount.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am a big fan of inclusion—as I get older, I realise that I am more interested in inclusion than when I was younger. You cannot justify limiting one group’s opportunities by giving another group more opportunities. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, will press his amendment to a vote and that we can show the Government just how much we care about the issue.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 36 and 38 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and his co-sponsors. I thank them for their powerful speeches. For the benefit of our visitors, I should explain that I am Lord Shinkwin and I have a disability.
I apologise to your Lordships’ House as this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I am doing so for a particular, personal reason as a disabled person. I have run the very close risk of almost being run over on nearby pedestrian zebra crossings three times in the past five days—last Friday evening, this Monday and as recently as yesterday, all in perfect visibility and all by people cycling at speed. In each case, the cyclist had seen me in my wheelchair as I started to cross and chose not to apply their brakes. One interrupted a phone conversation to shout an apology outside Clarence House as she cycled past, which was really good of her. In another case, when I appealed very politely to a cyclist on an e-bike to stop, he looked at me with utter contempt.
The only thing that saved me, and enables me to be here today, is my sight. It is my only form of protection, because I can confidently say that I would not survive a collision. How much worse must it be for those people who do not have that protection, which we take for granted if we do not have a visual impairment? That is why Amendments 36 and 38 are so important.
Although I am speaking for the first time today, I read very carefully the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s amendments in Committee. I want to make clear that I do not question the Minister’s sincerity or commitment, both of which I welcome. My concern is that, notwithstanding the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the Minister’s department does not recognise the clear and present danger that disabled people, including those with both mobility and visual impairments, are facing today.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments. I believe them to be reasonable and to show responsibility for those we have heard about today. In the same way that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has seen the light, I hope that the Minister will join her and agree to these amendments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, it is Lord Wigley, for the benefit for those who cannot follow the monitors in the House. This is the first time I too have intervened on this Bill. It is sometimes difficult for those of us in small parties to cover all the legislation, but the issues contained in this Bill have been very close to my heart for a long time. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for his contribution to this, because he has certainly brought a dimension to our understanding.
I am intervening now rather than earlier because, at a meeting held within these premises a week or two ago, we were shown films of the disastrous results when those trying to get on buses, or indeed those who are cycling, have to cope with the layout at bus stops in certain areas. They were really disturbing films; it was frightening just looking at them. We have to make sure that this sort of situation cannot persist.
A moment ago, someone asked, “What if these issues had been going on for 40 years?” They have been going on for longer than 40 years. In 1981, I introduced my own Disabled Persons Bill in the House of Commons, which became the Disabled Persons Act. Part of the Act was to do with the safety of the visually impaired on pavements, with regard to potholes, works on the pavement being undertaken by local authorities, et cetera. The question of disabled people’s safety arose and, even then, it was seen in the context of the social definition of “handicap”, which is the relationship between a disabled person and his or her environment. We may or may not be able to do very much about the basic disability, but we can certainly do something about the environment. Therefore, the responsibility for ensuring that a disability does not become a handicap rests in the hands of those who control the environment. This is classic example of just that.
I am very pleased that amendments have been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Holmes. I only wish that they could all be amalgamated into one; that may be a challenge for the Government. I hope that we can make progress today in that direction. However, if we cannot, or if only the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, find their way forward, I very much hope that the Government will commit to keeping this under review—and in terms of months, not years—to ensure that the arguments put forward so forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, are not lost and that we make progress on this issue, to make sure that those who have been suffering do not have to suffer in future.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I am Lord Hampton from the Cross Benches and I will speak to Amendments 36, 38, 39 and 39A. I am genuinely conflicted on them. On the one hand, I would like to see floating bus stops stop immediately; on the other, I believe that the Government would be far more sympathetic to the much more gradual approaches of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says.
In Committee, I described floating bus stops as democratic: they are dangerous for everyone. Apart from the obvious victims—those with limited sight or mobility—the bus stops are so dangerous because there are two separate pavements that make them look safe. In fact, it is the crossing between the bicycle lane and the pavement that is the problem. No one is designed to look over their shoulder and that is usually where the problem comes from. E-bikes are supposedly capped at 20 miles per hour.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My noble friend has pointed out the correct figure. I am not sure what the European and Commonwealth speed record for bike-mounted corporate lawyers in Lycra is, but I am sure it is well over 30 miles per hour. When bus passengers are trying to catch a bus—perhaps at night or when it is raining—we are expecting them to cross a cycle path without incident.
As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, suggested, there is a solution. I catch a bus from London Bridge daily. There is a cycle lane across the bridge which ends to allow buses to pull into the pavement to pick up passengers and drop them off. Cyclists know to go round the bus, bus drivers know how to pull in gently and passengers do not have to cross traffic or a cycle lane. I have seen no incidents or near-misses in my nearly three years of travel from there.
Floating bus stops are a laudable attempt to make life for cyclists safer—but, in fact, they put everyone in danger. They are a huge mistake and legislation to remove them must be in the Bill.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak as a cyclist—one of the first to do so in this debate. I cycle regularly to your Lordships’ House and many other places. I agree that some of the floating bus stops that noble Lords have described, especially around here, are awful—but others are quite good. The problem is that the danger for cyclists going round the back of a floating bus stop has to be measured against the danger of overtaking a bus that is trying to pull in in front of you, because you do not know how many other cars, lorries or buses will overtake you on the outside. I do not have any figures for how many people have been killed or injured by overtaking buses as they pull into bus stops, but it is significant. We need to look at this in a balanced way rather than just saying, “Get rid of floating bus stops by all accounts”.
As noble Lords have said, the floating bus stops on Westminster Bridge are awful, but, leaving the design aside, it does not help that the cyclists cannot go in the cycle lanes there because there are too many tourists. We are talking about too many people wanting to use too much road space, but it does not always work. Coming back the other way by St Thomas’, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned, it is much easier.
For me, crossing from a pavement to a floating bus stop—with a ramp, I hope, as opposed to a step—is not very different from crossing any other road with a cycle lane and finding that the cyclists are not stopping or obeying the light. We need a proper design that works, rather than rushing into a series of different ones that may or may not work.
I have cycled quite often on the continent and I have given examples of what happens in Berlin, which is the most wonderful place to cycle. First, there is a pavement—the footpath—then there is a cycle lane, and then there are one or two traffic lanes. What happens if there is an obstruction on the cycle lane due to a building site or something? The traffic lanes are reduced from two to one to allow the cyclists to travel and overtake safely—ditto with the pedestrians.
The biggest problem—this came up in the Question from the noble Baroness yesterday—is that people do not comply with the law and there is no enforcement, whether that is enforcement for cyclists and scooters, electric or otherwise, or for freight cyclists. I find that cyclists with freight on the back have a particular habit of rushing around and not obeying red lights. I do not know why; most of us obey red lights, but these freight cyclists make a habit of going diagonally across and hoping for the best. One of these days people are going to get killed.
I love the London cycle routes that have been put in over the last 10 years—most of them are very good. However, you can go out the A10 towards Stratford and see the different designs of bus stops, cycle islands and other types of arrangements for the bus to pull over in front of you, and each one is as dangerous as the other—you have got to be very careful.
I cannot support any of these amendments, but I urge the Minister to agree to commission a proper study of how best to align the needs of pedestrians, disabled and blind people, tourists—who do not, I think, understand what “stop” means—cyclists and other road users, and combine it with enforcement. Until we get some enforcement, such as that in Germany, Belgium, Holland and even Paris now, we are going to get more of these debates, which, while very interesting, are not solving the problem.
With the very large increase in the number of cyclists using the road network now—noble Lords may have seen the cycle route along the Thames from here, going eastwards—I feel quite frightened on that lane in rush hour, because there are so many of them going along and they are going quite fast. We can debate whether it is good for a cyclist to be frightened of other cyclists. Things will change, but we have got to be very careful before we start moving infrastructure without being quite clear as to the benefits to each class—if we can call it a class—of user, to make sure that we get it right and that we do not get, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, the conflict from safety. Safety is the be-all and end-all, and it must start there, but enforcement is one of the most important things.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I support the intention behind the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and I agree very much with the broad thrust of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, particularly about enforcement. I have cycled many miles on the bicycle paths in central London, and indeed I experienced a serious injury when a runner ran into me on the Embankment, at the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was talking about, going from here to Waterloo Bridge.
I accept that floating bus stops are frightening to pedestrians, but, as was pointed out, they are also extremely frightening to cyclists. As many people have commented, the one on the far side of Westminster Bridge is particularly awkward. Cyclists confront people getting on and off buses, who have no knowledge about the complicated configuration of the footpaths, bicycle paths and islands; this is particularly the case for visitors, who often seem to be completely confused. On the other hand, a decision to force cyclists to ride around a bus carries different but extremely serious risks.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I will intervene briefly, if I may. One group of people involved in these discussions has not been heard from so far, and that is the bus drivers themselves. I have no financial interest to declare these days in these matters, but over the years I have worked either as a consultant, director or chairman for three different bus companies. When you talk to bus drivers about their daily problems, you find that their views about cycle lanes are well worth listening to. Many of them say that they do not open the doors sometimes until they have checked the cycle lane to their nearside mirror.
Although it is not very popular to say so—I do not wish to fall out with my noble friend Lord Berkeley—it is about time someone acknowledged the fact that a substantial number of cyclists on our roads are, quite frankly, maniacs.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I made an exception for my noble friend straight away, because I knew he might react.
Stand on the corner of Parliament Square and watch them. There are cycle lanes and traffic lights, and a substantial number of cyclists ignore the traffic lights—because in their view nothing is coming—and set off around Parliament Square. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the amendment that we are discussing. We ought to acknowledge the fact that, unless there is some sort of enforcement, as my noble friend suggested, the minority of cyclists who behave in that way will continue to behave like that.
Mention has been made of the cycle lanes and the two bus stops at the other side of Westminster Bridge. Only last week, I happened to be crossing the bridge in the direction of travel towards the House, on the left-hand side, where the cycle lane and the bus stop is, in the opinion of earlier speakers, supposedly the safer of the two. There are Belisha beacons and a zebra crossing by the bus stop—a very small one that crosses the cycle lane. As I crossed one day last week, I had to dodge a cyclist—in fact, there were two of them, pretty close together—who ignored the Belisha beacons and the zebra crossing. I said something to the first one as he passed—I presume the second one was associated with him. He responded, and I do not know exactly what he said, but the second word was “off”. That sort of behaviour is all too predictable for a certain minority of cyclists.
I hope that, when he comes to respond, my noble friend the Minister will acknowledge the very real fears, particularly of those who are partially sighted or blind, and that these problems are real and that it is long past time that we tackle them.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, for those who are listening to this debate, my name is Baroness Pidgeon from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Accessibility and safety have been strong features of the debate, at Second Reading, in Committee and today. I am pleased that the amendments before the House today would help make progress on floating bus stops. I was struck, by the debate in Committee and from discussions that I have had with visually impaired, blind and disabled campaigners, about the accessibility of the bus network. My Amendment 39 is a new amendment that seeks to ensure that all existing floating bus stops or bus stop bypasses are made safe and accessible within a reasonable period. Unlike the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has spoken to, it does not prohibit all floating bus stops, but it does seek to ensure an assessment of the current state of these types of bus stops and a programme to retrofit stops which do not meet the highest safety and accessibility standards.
Floating bus stops tend to be on busy main roads where cycle lanes have been added. They have been designed to tackle a serious issue of cyclist safety, particularly at the point where buses pull out into the main traffic. I want us to remember why this different design of bus stop was created, with absolutely the right intentions: to help prevent collisions with cyclists, and deaths, on these busy main roads. Clearly, in some locations, as we have discussed today, they have not been designed in a way that keeps everyone safe. Bad designs that mean passengers have to board or disembark a bus from or directly into a cycle lane are not acceptable. We have all seen good examples of this infrastructure—and bad examples.
This amendment seeks more detailed guidance, which would ensure that cyclists were kept safe and that blind, visually impaired and disabled passengers were safe and able to access bus services. I hope that the Minister supports this aim. I have met representative groups and received correspondence from different sides of this debate. One thing that unites everyone is the need to ensure that these types of bus stops are designed to the highest possible standards of safety for all users. This amendment ensures that an assessment of current floating bus stops is carried out within six months and that a retrofit programme is then carried out within 18 months. This is a sensible way forward, which I hope that the House can support. It will ensure progress on this issue, about which we have heard loudly and clearly today.
Since tabling my amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has tabled his own amendments, which I welcome. They would allow progress in the way that my amendment seeks. Therefore, I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government are minded to accept the noble Lord’s amendments. What assurance can the Minister give the House that the guidance for floating bus stops will be reviewed at pace for all local authorities, that local authorities will have to review their existing floating bus stops, and that there will be a retrofit programme for those that do not meet the guidance—particularly those that we have heard about so powerfully, where the island is just not wide enough and passengers are forced into the cycle lane simply to use the bus?
This has been a passionate debate from all sides of the House and we will all be listening carefully to the Minister’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, my name is Lord Moylan and I am the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman—yay.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, knows that I have the highest personal regard for him, as I do for my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. They both bring a perspective on this issue which I cannot share and do not possess. However, I do know something, from past experience, about the design and management of roads.
The essential problem is, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that there are locations where road space is a scarce resource. The way in which we choose to deal with this is by a sort of top-down allocation of uses, so that we say, “This is for the pedestrian, this is for buses, this is for bicycles, and this is for general traffic”. Inevitably, people are left dissatisfied, because these are almost insoluble decisions to make. They are a mixture of managerial and political decisions, and they are fundamentally questions of priority, and those priorities shift over time.
What has certainly been the case is that, in recent years, the priority has shifted substantially in favour of the cyclist. I think that the mood in the House today is that perhaps it is time to look again at the priority that should be given to pedestrians, and particularly to disabled pedestrians. For that reason, I will say that, while we do not object to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, if my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond chooses to test the opinion of the House on his Amendments 36 and 38, we will support him.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister, I will turn to the amendments related to floating bus stops and accessibility. I thank noble Lords for their contributions on these important points. I recognise the passion and sincerity of all those who have spoken. I say clearly that the Government acknowledge the problems that floating bus stops can cause. We recognise that this is about equality and the ability to make independent journeys confidently. It is also about safety, including, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, have referred to, the safety of cyclists. It is also, as the noble Lord, Moylan, just said, about the allocation of road space, which in many English towns and cities is at a premium.
We also recognise that more needs to be done to make these installations accessible to all, which is why the department is working—at pace, for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon—with Active Travel England and Transport for London to provide further guidance and undertake research to fill the gaps in our knowledge and evidence base. Since Committee, we have been exploring ways in which we can strengthen this commitment, and we have listened very carefully to noble Lords’ and other stakeholders’ concerns.
First, in the short term, we have decided to instigate a pause on the installation of the most problematic floating bus stop designs. These are the ones with shared-use bus borders, where the cycle track runs across the front of the bus stop, between the stop and/or shelter and the kerb. Noble Lords have referred to a number of stops in this respect, and I will refer to bus stop U on Brentford High Street, near the piano museum, where bus passengers get on and off directly into a cycle lane. The pause will be voluntary, as there are no powers enabling the Secretary of State to instruct local authorities on this. It will apply to any new installations currently at the design stage, which local authorities will be requested not to take forward. This does not require legislation, and the Secretary of State will set out expectations on this to local authorities as expeditiously as possible.
With regard to future modifications to existing sites, we will highlight to local authorities that existing funding is available to them to make these changes. Options include consolidated active travel funding and highways maintenance funding, and Ministers will encourage them to use this. Active Travel England will also be making available further funding to local authorities to enable them to retrofit existing sites on their network.
Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, is similar to Amendment 39A tabled by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, in that it requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance on this matter. However, my noble friend has gone further in his amendment and stated that this guidance has to be in place within three months after Royal Assent. I fully support him on this matter: it is important that guidance is developed quickly to help solve this issue, and I know that partially sighted, blind and disabled bus passengers will appreciate action being taken quickly. This guidance will be better than local transport note 1/20, to which the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, referred, because that is non-statutory, and it will answer my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s point about a proper study.
Amendment 39A also makes provision for consultation and includes the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee as a statutory consultee. I agree that this is the right thing to do. I agree that any consultation on this guidance will also include other bodies of, or representing, blind and partially sighted people, and, more generally, disabled people, older people and those with additional needs. They are experts, as users of the network, and we want to be sure that they have had an opportunity to provide their views. Amendment 61A is a technical amendment that ensures that the new clause proposed in Amendment 39A comes into force as soon as possible after Royal Assent.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. I appreciate that we are not at loggerheads; we are talking about the way in which we can move as quickly as possible, in a practical fashion, to achieve a common goal. If noble Lords will forgive me for one minute, I had a vision of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I on a tandem, with him on the front and me clinging on as hard as I can to ensure that both of us do not end up in danger of hitting one of these floating bus stops.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned speed. I hope the Government will come back to that at some point, because it is a disgrace that there is no appropriate and proper speed limit for cyclists. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for clearly spelling out why my amendments go a long way, in a practical fashion, to meeting what the whole House wishes to achieve this afternoon. I thank other noble Lords for their kind words.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, from the Conservative Front Bench that I am sorry if we are going to divide on Amendments 36 and 38 because he will remember that the night before Rishi Sunak called the general election, we collectively reached a compromise on the Victims and Prisoners Bill with the Government. Had we not done so, the changes on IPP that have come in would not have happened. We did so—if I might use this expression—with our eyes wide open to the fact that we were marginally compromising with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and his Secretary of State, Alex Chalk, but we were doing so in order to make progress. It is in that spirit that I will move this amendment and associated amendments this afternoon.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“(2A) The Secretary of State must issue guidance requiring—(a) buses to stop at the kerbside to allow all passengers to board from and alight directly to the pavement, and (b) stopping places to be designed such that all passengers can continue their journey without crossing a live cycle lane running through or on any part of the pavement.(2B) The organisations listed in subsection (6) must comply with the guidance issued under subsection (2A) when commissioning the design, construction or maintenance of a stopping place for a local service, or any facilities in the vicinity of a stopping place for a local service.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who brought such vivid and real lived experience to the debate, and all noble Lords who took part, in particular the Minister. I thank him for all his consideration and the time that he has put into progress on this. It is a rare and positive thing to have a Minister for Transport who not only understands but loves transport. He is surely a candidate for Secretary of State. Things would improve dramatically across the piece.
I also thank my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for all the work that he has done on this matter. Progress has been made and I am very pleased that Amendment 35A and other amendments in his name will also pass, irrespective of what may or may not happen presently. The difficulty is, for all that has been said, that too much is still voluntary and lies in guidance. It could be pinned down far more. For example, the Government could do more, particularly on not providing finance for such schemes. They could have taken a different approach—rather than guidance, they could have taken a different legislative pathway. Similarly, it is worth noting at this point that, for those local authorities that do not abide by any guidance, judicial review will be the only route of redress for an individual. In essence, for the vast majority of us, there is no route of redress whatever.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but, to make more progress and in acting for inclusion by design, accessibility by all and public transport worthy of that title, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
Before putting the question on the amendment, I must advise the House that, if it is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 36A or 61A due to pre-emption.
Lord Blunkett
“(aa) Transport for London;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies clause 25 to Transport for London.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies clause 25 to local traffic authorities in Greater London.
Baroness Pidgeon
“Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a full assessment of all existing floating bus stops to determine their level of safety and compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance.(2) The assessment must also identify any necessary retrofits to ensure floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.(3) Following the assessment, the Secretary of State must develop and implement a programme to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with relevant safety and accessibility standards.(4) The retrofit programme must ensure that floating bus stops are designed to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.(5) The retrofit programme detailed in subsection (3) must be completed within 18 months of the assessment’s conclusion.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess all existing floating bus stops for safety and accessibility compliance within six months of the Act's passage and to complete any necessary retrofits within 18 months thereafter.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, having considered the Minister’s response from the Dispatch Box, I will not move my amendment.
Lord Blunkett
“Provision and design of floating bus stops(1) The Secretary of State must give guidance about the provision and design of floating bus stops.(2) The guidance may, in particular, include guidance about—(a) matters to be taken into account, and the consultation that should be carried out, when deciding whether it is appropriate to construct or remove a floating bus stop;(b) the circumstances in which it is appropriate to construct or remove particular types of floating bus stops;(c) other considerations to be taken into account when designing floating bus stops.(3) The Secretary of State may at any time vary or revoke guidance given under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must publish guidance given under this section and any variation or revocation of the guidance.(5) The first guidance given under this section must be published before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. (6) The Secretary of State must consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and any other persons who in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is appropriate to consult—(a) before giving or revoking guidance under this section, or(b) before varying guidance under this section in a way which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, results in a substantial change to the guidance.(7) The following must have regard to the guidance—(a) a local transport authority (within the meaning given by Part 2 of the Transport Act 2000) whose area is in England;(b) Transport for London;(c) a local traffic authority (within the meaning given by section 121A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984), in relation to stopping places on roads in England;(d) a local highway authority (within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980), in relation to stopping places on highways in England;(e) a strategic highways company (within the meaning given by section 1 of the Infrastructure Act 2015), in relation to stopping places on highways in England.(8) In this section—“floating bus stop” means an area in the immediate vicinity of a stopping place for local services, which is designed—(a) for use by people accessing the stopping place, and(b) so as to incorporate a cycle track (within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329 of that Act));“local service” and “stopping place” have the same meanings as in the Transport Act 1985 (see sections 2 and 137 of that Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to give guidance to certain authorities about the provision and design of floating bus stops.
“Duty to provide information to Secretary of State(1) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 25(6) or (Provision and design of floating bus stops)(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must, when requested to do so, provide to the Secretary of State—(a) details of how they have complied with the duty, and(b) any other information relating to stopping places provided by the authority and used by local services that is specified in the request.(2) The request may specify the form in which, and the period within which, the information is to be provided.(3) The Secretary of State may publish—(a) any information provided under this section, and(b) if it appears to the Secretary of State that the authority have not complied with their duty under section 25(6) or (Provision and design of floating bus stops)(7), a statement to that effect.(4) In this section “local service” and “stopping place” have the same meanings as in the Transport Act 1985 (see sections 2 and 137 of that Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires an authority to provide the Secretary of State on request with compliance information relating to guidance about safety and accessibility of stopping places, or about floating bus stops. It allows the Secretary of State to publish the information and, if it appears that the authority did not have regard to the guidance, a statement to that effect.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am moving these amendments formally, but I just want to make it absolutely clear to the House and beyond that that vote does not defeat the progress that has been agreed by this House in terms of ridding us of the worst of the floating bus stops.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that the training will require a person to take steps to prevent crime or anti-social behaviour only where it is safe to do so.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this next group of amendments relate to Clause 27, on training for staff about crime and anti-social behaviour.
On Amendment 40 under my name, I thank noble Lords who in Committee highlighted the need for clarity on how new requirements could impact the safety of drivers and front-line staff. I know we all agree that the safety of everyone on the transport network is important, and this includes both passengers and staff. This amendment seeks to make particularly clear the importance of the safety of staff when preventing incidents relating to crime and anti-social behaviour.
It is important that staff are trained to assess whether it is safe for them to prevent such incidents but, to be absolutely clear, staff are not expected to physically intervene in incidents which should be dealt with by enforcement authorities, such as the police. I have previously stated that we are not expecting bus drivers to leave their cab in order to prevent incidents of crime and anti-social behaviour. This is not appropriate and may put the driver at risk. However, drivers and other staff should be equipped to intervene in other ways, such as through understanding what to say to de-escalate a situation where it is safe to do so. Therefore, this amendment makes it clear that the training requirement is to assist staff in taking preventative steps only where it is safe to do so.
As I have stated before, the intention has always been to involve relevant stakeholders in the development of guidance which sets out the requirements of training on crime and anti-social behaviour, and the Government remain committed to doing so. I hope noble Lords will accept this amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to see the amendment in the name of the Minister. I pointed out at Second Reading, and again in Committee, that the drafting of Clause 27 was, frankly, absurd, dangerous and misleading, in that it raised public expectations about what drivers are able to do in handling crime and anti-social behaviour that were completely unrealistic and unfair to the drivers. I have an amendment in this group which elegantly and beautifully addresses the matter; the Minister’s is more brutal, but it does the job, so I welcome it.
There is a further amendment in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. Unfortunately, he is not in his place to speak to it, but the suggestion that trade unions should be consulted about the content of training overall seems to me unobjectionable, so I am sad not to see him here in his place.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I turn to my noble friend Lord Woodley’s Amendment 41. I appreciate that the intention of his amendment is to ensure that the views of bus workers are considered when developing the training that they are required to take. I agree that this is important, but I am not convinced that placing a requirement on individual public service vehicle operators to consult trade unions before preparing training to be undertaken by their employees is the best way to go about it. This would place an undue burden on operators and likely delay the implementation of training, while resulting in inconsistency in staff capability and service provision, which is in the interests of neither bus workers nor passengers. I have already explained that we will involve relevant stakeholders in the development of guidance covering training. This includes ensuring that the views of bus staff and their representatives are fully considered. We remain committed to this and believe that we can set clear and realistic direction about what the training should entail and the expected outcomes.
The final amendment in this group is Amendment 42. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendment —I am not sure that I should thank him so much for regarding my own as brutal, but his amendment is clear. I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group and hope that the House accepts the amendment tabled in my name, which is intended to clarify the policy intention of Clause 27.
“(3A) Where regulations made under this section impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(3B) In subsection (3A) “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that regulations requiring holders of PSV operators’ licences to keep records relating to their compliance with the training requirement do not operate in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation.
“(1A) Where regulations made under this section impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that regulations requiring carriers and terminal managing bodies to keep records relating to their compliance with the disability training requirements do not operate in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation.
“(za) “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines terms used in clause 29(1A), inserted by my amendment to clause 29, page 29, line 12, and is consequential on that amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendments of clause 30 at page 30 line 24 (first amendment) and page 31 lines 10 and 11, provides for the requirement to use zero emission buses to apply to the local services in England set out in my second amendment at page 30 line 24.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
These amendments cover provisions relating to zero-emission buses. Those tabled in my name—Amendments 46 to 49—amend Clause 30, which will prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses on local bus services, from a date not before 1 January 2030. I would like to attribute these amendments to the late Baroness Randerson, who worked tirelessly to ensure that the environmental benefits of bus services are fully realised; she continued, quite rightly, to push consecutive Governments to do more. They also address issues raised eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in Committee.
Amendment 47 widens the scope of the current drafting to include all local services run under franchise schemes and local services in London. Therefore, all registered and franchised services, which includes those that are commercial, tendered or operated by local authority bus companies, are captured by the measure. This amendment will enable the carbon-saving and air-quality benefits afforded by the transition to a zero-emission fleet to be fully maximised. It will ensure that all areas of England are included and that the benefits of the transition to a zero-emission fleet are felt nationwide.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 51 concerns the matter to which the Minister has just referred. I speak as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee—though of course I have no licence to speak for the committee. None the less, the Minister just reported entirely correctly what the committee said. We produced a recommendation on the crucial matter of the date by which the use of new non-zero emission vehicles would be prohibited. We took the view that this should be considered under the affirmative rather than negative procedure. I am delighted that, as a result of our representations, the Minister decided he is not going to have a fight about it but will agree with our recommendation. Although, as I said, I cannot speak on behalf of the committee, I am sure that we are all very grateful to him. When other Ministers are looking at the advice they get from our committee, they would do very well to take a leaf out of his book.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for these important amendments, which will ensure that cleaner zero-emission buses will provide bus services right across England. It was an anomaly that my noble friend Lady Randerson spotted before Christmas and raised directly with the Minister. Therefore, I am pleased to see it has been addressed here and that the Minister has acknowledged the part the late Baroness Randerson played.
Zero-emission buses will cut levels of air pollution and boost manufacturing while helping to accelerate the decarbonisation potential of buses. Some 55% of the public have said that they are more likely to travel by bus if they know it is zero-emission; therefore, it is a win-win situation. I thank the Government for responding so positively to our amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the Minister and acknowledge his decision to accept the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
In relation to this group, I gave notice to the Minister that there were two questions I was going to ask him, so that I could hear what he had to say at the Dispatch Box before we decided our attitude to these amendments. He has dealt with the first one already. It is very important that he has stated at the Dispatch Box that the measure is to apply to all local bus services, whether franchised, privately operated or run by a local authority bus company that is directly owned and a subsidiary, and that there is nothing here that discriminates against or disadvantages private bus companies. I have heard what the Minister says and I am grateful and glad to be able to note that.
My second was more in the nature of a question, and it is a very important consideration. We have a bus manufacturing industry in this country. We make quite a lot of buses and we are quite good at it. We employ a reasonable number of people in the manufacture of buses. When all buses are going to be zero emission, what assurances do we have that British industry will be in a position to make zero-emission buses in the numbers required, and that the outcome of this measure will not be a flooding of Britain with Chinese or other buses made overseas, to the detriment of good British jobs and businesses?
Understanding the department’s view on where this path is taking us in relation to manufacturing and employment is increasingly to the fore in the minds of people considering the net-zero journey, if I may call it that. So the views of the Minister and the department on that will be of crucial importance to us.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, does he remember that the biggest bus manufacturer in the United Kingdom for many years was Leyland buses? Does he remember what happened when it asked for a government subvention in order to stay afloat? The company then went bust. So, is it not rather strange that he should now advocate that buses should be made and built in Britain, when the last Conservative Government let our biggest bus operator go to the wall?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I recall that my childhood was punctuated by almost monthly demands for subventions from Leyland as an operator. They were often granted in exchange for improvements in productivity and manufacturing. Eventually, someone had to stop it—that was the simple fact of the matter. I was in that part of the world not so very long ago. It is sad that Leyland is not manufacturing buses and trucks, but it has left behind it the most splendid museum. I had an extremely enjoyable day looking at the marvellous old buses and lorries that can be found at the site, and I recommend it very much to the noble Lord when he is next there; it is an appropriate legacy. But let us now see what can be done to ensure that government policy allows existing successful businesses to continue and is not set to destroy them.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us how he managed to escape from the museum? I am amazed he was not kept in there.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Noble Lords might like to note that I was driving a Leyland bus last Saturday on Route 19. The vehicle is older than I am. It makes a lot of noise but it does not go very fast.
I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her remarks on this subject and for noting the work of the late Baroness Randerson on this. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked directly about supporting UK manufacturing. My colleague in the other place, Minister Lightwood, recently chaired the inaugural meeting of the bus manufacturing panel on zero-emission buses. The Government are focused on delivering on their promise to bring jobs and investment into Britain’s industrial heartlands by boosting bus manufacturing through investment in zero-emission buses, while also driving up passenger comfort and service reliability. The scale of this technological ambition, combined with the highly skilled manufacturers across the UK, will ensure that the economic benefits of net zero are felt by workers across the country, including those building and using buses.
It is estimated that over 60% of zero-emission bus regional area-supported buses—the acronym is ZEBRA, but I am blowed if I am going to use it—will be procured from UK-based bus manufacturers, supporting economic growth and jobs across the zero-carbon transport industry. We want to see UK-based bus manufacturers build on this foundation and stimulate innovation and skills development to ensure that UK- based manufacturers are able to compete with high-quality, affordable products.
The UK’s continuing membership of the government procurement agreement prevents the department requiring that grant funding should be used to procure British-built zero-emission buses. The UK Government have no role in the procurement of buses, because that is the responsibility of the bus operators and/or local transport authorities and local authority bus companies.
The department is not able to require bidders to design their procurement processes in a way that would explicitly favour UK bus manufacturers. We are, however, exploring whether there are any relevant factors that we can build into this requirement, which may help to encourage competitive bids from UK firms without compromising wider commercial outcomes and delivery.
The supply chain for zero-emission buses is global, with UK bus manufacturing sourcing key components, such as vehicle batteries, from foreign-based companies. Those companies are therefore expected to continue to play an important role in the supply of zero-emission buses for the UK market, both through supplying key components and on occasion exporting complete vehicles directly to the UK market.
We have seen no evidence that foreign bus manufacturers are undercutting UK bus manufacturers. Recent evidence suggests the contrary—that UK bus manufacturers are not being undercut, with prices being broadly comparable. When zero-emission bus regional area orders have gone to international bus manufacturers, local transport authorities and bus operators have indicated that those decisions have been based on build quality and timeliness, rather than price. International manufacturers win some orders, just as UK manufacturers are winning orders abroad, from Germany to Hong Kong. A healthy and competitive global market is a positive thing, driving up performance and quality and driving down cost.
I hope that that puts the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at rest about the Government’s intentions in respect of British zero-emission bus manufacturing. I shall not speak further, other than to welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, on Amendment 51. I hope that your Lordships will welcome my other amendments for zero-emission buses and accept the need for all my amendments.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement for my amendment at clause 30, page 30, line 21.
“(1A) A service falls within this subsection if it is—(a) a local service which has one or more stopping places in England and which—(i) is registered under section 6 of the Transport Act 1985, or(ii) is not required to be registered under that section because of section 123J(2) or an exemption granted under section 123PA(1), or(b) a London local service (within the meaning given by section 179 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the requirement to use zero-emission buses to apply to local services registered under section 6 of the Transport Act 1985, local services in franchise areas and London local services.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement for my amendment at clause 30, page 30 line 21.
“(4) In section 160 (regulations and orders)—(a) in subsection (2), for “or 141A(1)” substitute “, 141A(1) or 151A(2)(b)”, and(b) in subsection (3), for “or 141A(1)” substitute “, 141A(1) or 151A(2)(b)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations setting the date of first registration for the purposes of the zero-emission vehicles requirement to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
“Review of the operation of the English national concessionary travel scheme(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS).(2) The review must assess—(a) the overall effectiveness and impact of the ENCTS for eligible persons,(b) the impact of the timing restrictions of the ENCTS for eligible persons, and(c) the approximate cost of removing timing restrictions of the ENCTS to allow eligible persons to use the scheme on travel 24 hours a day and seven days a week.(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and relevant user groups.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the current English national concessionary travel scheme.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, for the benefit of those with sight impairments, I should declare that my name is Natalie Bennett, or Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. I am the other Green—and we are doing an unusual bit of tag-teaming here, because I did the Second Reading of this Bill when my noble friend was off on medical leave. Interestingly, I raised in my Second Reading speech the issues covered by Amendment 52, which talks about the way in which the national concessionary travel scheme does not meet the needs of lots of people who very much need to be able to use it.
As I said at Second Reading, the restrictions mean that the scheme does not start until 9.30 in the morning. Many people have medical appointments that require them to travel before that time, and many people are providing childcare, often for relatives, which requires them to travel before that time. I described making concessionary travel a 24-hour event then as a modest investment that the Government could make. What we have now in Amendment 52 is a modest amendment, because it does not require the Government to do anything; it calls for a review of the scheme. I have told stories based on experiences that have been shared with me, particularly by some very doughty transport campaigners in Sheffield—but that is all anecdotal. This amendment would demand that there is a review of the scheme to see how it is meeting people’s needs and to help to uncover the costs of expanding the scheme.
This is a very simple amendment—a review amendment. It is not the intention to divide the House on it, but I hope that the Government will take it on board and I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 58, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, regarding the recording and sharing of data about assaults on the buses.
For the record, I declare my interest as chair of Amey, as set out in the register. Our involvement with buses is primarily collaboration with councils, such as Kent County Council, to use bus CCTV cameras to identify and capture data on road defects, such as potholes and cracks, to improve overall road maintenance. To avoid any conflict, as the Minister knows, I have restricted myself to speaking only on matters that impact transport which are outside any commercial involvement. It was for that reason that I spoke earlier during the Session in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in her advocacy of long-standing issues that face disabled people on transport, particularly trains, about which I feel very strongly.
I am grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, whose knowledge of transport issues is greater than that of anyone else in this House—even more so than my noble friend Lord Moylan—and whose advocacy of reform and improvement from a position of unparalleled professional expertise makes the transport debates in your Lordships’ House among the best in Parliament. With that glowing tribute, I hope that he will support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley.
From my experience in another place during my years representing the people of Lewisham East, I know that assaults on the vulnerable, particularly women, on buses, especially at night, was a serious issue, as evidenced in representations made to me in my constituency advice bureaux. These incidents ranged from verbal harassment to physical attacks. To this day, such attacks continue to significantly impact women’s sense of safety on public transportation, especially at night.
It is unacceptable that, in this day and age, the vulnerable, the elderly and women still feel vulnerable to harassment on the buses. Yet when incidents happen, the levels of reporting vary by location and factors such as time of day, route and bus occupancy. I accept and welcome the fact that many bus operators have implemented measures to increase safety, such as installing surveillance cameras on some buses and in stations, employing more visible staff and increasing security patrols—although many drivers are, understandably, protected and out of sight from many passengers. I welcome the fact that promoting awareness campaigns to encourage the reporting of incidents takes place.
However, I believe—and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Woodley—that more can be done. Few victims know how to report assaults, whether the bus companies have established hotlines or whether support services exist specifically for this purpose. Ignorance creates fear. Relevant signage is too often close to non-existent. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, is right to seek to add to the law to protect individuals from harassment and violence in public places. There is all too little, somewhat sporadic, documented evidence of assaults on women on buses in the UK, with various studies, reports and statistics seeking to highlight the issue.
Over the years, I have noticed that the British Transport Police reports take this seriously, and that some of its statistics include data on incidents of sexual offences. The Home Office releases some reports on crime in England and Wales, including some statistics on violent crimes and sexual assault, but without this legislative backing. Groups such as Stop Street Harassment and the Everyday Sexism Project collect testimonies and survey data from women about their experiences of harassment on public transport, providing qualitative evidence on the issue. Of course, the media can help, and research studies have examined the nature and impact of public transport harassment.
The first part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, is commendable. It goes further than anything on the statute book to date. If passed, as I believe it should be, bus operators would be required by law to record and register all data about assaults and violent behaviour on their buses, and local transport authorities would consult unions about the data. This is a Government who support the unions as a growth sector and therefore I hope that there will be support across all parties for the amendment. In return, as set out in the second part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, the unions could add their voice to help create a legal deterrent against such incidents, which continue to damage the confidence of the elderly and all vulnerable groups who travel on the buses and affect the safety of women.
I hope the Minister will agree to this small, yet important, change in the law. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, I shall move the amendment when it is called.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 58 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading.
The Government have an admirable ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I believe this amendment would aid the Government to achieve this by ensuring bus operators recorded and shared all data about assaults and violent behaviour that had taken place on their buses. I focus my remarks particularly on women, as the West Yorkshire Combined Authority conducted a survey which found that only 41% of women feel safe catching a bus at night, compared to 68% of men. This fear means that women are unfairly forced to pay for taxis to be reassured of their own safety. Women have even spoken of questioning whether their clothes are suitable so as not to attract unwanted attention when using the bus service. No woman should have to be fearful for her safety on public transport. The noble Lord’s amendment would go some way to encouraging bus operators to tackle the issue of violence and harassment, and, importantly, give people the confidence to come forward and report incidents on the bus.
In 2021, TfL launched a campaign that sought to end the normalisation of abuse on its services by encouraging people to text the British Transport Police. It stated that it wanted to make it clear
“that it is never acceptable and that the strongest possible action will always be taken”.
We cannot continue with a situation where more than half of women under 35—including me—decide to drive or get a taxi instead of getting a bus or train because they fear crime or harassment. The bus service should be available for all to use safely and free from fear. I fully commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on his amendment and I hope the Government will back it.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 57 and return to the topic of safety. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, both for suggesting the solution in Committee and for adding his name to my amendment. In Committee, the noble Lord suggested that buses could adopt a “Vision Zero” accident policy, just like the building industry. It did not occur to me until afterwards that this is exactly what Transport for London does.
I thank the Minister and his Bill team for the extremely collegiate way in which they have worked, and for the letter that he sent to noble Peers addressing some of my concerns from Committee. I thank him for guidance on the use of NEBOSH and IOSH, the updating of STATS19 in SCRICS, and the publication of clear safety data by the DVSA. The guidance will make this a safer Bill.
On my plans for this amendment to implement a Vision Zero programme, I was told that it could not be in the Bill because it was more of an idea than a concrete law—it was a vision. I consulted an external constitutional expert who said that it would work very well in the Bill because the meaning of the amendment is clear. The Government say the implications are vague. If the implications are vague, then it could apply whether it is in guidance or in the Bill.
The Mayor of London has committed to a Vision Zero action plan for accidents and lists the obligations—safe speed, safe streets, safe vehicles, et cetera—and what they entail. The mayor’s example and elaboration of details demonstrate that the principles can be given concrete application and should be in the Bill.
This Bill could leave this House a considerably safer Bill than it arrived. With these changes, it could save lives. I cannot see any reason why my amendment could not be in the Bill, and I appear to have considerable support in this. I urge the Government to accept the amendment and warn them that I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I would like to add my support to Amendment 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. I am sorry that I did not spot that it was down in time to add my name to it. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness Owen have set out the case for it eloquently, particularly the fear of vulnerable people, women and older people in using buses at night, when there are often fewer passengers. I also think it is relevant not only to passengers on the buses but to members of staff, particularly drivers, who we know are at high risk, sadly, of verbal and physical harassment and deserve to be protected too.
I spend quite a lot of my time in this House talking about online violence against women and girls, but the rules we have talked about there should apply in the physical world as well. One of those requirements is that we should collect data to know exactly the scale of the problem. Without the necessary data, there is, as we know, a risk of under-reporting. Bus companies and the Department for Transport would then be at great risk of saying that there is not a problem, although we all know it exists, particularly those who use buses regularly. I hope that the Minister will accept this straightforward and simple amendment about encouraging the collection of data.
Finally, I am reminded of the Question I asked the Minister in this House on 24 February about violence against women and girls on trains. He gave a typically generous and fulsome Answer in which he agreed that this was both an issue and something the Government wanted to take very seriously. He talked about regular meetings between Department for Transport Ministers and Home Office Ministers, all to fulfil the Government’s stated ambition of cutting violence against women and girls. While the House has the opportunity to take this measure and call for data to be collected, I hope the Minister and the Government will be able to accept this amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment 60, which would introduce a £2 bus fare cap, subject to periodic review. The Government’s official evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 cap showed a 5% increase in bus patronage outside London, out of a 13% total increase in the period. However, their own survey data implies a stronger effect: some 40% of people said they took more bus journeys when the cap was in place, and 90% of those taking more bus journeys said it was because of the fare cap. In Transport Focus’s research, 80% said it helped with the cost of living and 40% said their bus journeys were replacing those they would have made by car, so awareness of the policy and support for it are high.
The increase in the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 has created real barriers for passengers, particularly those on low incomes who rely on buses to go about their everyday lives. Do not just take my word for it; the DfT’s own bus fare statistics, published just last week, show a 4.1% rise in the cost of bus fares outside London between December 2023 and December 2024. This legislation is about improving bus services and enabling local authorities to have the choice about how local services are provided, but unless there are affordable bus fares, there is a huge hole in this plan.
This amendment would allow for a £2 bus fare cap scheme to be set up and priority access to funds for those authorities that opted in to this scheme. Affordable fares, alongside franchising and enhanced partnerships, will truly ensure that our bus services properly serve our local communities. The Official Opposition last week told this House that the Conservative manifesto pledged to keep the £2 bus fare cap. It will be interesting to see this evening whether their words are genuine, but I hope Members across this House will support our amendment.
I want also to add our support for Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, to implement a Vision Zero programme for buses to improve safety in the sector. I look forward to the response of the Minister to the issues raised in this group.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I will respond to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who made a similar speech—in fact, almost exactly the same speech—in Committee. If you are on the fringes of government or in opposition, it is easy to demand reductions, whether of bus fares or something else. In my experience, the Liberal Democrats have made a virtue of such behaviour over many years.
I recollect that the Liberals were in government, along with the Conservative Party, from 2010 to 2015. Did they introduce a £2 or even a £3 maximum bus fare in those years? No, they did not. In fact, government statistics indicate that, every year between 2010 and 2015, bus fares went up by an average of 3.8%. Under the Conservative and Liberal Administration, bus fares increased in real terms by almost 20% over five years. Of course, the Liberals are not in government anymore, so it is easy for the noble Baroness to sit there and demand reductions from £3 to £2.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am ever grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Snape—if only, on this occasion, for reminding the House that bus fares went down under the Conservative Administration, ending with £2 as the maximum fare cap.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seeks to call our good faith into question. My concern about her amendment is not that she wants to continue to promote this excellent Conservative policy, which we would have implemented had we been elected; it is with its practicalities. It is a pity that there is not a proper opportunity to interrogate it now, but I find the notion of a voluntary £2 fare cap appearing in statute very strange, especially on an unfunded basis. However, I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say about it.
I will briefly speak to my Amendment 59 before turning to other amendments. I do not intend—if noble Lords will forgive me—to address every amendment in the group, partly in the interests of time; I hope that is not rude of me. My Amendment 59 concerns the fact that last year Louise Haigh, the then Secretary of State for Transport—in, I think, her very last official action before she sank into political oblivion—announced bus funding for the country, to which the Minister has referred a number of times since. Three-quarters of that funding was given to local transport authorities on the basis of a completely new formula, which had never been consulted on and which nobody had been given any advance notice of.
When I protested about this at the time and asked for an explanation of or rationale for the formula—because distribution formulae are very important—the Minister said:
“The Government are entitled to make decisions about how they wish to spend money”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 127.]
That was the substance of his answer. That proposition is broadly true: we often ask whether the Government will spend, for example, more money on defence or welfare, or less on aid or transport. They are the big issues that the Government are elected to make decisions about. However, when it comes to the distribution of money to other public authorities—those pots having been decided—two other considerations need to be taken into account. The first is—although I am not attributing this to the Government—the possibility that formulae are manipulated to favour certain local authorities over others; the second is a simple obligation of fairness to local authorities that they understand how their funding is being calculated and how they are being rewarded.
My amendment seeks to require the Government to set out, in the near future, not only a formula but a rationale for the bus funding distribution, including some notice of its distributional effects as well as the alternatives that they may have considered. This would contribute greatly to good government and transparency. I do not propose to divide the House on the amendment, but I hope that it would have had support, because it would have acted as a very good example to many other departments.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Buses are dangerous. Somebody told me a statistic 20 years ago—it is one of those statistics that does not appear in regular series—that was so astonishing that I had to ensure that it was robust. It stated that, at least in London, 50% of women aged over 65 presenting at A&E had suffered an injury inside a bus. The reason is straightforward: if you are inside a bus with modern brakes and the brakes are applied, one can be thrown about the bus, including when going to a seat, coming from a seat or simply standing—many of us, I think, will have had this experience, although not all of us will have fallen over. Because those responsible for health and safety have made brakes sharper and more effective, as that would appear to make the bus safer, there is not always consideration for what happens to the people inside. That needs to be looked at.
It is also true that buses cause injuries to people outside. They sometimes have large mirrors that stick out. Have people thought properly about that?
I had some involvement in the construction industry—not directly, but in a non-executive capacity under various roles—and I was struck by the complete transformation that has taken place in that industry over the past 20 or 25 years. Some 30 years ago, it was expected that people would lose their lives on building sites or that they would suffer life-changing injuries, but a determination on the part of the industry to change that—to have a vision zero—means that, nowadays, a death or serious injury on a construction site is not only very rare but shocking and pored over, and people try to learn lessons from it. That attitude, which is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, wishes to bring to the bus industry, is commendable. It perhaps requires a change in mindset—there are examples; the noble Lord drew attention to the Mayor of London’s activities—and it should be a national programme. If he wishes to divide the House on his amendment, the Conservative group will support him.
Closely related to that is Amendment 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, for whom I have a high regard, is not in his place and has not been able to speak to his amendment. Colleagues on my Benches have spoken very clearly about the importance of safety, not in the sense of being shaken around in a bus by the brakes but in relation to the threats, particularly to women and girls, of violent assault or intimidation on public transport—or, more specifically for today’s debate, on buses. Clearly, the recording of data to support responses to that should be mandatory and taken forward in the way suggested by the noble Lord’s amendment. That too is an amendment that, if he were here to press it, we would have supported—and we still will, in principle, if there are some means by which it could be voted on.
Finally, I turn to an amendment not in this group but debated earlier, which will be called shortly. Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, relates to an audit or review of bus services to villages. When it was debated, I said very clearly from this Dispatch Box—and I am very happy to say it again—that the Conservative Party is the party of villages. If the noble Baroness chose to divide the House on her amendment, there can be no question but that, on this occasion at least, the Conservative Party would stand solidly with her and follow her through the Lobby.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this final set of amendments covers a range of bus policy issues. I will first address Amendment 52,which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme.
The Government want everybody who needs it to have access to public transport and are committed to improving the system so that it is more inclusive and enables disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. In England, the English national concessionary travel scheme costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations—such as the hours in which the pass can be used being extended—would therefore need to be very carefully considered. Local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations. For example, we have seen this in London, where individuals aged 60 and over are eligible for the 60-plus Oyster card, which entitles them to free travel on a number of services. Similar schemes exist in other parts of the country, where local authorities have chosen to provide specific support to their communities through offers that go beyond their statutory obligations. A review of the English national concessionary travel scheme concluded in 2024, which included an assessment of the travel time of the scheme. We are currently considering the next steps on this. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 54 would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of making bus travel free for children. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money for taxpayers, while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people. Bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. For example, in the year ending March 2025, youth concessions were offered by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of 85 local authority areas in England outside London. Local authorities have powers to introduce concessions or discounts for young people. We want bus fares to be affordable. That is why we are funding a £3 bus fare cap until the end of 2025. We continue to keep the affordability of bus travel under review. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
On Amendment 55, I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for raising the idea of a national bus forum. I understand what my noble friend is seeking to achieve through this amendment. However, I assure him that my department actively engages with all stakeholders and has conducted extensive engagement in developing the proposals before your Lordship’s House today. The Government recognise the importance of working with stakeholders to ensure that bus services across the country serve the passengers and communities that rely on them. They understand that engagement with local authorities, bus operators, trade unions and community groups—to name but a few groups—is imperative to delivering the best outcomes. I assure my noble friend Lord Woodley that conversations with these groups will continue beyond the Bill. This is just one stop on the journey to better buses, and the department will use its convening power to bring stake- holders together in the interests of passengers, local areas and the industry. I therefore do not consider it necessary to establish a statutory body to duplicate work that the department has already undertaken.
Amendment 56, tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley, seeks to place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing the impact of the Bill’s provision on the ability of the Government to introduce collective bargaining for the local bus sector nationwide. I have explained that this Bill does not mandate a single bus operating model, and it will be for local leaders to decide what model is right for their area. These changes will not happen overnight. It will likely take up to five years for local transport authorities to franchise or set up a local authority bus company. Six months, as suggested in my noble friend’s amendment, is clearly too short a period of time to assess the Bill’s impact. The Bill is about empowering local areas. They will be best placed to engage with local stakeholders, including trade unions, as they work together to provide the best services for their communities.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very detailed and careful response and thank all noble Lords who contributed to what has been a rich and rather lively and passionate debate on issues that really matter to bus users, whether they are able to access the bus at all because of cost and whether they are safe in the environment of the bus. I am sure many people will be pleased to hear that I will not run through every amendment, but I want to make a couple of comments in response to what the Minister said.
First of all, on Amendment 52 and the concessionary travel scheme, I am slightly encouraged by the noble Lord’s pointing to the Government giving consideration to a review—although he said that local authorities have the option of subsidising the general English scheme, and of course we know how incredibly cash-strapped local authorities are; I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I also take encouragement from the noble Lord’s response to Amendment 54, about a review of the costs and use of bus travel by children. The noble Lord said that the Government remain committed to exploring the issue; I encourage them to explore north of the English border to Scotland, where the Green-introduced free travel for under-22s has proved extremely popular and successful.
I will just mention very briefly the excellent amendment on Vision Zero from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Vision Zero matters to me much, for very personal reasons, and I think we should see it everywhere. I take the points that the noble Minister made about various safety measures, but Vision Zero is something beyond that. It means knowing that people will do the wrong thing, and creating an environment where that is not going to leave them dead or seriously injured. That is not just the same thing as safety measures, and it is important that that is understood.
Finally, I will also mention—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
—as was addressed by a number of noble Lords, the issue of reporting of assaults on buses. The Government have a target of reducing violence against women and girls by half. This is a method for doing it. As many noble Lords from around the House have said, this would be an important step, and I hope the Government will take it on board for the future. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 52.
“Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England.(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess—(a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,(b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services,(c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and(d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review provision of bus services to villages in England.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
This amendment was debated earlier and we heard expressions of support, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hampton
“Implementing a Vision Zero programmeThe Secretary of State must work with bus service providers, trade unions, professional bodies, and appropriate training institutions to implement a Vision Zero programme within the bus sector, modelled on best practice in the industry, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries in the course of bus operations.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to collaborate with key stakeholders to implement a Vision Zero programme for buses, aiming to eliminate serious injuries during bus operations and improve overall safety within the sector.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, the Minister made me very excited when he talked about the Government being deeply sympathetic to improvements to safety and Vision Zero increasingly being adopted by local authorities. He then gave the can an almighty kick down the road. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Moynihan
“Recording and sharing data about assaults(1) Any bus operator which has entered into a contract to operate a franchising scheme or enhanced partnership plan must record all data about assaults and violent behaviour that have taken place on their buses and share that data with their Local Transport Authority.(2) Local Transport Authorities must consult relevant trade unions regarding any issues of staff safety arising from the data collected under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require bus operators to record all data about assaults and violent behaviour on their buses and LTAs to consult unions about that data.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I place on record my thanks to the Minister. Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, which I spoke to, is an important measure to address assaults and violent behaviour on the buses, especially against women, and provides a valuable role for the trade unions, so I seek to test the will of the House.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
“£2 bus fare scheme(1) The Secretary of State must establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2.(2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into the scheme.(3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 19 of this Act.(4) The Secretary of State may review the terms of the scheme every three years from the day on which this Act is passed and amend it through regulations made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme capping single bus fares at £2, alongside the existing £3 scheme. The scheme will be subject to periodic review.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister’s word and I believe it is essential that the £2 bus fare cap scheme goes hand in hand with the existing cap. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Brinton
“Compliance with the Equality Act 2010(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 108 (local transport plans), after subsection 1(b), insert—“(c) ensure bus services which are subject to the provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 do not discriminate against disabled persons as defined by section 15 of the Equality Act 2010.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment links the Equality and Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) provisions in Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 to local transport authorities and local PSV bus services under both the Transport Act 2000 and this bill. It also clarifies that any bus operating under the provisions of this Bill must comply with the PSED.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful for what the Minister said the other day at the Dispatch Box about Amendment 61. I was not terribly happy with his response, but I will not test the opinion of the House.
Lord Blunkett
“(1A) Section (Provision and design of floating bus stops) comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the clause about guidance on the provision and design of floating bus stops to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
“(da) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consult disabled persons, or organisations representative of disabled persons, before adding an area to the area to which the franchising scheme relates.
“(da) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consult disabled persons, or organisations representative of disabled persons, before varying (without adding to) the area to which the franchising scheme relates.
“(ia) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consult disabled persons, or organisations representative of disabled persons, before varying a franchising scheme in some way other than varying the area.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 29th April 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (1 Apr 2025)
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Bill be now read a third time.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a brief statement on legislative consent in relation to this Bill. The Government accept that legislative consent from the Senedd would be required for Clause 22(6)(b) and Clause 24(4) in their current form. The Government are considering options to ensure that the constitutional requirements for consent are met. This includes either amending the clauses to remove the provisions in question or by seeking consent. My expectation is that this issue will be addressed during the Bill’s passage in the other place.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a great privilege to take this Bill through the House. I am grateful for the scrutiny, challenge and wisdom from all sides during the debates on this important legislation.
The Government are clear in their ambition to reform and improve transport for passengers. Better connectivity—and the bus is the predominant mode of public transport—delivers growth, jobs and housing, in line with this Government’s plan for change. Ensuring that local leaders have the powers they need to have the best bus service for their local areas and communities is a critical step.
Your Lordships’ input as the Bill has progressed through this House has meant that it leaves this place a better Bill than when it was introduced. I hope that, in turn, the Government have shown themselves willing to listen and able to work with your Lordships.
I move to thanks. First, I give my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds, who has given me her guidance and supported me on the Front Bench. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I may not always agree with him—he seems to believe this Bill to be some sort of anti-enterprise activity, when it is not, and I must admit that I am still surprised by such a strong advocate of local authority independence over so many years having such a new-found desire for government intervention—but our engagement has been well-humoured and, more importantly, has given rise to some important issues that we have explored in your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, who has provided his views in his customary eloquent and courteous way.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, have all campaigned effectively to improve accessibility and highlight the importance of inclusive transport. This has resulted in the Government tabling a package of amendments and supporting those brought forward by my noble friend Lord Blunkett on Report. I am very grateful to my noble friend for his constructive and pragmatic approach to the issue of floating bus stops.
There have been other notable contributions. The noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, have provided wise words and, as ever, I am grateful for their contributions. I have enjoyed discussing the merits of bus safety with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who has raised issues of critical importance. As ever, the wise words of my noble friends Lord Snape, Lord Whitty and Lord Berkeley have added value, and I extend my thanks to them for sharing their counsel.
I particularly want to mention the late Baroness Randerson. I spoke in remembrance of her at this Dispatch Box at Second Reading, and I am sure I speak for others, as well as myself, in saying how sorry I am that someone who had such passion for and expertise in transport and such passionate support for this Bill was not here to lead her party in scrutiny of it. Thus, I am pleased that we were able to make the provision in the Bill on zero-emission buses even more comprehensive. I extend my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for stepping in for her party, and for our constructive and positive discussions through the Bill’s passage.
Finally, I extend personal thanks to all the officials who have supported me, especially the Bill team, legal colleagues, the drafting team in parliamentary counsel and everyone else—to name but a few of the many excellent people involved, I thank Nicola, Kenny, Jenny, Hamish and Saskia.
I look forward to following the Bill’s journey in the other place. I expect we will reignite some lively debates on its return to your Lordships’ House. With that said, I truly believe that this Bill is the most substantial and positive change in years for the bus network, passengers and the bus industry. This is the right way forward. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to lead the Lib Dem Benches on this important legislation, and somewhat daunting to have to follow at short notice our great friend Baroness Randerson and her work in the area of transport, specifically her passion for buses.
I believe the Bill is stronger for our detailed scrutiny and amendments, particularly on cleaner buses across England and the accessibility of the bus network as a whole. I thank the Minister and his Bill team for their genuine engagement at every stage of this legislation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his Back-Bench colleagues for their contributions, though sadly not always their support for our amendments. Likewise, I thank in particular the noble Lords, Lord Hampton, Lord Blunkett and Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their contributions.
Particular thanks go to my noble friends Lady Pinnock, Lady Brinton, Lord Goddard and Lord Bradshaw for their strong support and contributions, and huge thanks go also to Adam Bull, our legislative support officer, who has supported our Benches every step of the way.
The Bill now moves to the other place, where I hope the wider issue of funding our bus services will be picked up in order that we can see the transformation of bus services across the country that we all desire.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his engagement with the Bill. He swatted away all our amendments so beautifully and sweetly—it was a pleasure to finally win an amendment. I hope that he will say to the Government at the other end how important the review of village bus services is going to be and perhaps not to swat it away. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who managed to get his party to vote for my amendment. That was an amazing achievement. I look forward to seeing the Bill return.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister; it was a pleasure engaging with him over the course of the Bill. He is a Transport Minister who not only knows transport but really cares about it. Can I raise with him the opportunity for an update at this stage? We had a detailed debate about floating bus stops on Report, and from the Dispatch Box he said that the Government would effect a pause in all new floating bus stop schemes. It was very encouraging that the Minister said that, because the Bill does not provide for such a pause. We are a day beyond a month since he made that statement. When he responds, can he give us an update as to what the department has done to bring about that pause in all new floating bus stops? Has the Secretary of State written to local authorities? Will there be a note that goes round? For example, has the department spoken to Streatham to ask it to pause its scheme which it is looking to roll out? I thank again the Minister for his engagement; I would welcome an update on how the department and the Government are looking to put in place provision to enable a pause on all new floating bus stops.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to those expressed by other noble Lords. It was the Minister’s expertise and enthusiasm in particular that shone through. I thank too the Bill team and the Table Office. We got some truly cross-party support, and it was great fun. It is true to say that, since it has gone through this House, it has become a much safer Bill than when it began here.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister’s private office, the Bill team and the other civil servants involved in the Bill, who have dealt with the Official Opposition with promptness, courtesy and responsiveness in an exemplary way. I also thank the Minister for his openness and engagement with the Opposition during the Bill. That contributed greatly to its swift and efficient passage through Committee. The Minister sets an example that many of his colleagues on the Front Bench could follow in relation to transparency, engagement and so forth, which could help with the dispatch of our business in your Lordships’ House. I thank the Opposition Whips team, in particular Abid Hussain and Henry Mitson. I express particular thanks to my Whip throughout all this, my noble friend Lord Effingham.
I am trying to be positive when I say that this is not the worst Bill introduced by the Government so far, but none the less it remains a pretty poor Bill. It does damage and removes private entrepreneurialism from the bus sector, where, as we know, private enterprise and the spirit of private enterprise are the only keys to economic growth. It is here primarily to gratify the unions and certain local authorities and not to do very much indeed for passengers. Most importantly, it gives powers to local authorities that they are neither equipped nor funded to exercise. To that extent it is, as I have said earlier, a somewhat bogus Bill.
We have improved the Bill in your Lordships’ House. We have added a purpose clause so that we know what it is meant to be about and what standard we can hold the Government to. We have ventilated further the £2 bus cap and what the consequences are of removing it, which is a further amendment that passed. We have also brought into the Bill the very sensitive issue of special educational needs transport and the effects that the reduction in the threshold for national insurance contributions has on that sector and its survival—which is so important. As I say, that is now part of the Bill as it goes to the other place.
We have removed unnecessary language—dangerous language—about what was expected from bus drivers in dealing with crime. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said, we have also seen amendments to review services to villages, which we were glad to support. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has introduced an amendment which focuses on improving the overall safety of buses and the way in which bus services operate. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, sadly not in his place—as indeed he was not when the amendment was moved on his behalf by my noble friend Lord Moynihan—has added important protections to the Bill in relation to violence against women and girls.
Finally, it is worth noting the flanking action by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which saw improvements made to the Bill in relation to floating bus stops, the back of which I think we would all like to see. So, it leaves your Lordships’ House a better Bill.
The Minister said something about the Bill coming back. I see no reason for it to come back. All those amendments are very worth while, and I hope that the Government will embrace them in the other place and simply move on.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I add my voice to the many noble Lords who have thanked my noble friend the Minister. It is his first Bill. He is a real expert on buses and transport generally, and the House owes him a debt of gratitude for the way he has dealt with the Bill. We have made changes, as other noble Lords have said. It has been a very friendly and useful debate. The key thing is for us all to try to encourage more people to use the buses, whether that is in the countryside or in towns. That is the key; the Bill will go a long way to encouraging people to do that.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I shall of course be far more enthusiastic than the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on this excellent Bill. I expect it will be back, but this is the briefest of replies. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the floating bus stop issue, my honourable friend the Minister for Local Transport is, in colloquial terms, “on it”, and I will write to the noble Lord about how far he has got following this session.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Monday 2nd June 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (1 Apr 2025)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I start by thanking my friend, the Minister of State for Rail, for being an excellent advocate and custodian of the Bill as it made its way through the other place. As someone who started his career on London’s world-famous red buses, there was no better person in the country than the noble Lord Hendy to kick-start the Government’s bus reform journey. I am proud to call him my friend, and I am grateful every day for his wise counsel, frank advice and gentle good humour.
What we saw in the other place, and what I hope we may be able to secure in this House, is constructive cross-party support. We all recognise how buses connect us to the things that matter most: work and school, friends and family, essential services and the weekly shop. The billions of bus journeys each year—equivalent to over 100 every second of every day—are the difference between vibrant communities and boarded up high streets, between aspiration and isolation, and between getting on and being forced to give up.
The Bill represents years of work in opposition and now in government to discard the failed 40-year model of deregulation in favour of putting passenger needs, reliable services and local accountability at the heart of the industry.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary of State on the importance of buses for connectivity. I note that the Bill talks about “socially necessary” services, but it would be helpful to have a better understanding of the definition of what they are beyond my own interpretation. For example, if a constituency does not have a train station, can we therefore have a greater assurance that we will see no loss in our bus services?
Heidi Alexander
Through the Bill, we will be giving local transport authorities the power to determine socially necessary local services. That relates to access to employment, jobs, things like health facilities, and education. That power will lie with local authorities and it will be for them to determine.
Heidi Alexander
I will make some progress.
Before I come to the Bill’s key measures, I will briefly set out the context. Although it may be tempting for me to lay the blame for the current state of buses entirely at the feet of the last Government, that would be neither right nor fair. They too inherited a broken, deregulated system that forced passengers to navigate multiple operators on similar routes, but with different tickets. They, too, faced declining patronage, with 1.8 billion fewer journeys outside London last year than in 1986, and, to their credit, they tried to fix that. The national bus strategy, bus service improvement plans and greater powers for mayors were all steps in the right direction to improve services for passengers.
Heidi Alexander
I am going to make some progress.
However, in some areas such as franchising, the last Government did not go far enough, so this Bill will not only build on previous reforms but go further—much further—in fixing the faults that are still holding the industry back from meeting the needs of local people. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will see the merits of the approach that we are taking. After all, we have all heard from constituents about jobs not taken and opportunities missed because bus services are too unreliable, or do not operate on Sundays, or do not cater for night-time shifts.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
In London we have benefited for a long time from bus services that are better than those in the rest of the country, and I wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend’s desire to level that up, but in London we also have floating bus stops. I know that matching the needs of cyclists, of whom I am one, with those of others involves a delicate balance, but for someone who is blind, visually impaired or encumbered by, for instance, a buggy, getting off a bus at a floating bus stop is very dangerous. What plans has my right hon. Friend to tackle the issue across the country?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend may know that in the Bill we commit ourselves to producing design guidance for local authorities so that they can look at what is best practice. She may also know that in the other place the Rail Minister said we were committing ourselves to a non-statutory pause on the type of floating bus stop that requires a passenger to alight directly on a cycle lane. I hope that that gives her some reassurance.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the work that she is doing in this regard. I am pleased to hear that the Bill requires guidance to be produced to enable authorities to make floating bus stops safe and accessible, but many blind and partially sighted people, including me, have experienced problems with them. Could a proper assessment of their safety be carried out to ensure that no passenger who uses a bus, whether it is to go to work or to attend a health appointment, will experience the challenges that so many people currently experience when trying to navigate them?
Heidi Alexander
We will be looking carefully at this issue. I am very conscious of the needs of the visually impaired community, but I am also very conscious of the need to protect cyclists and pedestrians on our roads, so I am keen for us to look at the issue in the round.
Heidi Alexander
I am going to make a little more progress, but I shall be happy to take interventions later.
I was talking about the problems caused by bus services that are unreliable, do not operate at weekends or, perhaps, do not cater for individuals working night shifts. We all know that each of those stories is the story of a life frustrated, but, taken together, they constitute an anthology of wasted potential, of living standards and growth held back. That is why improving bus services underpins our plan for change, and it is why, despite difficult choices made across Government, we confirmed more than £1 billion in funding in the last Budget to protect vital routes and keep fares down.
Heidi Alexander
I am not going to give way again to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). I will give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
Ellie Chowns
Does the Secretary of State recognise that rural constituencies such as mine have particular needs, and that the funding needs to reflect the extra costs associated with rurality, as well as the demographic demands? Young people, older people and people on low incomes rely on buses more than others. Will those factors be taken into account in the funding mechanisms for bus services?
Heidi Alexander
I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have taken those issues into account in our allocation of this year’s funding.
Let me now explain our approach. Funding, even record funding, without reform means throwing good money after bad, and that brings me to the Bill. Our reforms are not ideological. Regardless of what some may say, this is not about public ownership versus private enterprise. It is about enabling more people to use buses, about ensuring that those services are safer, more reliable and more accessible, and about harnessing the best of devolution.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the Bill. Sarah, one of my constituents, is here today. Her work with the National Federation of the Blind of the UK and its street access campaign has demonstrated the difficulty that blind and partially sighted people experience in accessing buses. They cannot make the choice that others make to pass their driving tests as soon as they reach the age of 17 so that they can travel to their local colleges, schools or hospital appointments. I want to draw attention to that fantastic campaign, and to ask for the Bill to make clear to local authorities that they must work to ensure that all buses are accessible—not just to people with sight impairments but to those who need to access a bus in a wheelchair, like my friends who cannot travel together and are often whizzed past by the driver, and have to wait longer than the rest of us.
Heidi Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so powerfully. I can reassure her that the Bill will introduce a duty for local transport authorities to consult disabled passengers and disability organisations before initiating a franchise scheme. It will standardise the current disability training requirements that operators will need to fulfil, and it will give the Government new powers to require operators to record data on that training. I think that, taken together, those measures should represent a positive improvement in the way in which the bus network is designed to ensure that everyone can use it.
As I was saying, the Bill was designed to harness the best of devolution. That means transferring power away from central Government and operators, and towards local leaders—those who know their areas best—and giving them the tools to deliver buses on which communities can rely. Whether we are talking about the franchising that has worked so well in London or Jersey, about the local authority bus companies that have thrived in Nottingham and Reading or about the excellent examples of enhanced partnerships in Brighton and Norfolk, it is clear to me that one size does not fit all. The Bill will expand the options available to local authorities so that each area has the bus service that is right for it, while also safeguarding the needs of passengers, particularly the most vulnerable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I know that the Secretary of State is committed to ensuring that buses are environmentally friendly and meet the net zero targets that we all want to be met. Wrightbus in Ballymena, in Northern Ireland, is a leading producer of hydrogen buses, which provide safe, reliable, cost-effective transport. Has the Secretary of State been able to have any discussions with Wrightbus—which supplies buses in London and elsewhere in the UK—with a view to ensuring that everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can take advantage of that innovative technology?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the innovative technology developed by Wrightbus. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has not only met representatives of Wrightbus but visited its facility.
Let me now explain how we are going about fixing the broken franchising process.
It cannot be right that it took Mayor Andy Burnham years to bring just one bus under public control, after being frustrated at every turn. With bus services in Greater Manchester now part of the Bee Network, usage is up by 14%, and revenues and punctuality are also moving in the right direction. However, franchising remains too complex. Proposed schemes need to jump through myriad hoops, and they still require my consent to proceed—which is odd, to say the least. The idea that I understand what passengers in Leicestershire or Cornwall need better than their local leaders do is for the birds. In December, we opened up franchising to every local authority. Through this Bill, we will further streamline the process, making it simpler for franchise schemes to be granted and assessed.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State referred earlier to placing certain statutory duties on county councils. When she considers that, will she consider including in those duties the maintenance of companion bus passes for people with learning difficulties who cannot travel on their own? It is not much good for them to have a free bus pass if they cannot take a companion with them.
Will the Secretary of State join me in expressing our sadness and commiseration over the recent passing of Mr Andrew Wickham, who spent more than 40 years in the transport industry and over a decade as managing director of Go South Coast, which operates Bluestar buses in New Forest East? I always found him to be a marvellously attentive correspondent, and he was someone who worked until almost the very end.
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and he gives me the opportunity to place on record my thanks to Andrew Wickham. I have the privilege of representing the constituency of Swindon South, and he ran Swindon’s Bus Company. He was the epitome of professionalism and kindness to me—not only as a Member of a Parliament, but when I was a candidate—and I pass on my condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a fair point about the importance of companion travel for individuals with disabilities. He will know that the decision to add extras to the English national concessionary fare scheme is taken by local authorities.
I was talking about our desire to make the franchising system simpler. Of course, the model will not work everywhere, which is why this Bill also strengthens enhanced partnerships and removes the ideological ban on establishing new local authority bus companies. Furthermore, by giving local authorities the power to design and pay bus operator grants in their area, the Bill gives greater protections for socially necessary local services, securing the lifeline routes that keep communities connected.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In our communities we have nearly full employment, but a lot of people are on extremely low wages. Before the bus fare cap came in, the bus fare from Kendal to Ambleside was the second highest in the entire country, costing people a quarter of their salary to get to work. As the Secretary of State makes sure that devolution happens and that franchising is done in a way that is fit for purpose in each different area, will she ensure that she does not abdicate her responsibility to fully fund the bus fare cap, so that people like my constituents can actually afford to get to work?
Heidi Alexander
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a spending review under way, but I can confirm that I fully appreciate the importance of having an affordable and accessible bus route. He will be aware that zero funding was allocated to fund the bus fare cap beyond the end of last year, and this Government stepped in with our commitment to the £3 fare. Although it applies to only one in six journeys—because a number of people who travel regularly will use a travelcard for a week or a month—I am aware of the importance that his constituents and others attach to the cap.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and her team, including the Minister in the other place, on bringing this Bill before the House. Since 2010, we have seen 2 million fewer bus miles ridden in Hampshire. In Oakley, Chineham, Black Dam and South Ham, I have heard stories of missed appointments, work shifts and social engagements as a result of poor service. Can she confirm that this Bill will give every part of England the opportunity to take back control of its bus services? Can she explain what will happen with the devolution process and whether the powers will pass to the new unitary authorities or mayoral authorities, or has that yet to be decided?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is a fearsome advocate for his constituents, and I know the importance that he places on local bus services. Under the new devolution arrangements, local transport authorities will be the part of local government where the new powers lie. It is for local transport authorities to decide whether franchising or an enhanced partnership is the route for them to deliver the services that their communities need.
Running buses should always be about serving passengers, and I want to say something about safety and what we are doing, through this Bill, to put the needs of passengers first. We want to keep passengers safe at any time of day or night, and at any point in their journey, be it waiting at bus stops or when on board. That is why this Bill includes powers for local transport authorities to crack down on fare dodgers and tackle antisocial behaviour; requirements for drivers of school services to pass enhanced criminal record checks, closing an existing loophole; and mandatory training for bus staff to help tackle crime where it is safe for them to do so.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I want to return briefly to the socially necessary services that the Secretary of State mentioned. Two issues in my constituency are of great importance: the first relates to the fact that school-only buses are often more expensive than regular services; and the second relates to operators, who tell me that the current SEND transport model is unsustainable and that children with special educational needs and disabilities are being left with a poorer service. Will the Bill seek to address those concerns?
Heidi Alexander
There are not specific criteria and provisions in this Bill, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my ministerial colleagues and I are very aware of those issues. Although school-only bus provision is provided in a slightly different way, I would be happy to talk to him about the particular issues in his constituency.
I want to say something about accessibility. For many, buses are a route to a better, more independent life, yet the current patchwork quilt of standards and regulations can further disable passengers, rather than enable them. That will change through this Bill, because local authorities will be required to produce a bus network accessibility plan and to consult disability organisations on changes to services, as I said earlier. New statutory guidance will make stopping places more accessible, including floating bus stops, which came up earlier. However, after listening to concerns, we will press pause on those that are perceived to be poorly designed.
Chris Vince
Part of the issue with bus stops in Harlow has been caused by the redevelopment of sustainable transport corridors, which we absolutely welcome. Bus stops are being forced to move, making them less accessible. Is that something that the Bill takes into account? Even if it is a temporary bus stop or bus station, we need to ensure that it fits the criteria.
Heidi Alexander
The Bill will improve the ability of local transport authorities to deal with precisely that sort of situation.
Heidi Alexander
I will make some progress. I am conscious that a number of Members want to speak, and I would like to allow as many people as possible to make contributions.
I want to say something about our commitment to meeting our net zero targets. This Bill will restrict new non-zero emission buses on most local services in England from no earlier than January 2030, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Transport is already speaking to the industry—not just about securing an orderly transition, but about the opportunity for British bus manufacturers to meet new demand both at home and abroad.
Finally, several non-Government amendments were added to the Bill during its passage in the other place, which is why I was unable to make a statement of compatibility with the European convention on human rights. That was the result of clause 40, which was not tabled by the Government. It requires recording violent behaviour on buses and sharing that data with the local transport authority, and it also requires consulting trade unions on staff safety. The personal data requirements are incompatible with ECHR obligations; as such, the Government will seek to address this matter as the Bill progresses.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Secretary of State mentioned that the Minister for Local Transport is taking responsibility for the net zero side, and I was delighted to welcome him to my constituency to see the work of Wrightbus, which is repurposing diesel buses with its new powertrains. Could she provide reassurance that buses repurposed as net zero buses will also be eligible for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government funding for decarbonisation of the bus fleet in the future?
Heidi Alexander
If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that point, but I understand why he is keen to raise it.
In conclusion, I would say that for too long and in too many places a degraded bus network has been symbolic of wider national decline, with each poor service reinforcing a sense of things not working as they should. That ends now. This Bill represents a brighter future for bus travel. For the first time in 40 years, we are taking back control of our buses, transferring power from operators to local leaders and from Whitehall to the town hall, where it belongs. I truly believe that the transport needs of my constituents in Swindon are different from those of passengers in Scunthorpe or Southend. That is why buses will rightly look and feel different across the country, reflecting the identity and priorities of local areas.
This Bill is just the start of the journey. Throughout its passage and following Royal Assent, we will continue to work with the bus industry, passenger groups and colleagues in both Houses as we set out further regulations on the standards that we and millions of daily passengers expect. Better buses are around the corner, with increased reliability, greater accountability and services that passengers can finally depend on. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Buses are the most popular form of public transport in the country, carrying passengers on twice as many journeys as trains and serving thousands more stops nationwide. As the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, from the centre of London to the remotest areas, they can get teenagers to school, allow pensioners to visit friends and connect people to jobs that they would not otherwise be able to take. They keep town centres alive, connect our communities and ensure that those with mobility issues, as well as the most vulnerable, can get around.
Peter Swallow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was just curious why, if buses are so popular and important, as he rightly says, so few of his Back-Bench colleagues are lining up to speak in this important debate?
Gareth Bacon
It is because there is no Division later. It is not because nobody cares, but because there is not going to be a Division.
The previous Conservative Government recognised just how vital local bus services are to keeping communities connected. From 2020 to when we left office last summer, the previous Government committed £4.5 billion to support and enhance bus services, including more than £2 billion to help local authorities implement their bus service improvement plans. Perhaps most importantly, we also introduced the £2 bus fare cap.
Wendy Morton
Just to be absolutely clear, there are Conservative Members who wanted to ask questions of the Transport Secretary, but she seemed a little unwilling. On the specific point of fares and affordability, can my hon. Friend help to ensure that passengers, whom the Bill should focus on, see value for money from this Bill? In the west midlands, Mayor Parker, under his plan to take back control of our buses, is actually taking money from our pockets and increasing fares by 8.6%?
Gareth Bacon
Yes, indeed. We are very interested in doing that, which is why we inserted a purpose clause in the other place to ensure that the key focus of this Bill is solely on passengers.
By maintaining the £2 bus fare cap, we ensured that bus travel remained affordable and accessible to as many people as possible, while helping families manage the cost of living. We have voiced deep concerns in both this Chamber and the other place about the impact, particularly on the most vulnerable, of Labour’s decision to scrap the £2 cap and raise it to £3. Make no mistake: this is bad for those in work, who will be £3,500 worse off because of this Government’s jobs tax, and bad for pensioners, who have seen their winter fuel payments cut and their energy bills rise, despite repeated promises from Labour to cut their energy costs by £300.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
One of the things that feels so pernicious about scrapping the national “Get around for £2” bus fare cap is that, while certain parts of the country that were given long-term settlements under the last Government—sometimes of up to five years—have been able to maintain the cap, large parts of the country have not been able to do so. Does that not go to show that the last Government were prepared to work with people from all political parties, but this feels particularly pernicious because it is really targeted at areas that have not traditionally been Labour-supporting?
Gareth Bacon
As always, my right hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter, and I have to say that I agree with him.
I would like to make one thing abundantly clear from the outset: we do not oppose franchising in principle. When implemented properly, franchising can be a powerful mechanism for improving services, addressing local transport challenges and delivering the quality services that passengers rightly demand and expect.
Gareth Bacon
I will make a bit of progress.
However, the Bill in its original form does not do that. The Secretary of State has acknowledged, and I agree, that the Bill does not mandate franchising everywhere, and that is a sensible step, but the Bill does not prioritise passengers, and nothing in it guarantees an improvement in service standards. The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era, without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.
Sir Ashley Fox
The Highbridge bus passenger group in my constituency has raised the issues of Sunday services either not existing or starting so late that people cannot get to work, bus services being put on in the summer during the tourist season but not being available in the winter, and poor connections for rural communities. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, without additional funding, this bus Bill will not solve those problems?
Gareth Bacon
Yes, my hon. Friend is completely correct, and I will come to that a bit later in my speech.
While we do not oppose the franchising of bus services, we do oppose a particular assumption that underlines this legislation, which is that the public sector is the solution to everything. Some local authorities may have the expertise and resources to successfully franchise passenger bus services, but let us be clear that many do not. The very central premise of the Bill—giving every local authority the unchecked power to implement franchising, regardless of its resources or capacity—is not an act of empowerment; it is irresponsible. By removing the need for the Secretary of State to consent to franchising, as required under the previous Conservative Government, this Government are eliminating crucial safeguards.
Gareth Bacon
With respect to my right hon. Friend, I will not, because I am conscious that lots of Members want to speak.
Those safeguards are designed to ensure that franchising serves the passengers who rely on our bus services and the taxpayers who pay for them. The expertise required to design, manage and operate franchised networks is not readily available in most councils. That is why the Bus Services Act 2017 limited franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities, which are bodies with the scale, resources and democratic mandate to take on such responsibilities.
Crucially, the legislation we enacted to pave the way for mayoral combined authorities to issue franchising models also required those authorities to demonstrate that franchising would deliver genuine benefits for passengers. The removal of that requirement by this Bill is concerning, and it betrays the view held by those on the Government side of the House that the public sector is inherently infallible. Members will not be shocked that I do not share that view, but they do not need to take my word for it.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Gareth Bacon
I will make some progress and then give way.
Members should take the word of Centre for Cities, which has made it clear that expanding franchising could expose councils to serious financial risks, because after decades of deregulated services, many transport authorities simply lack the skills and capacity to manage a comprehensive bus network, yet would be financially responsible if an undertaking goes wrong.
These are not just hypothetical concerns. The experience in Greater Manchester illustrates just how easily costs can spiral, leaving the taxpayer out of pocket. The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that initial projections published in Greater Manchester combined authority’s transport revenue budget put the cost of transitioning to a franchised system at £134.5 million for 2024-25. That figure has since ballooned, with ongoing operational costs now forecast to exceed £226 million per year by 2025-26, which is a 68% increase in one year. Over four years, the scheme could cost up to £1 billion—far, far more than anticipated. Moreover, the House will know that the annual level of bus subsidy in London last year amounted to £646 million. Greater London is the most heavily populated and most economically active area in the entire country. It also has the highest level of bus use. Yet even with all those advantages, it requires that level of annual subsidy just to keep the network running.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
When my hon. Friend talks about the increased risk smaller local authorities would face through franchising, he could be talking about my local authority, Isle of Wight council. Does he see anything in the Bill that is appealing to small unitary authorities, or is this really just a Bill for bigger metropolitan areas and large towns?
Gareth Bacon
The risk of the Bill is that it does not come with substantial funding attached. That is the problem. It is mismanaging the public’s expectations. I expect we will hear from a parade of Labour MPs talking about how it will transform services in their local area. Without the required level of funding, it simply will not.
Victoria Collins
It is really important that we stop the vicious cycle. In my area of Harpenden and Berkhamsted, the X5 has been cancelled for commercial reasons. The bus company says it is no longer commercially viable, but that has left people who work in the local hospital saying, “I might have to move house or leave my job.” There are children who now have to wait at school or who cannot get back from school because the bus goes too late. We need to stop the vicious cycle and make sure the funding is there, and this is a good start to help bring buses back to the communities that need them.
Gareth Bacon
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which is that without substantial extra levels of funding from the Government, that simply will not happen. Local authorities may have the powers to do it, but they simply will not have the ability.
The Government have talked about the amount of money they are putting into the Bill and the Secretary of State referred to it in her speech, but it is a mere £1 billion, of which £700 million has been earmarked for bus planning documents, not actual services. Less than 30% is being directed toward the delivery of bus services themselves, which will not touch the sides. Giving local authorities the legal power to do something without the money is mere window dressing. If these challenges can emerge in Greater Manchester and Greater London despite all their resources, planning and political leadership, what should we expect elsewhere? The truth is that we do not know, and that highlights the danger at the heart of the Bill.
On a connected vein, through franchising, we may end up extinguishing a number of highly successful private sector businesses, reducing them to operating for a fee and doing what the state instructs them to do in terms of routes, services and fares. Quite aside from losing the expertise that the private sector brings to the network, the Government risk removing any incentive for the private sector to invest in our bus networks, potentially leaving the taxpayer with ever greater burdens.
Despite my various concerns about this legislation, I would like to recognise that the Bill we see before us was greatly improved during its passage through the other place—improvements driven notably but not exclusively by Conservative peers. The purpose clause, which obligates the Secretary of State to consider service performance, quality and accessibility, was a much-needed addition, as was the amendment requiring an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 fare cap. Successful amendments requiring the Secretary of State to review bus services to villages in England, to develop a programme to eliminate serious injury during bus operations, and to require bus operators to record all data regarding assaults and violent behaviour, were all tabled by peers from other political parties to His Majesty’s Opposition and, collectively, they improve the Bill. The latter amendment was tabled by the noble Lord Woodley, a Labour peer and former joint general secretary of the Unite trade union. It was, bizarrely, opposed by Labour peers, but it succeeded with the support of Conservative peers and those of other parties.
A further successful Conservative amendment was passed, mandating a review of the national insurance burden on special educational needs transport, following the increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that it is deeply regrettable that Labour peers were whipped to vote against a measure designed solely to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society. In opposing the special educational needs transport amendment in the other place, the Government asserted:
“The Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant effect on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment that this amendment suggests.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2025; Vol. 844, c. 1756.]
Leaving aside the breathtaking arrogance of that statement, it is directly contradicted by the very providers tasked with delivering these vital services. The chairman of the 24x7 Group, one of the largest operators of SEND transport in the country, has warned that changes to national insurance contributions could significantly raise employment costs, making some contracts unviable. That has the potential to leave thousands of children without access to the transport they rely on to attend school. To oppose even a review of such consequences is not just shortsighted; it speaks to a worrying indifference about the impact of this legislation on vulnerable passengers.
The Opposition were also disappointed that Labour peers voted against introducing a safeguard against repeated franchising assessments for the same geographical area, which risks wasting public resources and creating instability for operators and passengers alike. Similarly, it was disappointing to see Labour peers not support plans to ensure that floating bus stops do not threaten the safety of those who are blind and partially sighted.
Likewise, if improving passenger services is at the heart of the Bill, I fail to understand why Labour peers were whipped to vote against the amendment that would give the Secretary of State the power to intervene when franchised services fail due to poor local management. Does the Secretary of State really believe that passengers should be left stranded simply because a local authority is unable to deliver? I do not believe that to be the case and I look forward to her amending the Bill as it proceeds through the House.
Why did Labour peers vote against those measures? Once again, it would appear that ideology took precedence over passengers. That is why we will push to reinstate these prudent amendments as the Bill proceeds through the House. The Liberal Democrats supported many of the measures in the other place and I sincerely hope they will do the same in this House, for the benefit of passengers.
In conclusion, franchising may well play an important role in improving the bus networks of the future, but the Bill alone will not get us there. That is because the Bill does not prioritise those who matter most: the people who rely on buses every single day to get to work, attend school, reach appointments and stay connected with their communities. While we welcome the positive changes made by peers in the other place and we will not divide the House on Second Reading, we cannot vote for a Bill that lacks basic safeguards, ignores the risks and prioritises ideology over impact. We will therefore seek to improve the Bill as it proceeds through the House. I urge the House to consider not just the political implications of this legislation, but its real-world consequences for the millions who depend on these services every day.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, it might be helpful to indicate that after the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be a five-minute time limit. I do not propose to drop it any further than that and, given the number of Members here, many may be disappointed.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the first Commons debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which I welcome. The new Transport Committee decided that its first inquiry would be on “Buses connecting communities” to address the rural and non-city services across England outside London. We have completed our evidence gathering and our report will be published before too long. The oral and written evidence we received is tagged to today’s Order Paper and is available via a link on the Committee website.
Poor bus services affect the constituents of almost every constituency in England outside London, judging by the interest in the issue during the election of the Chair of the Committee last September and in the attendance today. Whether Members’ constituencies are rural, mid-sized cities, suburban or in the London commuter belt, the interest in this issue is significant. In England outside London, there has been an overall decline in bus use of 63% since 2002. Car travel is now not only the main form of travel, but in many places it is the only way to get around, particularly early, late and at weekends. For those who are unable to drive or access a car, the lack of decent, or indeed any, bus services means that they are stuck at home or at the mercy of family, neighbours or expensive taxis.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend could be describing my constituency of Mid Derbyshire, many parts of which are poorly served by buses. Does she agree that the way forward is to give local leaders the power to determine routes and support them to work with private companies?
Ruth Cadbury
I will come on to that, but yes. For a Labour Government with a focus on growth, opportunity and clean energy, it is essential to transform bus services across England to make them more reliable, more accessible and better integrated into the fabric of local communities. That is important to ensure that residents of rural areas are not left behind, to support the growth and regeneration aspirations of our towns away from major conurbations, and to make sure that the most vulnerable have equal access and ability to travel.
In its inquiry, the Committee has received valuable evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. When we looked at the impact of declining bus services, we heard evidence that described local bus services in 2025 as a “barrier” to opportunity rather than an “enabler”. We heard that the future of many services remains “precarious”. From a local authority perspective, the situation was described as “challenging”. We also heard about the economic hit to many town centres from fewer buses; if people cannot travel, they do not spend in local shops and businesses. This Bill is not a magic wand, however. For instance, the Local Government Association told us that
“successful implementation will require practical support and local flexibility from central government.”
I will address four key areas, the first of which is improved integration and co-ordination. Passenger groups told us that they need a system that works together as a whole, rather than the patchwork of disconnected services that they see at present. I therefore welcome the focus on enhanced partnerships and franchising powers for local authorities. The franchising model has long been used in London, and it has been seen more recently in Greater Manchester through the Bee Network. Franchising and even enhanced partnerships should make for co-ordinated timetables, simplified fare structures and greater accountability in service delivery so that passengers no longer have to navigate a confusing web of different operators, routes and fare structures.
Ruth Cadbury
I will press on, because I will be frowned at if I take too many interventions.
On community engagement and local needs, our inquiry was told that services should be shaped by the voices of those who rely on them, ensuring that routes are designed to connect communities, not just city centres, and that they connect rural and isolated communities. I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of local bus service improvement plans, which will ensure that local authorities can work with operators to tailor services to the unique needs of the communities they serve. Will the Bill ensure that service user groups are an integral part of both the design and the review of local services?
I move on to sustainability and green transport. The Transport Secretary reiterated just now that buses have a vital role to play in the transition to greener and more sustainable transport, as well as in cutting pollution in busy streets and reducing car dependency. If my constituency experience is anything to go by, getting adequate EV charging capacity to bus depots must be a priority. Although that is perhaps not a feature of the Bill, I use this opportunity to ask whether the Minister will work with bus operators and power networks to address that challenge for bus depots.
On affordability and accessibility, if there is to be transformational change to the bus system in England, buses have to be there for those who cannot drive or cannot afford to own and run a car. A not insignificant proportion of the population are left out, yet they need to get to work, to college, to the shops, to services and to doctors’ appointments, and they have to have a social and family life. Even if a local area is served by reliable bus services, that is no use if people cannot get on or off them, if they do not feel safe or if they cannot afford the fare.
Although I welcome references to affordability and accessibility, I have some questions based on our buses inquiry and the evidence to it, and on our “Access denied” report, the work on which was mainly completed by our predecessor Committee. Clause 14 requires local transport authorities operating in enhanced partnerships to identify socially necessary services. That is welcome, but in their evidence to us, operators and local authorities had questions about how that would play out. Having defined those services, will local authorities be held to ransom for their continuation, regardless of cost?
Accessibility means more than the design of buses and bus stops; it includes the usability of digital information, maps and timetables, without excluding those who do not have a smartphone or cannot get a mobile signal. We were told that guidance on accessibility must encourage rather than discourage innovation. Although clauses relating to staff training in accessibility are welcome, we were told that guidance must set out clearer expectations about the nature of training that is to be provided. It must be of a guaranteed minimum standard and proven effectiveness, not a tick-box exercise that enables people to say that they have done the training.
The Bill does not appear to address the accessibility barriers that prevent most people who use class 3 mobility scooters from travelling on bus services. Furthermore, will it make reference to the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000?
As has been mentioned, it is also unclear whether express coaches and closed-door school services are covered by the Bill.
On amendments passed in the other place, will the Secretary of State have another chance to look at implementing a “Vision Zero” deaths and injuries goal for the bus sector?
The elephant in the room is funding. There is not a country in the world that has a self-funding bus service. We went to Ireland, where Government policy provides that the vast majority in rural Ireland are linked to their nearest town by at least three return bus journeys per day. Even London’s buses survive on cross-subsidy from the tube system. Unless and until we have a robust economy where local authorities have the funding to deliver an Ireland level of bus provision, this Bill is the start and not the magic bullet in delivering the affordable, accessible and comprehensive bus network across England that we all aspire to.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As other Members have noted, buses are the most used form of public transport, and in much of the country they are the only option available. Outside London, however, bus use is in sharp decline, with more than 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. That is not because of insufficient demand, but because of the Conservative policy of deregulation that put profit before people, allowing private operators to cream off the valuable routes with scant regard for the needs of the wider community, resulting in increased fares and reduced or completely abandoned services for many—unless, of course, the local authority, starved of access to the profitable routes, met the costs of the unprofitable ones.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
That is exactly what has happened in Cornwall. The No. 11 and No. 12 bus served lots of rural towns and villages to Derriford hospital, but it has been salami-sliced—I have just got off the phone to Go Cornwall Bus—after years of underfunding. My constituent Mary in Padstow relies on that service to get her breast cancer treatment at Derriford, and she can no longer afford to get to the hospital, which would involve spending hundreds of pounds on taxis. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural areas like mine, we need ringfenced funding to protect those key healthcare routes?
Mr Kohler
Those are exactly the kinds of issues that must be addressed, and this Bill does not do enough to achieve that. I will come back to that in a moment.
In rural areas, the story is often one of total disconnection, with communities cut off and people unable to get to work or hospital appointments, or to visit friends or relations.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural constituencies like mine, bus routes are an absolute lifeline and a route out of poverty? When the 84 and 85 bus route was cut last year, it meant not only that people could not get to medical appointments or to work, but that students had to drop out of the college courses that would have enabled them to escape from poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure that this Bill enables an affordable, joined-up and genuinely useful rural transport network?
Mr Kohler
I completely agree. The point is that this is about not only getting people out of poverty but growing the economy. People need access to bus routes; otherwise they are left with expensive and much more environmentally damaging private transport.
Put simply, a poor or non-existent bus service is not just an inconvenience. It is a barrier to opportunity, a brake on economic growth, and an obstacle to achieving net zero. Given the decline in local bus services under the Conservatives, my party and I warmly welcome the Government’s renewed focus on this issue. The Bill includes measures that are long overdue and that my party will support.
Anna Dixon
Much has been made about the decline in bus usage. The pattern is similar in West Yorkshire, where between 2011 and 2022 there was a reduction of some 60 million journeys. There has been lots of mention of Greater Manchester, but West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin’s bus service improvement plan has already seen a 4% increase in bus usage. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that approaches that devolve responsibility and make it easier for mayors and local authorities to take over public control through franchising are the route to improved usage and, ultimately, the delivery of better buses?
Mr Kohler
I do agree. It is also about funding, which we must explore; but, yes, my party believes in localism—bringing things down to the local level is crucial.
It needs to be stated from the off that the Bill does not go far enough. It falls short of delivering the comprehensive, transformative change that our bus network desperately needs—and thus, I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to be even more ambitious.
I will now outline the measures in the Bill that my party supports. Local government, not Whitehall, know what is best for their area. That is why my party has long championed localism, which is all about providing communities with the necessary tools to realise their potential. The Bill’s provisions to improve, streamline and extend franchising rights to all local transport authorities is consequently long overdue and supported on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the community in north Taunton on getting the first No. 1 bus of the morning—the 6.22 am service—restored? I had the joy of experiencing it this morning, tinged only with the tiredness that results from having got the 6.22. Does he agree that we need specific funding so that bus services can properly connect with hospitals, such as Taunton’s Musgrove Park hospital and many others?
Mr Kohler
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the community on its success, and I agree that we need funding for these critical services.
The placing of socially necessary services on a statutory footing is a beneficial change to the enhanced partnership model, as it ensures that local authorities assess the impact of service changes and consider alternatives. The Bill also rightly lifts the outdated, ideologically-driven ban on municipally-owned bus companies, empowering local authorities who wish to use it, rather than infantilising them. Taken as a whole, the measures create an improved set of options from which local authorities can choose the approach that works best for them.
As the Secretary of State noted, it is important to realise that this is not, and must not become, a one-size-fits-all approach. Not every local authority will wish to pursue franchising, establish a bus company or abandon the partnership model. What works for Greater Manchester or London may not work for Oxfordshire or Cornwall. It must be up to local leaders and, ultimately, local communities to decide what works best for them. I welcome the fact that the Government are not mandating a certain approach.
Therein lies the challenge: empowering local authorities in law is one thing, but enabling them in practice is quite another. Although the Bill hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank. Franchising is complex, resource-intensive and unfamiliar to the vast majority of local authorities. It requires legal expertise, commercial understanding, operational planning and, above all, funding. The Department for Transport has acknowledged those difficulties, yet this legislation provides little to help overcome them.
The Government’s laudable desire to increase their own capacity to advise councils is welcome, but I am not convinced that they are doing enough. The recently established Bus Centre of Excellence, which we will no doubt hear much about during the passage of the Bill, is a positive development, but does it really have the necessary capacity and resources to provide meaningful support to all those who might need it? If we are to see franchising become a viable option beyond a handful of combined authorities, we must take bolder steps to offer councils without either the expertise or the finances more than just a helpline or homilies on best practice.
Every hon. Member in this House knows how overstretched their local authorities are—with the exception of our colleagues from Reform, of course, who are sadly absent from today’s debate, no doubt too busy frantically searching for the untapped resources and savings they confidently promised they would discover in their new fiefdoms. As for the rest of us, we know that most local authorities lack the finances, expertise and bandwidth to use the tools the Bill provides. As a result, only the local authorities that already have the capacity to do so will use them, which will exacerbate regional disparities, not reduce them.
Even if we overcome such problems, that will not remove the continuing role of central Government in securing access and affordability. That is why the Government’s reckless decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3 casts a dark shadow over the Bill. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs for passengers and helped to bring people back on to the bus network. It was precisely the kind of policy of which we need more, not less. Increasing fares by £1 per trip may not sound prohibitive, but for those on low incomes or families making multiple journeys, the change represents a significant cost increase, adding £20 to the cost of a weekly commute to anyone who has to take two buses to work while only saving the Government £150 million.
Let us be clear: this increase is regressive. It will hit the poorest hardest, particularly at a time of a cost of living crisis. Surely the Government should commit to preserving affordability, not undermining it, as raising fares in the absence of service improvements risks entrenching decline, not reversing it. Even more worryingly, rumours are now doing the rounds that the fare cap may be removed altogether. That would be a catastrophic mistake. We must not allow the progress of recent years to unravel in a Treasury-pleasing piece of virtue signalling that will only save the Exchequer a further £150 million.
A thriving, affordable bus network is not a luxury but an essential public service. This Bill must ensure that that is the case. Nowhere is that more true than in our rural areas. As we have seen for years, the current unregulated bus market is failing small villages and remote hamlets, serving them neither efficiently nor sufficiently.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to protect section 22 community bus services such as West Oxfordshire Community Transport, which are now facing a mountain of bureaucracy to re-tender for routes that it built up from scratch against commercial bus operators that have all the abilities to pitch and win, leaving community bus operators high and dry?
Mr Kohler
I do agree. We must do all we can to reduce bureaucracy. The Bill goes some way towards that, but it needs to do more.
The Bill as it stands provides nothing specific for rural areas—no dedicated rural funding stream and no obligation to maintain coverage. It is clear that if we are to be ambitious and achieve the economic growth that rural areas need, we must ensure that local authorities have the ambition and financial means to improve public transport. The Bill is missing an opportunity in failing to do so.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
One of the consequences for my constituents of losing services like the 84/85, the T2 and the 622 is that they are cut off from health services. Does my hon. Friend agree that such access should be a priority for investment, and that a focus on the increase in passenger numbers when judging investment choices disadvantages rural areas?
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I would like to concentrate not just on purely rural areas, but on places like Surrey. In my constituency, the 514 bus connects Esher and Molesey, two important centres of our community, but it runs only twice on weekdays and once on a Saturday. On Sundays it is never to be seen. The service was severely cut back in 2016. To travel a distance of a mile and a half, people have to get a bus more than five miles into London and out again, which takes 40 minutes—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I have made this point before, but interventions really must be shorter than that. There are many hon. Members who wish to get in.
Mr Kohler
I will simply say that I agree with my hon. Friend.
Hon. Members have spoken about rural areas suffering. From 2015 to 2023, Shropshire lost 63% of its bus miles, the largest decline in any part of England. No doubt that was one reason among many that Shropshire voters decided that they had had enough of the Conservatives. In May, they voted a majority Liberal Democrat administration in for the first time.
Although the bus service in Shropshire is one of the worst in the country, it is by no means an isolated case. I have heard from colleagues and residents across the country, just as the House has heard today, that in rural areas such as Norfolk, Somerset and Hampshire, having no buses—or one bus a day, if residents are lucky—has sadly become the norm for many villages. This is not just inconvenient; it is holding back our rural economies and stifling growth. I fear that the measures in the Bill will not be sufficient to reverse that decline.
Lastly, I want to address accessibility, an issue on which my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place and other noble Lords have made good progress and have secured a number of improvements. As originally drafted, the Bill included positive provision on the mandatory training of staff, both in supporting disabled passengers and in tackling antisocial behaviour on board. We support those measures, but the Liberal Democrats believe that true accessibility means more than awareness training; it means fully accessible vehicles, clear signage and announcements, and accessible journey planning tools. Critically, it means accessible infrastructure, from bus stops to ticket machines.
The excellent amendment to ensure accessibility guidance on the provision of floating bus stops, which if badly designed can prove a real hazard to disabled people, was inserted after representations from the Lib Dem transport lead in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon. The inclusion of bus network accessibility plans, after pressure from Baroness Brinton among others, is an important amendment that will go some way towards helping us to understand the barriers that disabled residents face in accessing a vital lifeline. We must not be complacent, however. I anticipate that more work will need to be done in Committee, as the Secretary of State has intimated, to probe the Bill’s provisions and ensure that they are as effective as they can be.
I will conclude where I began. My party and I welcome many aspects of the Bill. After years of Tory neglect, provisions to give local authorities more control of and input into their local bus networks are long overdue and clearly sensible, but we cannot give local authorities tantalising new powers without a practical means of using them. That will require sustained investment and reform of the funding models. I acknowledge that the Government have promised to include longer-term funding settlements in the spring spending review, but noises off suggest that those are unlikely to address the shortfall in local government funding.
The Bill will provide the necessary tools, but if councils are to build something effective with them, they will need not just legislation, but the finance, expertise and flexibility required to give effect to their vision and address their communities’ needs. I urge the Secretary of State to go back to the Treasury and ask for more, because financing a viable bus network is key to growing our economy.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and her team for bringing forward this important Bill. Local bus services are fundamental to the lives of so many people, from providing access to work and leisure opportunities and social inclusion to cleaning up our air, reducing congestion and curtailing transport emissions. For many of our constituents, they make the difference between being able to seize opportunities and being denied them. Put simply, buses are too important to get wrong, so I wholly welcome the Bill and this Government’s ambition to finally put things right after decades of fragmentation and under-investment.
As the MP for Heywood and Middleton North in Greater Manchester, I have seen the far-reaching benefits of bringing local bus services back under local control. I am incredibly proud that Greater Manchester is the only place outside London to have re-regulated its bus network, as part of creating a fully integrated public transport network—the Bee Network—for the people of our city region.
A recent report produced by IPPR North highlights just how much the city region has turned its bus network around. The IPPR says:
“Franchising is already delivering better services for people in Greater Manchester, but it was an uphill battle to get there. It’s time for the government to get on board with better buses and support local leaders on this journey.”
This Bill demonstrates that the Government have got on board. I welcome the steps that it is taking to finally empower local leaders to make the decisions that they are best qualified to make.
When it comes to the Bee Network, the achievements of Greater Manchester are considerable. It makes the world of difference in my constituency and across the city region. Interventions made in partnership with local people meant that there were 17 million more bus journeys across the city region in 2024 than in 2023. The network now carries more than 170 million passengers a year in Greater Manchester.
An example from my area illustrates what the Bill can practically offer. At times, Heywood and Middleton North has failed to benefit from Greater Manchester’s rising prosperity. Because local people have a bigger role in devising transport policy under franchising, however, I am now able to make a strong case for an express bus service from Norden and Bamford down to Heywood and Middleton and ultimately into Manchester city centre. That is something my constituents have gone without for far too long. It is time to finally rebalance the scales in their favour.
After consulting with local people, who are determined to see the express bus service reinstated, and after producing a report setting out our case, I have been engaging consistently with Transport for Greater Manchester to see what can be done. I put on record my thanks to the mayor and his team for taking seriously the calls from my constituents, including the parents and teachers who understand the value of the route to Edgar Wood school. I look forward to conversations about the service being reinstated. At its core, that is what the Bill is all about. It will put buses back at the heart of communities, identify gaps in provision, set about addressing them, enhance connections and fundamentally shape routes to fit around people’s lives.
I would also like to raise the issue of accessibility. Our buses should be for everyone, but we know that many blind and deafblind people, and disabled people more broadly, encounter numerous serious challenges when using public transport. One issue that comes up time and again—it has already come up in this debate—is floating bus stops. I know that some organisations assess the risk of harm around such stops to be very low, based on the total number of incidents, but I would argue that one incident is one too many. We must consider that the figures may be so low because disabled people, as a result of the expansion of floating bus stops, are sometimes being deterred from travelling altogether, and many collisions undoubtedly go unreported.
The issue has been raised in the other place, as the Secretary of State says, but I ask her what engagement, to learn from the lived experiences of blind and partially sighted people and the organisations that represent them, has been carried out by the Department in devising clauses 30 and 31. We must continuously seek to build public transport systems for all, not just when it is convenient to do so.
Finally, I wish to raise the issue of safety on public transport. I commend the measures in the Bill to enable workers across the sector to develop their skills, including by supporting them to respond effectively to violence and abuse on the network. What engagement has been carried out with trade union officials regarding those measures? What further steps could be taken to ensure that bus drivers, interchange staff and others are themselves safe from harassment and abuse?
I thank the Secretary of State once again for developing this legislation and ensuring that buses are at the heart of our communities and that they serve and reflect the needs of our constituents.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have campaigned politically in North Norfolk for nearly a decade; all the while, people have been sharing with me their frustrations with our local public transport network. Since the age of 11, I have been watching different operators’ buses leapfrog each other along radial routes and trying to work out a better way of doing things for everyone.
Too many people find that the current system is not enough of a network to get from where they are to where they want to be at the times they need. One young person in Briston in my constituency is studying to work in childcare. She is eager to secure an apprenticeship at a local nursery, but she cannot get to the nursery in question until 9 o’clock—far too late for the 8 am start time. That has caused her to miss out on a promising opportunity, and her transport options mean that she continues to struggle to break into the sector. Another constituent told me how she had moved to her village because it had a bus service and she hoped that it would give her disabled son the opportunity for greater independence. But the village has since lost that service—and with it, the independence of the residents who relied on it.
Our local buses are so much more than just vehicles for ferrying people from A to B. They are the key to training and employment for those entering the world of work. They are an antidote to loneliness, allowing people to see their friends and family and to take part in community groups and activities. They also have to get our older people to their vital medical appointments. For example, to get to the main hospital in Norwich, someone has to go all the way into the city centre and change buses. That means that bus users in most of my constituency can attend a clinic only in the middle of a whole-day trip.
If only the local authority had the power to design the routes and times that work for the needs of the population—putting on direct services between busy hubs, for instance. This is the problem: for far too long, the importance of bus networks in our area has not been reflected in how they have been treated by those in power.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In my constituency, Reform-led Warwickshire county council has still not appointed a transport portfolio, a month on from the elections. While it dithers and delays, a rural community suffers: bus timetables are being reduced and routes are being cut. Those who rely on public transport most are obviously being punished. Does my hon. Friend agree that bus transport in rural areas deserves urgent and serious attention?
Steff Aquarone
I certainly agree. Much as I will slag off Norfolk county council at times, at least it has someone driving a bus, in contrast to her council.
The problem is how the issue is being treated by those in power. It is not the fault of bus operators; I have been grateful for the time and engagement that they have provided me on this issue and they are a valuable source of counsel as we look to the exciting future for rural services.
I am also a huge fan of demand-responsive transport, which could be opened up to serve a much wider range of needs with some common-sense simplification of the rules. No, it is politics that has prevented a bright connected future, not bus operators. The last Government’s funding mechanism for local transport was completely unsustainable, making councils compete for pots of funding rather than supporting long-term strategy. That made for a perfect storm in the Conservative-led council in Norfolk, which could trumpet quick wins from the grants, all the while lacking a comprehensive and overarching vision or strategy for how we create a proper rural public transport network.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I really recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. Under the Conservatives, Bracknell Forest council saw bus miles per head fall from 10.9 to 6.3 miles—a reduction of 42 %. Only under a Labour council have routes now been expanded. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we work closely with bus companies through enhanced partnership models—if that is right for the local area, as it is in Bracknell Forest—to improve local services for our residents?
Steff Aquarone
The hon. Gentleman has helped me make progress because the issue is all about attitude and mindset. In Norfolk, a former leader even eagerly told the council that Norfolk is a car county. If only the council had realised earlier that its pipe dream of a quarter of a billion pound link road through a site of special scientific interest was never going to happen, it could have spent the £50 million it has poured down the drain in the past five years while pursuing its fantasy on buses instead.
I hope that the powers promised in today’s Bill are seized on in Norfolk. Bus franchising can be an important first step to what we need in my constituency of North Norfolk. At present, our buses do not link up well with our one train line. There is no opportunity for integrated ticketing and no meaningful link between how the profit generated by the most popular routes can be used to provide those that are socially necessary. A radical rethink of how we deliver these services is needed. I hope that whoever gets control of these powers after the reorganisation of our local government is willing to do it. If those powers were to fall into our hands at Norfolk Liberal Democrats, we would be ready to show what a successful model for rural public transport looks like, just as we have seen happen in our cities.
The Government need to come clean on how bus franchising will be funded. I hope that through the Transport Committee’s inquiry on connected communities, my colleagues and I will help unlock a public transport revolution in every corner of the country.
The ask from the people in North Norfolk who are concerned really is not difficult: they want to be able to catch a bus to the places they want to go at the times they want to travel. This can be our chance to move away from outdated thinking. It is time to create the transport network that would really revolutionise the experience of local passengers. Let’s make North Norfolk’s buses great again!
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Bill because it finally lets local communities take back control. Communities in Birmingham Edgbaston and the Bartley Green, Harborne, Quinton and North Edgbaston wards that I represent will welcome its measures. I speak as the daughter of a bus driver—that time-worn political cliché—who was born and raised in her constituency and today still relies on the same No. 11 bus route.
Those who, like me, have lived in Birmingham and the west midlands for decades have seen the decline of our bus services at first hand. Thanks to a failed Tory ideology, Britain has become one of the few places in the developed world to hand power to operators to slash bus services and to hike fares, with little say for the communities who depend on them. In Birmingham, our bus services are mostly run by private providers with an enhanced partnership with Transport for West Midlands.
Over the years, I have exchanged many letters and had many meetings with one of the providers: National Express. I have campaigned to extend the X21 bus in Bartley Green, improving connectivity in our area. I surveyed Bartley Green residents on changes to the 23 and 24 buses, and have continued to fight to restore the iconic 48 bus route on which my constituents relied before it was rerouted.
The problem remains that in a privately run bus network, communities have no democratic control over routes and feel shut out of the process. But the new powers in the Bill mean that that system is coming to an end. The Bill matters because buses are more than just a mode of transport; in some wards in my constituency, over 40% of households do not have access to a car. Buses services are a lifeline to thousands of people who need to get around for work or to go into town, see friends or visit their doctor—I would know, because I am a non-driver too.
Poor services leave our communities feeling isolated and disconnected. The average life expectancy of a man can drop by seven years within nine bus stops in some parts of Birmingham. Opportunities within a city should be felt by everyone. But connecting people to those life chances needs a strong public transport network. That is what this Bill is about.
My constituents’ complaints are too familiar: our buses are unreliable and frequently late. It is no wonder that 50% of Brummies choose to use their cars compared with 15% of people in London. In January, National Express put up our fares in Birmingham by 40%; last week, it put up them up again to the maximum £3 fare. The current system lets private operators set the terms.
Finally, a Labour Mayor working with a Labour Government will franchise our buses, giving communities new powers to set routes, fares and services. Mayor Andy Street refused to take buses back under his control, but Richard Parker is changing that. Instead of subsidising the deregulated model with £50 million a year to ensure that services are not axed, he will take back control of fares and routes. Under his leadership, the franchising process will begin this year.
Clauses 13, 23, 27 and 28 of the Bill will be pivotal to the combined authority plan. From 2010 until 2023, the miles clocked by buses across the west midlands dropped by a third. The promised upgrade failed to materialise, and in 2014 the last Government’s promise of a rapid transit scheme along Hagley Road in my constituency delivered only 300 metres of tramline in 10 years. Under this Government, we are already on the road to fixing our broken bus system.
The new franchising powers are just the next step. The truth is that deregulation has meant little more than a race to the bottom for places such as Birmingham. Brummies have seen what forward-thinking leaders such as Andy Burnham have been able to do with the Bee Network in Manchester, and we want that too. We need this legislation and continued central Government funding to make that a reality. This Bill will help my community of Birmingham Edgbaston realise our ambitions. That is why I will be supporting it on Second Reading.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and the granddaughter of a London bus driver. Bus services have been reduced to a dire state in my North Shropshire constituency in recent years—most drastically under the watch of the previous Conservative Government. We are one of the worst-served constituencies in England for public transport, having seen a staggering 63% reduction of our bus miles since 2015; that compares with an English average reduction of just 19%. A person in Market Drayton who wants to get to the Princess Royal hospital in Telford, which is a 20-minute car journey, is looking at something like a five-hour round trip on the bus. Only one service operates on Sundays in the whole county, between the market towns of Oswestry and Chester. In short, the current situation is unacceptable.
Just before recess, I met students from Lakelands academy in Ellesmere at Parliament’s education centre and answered their questions. One young woman asked me what we were doing to make bus services better, because she could not go with her friends to any after-school clubs due to her bus not running back to St Martin’s past 3.30 pm. I recently met members of the Oswestry Youth Forum, and they raised similar concerns. Young people in rural communities are now presented with a childhood confined to the small village or town they live in, and they are left with a lack of choice over their education, a lack of opportunity for socialising and taking part in activities outside school, and shrinking horizons. Ultimately, their options for employment can be significantly curtailed—unless, of course, their parents can afford to give them a car.
Meanwhile, older or disabled constituents who are no longer able to drive, or simply cannot afford to, are fully dependent on family members and friends to get them to where they need to be. I think everybody in this House would agree that this is driving deep and fundamental inequality, as well as holding back the economy in rural areas. That is why I am broadly supportive of this Bill.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is painting a picture that will be very familiar to my constituents in Dartford. In my case, we have deteriorating services under Kent county council, with 30 years of Conservative rule meaning that buses have got worse pretty much every year. I have written to the new Reform-led administration in Kent county council asking them to undertake to use the powers in the Bill to improve bus services in Dartford and across Kent. Would she agree that the new Bill offers huge opportunities for local authorities to improve bus services and transport networks for the benefit of residents in my constituency and hers?
Helen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was about to say that I am broadly supportive of this Bill and the empowerment of local authorities to franchise bus services for those reasons. That should enhance accessibility and safety and allow local authorities to establish new bus companies, which they have not been able to do before. It is critical that local authorities can protect and establish routes that ensure access to employment, healthcare and town centres, which is one of the main aims that my own bus services Bill—Bus Services Bill No. 1, if I may be so cheeky—seeks to address, but with these new powers rightly being given to local government, I have real concerns about the ability of rural local authorities to find the funding to drive the meaningful change we so need.
In November, the Government allocated £1 billion of funding for buses, and the then Secretary of State for Transport said that the funding for rural areas would be “unprecedented”, but Shropshire council received just £1.4 million in capital funding and £2.5 million in revenue funding for this financial year. That was the 53rd lowest of 73 allocations for one of the worst-served counties in the country. That funding allocation is a tiny fraction of Shropshire council’s bus service improvement plan, which outlined the need for £73.5 million of bus funding across three years to transform the county’s bus network to an acceptable standard. The cost of franchising is also likely to be prohibitive to local authorities such as mine. The Government who promised a new formula based on need, deprivation and bus mileage to end the postcode lottery have so far made it abundantly clear that living in a rural area means less money, less public services and less opportunity.
There is a clear need for better transport in Shropshire. A third of North Shropshire’s children are growing up in poverty. Our deprivation may be hidden by our beautiful leafy setting, but it certainly exists, and by limiting the opportunities of these children, it is being perpetuated. The council spends around 80% of its budget on care, a percentage that is forecast to rise, and its costs for delivering services are high. At more than 1,200 square miles, Shropshire covers an area 27 times the size of Greater Manchester. The roughly 325,000 people who live there are relatively evenly distributed across the area, adding to the cost of delivery of those services.
I support the principles of the Bill, but there must be recognition of the desperate situation that local council finances are in, particularly in large rural areas such as mine. The looming rise of the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 is especially concerning, forcing people to fork out a significant amount every week for return travel to their job. In rural communities such as North Shropshire, alternatives to bus travel are few and far between. For the financially vulnerable who rely on buses to access services, the impact of the hike to £3 is going to be devastating.
I support the Bill’s aims, and I can see its success in cities such as London and Greater Manchester, but it is essential that rural areas are not left behind and crippled by the cost of delivering social care over a large geographical area, as they have been by previous Administrations. Buses are the best way to reduce inequality for people in rural areas and, critically, to unlock the economic growth they can offer. I hope the Minister will listen and work with his colleagues in the Treasury to help transform the opportunities for people in rural areas.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
It is an honour to be called to speak in this debate on an issue that I know many of us care so deeply about. I congratulate the Secretary of State and her team on producing the Bill and, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for bus and coach and a bus nerd, I am very excited to support it. Growing up in a village, I knew that our local bus service was not just a “nice to have”; it was a lifeline. For those of us too young to drive or for families without a car, it meant everything. It connected us to school, our work, our family and our friends. Without it, we were cut off.
In recent weeks, I fear I have become one of those people in this place who often talks about the good old days. Only a couple of weeks ago, I found myself reminiscing about the youth services we used to have in Worcestershire, particularly in Redditch, but the truth is that even the bus service I grew up with and depended on was frankly not that great. I was forced to leave my home, like many of my constituents are now, to get to a job or to go on to the next level of education. And let’s be honest, things have only got worse as public transport subsidies became an easy target for local government cuts during austerity. The shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), is not in his place any more, but of all the numbers he listed in his response to the Secretary of State, he failed to mention that the number of bus routes in England fell by half during the last Government—something that people who relied on buses were deeply frustrated about.
In 1986, the Thatcher Government promised that deregulation and privatisation would lead to lower fares, more services and more passengers, but for towns such as mine in Redditch and the surrounding villages, the opposite happened. We lost services, fares went up, passengers disappeared and communities were left behind. Many of the routes I once used as a teenager simply no longer exist. That story is not unique. It is echoed in towns and villages right across this country. Why are we surprised that services struggle to retain numbers when those services are unreliable, expensive and fragmented? How many times must our constituents explain to their boss why they are again late for work because the bus did not turn up, or apologise to a lecturer after missing the first part of a class because the timetable changed at the last minute?
Only last week, I was speaking with local businesses who told me they are desperate to recruit but cannot find staff who can actually get to them. Are we surprised? Are we surprised that our night-time economies—our bars, restaurants and live venues—are struggling, when people cannot rely on a bus to get them home safely? Dare to have a drink after 7 o’clock? Nope. Dare to have a night out past 10 o’clock? Nope. And at a time when patients are asked to go further for treatment as specialised services are centralised, we do not have the level of bus services required to ensure that the sick and the most vulnerable arrive on time, so many people simply pay for taxis they cannot afford.
In Worcestershire, the local bus system has become so complex, with different operators, inconsistent timetables and confusing routes, that you need a PhD in public transport to figure it out. Luckily I have a constituent, Jack Fardoe, a local student expert, who I swear could be dropped in any corner of the constituency and still find a route home, but most people simply give up. That is why I strongly welcome the opportunity this Bill presents.
Removing the ban on local authority-owned bus companies and expanding the power to franchise services is long overdue. It will give local authorities like mine in Worcestershire the chance to take back control—it feels weird saying that—and design bus services around people’s needs rather than a centrally governed timetable. It will mean that services can be planned properly with routes that serve communities, not shareholders, that are both urban and rural, and that match people’s lives and needs. It means that residents in Harvington, Dodderhill, Inkberrow and Astwood Bank could have a fit-for-purpose service that meets their actual needs, so they do not have to waste four hours on a 10-minute trip to the post office. People might once again rely on bus services to get where they need to be without the stress, without the guesswork and without the fear of being stranded.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech in defence of buses and the importance of the Bill. Does he share my disappointment that just like they missed the statement earlier on the strategic defence review, not a single Reform MP is here for this important debate? Does he take it in the same way that I do: that, just like defence, they just do not care about buses?
Chris Bloore
I do not want to second-guess the motivations of those on the Opposition Benches, which are quite sparse for a couple of different parties, but perhaps it shows their priorities rather than anything else.
Finally, many people talk to me about wanting to play their role in reducing car journeys—how wonderful would it be if they could do so by relying on their local bus network? I wholeheartedly support the passage of the Bill. My constituents and our local businesses support it because this is our chance to build a bus network that genuinely works for everyone. Will it be easy? No. But surely we can replicate the success of our international partners in building an affordable and comprehensive bus network that is fit for the 21st century.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
This Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, so some might wonder why I would bother to speak in the debate. The reason is very simple: the ramifications could be positive for the whole of the United Kingdom because of the Government’s vision within the Bill for decarbonising bus travel.
There are presently 36,000 fossil fuel buses on our roads in the United Kingdom. If the vision of the Government and of this Bill is secured, there is a lot of conversion and replacement to be done. If that is to happen, then I represent in my constituency the primary company that can help the Government towards that goal. I have the privilege of representing North Antrim, which of course has Wrightbus at its very heart. Not only is it involved in electric buses; it is a leader in hydrogen buses and can still produce diesel buses when needed.
I say to the Government that we have had many experiences in this United Kingdom of missed opportunities for our own industries, not least in the bus sector and the electric sector where we have seen Chinese supply. If the Government are serious about this, let us build in a prioritisation for British built buses as a prerequisite to the refurbishment of the industry.
The second thing I want to say to the Government is that with so many diesel buses across this nation, and with the expense of replacing old with new, the middle option of refurbishing diesel buses as electric buses needs to be grasped and explored. Again, Wrightbus is a leader in reimaging and resupplying electric into diesel, and that is a necessary step forward.
Given that in England, so many of these matters are devolved to mayoral areas or local councils, I ask the Government whether they are prepared to embrace metro mayors being able to pursue joint procurement not just for their own area, but working with others so that they can have the delivery that comes from larger orders. That would benefit all concerned.
I say to the Government that they have an opportunity not just to help the regions that the Bill will directly affect, but to bring benefit to the whole United Kingdom. Of course, it is not just Northern Ireland that is the primary bus manufacturer; there are also large suppliers in Scotland. There is an opportunity, and I trust that the opportunity will be grasped and that it will be underscored by the need to prioritise local United Kingdom build when replenishing our bus services and our buses across the United Kingdom.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Bill will restore, for the first time in decades, the power of local authorities across the country to create new, publicly owned municipal bus companies. When bus services are run in the public interest, they work better and they work for everyone.
In Warrington South, we already know the difference that that can make. Warrington’s Own Buses is a fantastic example of what a publicly owned bus company operated under a Labour-run administration can achieve. It is rolling out a fully electric fleet and continues to offer a flat fare of £2 for adults and £1 for under-22s. It provides free travel for care leavers and maintains essential services that the private sector would walk away from. It is a bus company run for the public good, not for private profit. It is locally managed and accountable to the people it serves. It delivers social value, environmental gains and a surplus back to the local authority.
We must protect municipal bus companies that already serve their communities and give local authorities the freedom to use them as part of new franchising arrangements. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Bill and its guidance reflect the principle that where public ownership works, as it does in Warrington, we back it and build on it, because that is how we will reverse the long decline in our bus services under successive Conservative Governments and start to deliver the modern, affordable, low-carbon transport system that our communities deserve.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is great to see this Bill come to the Commons. I applaud its desire to improve the quality and availability of bus services. Buses are at the core of our public transport system and are often wrongly neglected in favour of what some—although definitely not me—would describe as sexier and more alluring methods of transport, such as trams and trains.
As we have heard, there is much that is good in the Bill—particularly the empowerment of local authorities to operate their own services and the provisions to implement services for socially necessary routes—but it could do more to address the needs of rural areas, including through VAT exemptions for small public transport vehicles to encourage demand-responsive and community transport schemes. It could do more to help local authorities to transition to net zero vehicles. As has been said, we should look again at restoring the £3 bus fare cap to a £2 cap.
In Oxfordshire, the county council feels that its bus partnerships with operators are delivering improvements, particularly when it comes to Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel, which serve my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage. Franchising has the potential to bring further improvements, although it is good that the Government have acknowledged that we do not necessarily need a one-size-fits-all approach. Franchising will be viable only if local authorities are given long-term funding certainty and support to acquire the expertise and capacity in their passenger transport teams.
We Liberal Democrats consider access to primary healthcare facilities to be socially necessary routes. In my constituency, the decision was made in the past few years to change the route of a bus going through the village of Harwell and into Didcot town centre. The change meant that people who live in Harwell can no longer catch one bus to the GP surgery in Didcot, despite it being only 2 miles away. That is the sort of thing we need to consider.
Much about the current bus provision in my constituency is good. The integrated rail and bus terminal at Didcot Parkway enables a convenient interchange. There are decent bus frequencies and journey times during the daytime between Didcot and Wantage, Grove, Oxford and Wallingford, and between Wallingford and Oxford. There are good examples of partnership working between the major employment centres at Harwell campus and Milton Park and the Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel. For example, Milton Park’s £20-a-year bus pass offer for people who work there is leading to measurable achievements in encouraging modal shift. There is generally decent daytime village provision.
But there is also much that needs to improve. Many villages have no evening or Sunday service, particularly Stanford in the Vale, which has seen significant housing growth. The buses that serve Culham campus, which the Government have proposed as an AI growth zone, are meagre, with no evening or Sunday service. In the evening, service frequencies drop on all routes, meaning that the integration between train and bus at Didcot works less well. Reliability can also be patchy, particularly on routes that involve Oxford, although that is mostly due to road congestion.
I am delighted to be a member of the Transport Committee. In April, we visited Ireland to understand the reasons for a significant increase in rural bus patronage, which increased fivefold between 2022 and 2024. That was achieved through increased public funding and by engaging communities—particularly the local equivalents of town and parish councils—in the design of routes. The core principle is, as a bare minimum, to have the restoration of morning, early afternoon and early evening services—there are also late evening services in many instances to address the issue that was mentioned earlier in respect of pubs—to create a viable alternative to driving.
Ireland has set itself extremely ambitious targets to grow its public transport youth share, from 8% today to 19% in 2030. That would nearly match Swiss levels, which are the highest in Europe. To achieve that, Ireland is investing large amounts in high quality continuous bus corridor infrastructure in urban areas, particularly in Dublin, and there are longer-term plans for significant journey time reductions for inter-city train routes to improve integration between bus and rail. As well as all that, people told us that they are concerned about the social, environmental and economic objectives that they are trying to hit, rather than looking simply at the cost in isolation.
There are good examples in the UK of the Ireland approach. I was on holiday in North Yorkshire in April, and North Yorkshire council had taken over a route abandoned by a private operator, using its own minibuses—route 11 between Clitheroe and Settle. It offers a two-hourly service, and connects well with hourly train services between Clitheroe and Manchester.
Integration is critical to making public transport more accessible and attractive, as Switzerland has shown. For those reasons, the Government’s integrated transport strategy is eagerly awaited, and will be an essential component in achieving better use of our public transport system, to the benefit of the economy, the environment, and reducing social exclusion. Although the Bill goes a long way towards improving bus services, there are a lot of things that the Liberal Democrats would like the Government to go further on, so that we can achieve our ambition for our transport system and ensure that it fulfils our social, economic and environmental needs.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Building better buses is in my blood. Growing up, my dad was chair of Barnsley passenger transport; South Yorkshire had a world-class bus service, thanks to our Labour county council. Labour knew then, as we know now, that buses are for the people. The Conservatives and Reform just don’t get it, as is demonstrated right now by those empty Opposition Benches.
When they were in government, the Conservatives promised South Yorkshire a London-style transport system. Instead, after 14 years of their neglect, our constituency has lost 53% of its bus services, including the vital SL1 Supertram service link connecting Stocksbridge and Oughtibridge to Sheffield. The crucial number 57 and 57A was left frequently running late, or failed to turn up at all, and the cuts to the number 43 and 44 buses seriously affected my Dodworth constituents. The reality for our rural neighbourhoods is even more stark, as constituents at my community event on transport told me—villages such as Bolsterstone are entirely cut off, Ingbirchworth loses bus connectivity after certain hours of the day, and the number 21 from Penistone to Barnsley is a route crying out for urgent improvements.
Our Labour Government know that buses are a lifeline that connects our families and communities across Penistone and Stocksbridge. That is why I am proud that through our better buses Bill, we are empowering communities by ensuring that buses serve local people rather than distant corporate interests. The Bill will remove barriers to public control and franchising, placing decisions over bus routes, times and fares back into the hands of communities. Our Labour South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard, has been driving change locally. His franchising consultation involved nearly 8,000 people, with 75% strongly supporting it. The plans allow profits to be reinvested directly into better, more reliable services. That is why I am proud that our Transport Secretary has announced a landmark £1 billion fund to transform England’s bus services, including £17 million specifically for South Yorkshire.
This issue matters deeply to local people in my constituency. Older and disabled constituents often tell me that they are left stranded, enduring painfully long waiting times due to unreliable services, and facing distressing situations including toileting issues and missed NHS appointments because buses simply fail to appear. That is unacceptable. That is why it is right that the Bill will deliver a more accessible and inclusive bus network, as well as introducing a £3 maximum cap on bus fares until 2026, to encourage more people to use public transport.
After years of broken promises, our Labour Government are taking urgent action to rebuild Britain’s bus services, ending the postcode lottery and delivering a public transport system that is affordable, accessible and dependable, enabling South Yorkshire to bring back lost bus routes. I am committed to working with our Labour mayor and the leader of Sheffield city council to secure the return of the quick, reliable SL1 supertram link and our local hopper bus. We need bold bus solutions now, while we await the long-term infrastructure improvements I am advocating for, like the tram-train extension to Stocksbridge via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar.
Every single one of us has the right to use buses to travel to work and to see our families and friends. Public transport is fundamental to achieving social justice, so that young and old, in our rural areas—our towns and villages from Gilroyd to Grenoside, High Green to Hoylandswaine and Chapeltown to Ecclesfield—can depend on public transport for work, education and access to healthcare. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
In Tunbridge Wells, buses are not a luxury: they connect schoolchildren to their classrooms, the elderly to their communities, carers to patients, and people unable to drive to jobs, shops and healthcare. When those links are weakened, lives are disrupted and communities start to fracture. If lockdown taught us anything, it is that social isolation is not just lonely, but incredibly damaging to mental health, and that has knock-on effects throughout our whole society. Without a reliable bus service, people are stuck at home. Dependable public transport is not just a convenience; it is an economic, social and health imperative.
In my constituency, schoolchildren take the 267 from Horsmonden—a route cobbled together by merging disconnected services. It winds slowly through villages and regularly arrives late, meaning that children often miss the start of school. This is a failure to support our children’s educations. Worse, the price of a child’s annual bus pass in Kent is extortionate: parents pay £550 per child for them to arrive late or not at all. Now, with the £2 fare cap rising to £3, a commuter making two journeys a day, five days a week, will pay an extra £500 extra each year, on top of the cost of living crisis, with soaring bills, rent and food prices. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the fare cap to be reinstated at £2.
It is not just schoolchildren and commuters; many elderly and low-income residents rely on buses to maintain independence and reduce social isolation, yet services are still being cut. In Tunbridge Wells, the 289 no longer runs on weekends, isolating residents from Southborough to Showfields. People can commute to work, they might be able to squeeze in a shop on a Tuesday and perhaps they could meet some friends for a drink on a Friday, but if they want to go out on Saturday, they are stuck. There is no bus and no connection—nowhere to go. For those who do not have time to shop or socialise during the week, it is tough luck.
In Paddock Wood, a town of 7,500 people, there is no direct service to Pembury hospital on a Sunday. What message does that send to NHS workers and patients without cars? The lack of weekend service is a constituency-wide issue that disproportionately affects the elderly, disabled people and low-income families. It is not just inconvenient—it is unfair.
Rural villages have seen services slashed. The 255 once connected Hawkhurst to Lamberhurst to Tunbridge Wells, but its removal now cuts communities off from rail, shops, pharmacies, GPs and each other. There is no bus at all to Ashurst, a village five miles from Tunbridge Wells, the nearest shopping and rail centre. Parents drop children to neighbouring villages to catch the bus to school, but still pay £500 for the privilege.
My constituents are waiting for buses that never come, or watching their routes disappear. Over 25% of passengers in Kent are dissatisfied with their bus service and 27% of buses are either late or cancelled. That is why I welcome the provisions in the Bill to empower local authorities to protect socially necessary routes—those that get people to school, healthcare or work. Such measures are absolutely essential, but we must go further; we need to restore and expand services to tackle frustration and isolation.
I welcome the £23 million pledged by the Government to Kent county council for bus service improvement, but that was under the Conservatives. Reform is now running Kent county council, but frankly I would not trust it to run a bath. Its priorities are not public services. Last night we saw the announcement of a DOGE—a department of government efficiency—starting at Kent county council. That is a bit of a joke when we consider that the new Reform administration decided to cancel the first iteration of the audit and governance committee; one assumes that would fulfil the same function as a DOGE.
We must have proper local consultation to ensure that the £23 million is spent appropriately and responsibly by the Reform administration in Kent. With the right investment and priorities, focused on children, the elderly and healthcare, we can bring in a network that brings people together and does not leave them behind.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With a birthday contribution, I call Alex Mayer.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think buses are brilliant, so I am delighted that this Bill is coming forward on 2 June, because, as you said, it is my birthday. I thought it was the Minister’s way of wishing me many happy returns—and singles also!
For too long, buses have been in decline. It is great that the Minister has been clear for months that he wants to fix that and that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. December’s guidance on varied franchising approaches was excellent, and I welcome how the Bill simplifies franchising, as well as the Government’s review of enhanced partnerships and the plans in the Bill to strengthen them. We need—and I believe that this Bill will help to deliver—tailored, practical options that can work for people in every kind of town, village and city.
We can already see some EPs delivering that change, with real, substantive control over network design. From 24/7 routes in Portsmouth and a 50% zero-emission fleet in Leicester to profit-sharing arrangements and repainted buses that build identity and loyalty and encourage interchanges, EPs already encourage innovation and partnership. In the west of England, “birthday buses” offer residents free travel across 500 square miles throughout the whole of their birthday month. That is a great gift and, more importantly, a successful scheme that targets non-bus users in order to embed long-term behavioural change. That happened without the need for new legislation, but with the need for vision.
I will always call for greater public investment in buses, but I am realistic about the economic pickle that we have been left in by the Conservatives. If we want sustainable networks, we have to grow farebox revenue. The Department’s bus service improvement plan guidance is absolutely spot on here, correctly making the vital point, in line with the national bus strategy, that:
“Almost all social, economic and environmental objectives for the role of the bus…can be boiled down to the simple, practical and measurable objective to grow bus patronage.”
With that in mind, might I suggest the odd tweak to the Bill to better reflect that spirit?
We have talked about clause 1 and the purpose of improving “performance, accessibility and quality”. That is good, but my constituents certainly want quantity as well as quality. Perhaps “availability” could be added to focus minds on growing patronage. Clause 11 has some fantastic language about consulting disabled “users or prospective users” of buses. I think the term “prospective users” could be deployed elsewhere—for instance, the Transport Act 2000 requires consultation ahead of franchising with only
“those representative of users of local services”,
not prospective users.
Clause 30 gives the Minister powers to set standards for bus stops to improve safety and accessibility. That is great, but why stop there? Would the Minister not also like to have some standards aimed at increasing ridership? According to the Campaign for Better Transport, poorly maintained bus stops and bus shelters put off 23% of people from using buses.
I have looked at clause 23, on grants. I wonder whether local transport authorities could be incentivised to design grants to increase passenger numbers? It is clear that we need a virtuous circle of more passengers and more fare income, not the spiral of decline that we have seen previously.
That brings me briefly to socially necessary routes, which are important but mainly unprofitable. I absolutely agree with the Minister that the new list he is introducing will bring some certainty, but I wonder whether alongside that list, LTAs could also be required to produce a transparent and ranked formula for how they calculate whether a service is socially necessary, which they could use in turn to allocate funding. That would rightly give local leaders flexibility, but would also allow residents to see what is being prioritised and why, and where the cut-off for taxpayer support lies. If we also included the number of journeys in that formula—if that was made a criterion—it could allow residents to save a bus by using it. It would prevent lists from becoming fossilised and reduce the risk that those who shout loudest get the better services, with funding determined by data, not decibels. Fundamentally, LTAs should not be pigeonholed as a place of sticking-plaster solutions; success will lie in a network-wide approach.
Finally, I know that the Minister does not plan to create any new passenger transport executives, but I believe that—just as we are bringing track and train together—there is a real case for bringing bus and bus lane together, particularly as more strategic transport authorities are created. This is a really good Bill, and I think it is a great birthday present.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I declare an interest as a long-time passenger on Eastbourne’s 1, 1A, LOOP, Dotto train and 12 bus routes, the latter of which—with its views of Birling Gap—was voted one of the UK’s top 10 most beautiful bus routes by passengers. As the birthplace of the world’s oldest municipal bus service in 1903, we in Eastbourne expect the very best local bus services, and in the light of all these bus-based assets and traditions, us Eastbournians are ambitious for this Bill to go even further in supporting operators to improve the reliability of our services. Our local drivers and staff, such as Gary Womble Bartlett and Loreleye, are legends, but operational issues that are out of their control and poor regulation are leaving many residents waiting some time for delayed buses and, indeed, buses that do not show up at all. Only recently, Valerie Lee got in touch to tell me that she has been forced to scale steep hills back home because her No. 4 bus was a no-show.
I want to highlight the especially profound impact that unreliable bus services can have on those who are neurodiverse. This is what Ann, whose son is autistic, said to me via email: “My son has recently contacted me to say that the 14.54 bus his school have agreed for him to catch each day did not turn up at all. The bus after that was also late. He is extremely stressed and is melting down with the lateness of getting home and frustrated by the protracted wait for his bus home. I’ve had to leave him to cry it out, as interventions will just exacerbate how he feels. He is shouting, swearing and banging his head against the wall—it’s really not a great situation. He is so overwhelmed and so stressed, Josh; it’s really dreadful here right now. He sat an English Language GCSE this morning and all he wanted was to be back home as soon as possible. For a now-hourly service, these extensive delays are totally unacceptable and I must again highlight the impact this has on our vulnerable community, especially SEN children such as my son.” I hope the Government and operators hear that loud and clear.
Poor bus services and connectivity hit another vulnerable group in our society: patients. Eastbourne district general hospital, where I was born, has lost core services to the Conquest hospital in Hastings over the years. That hospital is 20 miles away, requiring at least two buses and the best part of a day to get there and back around an appointment. A hospital trust in nearby Kent has collaborated with operators to create a direct bus route between two of its hospitals, and although ultimately I want—and our hospital deserves—core services reinstated, in the meantime we deserve a Kent-style hospital bus at the very least. I urge the Government to upgrade their Bill to make such routes a reality.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about collaboration across borders and county councils. I have an issue in my constituency because of a proposal to close the GP practice in Westbourne, but there is no bus service for all the patients in Westbourne to get to Emsworth, which is over the border into Hampshire county council. Does he agree that there should be provision in the Bill to ensure that local authorities work together? People do not see the local authority borders.
Josh Babarinde
Indeed, what is happening in Westbourne sounds very similar to what is happening in Eastbourne. I implore the Government and local operators to ensure that people’s health needs are baked into the Bill.
We owe it to all our constituents, particularly the most vulnerable, to improve bus services for local people. I stand ready to work with the Government, our local authority, our NHS trust, local operators and, of course, passengers to make that happen.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill that the Secretary of State introduced this evening. It has the potential to transform public transport for communities across the country, especially in South Dorset. In towns and villages across my constituency, passengers—or indeed, would-be passengers—rely on buses to go about their daily lives. For many, they are the only affordable way to get to work, school, hospital, the train station or the town centre, or to see family and friends.
Growing up, I took the bus 10 miles up the road from my home in Wyke to sixth form most days. It was a reliable service, which meant that I could get to class, so I know that reliable buses matter in South Dorset. Yet in recent years, we have seen routes cut, services reduced and the reliability of services deteriorate, leaving many people feeling isolated and unable to access essential amenities and services. Far too often, as has been mentioned, private bus operators seem to have put profit before passengers.
Constituents in Winfrith Newburgh, Lulworth and the surrounding villages say that they face poorly connected bus services to Wareham and Wool train stations, making it difficult to access the national rail network. Even more troubling, there is no direct bus link to hospitals in Poole or Dorchester, leaving many constituents without transport to essential healthcare.
In Crossways in my constituency, although some services exist, there is growing concern that the current bus network will not meet the demands of new housing developments. We cannot build homes without building the bus infrastructure that is needed to connect those new homes with nearby towns and services. Across the Grove on Portland, there is no longer a bus service at all. The Grove community have repeatedly told me that they feel left behind and cut off from the rest of Portland and nearby Weymouth. That has been hugely isolating and has a huge impact on the ground.
Finally, in Southill, cuts to bus services have had a devastating effect, especially on elderly constituents who now face real isolation. For some there, it has become almost impossible to get to Weymouth town centre or to see a GP. In each of those communities, we need a change of direction. The Bill gives us the tools to do that and to end the postcode lottery of Britain’s broken buses.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned his elderly constituents, and I have similar issues in my constituency. People are telling me that they cannot even do their shopping anymore because of bus cuts in Shildon. One person feels that she will have to leave the village that she has lived in for decades because she is losing her eyesight. Does my hon. Friend agree that as local authorities get that control, it is important that they use it to look at people’s needs and to put on bespoke services, such as to shops and hospitals?
Lloyd Hatton
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s overview. The new bus services that councils look to put in place must link people with services such as GP appointments.
With that in mind, I hope that the new powers granted to local authorities such as Dorset council under the Bill will enable them to franchise their bus services, and crack down on antisocial behaviour and fare evasion. I also hope that the council can make buses and bus stops much more accessible, particularly to passengers living with disabilities. From now on, I want the future of bus services in Winfrith, Lulworth, Crossways, the Grove and Southill to be defined by local need and local passengers rather than profit. The Bill will enable Dorset council to work with passengers in each of those communities to deliver bus services that are finally fit for purpose. Fundamentally, the Government’s reforms will support integrated travel, helping to link rural areas with larger towns and essential services such as hospitals and, in particular, our national rail networks.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I have been campaigning for a reliable, affordable bus route to Bournemouth airport. As a fellow Dorset MP, does my hon. Friend recognise the need for a dedicated service to the airport every 30 minutes, especially as it increases the number of flights that it will be handling?
Lloyd Hatton
I am happy to support my hon. Friend’s campaign, and I will be meeting him shortly to discuss how I can best do so. Given that Bournemouth is the airport nearest to my constituency, my constituents would certainly benefit from that bus connection.
I am desperate for the Bill’s reforms to be introduced as rapidly as possible across South Dorset, which is why I plan to write to the leader of Dorset council to encourage the council to take advantage of the new powers as soon as possible. I look forward to sitting down with its officials to finally improve bus services for the communities in Winfrith, Lulworth, Crossways, the Grove and Southill. I know that other bus passengers and communities throughout my constituency will be looking to the council to use its new powers to improve bus services in their neighbourhood. We cannot keep treating public transport, especially our buses, as an afterthought. For communities across South Dorset, Labour’s bus services Bill provides a chance to finally reconnect and to deliver good-quality bus services to many more passengers. It is time to crack on.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Buses are often seen as a service for the elderly, and they are vital for older residents, especially in rural areas where isolation poses a serious threat to health. Buses can be a social lifeline, but in those rural communities they are also a vital connection to education, healthcare and work. The number of bus journeys in Devon has fallen by 40% since 2015, and in my large rural constituency many communities have been left behind by unreliable, infrequent or inadequate bus services. Many villages have no bus service at all, while others feel lucky to get one a day.
The Stagecoach Gold bus runs between Paignton and Plymouth. Stagecoach withdrew the early morning service last year following consultation with local transport authorities, because low passenger numbers meant that the service was no longer commercially viable. It may not have been “standing room only”, but cutting that service is just not good enough for those who start their shifts before sunrise and keep our communities running. One bus driver was left with no choice but to buy a car to get to work, as he would have lost his job if he could not get to Totnes by 7 am. Another constituent said:
“These changes disproportionately affect key workers, particularly those in sectors such as healthcare, retail and hospitality, who depend on early or late bus services to commute. Many of these workers have few if any alternative transport options. These individuals, likely among the lowest paid in our community, will face increased financial and logistical challenges as a result of these cuts.”
When Stagecoach relocated the Dartmouth bus depot to Plymouth, the early-morning 92 route was cut. Students could not get to college, and local drivers lost their jobs. Stagecoach also cut the 17 route in Brixham, so no visitor, holidaymaker or hospitality worker can get home after 6.30 pm. That is hardly a late night out.
I welcome the principles behind the Bill. It is right to give more powers to local authorities, and it is right to acknowledge that socially necessary routes must be protected. However, the Bill must go further if it is truly to deliver the “bus revolution” that the Government claim. Local authorities must have the power and the funding to keep services running, and a duty to implement socially necessary services. This is not just about commuting to work; young people in South Devon depend on buses to get to college, but also to access that crucial first Saturday job—to build independence, to gain skills, and to put something real on their CVs. How are those who live in a small village with no shop, no café and no reliable bus service meant to get any experience if they cannot travel? This is vital to the Government’s skills agenda.
A well-funded and reliable rural bus network does not just support today’s economy; it builds tomorrow’s workforce. We have seen in Ireland what is possible: rural bus use has increased fivefold since 2018, because the Irish Government invested in rural transport and created new services where they were needed. That is the kind of ambition we need. Let us grow our economy by revolutionising rural transport with regular, clean, green buses. I wholeheartedly support giving real franchising powers to all local authorities, with simple, integrated funding and a focus on net zero buses, but let us not pretend that those powers alone are enough. Councils need the funding, the staff and the backing to use them.
Raising the fare cap from £2 to £3 is a false economy. For a student or someone on minimum wage, it is a real barrier to access. The cap must be restored and made permanent if we are serious about affordability, ridership and ironing out inequalities. I would also like to see local authorities, such as Devon county council, have the power to introduce integrated transport passes like the ones we use in London, so that people in rural areas can get the bus to a station, and then take a train, in a joined-up, cost-effective and user-friendly way.
This Bill has potential, but it must be backed with the ambition and investment that rural communities like mine desperately need. Buses are for everyone—young or old, and in cities, in villages or even on Dartmoor—and this House must deliver an ambitious, modern system that reflects that.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I will say at the outset that I will not use my full five minutes. I will not take interventions, so hopefully more people can give their speeches, too.
Buses are a vital route to connecting people with each other and with opportunity, which is why this Bill, which will improve bus services, is so important. In the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency, our story is very mixed. For those who live near a route served by a Metrobus, a Y bus or a T1, it is usually pretty quick to get into Bristol city centre, but problems arise when trying to get across our towns and villages on the outskirts of the city, where many of our places of work and study are based, as are many of our loved ones.
For many people, including those unable to drive, getting to Southmead hospital, which is just next door in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), is all but impossible using public transport, because, like our communities, it is outside the city centre. It is not uncommon for what should be a 10-minute drive to take around an hour on a bus, either because of the route or because one needs to change buses at the University of the West of England or Bristol Parkway. Often these stops are in the wrong direction and the travel times are simply not realistic, so people do not feel that they can leave their car at home, even when they want to. As a frequent bus user, I know how frustrating all this can be when, through no fault of our own, we are made late because of a ghost bus that did not show up, and we are left figuring out what to do at the side of the road. We have also had route changes, including to the No. 73. Instead of taking people to the mall at Cribbs Causeway, where many people work and shop, the bus now stops partway there—and these are the parts of our community that have regular access to a bus.
We now have the bizarre scenario in which residents in Winterbourne are finally being served by a bus, but only because buses are being redirected through the village while the motorway bridge is being rebuilt. I am glad that our new Labour West of England Mayor joined my long-standing calls, and those of the community, for a proper solution for people in Winterbourne. I am also incredibly glad that our new Labour Government are giving local leaders and communities the opportunity to take back control of local buses through this Bill, and I was proud to campaign for that ahead of the election.
I encourage fellow residents to fill in my latest survey about their experiences of local buses. After years of Tory under-investment nationally and a real lack of understanding of how important buses are, vital routes have been lost, but I am optimistic that if other regions can do this—just look at Manchester, Liverpool, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, which are all at different points in their journeys but taking great strides forward—so can we. We must, because people in our community deserve the same opportunities as anyone else, anywhere else.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
For many years, rural bus services have been dying a slow death by a thousand cuts. In my constituency of Horsham, we have lost about a third of our services since 2010, and funding has fallen by as much as 43% in some areas. This is how it works: we cut the timetable, which means fewer people use the service, so we cut the timetable again—rinse and repeat. In many villages, it is simply impossible to live without a car. Even if we did put a bus service back into those villages, no one would use it because the only people who live there are car users. It is no wonder that economic inactivity in rural communities is nearly 2.5% higher than in urban centres. Good jobs and an education are literally out of reach. How can we reverse this downward spiral?
It is clear that if local authorities step back and rely on commercial operators to decide routes by themselves, it is not going to work, but that is exactly what we are seeing in West Sussex. Commercial operators have to keep to their timetables or face a fine, but to achieve punctuality on the No. 17 route meant that the village of Partridge Green had to be dropped altogether at certain times of day. Pensioners now have to walk over a mile to the nearest stop or pay for expensive taxis. Residents were not consulted about the cuts, and they found out only a few weeks in advance, with no time to make other arrangements. Half the village turned out to a church meeting to protest, and if only we could have harnessed that enthusiasm in time, we might have saved the service, but of course it was too late. Now the same thing is happening all over again, with cuts to the No. 63 bus through another village, Slinfold, which will make it impossible for local commuters to link to Horsham station. Again the excuse was punctuality, again there was no consultation and again residents had just a few weeks’ notice.
This gets to the heart of why our rural bus services have been in terminal decline. County councils, the bodies we would expect to have residents’ interests at heart, can all too easily hide behind a commercial bus operator and say that it is all out of their control. No one wants to admit responsibility. We all keep saying that we want to take traffic off the roads and cut pollution, but in reality, local councils such as West Sussex have been presiding over a policy of managed decline. Will the new Bill do enough to reverse it? The Bill certainly moves in the right direction by empowering local authorities to franchise routes, run their own bus companies and trial demand-responsive transport schemes, which are good building blocks for a more flexible, responsive system.
However, when I look at West Sussex, it is clear that these freedoms by themselves will not be enough, even if there was more dynamic leadership in the council. Setting up its own bus service is a high-risk, high-investment strategy for a council. I can see how big urban centres may have the wherewithal to take advantage of these new rights, but more rural authorities such as my own are already on budgetary life support and there is no way they can take on such a gamble. This is going to take something more from the Government, and that something is more funding to kick-start a revolution. So let us fund bus services properly, empower local councils to make the right decisions and ensure that affordable, accessible transport remains a lifeline for all our communities.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
If I had £1 for every time someone mentioned to me that buses were not going to where they needed to go or when they needed to go there, I could probably afford to restore most of the bus services we have lost in High Peak over the last decade. Under the Conservatives, thousands of vital bus services disappeared and local communities have been left powerless, with no tools to hold the operators to account. In High Peak, we have lost—wait for it—the 202, 236, 239, X18, X57, 61A and, recently, the 271, leaving many students and commuters where I live in Hope valley unable to get to work or college in Sheffield.
This trend has continued throughout Derbyshire, where there was a reduction of over 5 million miles—do not check my maths—in the distance driven by buses between 2010 and 2023. To put that in context, it is the same number of miles as travelling to the moon and back 10 times. However, this problem is more than statistics; it is lives ruined. I think of the elderly lady in Whaley Bridge who was able to get to her monthly hospital appointments only thanks to the kindness of her neighbour, the assistant manager in Glossop who could not take a promotion to be a manager in Buxton because the 61 bus did not run late enough for them to be able to get home, and the lady in Buxton who loves the theatre but often has to leave shows in Sheffield early because she cannot get home any other way.
The first campaign I ran as a newly selected, significantly less grey, candidate was for students in High Peak to be able to get free bus travel to colleges in Greater Manchester like their classmates over the border. Working with Claire Ward, Labour’s East Midlands Mayor, we were able to save High Peak families hundreds of pounds a year and ensure that cost was not a consideration for young people when deciding what courses to do at college and what careers they dreamed of doing.
These challenges also present themselves with tourism in High Peak. In part thanks to a TikTok craze to photograph sunset and sunrise over Mam Tor, communities where I live in High Peak have been plagued by illegal parking. I am co-ordinating a response to these issues with local stakeholders, such as the Peak park, police, and councils. A key tranche of what we need to do is deliver better bus services that are integrated with local train services.
The Bill will transfer powers away from Westminster and empower local communities to take the decisions necessary for our commuters to get to work, our students to get to college, our vulnerable to access the healthcare they need, and our honeypot villages to manage tourism sustainably. For too long, people in High Peak and Derbyshire have been let down by a Tory Government and a Tory council who only delivered cuts and isolation. This better bus Bill does exactly what it says on the tin. I look forward to better bus services delivered by our local transport authorities using these powers across High Peak.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
For my Cramlington and Killingworth constituency, like for so many others as we have heard today, buses are vital. They are often the only source of public transport. They are essential for accessing work, health appointments or seeing family and friends. That is why I launched my big bus survey earlier this year, hearing from hundreds of residents. The response was clear: too many people feel let down due to unreliable and inaccessible transport. That is especially true for people with disabilities, families and older people.
Under the previous Government, far too many routes were withdrawn, reduced or made less direct. I thought I would share just a few experiences from my residents. In Holywell and Seaton Delaval, they spoke of the withdrawal of the No. 19, which they relied on to reach local shops, healthcare and social activities. In Cramlington, local people described long waits for buses and no services at all on Sundays. Many shared concerns that while services into city centres exist, there is a lack of connectivity between local areas. One constituent told me that while her workplace is a mere 10-minute drive away, taking the bus requires travelling in the opposite direction first, doubling the journey time. Some told me they work from home instead of the office more often, because they just do not want to face the buses. Another, when their car broke down, took a week’s leave rather than have to face the bus.
Residents in East Hartford told me that replacement services sometimes skip stops entirely without warning. In Shiremoor, another resident told me that to travel just 2.5 miles they have to take a metro and then a bus because no direct route exists, massively increasing costs. In Wideopen—where I am from and grew up—and Seaton Burn, residents shared how few services come through the villages compared with a decade ago. In another case, a resident told me that rather than face the delay of the bus, they ran two miles to the nearest metro to avoid being late for jury service. In Backworth, people described frustration at the lack of regular services, while others expressed a desire to switch from car use for environmental reasons, but they simply cannot without reliable information, real-time updates and dependable timetables.
The Bill could not be more timely. For too long, too many people in my area have been let down by bus operators favouring profits for commercial companies over delivering the public transport local people need and deserve. I share these stories because they are important. Every time the bus does not turn up, every time the route is cut back, every time it does not stop, it chips away at people’s independence, with every act stripping local people of their dignity bit by bit, forcing them to either rely on others or to do without. I glad that this Government will now to shift that balance, giving local people a greater say in their transport.
People across the towns and villages of my constituency have told me that the system is not working and has to change. Buses in my area are a lifeline, not a luxury. I am pleased, on behalf of those constituents, that we are taking action to ensure they get the services they deserve. Frankly, they cannot come soon enough.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is highly unusual for major legislation on buses to be introduced so early in the life of a Government; in fact, I think it may be unprecedented. Buses are by far the most used means of public transport, but they have traditionally received less political attention than other modes, and Ministers deserve great credit for securing this legislation so early in this Parliament.
It is difficult today to capture the extent of the hostility to bus regulation that existed in Government a little more than a decade ago, when the spirit that animated the Transport Act 1985 was still a moving force in transport debates. Although franchising could boast a successful record in London, there was visceral and ideological opposition to extending it. The coalition Government were actively hostile. Ministers even sought to exclude areas that pursued franchising schemes, then known as quality contracts, from receiving funding—an echo of the bad old days when the Thatcher Government threatened to strip the west midlands passenger transport authority of metro development funding unless its municipal bus operations were sold off.
That lingering attitude changed when George Osborne struck a devolution deal with Richard Leese and the late Howard Bernstein that included franchising in Greater Manchester. That was less a turning point than a complete reversal. In fact, it was widely rumoured at the time that the Department for Transport did not know what the Treasury had agreed. That welcome revolution in thought, which found expression in the Bus Services Act 2017, was, however, imperfect and incomplete. Franchising powers were made available only to mayoral authorities that were picked and chosen in Westminster.
The Act contained a delayed and vindictive sting: clause 22, which sought to bar new municipal operations, despite the great success of surviving municipal operators in places such as Nottingham and Reading. Reputedly, the clause was a very late addition to the drafting of the 2017 Act—so late that it had not been quality assured by Government lawyers. Indeed, Conservative Ministers were forced to concede that the clause would not prevent an authority from
“acquiring shares in existing bus companies”,
nor would it prevent the repurposing of an existing company that was unconnected to bus services. Despite the flaws in its drafting, clause 22, which was born out of spitefulness and political posturing, has had a chilling effect on authorities that might have otherwise pursued a municipal operation. This Bill remedies both failings, and we will have better bus services and better law as a result of its passing.
There are other welcome provisions in the Bill. It will make it easier for operators and authorities to tackle antisocial behaviour and misogyny. It will make services more accessible for disabled passengers and accelerate the transition to cleaner, low-emission vehicles. All these measures will make a positive difference in my constituency, which sits at the intersection of Birmingham and the county of Worcestershire. It is a place where there are relatively low levels of car ownership, where a lack of audiovisual announcements makes it harder for some people to use the bus and where connections between our neighbourhoods are the poor relation to routes into the city centre.
In May, under the leadership of the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, the combined authority made the welcome decision to bring bus services back under public accountability and direction. That will enable better timetables, integrated ticketing and services that better connect the areas of highest unemployment with the business parks where new jobs are being created. It will also mean new powers over fares.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Laurence Turner
I will not; I am sorry. I do not wish to deny another Member time to speak.
A few days ago, under the version of the nBus scheme agreed by the previous Conservative mayor, Andy Street, operators exercised their legal right to hike seasonal fares, which they did by 8.6%. Low-paid bus commuters deserve better, and that is why we need the new powers that Labour is introducing in this Bill to better protect passengers from such increases in the cost of living.
One of the great pleasures of following other members of the Transport Committee is that they have made points about the forthcoming inquiry report much more eloquently than I can. I hope that that report is published in time to shape the final drafting and implementation of this important Bill, which I look forward to supporting through its later stages.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Shrewsbury has waited 10 years for a Labour Government to bring forward this Bill. Over the course of the last Government, our county of Shropshire lost over 63% of our bus routes, meaning that two out of three buses have been withdrawn. That was due to the savage privatisation that forced bus companies to pursue profits over passengers. For my residents, this meant that bus routes were stripped away from villages and they are now cut off from vital health and education services, work and leisure. It means that we have no buses after 6.30 pm anywhere in my constituency. It also means that we have no buses anywhere on a Sunday. In fact, in Shrewsbury we have not seen a Sunday bus for 10 years.
I do not know how familiar Members are with my wonderful, beautiful constituency, but Shrewsbury is a market town of 65,000 residents. It is the county town of Shropshire and hosts health, public and cultural services for 19 market towns and 400 villages, yet we are the only county town in this country not to have a Sunday bus service. It is a disgrace, and it is a painful symptom of the impact that the last Government had on public services in towns like mine up and down the country.
The lack of evening services puts severe constraints on our night-time economy and the potential for residents to get home safely after work, travel or an evening out. Not everyone can afford to run a car or is medically able to drive. The population in Shropshire is nine years older than the national average, so many older residents have given up their vehicles and find themselves stranded in the evenings and at weekends. In some villages, they are left completely socially isolated.
One of my constituents, Christine Hart, is in her 70s, lives in a residential suburb of Shrewsbury, and is a very active volunteer in her local community. Following her knee replacement operation last month, she became reliant on buses. She could not be happier with our new on-demand electric minibuses in her area funded via the Government’s bus service improvement plan. She is such a convert that she plans to keep using them even after her recovery. However, she explained to me that although she could get to a 5 pm doctor’s appointment, she has no way of getting home because there are no evening buses in Shrewsbury.
I am regularly contacted by employees who tell me that by the time they finish work at 6 pm, they cannot get across to the bus station to catch the last bus home. We are preventing residents getting to and from employment, putting a real block on economic growth. This is corroborated by my local chamber of commerce, which runs a quarterly business survey with its businesses. We receive regular feedback every single quarter that the primary barrier to recruitment is the lack of bus services that run early enough and late enough to support people—young people in particular—to access employment opportunities. My sorry tale from Shrewsbury is of a beautiful place that is very often cut off from the communities and individuals without a car, and the last thing we want to encourage is even more congestion in our historic town centre.
We must try to rebuild our public transport system, which was dismantled by the Conservatives during their time in office. They should hang their heads in shame for every one of the 5,000 miles in bus routes that they cancelled in towns like mine, for every youngster who cannot access a job opportunity, for every pensioner who cannot visit their family on a Sunday, and for every village cut off from public services.
Ten years is a long time to wait to be reconnected to the outside world, but the good people of Shrewsbury will today be celebrating as we debate this Bill, which will give back to local authorities the power to run services for passengers, not just for profit. The Bill has a clause that allows for socially necessary routes to link up medical, educational or public services to the local community at stops and times that empower them, not just the operator.
By changing the law to move away from exclusive privatisation, we can move forward to a responsive, community-led model for our public transport authorities. The Bill will not just improve lives in Shrewsbury, but transform lives, aspirations and the wellbeing of my residents, who have waited a decade for a Labour Government to give us back our Sunday service.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill. As a public transport user, I know that our buses do not always work for the people and communities that they purport to serve. For many of us, a privatised system with only a handful of companies running routes and setting fares has led to rising ticket prices, without the reliability to go with them.
London’s relatively well-run and highly regulated system has been an outlier in Britain until recent years—that is, until we have had some Labour metro mayors, who have made changes. Despite Huddersfield having had the busiest bus station in West Yorkshire before the pandemic, its bus services declined by more than a fifth between 2010 and 2023. This decline is not just a local issue; it reflects a wider pattern of regional under-investment.
The historical disparities between London and the north on transport spending are stark. In 2017, London received £944 per person on transport spending, while Yorkshire and the Humber received just £335. If the north had received the same amount per person as London between 2008 and 2018, it would have had £66 billion more spent on it. The Bill is long overdue as a starting point to turn things around.
A few weeks ago, at a coffee morning with local residents in Netherton, the key issue raised was buses. Inconsistent timetables, unreliable services and the withdrawal of the local village route have made it harder for people to get to work or appointments or to see family and friends. I therefore welcome the Government’s investment in transport in our region, including £36 million for West Yorkshire’s buses. As part of that investment, I was glad to see the recent launch of the fully integrated Weaver transport network—a nod to our textiles heritage—by our West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin.
We know that funding alone is not enough, however. We need a system that gives local areas the power to design services around local need. The Bill will take us in the right direction: in West Yorkshire, we will see the first buses going under public control from 2027. It will allow more flexible and locally responsive integrated mass transport networks and we will finally get a tram in West Yorkshire, which is fantastic.
It is worth recognising local employers such as Camira in Huddersfield. When you sit on a bus, Madam Deputy Speaker, the fabrics on it are likely to have come from a textile firm in Huddersfield. Camira’s fabrics are used on buses, trams, trains and the London tube, which shows how transport investment supports not just passengers, but skilled jobs in towns like mine.
I want to mention a couple more things, including safety. For many people, accessing bus stations, bus stops or buses at night is very difficult, so ensuring that we have CCTV and safe travel officers will be really important. We also know that there has been inequity in bus service cuts, which have been deeper in low-income areas than in more affluent areas. That is not just unfair, but bad for growth, bad for health and bad for quality.
The Bill is a foundation for getting the implementation right. With strong local powers, fair funding and a focus on equity, we can rebuild trust in our bus network and create a system that truly works for everyone.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
This has been a really enjoyable debate. One of the great benefits of winding up is that we are forced to sit and listen to absolutely everything. Most speeches I enjoyed, but there were one or two that I did not. It is up to hon. Members to work out whether I am talking about them.
The contributions to this debate have been enlightening, because they have exposed some clear differences of economic and political philosophy among the parties. The Liberal Democrats, one after another, argued for improved services, particularly rural services, but were less clear about how to fund them. On the Labour Benches, there was huge optimism and enthusiasm under the perhaps mistaken belief that the Bill, in itself, will improve passenger services for their constituents. The truth is that when we look at the terms of the Bill, it is clear that the focus of its reforms is not primarily on improving bus services for passengers—quite the contrary.
In the other place, Labour whipped its peers to vote against what is now clause 1, which makes the improvement of the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain the purpose of the Bill. I send birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and make a plea on her behalf for her Whips not to be too harsh on her for her support of clause 1. Perhaps she was unaware that it was opposed by her own party in the other place.
Why do the Government not want to put performance improvement at the heart of the Bill? Because that is not the Bill’s primary intention. Labour’s true focus was set out in its background briefing to the King’s Speech. It is about
“accelerating the bus franchising process…building on the success of…public bus services still in operation.”
No mention there of passengers, performance, improvements or cost control; it is the structure of the bus providers that has excited the Government. They intend to increase the number of municipal bus companies, presumably because they think that civil servants are better equipped to run efficient bus companies than private sector operators. I can see that, in some examples, that is possible. I spoke to the managing director of the Warrington bus company last week and I was impressed by the performance figures, although they are very unusual.
However, the Government’s faith does not translate into confidence that the new municipal bus companies could win a competitive tender, as the Bill, perhaps inadvertently, allows local authorities to do away with competition. Extraordinarily, as currently drafted, it would allow any local authority to first create a new municipal bus company and then grant itself a franchise, without any competitive process. If that is deliberate, it really would be the triumph of socialist political ideology: that the state is somehow better.
Franchising is an alternative solution, potentially allowing greater co-ordination of transport provision, but it comes at a cost. It takes commercial risk away from the bus operators and puts it in the hands of local authorities. It requires dynamic contract, design and management skills. It is necessarily complex and, if done badly, risks the removal of the innovative power of the private sector, replacing it with state direction.
Let me say again what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made abundantly clear at the opening of this debate: we do not oppose bus franchising in principle. We support it, in fact, when it delivers value for money and, above all, when it improves services for passengers. But what we have seen from the Government today is a refusal to engage with the very real risks embedded in the Bill. The existing 2017 legislation has been referred to more than once during the debate. It recognises that mayoral combined authorities have the scale and resources needed to manage the development of franchise model. However, even here, political ineptitude and mayoral hubris can make a mess of things.
Andy Burnham’s Bee Network has been touted as the socialist example to follow—[Interruption.] I hear it from the Government Front Bench right now, but let us have a look at what has actually happened in Manchester. Buses that cost the private sector £180,000 cost Andy Burnham £220,000. Bus depots that cost the private sector less than £4 million cost Andy Burnham more than £12 million—in fact, nearly £13 million. Private sector bus companies train sufficient staff for their needs while Andy’s team, having failed to secure enough trained drivers, is in the absurd position of having to pay more than 400 agency staff to drive their buses at inflated hourly rates and with accommodation costs on top. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated at £17.4 million a year and rising.
Who is focusing on cost reductions in Manchester? Well, it is not the bus companies—it is not their job to reduce costs any more. In fact, the bigger the overall contract cost, the more profit they make. Require them to give above-inflation pay rises to unionised staff, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. It goes on the bill, and they get a profit percentage on top. Require them to donate to charity, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. Just add it to the bill, and get a profit percentage on top. Profits go up as the size of the contract increases. While Labour claims to have increased value for money because of the much-touted reduced profit percentage, the taxpayer is quietly fleeced. This is the doublespeak of Labour’s “value for money”.
What is the real cost of Labour’s return to “On the Buses”? Had Andy Burnham stuck to his own business plan, the Bee Network should have been profitable after the transition period, but because of his self-aggrandising hubris and statist ineptitude, the loss for this year alone is forecast to be £226 million and it is likely to rise further in the years ahead—that is £1 billion in under four years. And that is in a mayoral combined authority, although admittedly a Labour one.
Has this worked to increase traveller numbers? Between 2022 and 2024, Greater Manchester has experienced a 34.34% increase in ridership, according to Government figures, but let’s look at my county of Norfolk, which has a Conservative county council: its enhanced partnership has increased ridership over the same period by 43%. Let’s look at Essex—again, a Conservative-run council with an enhanced partnership, which has increased ridership by 52.3%. In the wider context, Greater Manchester has in fact underperformed.
Why does the Bill remove the crucial safeguards that ensured franchising was rolled out by authorities with at least a notional capacity to deliver? Why has Labour walked away from giving the Secretary of State the power to intervene if the worst happens and services fail? Why does the Bill not require a competitive tender process when local authorities decide to run their own bus companies? Labour appears content to let any council, regardless of size, experience, expertise or cash reserves, take on these huge financial and organisational risks. That is not empowering local government; that is setting it up to fail. And that is before we talk about money.
These franchising powers are meaningless without the money to implement them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington made clear, just £243 million of the £1 billion promised by Labour is destined for actual bus services. That does not even satisfy Andy Burnham’s bus habit for a year. What about the rest of the country? Without billions—literally billions—of pounds to back up this Bill, it is just posturing. So where is the money? The answer is that there isn’t any. The Government have scrapped the Conservatives’ £2 bus fare, which was genuine financial support focused 100% on passengers, and now it is rumoured that even the £3 bus fare is due for the chop. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. The Government tell us they have a plan for passengers, but it seems that their plan for passengers is to make them pay more.
The Bill needs to have the improvement of passenger services at its heart. It needs to encourage the innovation and efficiency of the private sector. It needs to consider vulnerable SEND children and their educational needs. It needs to recognise the huge financial risks of franchising and municipal bus ownership, and to provide appropriate oversight and support. Most importantly, it needs a Government who are prepared to think again in Committee and be open to improvements to the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Minister, can I just remind Members—I appreciate that I am largely preaching to the choir here—that they are expected to attend for the wind-ups when they have spoken in a debate. Today, many Members have not had the opportunity to be called, but have sat here throughout; perhaps they will point that out to their colleagues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I thank all Members for their participation in today’s lively debate, spanning across the House. I do not intend to take interventions due to time, and out of courtesy to Members who have spoken already, I intend to respond as best as I can. I would like, first of all, to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) a very happy birthday. This Bill was indeed a birthday surprise just for her!
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out why the Government have introduced this important Bill. Buses are the country’s most popular form of public transport, making up to 58% of all public transport trips in England in 2023. They connect people to opportunities and to jobs they would not otherwise be able to take, and they give freedom to those otherwise facing isolation. Yet despite all this, many communities have experienced the familiar pattern of bus services being cut and fares going up, with the deregulation of buses in the 1980s leaving local areas with few options. We understand that local leaders are best placed to make decisions about how to improve bus services in their areas, and through this Bill we are giving them the tools to do so. We have engaged with stakeholders in developing these measures, and implementation will give us a further opportunity to engage on the detail of implementation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) and the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) spoke about franchising. To make decisions effectively, local leaders need all possible options on the table, and that includes bus franchising. Franchising allows local transport authorities to take control of bus services by determining the routes, service specification and performance targets for operators.
Greater Manchester, the first area in England outside of London to franchise, has seen notable successes so far with punctuality and patronage up across the network, but I recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to franchising. Different models, such as the Jersey model, may suit rural areas better. The Government are determined to put power over local services back in the hands of local leaders across England. That is why the Department recently allocated over £700 million of bus grants to local transport authorities in 2025-26.
I want to address the comments made about the cost of franchising for Greater Manchester. According to data from Transport for Greater Manchester, franchising was delivered on time and to the agreed budget of £134.5 million. That included the whole process, including the acquisition of assets like bus depots. Let us be clear: without the changes made in Greater Manchester under franchising, the bus network would be smaller, less attractive to passengers and more expensive to run and use.
A number of hon. Members referred to socially necessary local services and rural services. Transport authorities that provide their services under an enhanced partnership agreement will need to identify socially necessary local services in their area and include them in their enhanced partnership. Local transport authorities will need to consider the alternative options that are available to mitigate the negative impact on bus users, including demand responsive bus services and community transport, which may work better for rural areas. By increasing the level of transparency around decision making on route changes and requiring consideration of alternative arrangements, the impact of any changes to bus networks will be fully assessed.
The issue of rural services is an important one. As I mentioned before, no one-size-fits-all solution exists. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, and it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their area.
The hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Orpington and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) referred to the fare cap. The Secretary of State set out that the Government have confirmed over £1 billion of funding to support and improve bus services in England and to keep fares affordable. We also took the first step towards consolidating bus funding by bringing together funding for bus service improvements and supporting services under one authority bus grant for the first time. My officials will work with stakeholders to develop and implement a new bus grant allocation for future funding. I ultimately want to create a fairer and simpler formula for bus funding that takes into account local needs.
A number of hon. Members raised important points about accessibility and floating bus stops. The Government are committed to safe and accessible bus transport. The matter was debated in great detail in the other place, and the Government fully appreciate the concerns raised about the accessibility of floating bus stops. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and that design features will be incorporated that promote their personal safety. We know more needs to be done to make these installations accessible for all. The Department is working with Active Travel England and Transport for London to provide further guidance and undertake research to address gaps in the evidence base.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) mentioned the innovative zero emission buses being produced here in the UK. This Government are supportive of the efforts and innovation of UK manufacturers, from which about 60% of zero emission bus regional area—ZEBRA—funded buses are typically procured.
In March, I chaired the first UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which brings together industry experts and local leaders to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus manufacturing. Moreover, the Government are supportive of bus repowering as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses. I commit to write to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock on the eligibility of those buses for the MHCLG funding that he mentioned.
This Bill is about choice—choice for local leaders to decide how their bus networks can best serve local people. It is a passenger-first approach. I think a picture paints 1,000 words, and the picture of the Conservatives tells me that they do not really care about buses. The Bill is a critical part of the Government’s bus reform agenda. I thank all those who contributed to today’s debate, which has been wide-ranging and a useful opportunity to discuss the important issues. I look forward to continuing the discussion in Committee—perhaps with a few more Opposition Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 8 July 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to aconclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—( Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 24th June 2025
(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 June 2025 - (24 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Will Members please be kind enough to send their speaking notes by email, if possible, to hansardnotes@parliament.uk? Please switch all electronic devices off or to silent. Please also remember that tea and coffee are not allowed in the room during sittings.
We will consider first the programme motion as on the amendment paper and then the motion on the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those formally, but they are open to debate if anyone wishes to debate them. The Minister will move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 24 June) meet—
(a) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 June;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 July;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 3 July;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 July;
2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 12; Schedule; Clauses 13 to 40; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 41 to 44; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 8 July.—(Simon Lightwood.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee
shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Simon Lightwood.)
The Chair
It is cooler today, but if hon. Members are robust enough and wish to remove their jackets, they may do so.
We now come to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments—there are amendments that have not been selected—have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are ordinarily on the same or a similar issue. I appreciate that I may be teaching granny to suck eggs, but some Members may not have served on a Bill Committee before.
Decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated; they take place in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, are taken when we come to consider the relevant clause.
Let me explain that: you will find that things are debated and then not voted on, and you might think, “Oh gosh, we have missed something.” We have not. We will vote on them when we reach the stage in the Bill at which they appear, even though they have been grouped earlier, because they are on a similar subject to something else. I hope that is clear. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or the Clerk—I may not know the answer, but the Clerk certainly will.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. Members can speak more than once in a debate, but please indicate that—I do not have second sight. I do not like feeling that someone has been left out because I did not call them, so make sure that you catch my eye, or that of whoever is in the Chair, if you want to speak.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment to speak again only if they wish to do so. Before the Member sits down, they need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a vote. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote, please let me know in advance. Before we start, do any Members need to make declarations of interest?
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am a serving councillor on Norfolk county council.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.
The Chair
We will now begin our consideration of the Bill.
Clause 1
Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—Duty to promote bus services—
“(1) It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.
(2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider—
(a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options;
(b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives;
(c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage;
(d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility;
(e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;
(f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion;
(g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services.
(3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including—
(a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable;
(b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage;
(c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and
(d) plans for future improvements in bus services.
(4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.”
This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I think I speak for the majority of Committee members in saying that, as this is my first Bill Committee, I will be guided by your experience and that of the Clerks.
This clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Bill, namely the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the other place. I will take this opportunity to outline the Government’s objectives for buses, which extend well beyond the Bill and explain why the clause is not necessary.
The Government know that for far too long, buses have not been delivering for passengers. Long-term service decline has undermined confidence and contributed to falling patronage. Efforts to buck that trend have not gone far enough. The Government’s vision is for better bus services across the country. We seek to grow passenger numbers and drive opportunity to underserved regions. That means enabling local areas to shape services that connect people to the places where they need to go; that can be counted on as a reliable, affordable, inclusive and better integrated part of the transport network; and that offer bus passengers, in particular women and girls, safety throughout their journeys. Passengers should also be able to access accurate, accessible and timely information about when and where buses will run.
The Bill is an important part of delivering that vision. Local leaders will be given powers to decide how best to design bus services in their areas, whether that is through bus franchising or strengthened enhanced partnerships. The Government are taking steps to ensure that essential services, including those in rural areas, are protected, that safety is improved, and that services are more accessible.
Legislative change alone, however, is not enough. In addition, the Government have published updated franchising guidance. Reforms to how bus services are funded are also being implemented, with the bus service improvement plan and the bus service operators grant funding being combined into a single bus grant. Furthermore, at the spending review, the Government committed £900 million each year to maintain and improve vital bus services; extended the £3 fare cap until March 2027; and announced franchising pilots in York and North Yorkshire, and Cheshire West and Chester.
The clause, therefore, does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. It cannot do so, because our ambitious reform package extends beyond the structural changes that the Bill makes. The clause would also amend the Bill to limit its outcomes to specific aims, which would not take into account the other outcomes that the Government seek to achieve, such as improved safety. I hope that my comments demonstrate to Members the Government’s objectives for buses. For those reasons, the Government will oppose the clause remaining part of the Bill.
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk for tabling new clause 22. I have explained that the Bill is about empowering local leaders across the country to shape better bus services for their communities. Beyond the Bill, the Department for Transport allocated more than £700 million of bus grant funding to local transport authorities in 2025-26. That included additional funding for local transport authorities to boost their capability, so that they can make the most of the opportunities that the Bill gives them. I have already spoken about the announcements at the recent spending review, including the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March ’27. Work is already under way to ensure that the Government provide active support to local transport authorities, such as those interested in franchising.
The Bill is about giving local areas choice, and with that comes trust. That is consistent with what the Government seek to achieve through devolution. My view is that authorities and operators want to promote bus services in their local areas, which will help their communities to thrive and create growth. New clause 22, however, would place additional requirements and reporting burdens on local authorities and local transport authorities. That would lead to additional pressures on authorities already under resource constraints. That is not the Government’s intention. We want authorities to be focused on delivering better buses and, as I said, we want to give them the tools to get on and do precisely that. The new clause has the potential to compel authorities to divert funding from essential services to other activities. For those reasons, the Government cannot support it and I ask that the new clause not be moved.
The Chair
I will give another word of explanation at this point. Ordinarily, I would call the shadow Minister first and then other Members, but because Mr Kohler tabled the new clause, I shall call him first and then the shadow Minister. The first four debates on the selection and grouping list are on clause stand part, which means, literally, that the clause being considered shall stand—remain—part of the Bill. If the clause is amended, the Question will be whether the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
When we come to a group with a lead amendment, as we will in our fifth debate, I have the authority to decide whether to subsequently permit a clause stand part debate. We will debate the amendments in the group, and then I will put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill—but that can be debated. Different Chairmen take different views. My view is that you can have your cake, but you cannot eat it twice. You can have a big debate, which sometimes facilitates a general discussion—that is fine by me—but it almost invariably means that you then do not get a second bite of the cherry with a stand part debate at the end.
If you have any questions, ask. It is a slightly complex and arcane process, but we will get there in the end.
Steff Aquarone
What you have just described is in the event that the amendment is agreed to. Is that right?
The Chair
No, not necessarily. A lead amendment will be moved when we come to a group of amendments, as will happen in our fifth debate. Only the lead amendment will be moved, and it may or may not be agreed to. I will then decide, on the basis of the debate on the grouped amendments, whether everything in the clause has been sufficiently debated and we need hear no more about it, thank you very much. If there are things missing, I will say, “Actually, this still warrants a clause stand part debate.” Other Chairmen may take a different view. I have found, generally, that Members like to take a slightly broader view in debates, which is fine, but you cannot do it twice. What we cannot have is repetitive debates.
Because new clause 22 is grouped with clause 1, I call Paul Kohler to speak to his new clause.
Mr Kohler
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The Lib Dems support the Bill and applaud the Government’s ambitions. This is an excellent move forward, and we support the purpose set out in clause 1. The stated aim to
“improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services”
in the UK is vital. However, buses have for too long been a poor relation in public transport, which is why we are pushing the Government to give local authorities a general duty to promote the use of bus services.
The bus is the most popular form of public transport, but it has long been neglected and, to some extent, looked down on. New clause 22 would ensure that local authorities have a duty to encourage the use of buses and promote their benefits and services, but it is only a general duty. Subsection (2) would not be mandatory; it simply suggests the things that a local authority might consider.
Although the Government’s ambitions are wonderful and to be commended, we want local authorities to start saying to people, “Yes, buses are important, and we have a role in providing them.” That is why we are pushing the Government on that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is very reassuring to have you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I already feel calmer, and I am sure the Minister does as well.
Jerome Mayhew
I will tell you at the end of the day.
The Opposition welcome the Bill in principle, which is why we did not divide the House on Second Reading. We welcome it because franchising was an innovation that the previous Government introduced in 2017. At that stage, it was limited to mayoral combined authorities, although any local authority could apply to the Secretary of State for agreement that franchising could be brought in.
We are concerned, however, that the Bill does not deliver the goals of value for money and improvement of passenger services as it is currently drafted. It is therefore important that we use this opportunity to carefully consider the many amendments from the Government, official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; each of them has their various merits, and there are many good ideas to improve what every party agrees is currently an imperfect Bill.
That brings me to clause 1—the purpose clause—which was proposed by the Earl of Effingham in the other place, and received substantial support. It ensures that the overarching aim of the Bill is to improve bus services, and that that remains at the heart of all decisions undertaken in its provisions. By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose, the clause embeds into the legislation a commitment to improve bus services. That is not merely a formality; it is about setting a clear duty on the Secretary of State to put the improvement of bus services at the core of any decisions he or she makes under the legislation.
The clause gives the Bill a necessary focus; it is the framework on which all the baubles of other clauses and requirements are hung. That is important when there is a change to structures, as the Bill anticipates, because it is easy for process to take over from the clear objectives of the Bill. In a purely commercial construct, where there is an operator driven by the profit motive—they need to drive fare box and have customers to get a return on their investment—it is obvious that the natural incentives focus on the customer. When we move to a franchise and the primacy of commercial incentives are removed, the risk is that the customer gets overlooked.
In what is commonly described as full-fat franchising—rather like the Manchester example of the Bee Network, which I believe we will refer to quite frequently in Committee—the local authority takes full assumption of commercial risk within its remit and the operator is contracted merely to provide a service. That brings the temptation to mould services in favour of the supplier—particularly if the supplier is a municipal bus company, such as an in-house provider—as opposed to the passenger.
With external providers, there are a couple of checks on that: first, the direct relationship between fare box and profitability, which I have already mentioned; and secondly, the local authority’s overseeing position to challenge operators and hold them to account, particularly when partnerships are the enhanced partnerships that we have in many local authorities around the country. That combination enforces the interests of the passenger, even when they are not directly consistent with commercial performance. Under wider franchising, there is a risk—albeit a manageable one—that that check will disappear, because local authorities may become both the judge and the jury.
That makes the purpose clause even more important to ensure that the Secretary of State focuses on passengers in every decision. It makes it clear that the accountability for achieving that result lies firmly with the Secretary of State, and it is useful, as in any complex consideration, to have organisational clarity. Nothing in the Bill, other than here in clause 1, puts passengers front and centre—that is a notable omission from the Bill as currently drafted; all the rest deals with procedure. Placing an explicit duty on the Secretary of State provides a valuable guiding principle throughout the Bill’s implementation period, and ensures that every step taken under the Bill will be aligned with the objective of improving bus services for all those who rely on them.
The Minister in his opening remarks said that the clause was not necessary, because it does not encompass
“the full scope of the Government’s ambition.”
Yet the clause says that the Bill will
“improve the performance, accessibility and quality”.
Surely “quality” encompasses safety, which was the Minister’s example as to why the clause was inadequate to describe the full scope of the Government’s ambitions. I push back on that, because quality does encompass safety in the ordinary sense of that word.
Paragraph 1 of the Government’s explanatory notes for the Bill says:
“The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill brings forward primary legislative measures intended to support the government’s commitment to deliver better buses.”
Clause 1 honours that Government commitment to deliver better buses and should remain part of the Bill.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I will certainly benefit from your guidance on the particulars of the proceedings.
In general, I am a big fan of the Bill. I am a bus person at heart. Wherever I go in the country, I make a point of taking the buses—I take notes and sometimes write to local councillors. That is how passionately I feel about this. The good measures in the Bill need to be backed up by clause 1, which was added to the Bill in the other place. The Bill has come from the other place in very good shape, and the clause is part of that.
I worry about what the move from the Government to strike out the clause portends for the rest of the Committee proceedings. Is it the sign of real commitment that the bus services deserve? Is it a sign that we will see high-quality, reliable, frequent, high-performance, accessible bus services for the whole country? The Government should explain more why they want to remove this very good clause.
I support new clause 22, tabled by my Lib Dem colleagues the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk. It would extend a stronger duty, including an accountability, to local transport authorities. Empowering local authorities is great, but those who need buses—those who struggle with car dependency and cannot reach essential services—need the good measures in the Bill to be backed up by both those duties and real funding as soon as possible.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger.
I rise to endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and to draw further attention to an issue with new clause 22: placing duties on local authorities without money coming in. Central Government are very good, and have been for decades, at requiring things of local government, which naturally leads to increased costs on councils to deliver the relevant duties and comply with the law, but councils do not automatically—in fact, very rarely—get money to go towards complying.
The duties set out in the new clause seem obvious. Subsection (1) says:
“It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.”
Subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (g). I will not read them all out, but paragraph (a) says that authorities may consider
“the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options”.
There is also a requirement to report every two years. That looks laudable. One would hope it would lead to better bus services, but it would place a cost burden on local government without money coming to every local authority. That is my concern: placing duties without accompanying finance in all cases. That is why I have difficulty with new clause 22, although I appreciate the intention and sentiment behind it.
Simon Lightwood
As I said in my opening remarks, clause 1 does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. The shadow Minister talked about incentives; I think the incentives for local authorities are really clear, if not the clearest. They know what is best for their local areas. They are driven by the desire to tackle the social and economic challenges within their areas, and I do not agree that the clause would add anything to that.
The shadow Minister’s reading of “quality” to include safety is subjective. I do not think it is as clear as he made out. The franchising guidance states that an LTA must
“explain how far it will deliver improvements”
if it franchises. The guidance also has a chapter to ensure that an LTA articulates how it is putting people at the heart of franchising assessments. Although it is not in the legislation, the guidance is clear about driving improvements.
New clause 22 would create an additional reporting burden on local authorities and local transport authorities, which are already operating under resource constraints, while potentially undermining their devolved powers to determine transport priorities in line with their local transport plans. I am not able to support it.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 14—Franchising statement—
“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 123A, after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) The power in subsection (1) cannot be exercised until the franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, has published a statement, subject to the requirement in subsection (1B), stating—
(a) their objectives in making the franchising scheme, and
(b) their reasons and evidence for believing that the making of such a scheme is the best option for achieving those objectives.
(1B) It is a requirement that a statement in subsection (1A) must be published before the franchising authority complies with the requirements in sections 123B to 123G.’”
This new clause seeks to ensure that before initiating the formal franchising process undersections 123B to 123G of the Transport Act 2000, franchising authorities must first publish a statement outlining their objectives, reasons, and supporting evidence for believing that franchising is the best option to achieve their aims.
New clause 18—Cost of franchising schemes—
“(1) Where a local authority owned bus company is providing franchised bus services, the authority or authorities must publish annually—
(a) The anticipated cost of the franchise for that year
(b) The actual cost of the franchise for that year.
(2) Where an authority (or authorities) have transferred the franchise from a privately owned bus company to a local authority owned bus company, the authority (or authorities) must publish—
(a) the costs incurred by the franchising authority in transferring the service, including the transfer of undertakings (protection of employment costs); and
(b) a breakdown of how those costs are being incurred.
(3) The reports required by subsections (1) and (2) must be published in a format that is easily accessible on the website of the relevant authority or authorities.
(4) Each local authority which runs a bus company delivering franchised bus services must ensure that time is made available for the reports required by subsections (1) and (2) to be debated at a public meeting of the full council.”
This new clause would require transparency about the costs of franchising local authority owned bus services.
New clause 30—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme.
(2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in—
(a) rural areas;
(b) coastal communities; and
(c) suburban areas.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes.
New clause 38—Franchising authorities: joint forum—
“(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions.
(2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.”
Simon Lightwood
Clause 2 removes the requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. The measure puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field. It also removes from the process an administrative step that does not provide an effective check on local transport authorities’ plans, given that it occurs before a franchising assessment is produced. I am confident that the measure will make franchising more attractive to local transport authorities by speeding up the overall process.
New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, would require authorities to publish a statement that outlines their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence for deciding whether franchising is the best option to achieve their aims, before they initiate the formal process. The Department for Transport has established franchising guidance; to require local authorities to provide an up-front statement during an exploratory stage would be premature. The franchising scheme assessment also provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise.
Although local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to investigate the right bus model for their area, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The new clause would also make the franchising process slower and undermine the Government’s ambition to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective.
New clause 18 would require local authorities to publish the costs associated with franchised bus services operated by local authority-owned bus companies. Authorities are already subject to statutory requirements to publish detailed information on their spending and financial performance. Under the 2015 local government transparency code, they must regularly publish data on all expenditure over £500, and are required to produce and make publicly available their annual statements of accounts, which are subject to external audit and public scrutiny. The framework ensures a high level of financial transparency and public accountability, making such an additional burden on authorities unnecessary.
New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes that includes specific information on rural and suburban areas and coastal communities. The Department for Transport has published franchising guidance, including on the consideration of neighbouring authorities and on the requirement to consult affected areas. The Department continuously refines the franchising guidance, and plans to undertake comprehensive updates after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The introduction of piecemeal additions without considering the guidance in its entirety would risk reducing its effectiveness.
In addition to the guidance, the Department supports LTAs through the franchising and bus reform pilot. The ambition is to explore alternative models that may suit a local area and help to provide evidence for the decision. Lessons learned, tools, templates and best practice will be shared throughout the pilot programme.
New clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require franchising authorities to establish a forum of stakeholders to address staffing and employment issues in the franchising area. It seeks to increase accountability in areas that choose to adopt franchising. I am sympathetic to the new clause’s aims, but it is not the role of central Government to prescribe how local transport authorities run their services. Franchising guidance that covers driver welfare already exists, giving the franchising authority scope to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services. The new clause is therefore unnecessary and I hope it will be withdrawn.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 2 amends the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the availability of franchising schemes. It is essentially a facilitating clause to allow for one of the really important changes in the Bill, which is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to any local authority other than mayoral combined authorities when deciding whether to embark on a franchising scheme.
Mr Kohler
The concern raised by many stakeholders about this Bill is not about its contents. We all agree with its contents, but the money and expertise are lacking. Local councils do not have either. As I said on Second Reading, although this Bill
“hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 97.]
We have great sympathy with Conservative new clauses 14 and 18. It is important that we ask local authorities to list the objectives and evidence. It is also be important to go through the costs. Those constraints and disciplines are crucial and will avoid ideological decisions. We have seen that already with rail nationalisation, where a Transport for London model, which the industry and many Labour Members supported at one point, would have been a better approach than concession contracts. New clauses 14 and 18 are a useful brake on letting ideology, rather than pragmatism, take control. They are not impediments; they are things that surely should be done and are good practice. We will support new clauses 14 and 18.
On new clause 30, we want to make it easier for local transport authorities that do not have the expertise. Having a number of off-the-shelf approaches to franchising is surely a good thing. There are specific issues in rural areas and villages, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk will speak to, but in urban areas we have real issues with bus routes that do not keep to local authority boundaries, but cross them. There are problems of co-ordination when bus routes cross boundaries, and an absence of buses because of those problems. Having a number of off-the-shelf ways to help authorities would surely be a good thing. I will leave it to my hon. Friend to take on that matter.
Joe Robertson
All the comments I was going to make have already been made by the shadow Minister. He was so complete and comprehensive that he leaves no space for any additional comment. However, I will briefly give my slant on some of the points. When I rose at the beginning of this sitting, it was to talk about the costs that would be put on to local authorities by the general duties in new clause 22. That has been dealt with. This clause will put much more significant costs on to local authorities that choose to go down the franchising route—after all, franchising is a choice available to a transport authority. Those are costs incurred by transferring a risk from commercial operators to local authorities and the taxpayer if the business does not go in the way of the business plan.
The shadow Minister has already spoken about the huge cost subsidy, effectively, to the services operated in London and Manchester, where there are huge economy of scale advantages. My view is that the franchising model, if it works at all, works for high population densities—cities, large local authorities and those that can swallow bad years—and offers nothing at all for smaller authorities other than the option to take a step into the unknown for no obvious benefit. I think of my local authority on the Isle of Wight—it is fanciful to think that that unitary authority could in any way take a step towards franchising. Even if we end up with a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire county council, which has a big budget deficit, it seems highly unattractive to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight to go down the franchising route and take on all those risks.
I have no direct experience of the Manchester model, but if Manchester really is the shining beacon, it is one that has cost a huge amount of money. However, that is a huge amount of money that the taxpayer in Manchester may be able to swallow. For a transport authority with a significant chunk of rurality—Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is an exception only in that it has an island attached to it, not in terms of how rural it is—I cannot see the figures adding up because no money goes with franchising.
The Government may talk about money being available for bus services and the £3 fare cap. Those are welcome things, but they are not sums of money that naturally flow with an option to go down the franchising route. Although that does not go against having franchising as an option, I feel that it is going to be attractive only to a fairly small proportion of England—areas with high-density populations and those with metropolitan authorities. In this country, franchising is for the few; it is not a mass model that all local authorities will find attractive. It could lead to a more uneven quality of bus services across the country, and to a two-tier system.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I want to challenge the suggestion that franchising is an obligation. It is not; it is a power that is given to authorities to use if they wish. However, in those communities that were so poorly served for the past 14 years under the previous Government, should we not inspire an ambition for better bus services?
Joe Robertson
I was not suggesting that it is an obligation. Plainly, franchising is an option. My point is that it is an option that is unattractive to smaller local authorities, which cannot benefit from the economies of scale of franchising bus services. It is much more attractive for city areas. Of course I want rural bus services to be improved; my constituency is a rural area and we want better bus services. I see absolutely nothing in the franchising option that will deliver that, because I cannot see a local authority—in my own or other rural areas—looking at it and thinking, “This is helpful.” That is because it does not, as a right, bring money with it.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am a Warrington MP, and, as has been mentioned, the town has one of the country’s eight remaining municipal bus companies—the award-winning Warrington’s Own Buses. It is a trailblazer, and it is an example of what a municipal bus company can be and what can be achieved. For example, Warrington still has capped fares, and the bus company can still offer a flat fee of £2 for adults and £1 for under-22s. We have a pioneering all-electric fleet and a brand-new depot. Any profit goes back into the service, and we have free travel for care leavers. With a municipal bus company that understands our communities, we have been able to maintain the essential services that private providers would simply give up on and walk away from.
Jerome Mayhew
I agree with much of the hon. Lady’s description of Warrington’s Own Buses. A few weeks ago, I spoke to the company’s managing director and I was impressed, as I said on Second Reading. However, does the hon. Lady agree that that is because Warrington’s Own Buses has 30, 40 or 50 years’ institutional experience in running those kinds of services—experience that other local authorities simply do not have? Does she also agree that exactly the same delivery of services can be achieved through an enhanced partnership, in which the operator works in collaboration with the local authority, and it is up to them to decide what is important for the community?
Sarah Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I put it on record that Ben Wakerley, who heads up Warrington’s Own Buses, is fantastic. He has been a real asset for us. Experience is an important factor, but it is also about understanding the community that a company serves, and that does not take 30 or 40 years. It just means taking the time to know and understand the community. Ben has not been there for 30 or 40 years, but he has been leading the way with a lot of the delivery.
Collaboration can be good, but my experience of Warrington’s Own Buses, and of how it has focused on services and delivered in the way that it has, shows how powerful that format can be. I encourage other areas to adopt the same thing, because it has put power back into the hands of the community, not private providers.
Steff Aquarone
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will speak to the clause and to new clause 30 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. We have this Bill Committee, Department for Transport estimates day and the forthcoming Transport Committee report on connecting rural communities—we wait for years for the opportunity to talk about buses, and three come along at once.
I strongly welcome the widening of bus franchising opportunities. Rural transport, in particular, needs a proper rethink, and the greater powers that transport authorities can get hold of as a result of the Bill will, I believe, allow local leaders to do just that. People are already welcome the idea of bus franchising. When we visit London, we do not quibble about whether our red bus is run by Transport UK, Arriva, Stagecoach or another franchise holder; we care that it comes at the time we want and takes us where we want to go.
What is lacking in the Bill, however, is leadership relating to how the powers can be used to make a much needed difference to people in rural areas. We have models of urban bus franchising to follow—London has taken the lead and now Manchester is following—but it has never been attempted in a truly rural area. It would be quite reckless of the Government to leave authorities completely rudderless, because some would be guaranteed to go off the rails, and we all know that residents would pay the price in their passenger experience and council tax bills. I gently say to the Minister that this is not about whether guidance is in the pipeline; it is about how far it goes and how robust it is.
Our new clause 30 is the first of our many new clauses and amendments that seek to provide guardrails, guidance and models for those adopting franchising for the first time, in a situation where there may be little evidence to go on. Given the concerns of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about how franchising might work in rural areas, there could be some good news for him in our new clause, but we need to adjust our thinking about what good bus services look like in such areas. While we do not want a top-down imposition of things on rural, coastal and suburban areas, I and other hon. Members believe it would be good for those areas to be given a greater degree of support from the Government than there currently is in the Bill. I also think that specifically outlining such areas in the Bill will help to ensure greater consideration of the unique characteristics of those parts of the country.
Even if the Department pledges to produce guidance, it could fail to address the challenges faced in rural communities in particular. Coming from a rural area, I know how much Government policy feels like it was written by someone who has rarely stepped foot outside the SW1 postcode. Our coastal communities remain without a top-table representative in Government, and I struggle to see how residents of rural communities can trust that such guidance will be forthcoming unless it is in the Bill, or that it will represent the challenges and needs of their areas.
I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to what we are trying to achieve with new clause 30. I do not expect him to accept it, although he is welcome to do so, but I hope that he outlines the steps that his Department will take to provide comprehensive and structured support to those authorities embarking into uncharted territory with their franchise schemes, beyond what we have heard already.
Simon Lightwood
I will try not to repeat the comments that I have made already, but I will say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, that yes, the Conservative Government did put franchising in place. They also ensured that it was near impossible to achieve, as there were so many barriers. Instead of playing party politics about Manchester, what the Conservatives should be saying to Andy Burnham is, “Thank you for your vision. Despite all the barriers that we placed before you, you still managed to achieve franchising and improve bus services throughout Greater Manchester.” The shadow Minister also talked about the primacy of passengers—but excuse me if I judge the previous Government on their actions, not just their words, because from 2010 to 2024, 300 million fewer miles were travelled on buses.
Jerome Mayhew
There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about which system passengers prefer. The way to really judge that is through ridership—how many people take the buses. It is absolutely right that in Greater Manchester, under the Bee Network, there has been a post-pandemic increase in ridership of about 34%, from memory. However, does the Minister not accept that in Norfolk, where there is an enhanced partnership, ridership has increased by more than 40%, and in Essex, another enhanced partnership area, ridership has increased by more than 50%? The point is that it is not the scheme design that is fundamentally important, but the way in which it is approached. Does the Minister accept that we can have outcomes that are just as good—better outcomes, in fact—through enhanced partnerships as we can through franchising?
Simon Lightwood
What the shadow Minister failed to hear in my previous remarks is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to buses. This could be done through franchising; it could be done through municipal bus companies or local authority-operated bus companies; or it could be done through strengthened enhanced partnerships.
Let me touch on franchising, because the shadow Minister talks about Manchester as the full-fat model. A huge number of alternative franchising arrangements are available, including the Jersey model, which I will go into in a moment. Within franchising assessments, there will be a detailed investigation that is then checked robustly for assurance purposes. Obviously, the process as it stands does not provide an effective check on local transport authority plans, because it happens before a franchising assessment is produced.
On the Secretary of State’s consent, as I have said, it is not effective because it is at the beginning of the franchising process. The assessment must look at the finances of the proposed scheme and then be independently assured. Different areas will also have different circumstances when pursuing franchising; the Secretary of State is not in a position to scrutinise them all.
On funding and LTA support, £1 billion of funding was announced for 2025-26, £700 million of which was for local authorities to improve bus services. That is not for franchising per se; as I said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The Government are opening up options to local transport authorities. No LTA is being forced to franchise. No LTA has been forced to franchise through the Greater Manchester model, in fact. The Government are looking at how best to support LTAs, including through franchising pilots, which will include elements of rural communities as well. Funding is provided through the bus allocations for LTAs to decide how to spend. The franchising pilots will look at alternative models, one of which could be a joint venture model like the one in Jersey.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister is right, of course, that all sorts of different franchising schemes and mechanisms are available, and I am looking forward to his description of the Jersey model. However, does he not recognise and accept that, of the authorities that have expressed a direction of travel so far, both Liverpool and West Midlands have also decided to go down what I have described as the full-fat model? It is not just Manchester being an outlier. It is likely that the Bill will ensure—in fact, it is happening already—that full fat is seen as the direction of travel. Does the Minister not think that that is correct?
Simon Lightwood
I concede that, at the moment, it tends to be city regions that are looking at franchising, which is why we are doing the pilots to ensure that we have the template approach. We will learn the lessons from the various different franchising models that could be used. As we announced at the spending review, York and North Yorkshire is one of the areas that would be ideally suited to demonstrate the effectiveness of franchising in a rural setting. There was a comment about coastal communities, so let me just put this on the record: this South Shields-born, not SW1-postcoded MP knows full well the importance of buses to coastal and rural communities. In fact, I am the son of a bus driver as well. [Interruption.] I have ticked all the boxes—he was not a toolmaker, though.
Let me touch on Manchester. The figures quoted on franchising costs in Manchester refer to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network, supporting economic growth, greater productivity, access to homes and so on. In 2024-25, the cost of operating the franchised bus network was about £151 million, but it would be misleading to compare that with the £226 million in an attempt to argue that costs have inflated year on year. Greater Manchester was only partway through the three-phase transition to franchising during ’24-25, so the cost was accordingly lower. Transport for Greater Manchester was operating only half of the full network for the majority—nine months—of ’24-25. There is very little additional cost resulting from the adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester, and evidence to date shows that this model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.
Bus depots in Greater Manchester were required to ensure a level playing field when procuring franchised operators; otherwise, there would be an inherent advantage, of course, to incumbent operators. Depot acquisition also recognises the importance of investing to bring infrastructure up to modern standards to deliver a quality service and electrification of the fleet.
Turning to local authority bus companies—LABCos or municipal bus companies—there is a level playing field for arm’s length LABCos, which the existing ones in England are, and for private operators. There is existing legislation and regulations around local authority bus companies.
There will be different ways that LTAs can franchise. Rural areas, for example, could look to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network. It is right to recognise the successes that there have been in Jersey. When I visited in April, I saw at first hand the benefits of franchising and what it has delivered for passengers. A small team have successfully introduced franchising in rural areas. Although that offers useful lessons for rural and suburban communities in England, Jersey offers just one model, and there will be particular local transport challenges and opportunities in other places. Far from stipulating the one-size-fits-all Greater Manchester model, we are exploring and working with local transport authorities throughout the country to demonstrate different forms of franchising to make that a success.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Specification of areas
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 70, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “or places” and insert
“, places or Rural Bus Hubs”.
This amendment is linked to NC35 and would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification for a franchise scheme.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 71, in clause 38, page 41, line 23, after “England” insert—
“(e) the impact, or potential impact, the establishment of Rural Bus Hubs on services to villages.”
This amendment would require a review of bus service provision for villages to include an assessment of the impact of rural bus hubs, if already established, or the impact which establishing them may have on villages.
New clause 35—Rural Bus Hubs—
“(1) Local transport authorities may consider the construction of Rural Bus Hubs in rural areas which are, in the authority’s assessment, not sufficiently well-served by buses.
(2) Any Rural Bus Hub must—
(a) be a facility where bus users can park vehicles for the purposes of transferring to a bus service for the remainder of their journey;
(b) be constructed outside of town or and village centres, and be easily accessible by road, cycle or walking routes and other modes of transport;
(c) be on newly-developed sites or on sites which have been repurposed;
(d) contain car parking, electric vehicle charging, cycle parking and other amenities as the franchising authority sees fit, at a level of adequacy determined by the franchising authority.”
This new clause would allow local transport authorities to create rural bus hubs in areas to create a hub-and-spoke model of bus service delivery.
Simon Lightwood
The clause enhances the flexibility of franchising in terms of the areas that can be brought into such a scheme. The Government understand that there is a lack of clarity about whether a franchising scheme may specify more than one non-contiguous area. The clause therefore clarifies that that is permissible, meaning that franchising authorities may be flexible in the areas that they can bring into a franchising scheme. For example, it will allow rural authorities to focus on franchising in individual towns and villages if they so wish.
I thank the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Wimbledon for tabling amendment 70 that would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification of a franchising scheme. The franchised services that a franchising scheme will provide must be specified or formally set out and published. This ensures that the scheme will deliver in a transparent way. The amendment would make it explicit that franchised services could be specified by reference to the rural bus hubs that they might serve. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill already allows franchising authorities to specify places that franchised services will serve. Places can include rural bus hubs.
Alongside clause 3, clause 4 also enhances flexibility for franchising authorities by clarifying how franchised services may be specified in the scheme. This ensures that franchising authorities can more easily make minor changes to franchised services. For example, the clause will give a franchising authority scope to specify services by listing specific places to be served, or by specifying places by the purpose they serve. Purposes could include connecting students to school or employees to work.
The clause allows franchising authorities to combine approaches to specifying services. This will allow adaptability and ensure that franchising authorities can develop franchising schemes that meet the needs of different communities, such as those in urban and rural areas. The clause also has transitional provisions for authorities that have started the process of franchising prior to the Bill becoming law.
Steff Aquarone
I wish to speak to new clause 35 and amendments 70 and 71 tabled in my name. The Minister has done a very good job of outlining what those proposals seek to achieve, for which I am grateful. I am seeking to remedy the lack of vision for fixing the public transport problems that we face in rural areas.
As I have said, we cannot just throw new powers at rural areas and hope for the best. We have to create workable models for adoption to support areas to use the new powers in the best way possible. There has been great excitement about how to use them to transform the bus networks in our major cities, but in all the conversations here on this issue, rural communities seem to have been forgotten about.
In rural areas, the local bus service is not just a convenience or a “nice to have”, but a real and genuine lifeline. For many, it is the main way they can get to see friends and family, go to medical appointments, and get to the shops and to leisure activities. Bus services keeps many rural villages going. It is no surprise that when the withdrawal of routes in areas like this are proposed, there is fury locally and major campaigns against it.
I asked some of my rural colleagues about their experiences and, unsurprisingly, I was inundated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) has been campaigning to save the X5 between Aylesbury and Hemel Hempstead, which was replaced with an unreliable service that is making it hard for residents to get to key medical appointments. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) are trying to bring back the 84/85 route from Yate to Wotton, a vital route to shopping centres, schools and colleges and for those visiting HMP Leyhill. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) has been working with campaigners to save school bus services in Ancells Farm, with children facing the prospect of long walks down unsafe roads to get to and from school in Fleet.
There are all these communities and campaigns, but we still have not come up with better ways to serve rural areas and protect their access to services. It is telling that when my Transport Committee colleagues and I, several of whom are represented on both sides of this Committee, wanted to go and see some best practice of rural bus networks for our “Buses connecting communities” inquiry—report forthcoming shortly; I am sure everyone will be reading it as soon as it is published—we had to travel to the Republic in Ireland to find them. We simply do not have good examples of successful rural networks here in the UK.
All of that serves to say that it is time for a bold new approach. A good few years ago, when we were researching the Liberal Democrat manifesto for Norfolk’s 2021 county council elections, we undertook research with a number of key local stakeholders to hear what they thought of the local bus network and what we could do to improve it. I personally interviewed bus companies, council officers and other stakeholders. Most importantly, we surveyed local people, including those who do not currently use buses—an often overlooked audience segment. We concluded that we need to combine two of the most successful features of current public transport models to create a new model for rural public transport. Those two things are park and ride services and demand-responsive transport. Pairing them could create a real network that works for our rural towns and villages without the near-impossible task of running an hourly timetable to every village. That conclusion resulted in the rural bus hub scheme outlined in new clause 35.
Rural bus hubs would allow people to get between key towns and villages that they need to visit directly. People in many rural areas suffer from having to take buses in the opposite direction from where they want to go, going to the nearby town or city just to go straight back out again. That adds hours to people’s journeys, the journey is totally derailed if one link in the complicated chain goes wrong, and it is ultimately an inconvenient way to get about. As a result, it does not improve passenger numbers.
Similar to our park and ride networks, rural bus hubs would have facilities to enable those living nearby to travel to the hub independently, either by car or active travel routes. The hubs would have the amenities to charge electric vehicles, and to lock and store bikes safely, so that people could easily return to them to complete the final few miles of their return journeys. The hubs would also be well served by demand-responsive transport for those who are not independently mobile. That would ensure that the network could reach into all areas, including rural villages and harder-to-access communities that may never have had a regular service, if any service, from an existing bus route.
Such passengers, once at the hub, could catch direct, frequent buses to any part of a proper network, getting them to the hub nearest to where they want to go, and linking up with train connections or even hospitals and employment areas. It is a model that could easily be adopted by transport authorities. It would reach the most people possible without seeking to run a regular bus through every village, and it would connect those in rural areas to a proper public transport network that broadens the range of their destinations, rather than just taking them to the nearest city or large town.
My amendment 70 would permit rural bus hubs to fit into the current model of franchising, allowing for specified services to include those running to and from, or between, the hubs. My amendment 71 would add to the review of service provision to villages an assessment of how service in the villages could be impacted by the establishment of rural bus hubs, or how the establishment of the hubs has affected services for villages at the time of the review. That would ensure that, as we assess how villages are faring following the passing of the Bill, we do not simply grow a list of complaints but assess what could be done differently to make improvements and the impacts that those improvements would have.
I grew up in a rural village with a sketchy bus connection. I now live in another, and my children are growing up with the same sketchy connection that I had. That cycle cannot continue. We have to do better for areas like mine, and conventional thinking is not going to cut it. It is time for a radical rethink of how we deliver public transport in rural areas. We have to challenge the old ideas and be willing to seize on something new.
I am sure that the Government will oppose these ideas, but I would gently say that they have not put forward anything equivalent. It is all very well to say, “You could do anything,” but there is nothing of substance to say, “Of all the things you could do, these are the things you might specifically like to consider.” We could feasibly help households to reduce the number of vehicles they rely on, saving them thousands every year. We could encourage active travel by expanding the number of journeys, and the hubs could be a component of that. By expanding demand-responsive transport, we could even remove car reliance altogether, while connecting the carless to a far better range of travel times and destinations than they currently have.
The same old approach is not working. The situation will not magically fix itself with the new franchising powers alone. We have to try something different, and do something to create networked, accessible public transport that works for people, and gets them where they want to go, when they want to go there. I do not think that is asking the world, and I hope that the Government will pledge to look into this idea further to deliver real change for people in North Norfolk, and rural communities across the country.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 3 is not controversial, so I will not make a long speech. Proposed new subsection (2A) of the Transport Act 2000 simply makes it clear that, where more than one area is specified in a franchising scheme, the specified areas “need not be contiguous.” I say no more about that.
Amendment 70, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, adds a reference to bus hubs. As he is my constituency neighbour, our constituents share many of the same experiences, and I absolutely support the sentiments that he eloquently expressed: rural areas are often overlooked, bus policy is designed with the major cities and large towns in mind, and policymakers—perhaps because they have limited experience of life in the kind of rural communities that he and I serve—do not consider the very different challenges that we face. I therefore support the sentiment of the amendment, but the challenge is the cost. We keep coming back to the money—or lack of it—in this legislation, because it is disproportionately expensive.
The hon. Member is absolutely right that park and ride is an interesting hub-and-spoke model for rural areas, but there is also the on-demand model, which I have previously described as the Uberfication of rural transport. The tech is obviously already there. Someone books in and says that they want to go from here to there; the algorithm sorts out the route and how many people can be picked up; and then they are delivered from door to door. Because it is door to door, it has the opportunity to provide an improved customer experience.
The challenge is getting the take-up, because it requires a large number of people to buy into such a scheme, and the set-up costs are expensive. There has been a trial in Wymondham, in Norfolk, where the county council put forward a type of on-demand rural service, but the take-up was disappointingly low. Why was that? My working hypothesis is that, if it is a pilot, hardly anyone knows about it, but if there is wide-scale adoption—“This is the future of rural transport”—and it is backed up with public information so that everybody in the community cannot help but know about it, the take-up will be much greater and that then transforms the economics of it.
As a fellow Norfolk MP, I fully support the concept behind the hon. Member’s amendment, but I am afraid that I question whether it is needed, given the specifics of the drafting. As “places” are not defined under the clause as drafted, I am not sure about the requirement to define a specific place—this is my lawyer’s background coming through; it is a nasty rash I am developing—and I wonder whether there is a legal need for that clarification.
I will move on to clause 4. According to the explanatory notes, it inserts proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(a) into the 2000 Act to clarify that services can be specified by routes or the places intended to be served. I think that is sensible. For example, a franchising authority could specify the services by listing the principal points to be served, so, “The local services to be provided under local service contracts are ones that serve the following principal points,” followed by a list of what they are, such as the hospital, the railway station and the doctor’s surgery.
Another example under this proposed new subsection would be for services to be specified route by route. I will come back to that in a moment, because that is quite an important clarification when we look at the kind of operators that will be in a position to provide these services. Specifically, there is a question about the access of small and medium-sized enterprises to contracts under franchising, which sounds a bit niche but is nevertheless important.
Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(b) of the 2000 Act clarifies that services can be specified by describing intended services in general terms. It is broad and gives franchising authorities a wide range of options for specifying services under this proposed new subsection. That, again, is eminently sensible; I will not go into the detail.
Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(c) of the 2000 Act clarifies that franchising authorities can combine the approaches under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, a franchise authority that covers both urban and rural areas could specify services by reference to the specific routes for the urban areas, in line with proposed new paragraph (a), and then could take a broader approach for the rural areas. Finally, paragraph (d) clarifies the catch-all that franchising authorities can specify services “in such other way”.
Steff Aquarone
I appreciate the warm support from the hon. Gentleman, who is, as he stated, my constituency neighbour. I defer to his lawyering experience on his salient points about the propriety of my amendments given the Bill’s drafting, but I will ask for his reflections on two points.
First, cost is a big unanswered question in the Bill. If the Minister had access to the Treasury, I know that he would be raiding it to fund improved rural bus services. Does the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agree, however, that at least looking at a hub model makes more sense financially, and for service provision, than trying to establish hourly services in every village?
Secondly, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for amendment 71. Although I intend to withdraw amendment 70, I will push amendment 71 to a vote with his support.
Jerome Mayhew
I do not disagree with anything the hon. Member said. I do not have in my head the financial details associated with rural hubs, but it makes more commercial sense as a matter of principle, although it would probably not be profitable, to have a hub-and-spoke approach rather than an hourly service for every village. I do not know whether the hon. Member has counted the villages in North Norfolk, but there are well over 100 in Broadland and Fakenham, so that would be a challenge for any provider.
The Opposition support the concept of new clause 35 if the finances—the missing link—add up, but we question the need for it, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing what it sets out.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I am conscious that we are finishing in three minutes, so I will limit my comments to give the Minister some time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I query the premise that public is better than private. The hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned the ability to provide a better service than existing franchise services, but I want to put on record that we can still get £2 fares in South West Devon. There is not necessarily a concrete need for a franchise; it is not necessarily a magic wand. I will fit my other comments in somewhere else, because I am conscious of time.
Simon Lightwood
I thought the Liberal Democrats were the party of devolution, but they have a strange habit of wanting to tell local areas what to do and how to do it. Rural bus hubs are not yet widespread and the available data on their impact is limited. I have already outlined that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to improving buses. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, so it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their areas.
I have already spoken about the different models for bus franchising, such as the Jersey model. The pilots will explore the models that may suit rural areas over metropolitan areas. In a rural setting, bus franchising could provide the opportunity to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network, ensuring that it links rural areas to key locations and access to onward travel options.
The Government are also supporting local transport authorities to improve the viability and sustainability of demand-responsive transport. That may be the most viable option in rural areas. The Government are gathering insights from the rural mobility fund pilots and are developing best practice guidance—a comprehensive resource for setting up and managing DRT schemes.
Beyond that, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, such as the dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence’s conference on quality bus services in July and our plans for franchising pilots. The Department understands that there are barriers to SMEs accessing franchise networks. That is why we are listening to the sector about ways to ensure that disproportionate paperwork requirements do not hinder SMEs bidding for franchising contracts.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Thursday 26th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 June 2025 - (26 Jun 2025)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch their electronic devices to silent, to send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
I understand that we may have some people in the Public Gallery this morning who are visually impaired— I welcome them. For their benefit, as well as the benefit of others following proceedings this morning, when calling a Member to speak or to make an intervention, I will announce the Member’s name and party affiliation. I ask that Members allow me to do so before commencing their contribution. It has also been brought to my attention that those in the Gallery would like, if possible, during the break, to meet some members of the Committee.
Clause 3
Specification of areas
Question (24 June) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
Amendment 70, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “or places” and insert—
“, places or Rural Bus Hubs”.
This amendment is linked to NC35 and would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification for a franchise scheme.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 71, in clause 38, page 41, line 23, after “England” insert—
“(e) the impact, or potential impact, the establishment of Rural Bus Hubs on services to villages.”
This amendment would require a review of bus service provision for villages to include an assessment of the impact of rural bus hubs, if already established, or the impact which establishing them may have on villages.
New clause 35—Rural Bus Hubs—
“(1) Local transport authorities may consider the construction of Rural Bus Hubs in rural areas which are, in the authority’s assessment, not sufficiently well-served by buses.
(2) Any Rural Bus Hub must—
(a) be a facility where bus users can park vehicles for the purposes of transferring to a bus service for the remainder of their journey;
(b) be constructed outside of town or and village centres, and be easily accessible by road, cycle or walking routes and other modes of transport;
(c) be on newly-developed sites or on sites which have been repurposed;
(d) contain car parking, electric vehicle charging, cycle parking and other amenities as the franchising authority sees fit, at a level of adequacy determined by the franchising authority.”
This new clause would allow local transport authorities to create rural bus hubs in areas to create a hub-and-spoke model of bus service delivery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. At the conclusion of our sitting on Tuesday, I had begun to address the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, on the role of small and medium-sized enterprises in franchising. I will briefly address the outstanding points.
The Department for Transport understands that there are barriers to SMEs accessing franchise networks. That is why we are listening to the sector about how to ensure that disproportionate paperwork requirements do not hinder SME bids for franchising contracts, and that SMEs are provided with the resources to simplify bidding. My Department has also engaged directly with SME representatives through policy development and the passage of the Bill, including on additions to guidance, such as the Department’s role in facilitating pre-tender engagement between SMEs and franchising authorities.
Already, as part of the consultation on a franchising scheme, an authority must make a statement about how it proposes to facilitate the involvement of SME operators when it conducts the procurement process for franchised services. Moreover, the grant-making powers given to local authorities via the Bill will allow grants to be designed to prioritise SME bus operators, subject to other competition and subsidy controls. I hope that that offers reassurance to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Minimum period before provision of services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause is about mobilisation periods for franchising areas. Existing law states that there must be a period of at least six months between the franchising contracts being made and those services first being delivered on the ground. The clause will enable franchising authorities to set shorter mobilisation periods that work for them and their stakeholders, if they wish. That will speed up the franchising process and ensure that bus passengers do not have to wait for an arbitrary period before experiencing the benefits.
Clause 6 amends references to local services by inserting the words
“which have one or more stopping places”
in certain sections of the Transport Act 2000. That is intended to clarify that the relevant reference to local services includes cross-border services where appropriate. These technical changes support the Bill’s focus on giving franchising authorities more scope to facilitate the provision of cross-border services.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Allin-Khan.
Clause 5 deals with the minimum period before provision of services can be changed. It is not a difficult clause, but it is worth going into some of the subsections in a bit more detail. Subsection (1) omits section 123H(4) of the 2000 Act, which set out that a franchising scheme
“may not specify under subsection (2)(d) or (3)(c) a period of less than six months.”
That meant that at least six months had to expire between the authority making a local service contract and the provision of the local service under that contract.
Clause 5(2) sets out that the transition arrangements in subsection (3) apply where, before the clause comes into force, the franchising authority or authorities have published under section 123E(2) of the 2000 Act a consultation document relating to a scheme or variation of a scheme, but have not yet made the scheme or varied it. Clause 5(3) provides that when making or varying the franchising scheme pursuant to the consultation document, the franchising authority or authorities may specify a minimum period, under sections 123H(2)(d) or 123H(3)(c) of the 2000 Act, that is less than six months.
Although I understand that the Minister and his Department want to smooth out some of the hindrances and streamline the system, and in principle I am supportive of that, the question that begs to be asked is: is there no de minimis period? It may be considered that a six-month period is too long, but what about a one-week period? Is that too short? As drafted, the clause does not provide a de minimis period. What would be the impact on franchise operators if there were an instantaneous change? That is a significant issue that needs to be considered, because we are dealing with operators that are commercial beasts. They have infrastructure, and drivers and staff that have to accommodate changes to these schemes, and yet the Government’s proposed changes would in theory allow there to be no notice at all.
I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Department’s, or the Government’s, thinking on this matter. I accept that six months is itself an arbitrary time limit. Why is it not seven, or five? I accept the rationale, which is that we wish to streamline the provisions in order to make it easier for local transport authorities to undertake these changes and take advantage of some of the opportunities that the Bill provides, but it is important for it to be practical and not to have unintended consequences for bus operators and their commercial activities.
Clause 6 amends sections 123E(4)(a), 123N(2)(a), 123Q(5)(a) and 123R(5)(a) of the 2000 Act. Before I go any further, it is worth reflecting that the reason why the clause is so complicated in its nomenclature is that there have been multiple amendments to the Transport Act. Although I have not researched it, some of that presumably came about through the deliberations of this House when the legislation was drafted, but there have subsequently been multiple alterations.
It begs the question of our approach to legislation in this place when an Act is so often amended. It makes it very difficult, one imagines, for people and organisations—local transport authorities, in particular—to understand what their duties and legal responsibilities are. In many instances, these are not recommendations; they are mandatory requirements, with which failure to comply could lead to judicial review and the kind of lawfare that we as a society often rail against, because we feel that the Government—and by that, I also mean local transport authorities in this instance—cannot get anything done because they are being tripped up by incredibly complex legislation with poor drafting that requires multiple amendments. That is how we get to a “section 123Q(5)(a)”—but that was a slight aside.
Clause 6 further amends the Transport Act by adding to all those subsections the words
“which have one or more stopping places”
after the references to “local services”. In itself, it is a wholly good amendment, and I am not seeking to criticise it. It clarifies that the references to “local services” incorporate any service that has a stopping place in the relevant area, including cross-boundary services operating pursuant to a service permit. However, I wonder whether this clarification was necessary in practice. I would be interested to know whether there have been any instances of local transport authorities being misled by the current drafting—I would be surprised if there had been—or any legal challenge to the current definitions that highlighted a need to clarify an ambiguity. Subject to that clarification from the Minister, I accept that there is nothing wrong with the amendment made by the clause. It is a useful clarification of the Transport Act 2000, to avoid doubt in interpretation, if, in fact, such doubt has ever existed.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. My party has little to say on this group. We are supportive of clauses 5 and 6, although the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made a good point, and we would like to hear the Minister’s views on it.
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham spoke about the removal of minimum mobilisation periods. It is consistent with the aims of the Bill to empower local transport authorities to decide how best to design their bus services, and this will be an issue for franchising authorities to determine. A minimum mobilisation period does not need to be mandated by central Government. This is something that franchising authorities will need to consider, and it is in their interests to make sure that there is a smooth transition to a franchising scheme, if that is the pathway they wish to consider.
Franchising authorities will make their determinations about the duration of mobilisation periods based on numerous factors. The clause provides flexibility for mobilisation to occur in a period shorter than six months, where it is in the interests of stakeholders and passengers. As I have explained, the Government intend to update the franchising guidance following Royal Assent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Criteria for granting service permits
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 7, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) In subsection (5), omit from ‘and’ to end.”
This amendment seeks to simplify the process for granting service permits by removing the requirement that the proposed service will not have an adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 7, page 3, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 48, in clause 7, page 3, line 27, leave out from “there” to end of line 34 and insert
“is a benefit to persons making journeys on the proposed service.”
Amendment 49, in clause 7, page 3, line 36, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 3, line 37, leave out from “that” to “will” and insert
“the proposed service has benefits to the economy of the area to which the scheme relates, or to persons living in that area,”.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 7, which is reasonably long, introduces a number of additional tests for the granting of service permits. Subsection (2) inserts a new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) to section 123Q of the Transport Act 2000. Paragraph (a) provides that the franchising authority or authorities may grant a service permit for a cross-boundary service—this is the meat of it—if satisfied that
“the benefits to persons making the journey on the proposed service will outweigh any adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.”
Paragraph (b) sets out that the franchising authority or authorities may grant such a service permit if they are satisfied that
“the benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the relevant area”—
that is different from paragraph (a), which referred to benefits to persons taking the journey—
“or to persons living in that area, will outweigh any”
adverse effect on the local service provided under a local service contract. The first paragraph refers to the benefit to passengers on the cross-boundary service and the second to the benefit to the area.
I suppose what sits behind this is the abstraction argument, which we are familiar with from the railway. In fact, those lucky enough to be at Transport questions this morning will have heard a brief rehearsal of that argument by the Secretary of State in respect of open access applications on the railway. The essence of the argument is that when a new service is proposed for a particular area, in addition to just saying, “Isn’t this is a jolly good idea? We’re getting further provision, more choice and no doubt price competition as well, and new constituencies and demographics being served by buses”—or, in the other example, by rail—before agreeing to it, we need to look at its impact on existing services. It is argued that it would be unfair if we have already contracted a franchise agreement or service operation agreement for buses, or we have a franchise operator on the railway, such as London North Eastern Railway—actually, that is not a good example, because it has open access competition. Let us take High Speed 1, where Eurostar has its operations, and imagine that we said, “We’re going to provide a new service.” Virgin, for example, is applying for an operating licence for HS1. We would then say, “What would be the impact on the provision of the existing services? Is this new service going to supply a currently unmet need, or is it going to provide two services fighting over the same customer?”
That takes us back, interestingly enough, to the original regulation of bus services in the 1920s. A major argument for the need for bus regulation in the first place was the common complaint that there could be one route with 15 different buses on it, all from different bus operators competing furiously for a key route, and for the less well-travelled routes and perhaps the suburban or rural routes, there would be no bus provision at all. The argument ran that we could not leave it up to the private sector to fight it out and let the market decide where services should be provided; we needed a degree of regulation so that we could have decent provision on the main thoroughfare and provision elsewhere. I think I am right in saying that the term “traffic commissioner” was first created following the review in the 1920s, and those commissioners still exist to this day. As we progress through the Bill, we will see reference to the traffic commissioner, which is a historical overhang from the initial regulation of the bus network in the 1920s.
I return to abstraction. The argument goes that it would be unfair to provide a new service where the impact of that would be negative on existing services or on other factors in a local area. The Secretary of State’s argument—admittedly in the context of rail, but it is relevant to this argument—is that it would be unfair to provide such a new service, but I challenge that base assumption. The person who is being left out of that consideration is the passenger. New services provide new opportunities for the passenger. Yes, it is true that new services may act as de facto competition for existing service providers, but as we know from every other aspect of our lives, competition tends to improve performance.
Before I came into Parliament, I was a businessman running a consumer-facing company. I hated competition, and I did everything I could to stifle it, because I knew the impact it would have. I will not tell the Committee the things I used to do—I should think there would be a by-election—but the point is that existing providers hate competition, because they have got a comfy little operation, they know what their activities are, they know what their likely revenue will be, they know how they deal with their customers, and they do not like change.
When competition comes in, businesses are forced to sit up and say, “Oh my goodness! This is an existential threat to us as an operator. How are we going to respond?” Businesses in aggregate respond in a number of different ways. Some of them are nicer to their customers and improve their customer service to hang on to their customers and ensure they are not tempted across by the new provider. Others reduce their fares to attract custom. Then we get a price war, as we often read about in the press—we get price wars between Tesco and Asda, and Lidl and Aldi. Those who benefit are not the businesses but the customer, who gets either better customer service or lower prices. They certainly benefit from wider provision of opportunity, because they have two services available to them instead of one, and that puts the providers on their mettle.
My submission is that new provision of whatever description is inherently a good thing, even if there is an argument about abstraction from existing providers. I suppose it comes down to the core beliefs of Government Members as opposed to Conservative Members, who at heart—my heart, anyway—believe that competition and the challenge of a competitive market is a good thing. In the vast majority of cases—not always—it brings benefits to the customer and forces a focus on the end user rather than the supplier.
If I were to traduce Labour Members’ political opinions—perhaps I am putting words into their mouths—my criticism of the Labour party more widely and its approach to legislation as demonstrated in this clause is that its instinct is to support the supplier and the operator, rather than the customer, particularly in heavily unionised sectors. We touched on this point a little bit in our last sitting on Tuesday, when I was discussing the Bee Network in Greater Manchester and the decision on whether to increase the hourly rate for bus drivers.
At the time when the contract was being let, the commercial rate was £12.60 an hour. The Mayor for Greater Manchester insisted on an hourly rate for bus drivers of £16 an hour. I rehearsed the arguments both for and against. We can look at it in two ways—we can think it is a wonderful thing that bus drivers are being paid more, but it also means that bus services are considerably more expensive to provide in Greater Manchester than they are elsewhere in the country because salaries—wages—are more than 60% of the costs of running any bus operating business. That is the heart of it. Who are we after? Are we supporting the suppliers or are we supporting the customer—the passenger?
That brings me to amendments 46 to 50, standing in my name. Amendment 46 would have the effect of removing the requirement in section 123Q(5)(b) of the Transport Act that
“the proposed service will not have an adverse effect on any local service that is provided under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates.”
Given my preceding comments, we can see why this is so important. As it currently stands, we have a measure that prohibits the provision of a new service if that service were to have any adverse effect on pre-existing services under a local service contract in the area to which the scheme relates. That is a very low bar—it is almost a veto—for the provision of new services, because one can imagine that it is very easy to assert that the provision of a new service may draw customers away from one that is already being provided.
The amendment seeks to simplify the process for granting service permits. Demonstrating that a change will not have any adverse effect is an enormously high bar and is evidentially onerous. Removing section 123Q(5)(b) from the Transport Act, as the amendment would do, speaks to the Government’s desire to streamline the process and make it easier for the supply of new services, for innovation, and for new entrants to enter the market.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The shadow Minister raises an important point about competition and the customer being at the heart of bus services. Will he share with us why so many rural bus services have been cut, if the commercial operator is king and the focus is on customers? That is not the experience we feel in rural communities. We have had cut after cut.
Jerome Mayhew
That is an interesting point, and the hon. Member is of course quite right. I did preface my comments by saying that competition is beneficial in most areas, but there are some areas where it is not. The counter-argument is that, in this instance, this is about a new operator, which does not have to be a private sector operator, suggesting an additional service. This is not about cutting services. This is about where, for whatever reason, an analysis has been done that there is additional demand—this is not about cutting a service, but about providing an additional service.
The hon. Member is quite right to raise rural areas, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk has done through a number of his amendments. I represent a rural constituency myself in Norfolk. In bald terms, the rural service in Norfolk is not too bad as long as the destination is Norwich. We have a radial provision of bus services from outlying villages directly into Norwich. If someone wants to go across the county to anywhere other than Norwich on those lines, it is very difficult. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is right that if we look to only the passenger ride and the fare box to support usable and sufficiently frequent services, it is highly unlikely that a purely commercial approach will do it. That is why, in Norfolk and many other places, the innovation of an advanced partnership has worked so well.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
On my hon. Friend’s point about rural areas such as his constituency and my constituency on the Isle of Wight, it is difficult to move between towns. On the Isle of Wight, we have a radial system that makes it easy to get in and out of Newport, which sits in the middle of the island, but it is less easy to go anywhere else. I am at a slight loss as to how we get over that fundamental issue in bus franchising—this is geography, and the market for moving between villages is clearly smaller. I am concerned that the entire franchising model and, indeed, this clause are overselling a solution to a fundamental problem. If we are to get over that hurdle, it would ultimately require a lot of public money.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is no commercial case for large-scale, frequent bus services to every small rural community. I have certainly not come across such a case, even if one does exist. The solution—if there is a solution—will be one of a number of things. Under a franchising scheme, it would be open to a local transport authority to invest in and design a scheme that provides for frequent bus services to every rural community. It would be possible to do that, but it would be phenomenally expensive.
Already, one of the key criticisms of the Bill is that it has no money attached to it, so we are going to spend the next two and a half weeks virtue signalling about how wonderful franchising could be. It is not mandatory, and no one is actually going to do it—outside of the big mayoral authorities that are doing it anyway under the Bus Services Act 2017—because there is no money supporting the Bill. It would be incredibly expensive.
There is an alternative, hybrid solution: a combination of scheduled bus services on the key arterial routes from big villages into their major towns, such as from Norfolk going into Norwich, a rural hub-and-spoke system for the more remote villages, as suggested by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, and demand-responsive public provision.
On Tuesday, I described this as the “Uberfication” of public transport. It still is unlikely to make sense on a purely commercial basis, but it is the kind of focused provision of public sector transport that could work in a highly rural area where the aggregate cost would be less than the blind provision on frequent, full bus services to every community, which would be monumentally expensive.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Amendment 46 would remove the requirement for the service not to have an adverse effect on local services. Bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the impossibility of commercial viability for some rural services or non-radial routes in cities, is it correct that the amendment would allow commercial entities to come in and take away part of the market, even where a local transport authority had built up the potentially profitable part of a wider, well-planned public network? The requirement as it stands is intended to prevent commercial companies from parasitising on a market that has been built up with public money. The Minister is not proposing that it should be easier for commercial entities to come in and develop new markets where there is potentially pent-up demand in rural areas.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Lady is right that there is a risk of challenges in some areas, but in other areas there is the opportunity to increase provision for new markets. The difficulty is that the clause as drafted says that “any adverse effect” will be sufficient to prevent the application.
Amendment 47 would replace the word “may” with the word “must” in clause 7(2)—in reality, proposed new section 124Q(5A) of the Transport Act 2000—if a local transport authority is satisfied with the conditions of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b). In such circumstances, why should the local transport authority be given discretion to refuse to grant a cross-boundary permit? It will have accepted that there are no adverse effects; nevertheless, it is given discretion. The clause says that it “may” grant the application, but why? If someone wants to provide an additional service and the local transport authority has satisfied itself that there is no adverse impact, why would it say no?
That is the purpose behind amendment 47. If the applicant—it could be the municipal bus company, given that there is nothing to prevent it from doing this—has satisfied the local transport authority that there is no adverse impact, as set out in the conditions of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), why should the provider not, as a right, be able to create the service?
Siân Berry
I just want to give an example in which “may” is more appropriate. Proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) talk about a local service that is provided. If a local transport authority is building out a planned network and, in the very near future, a service will be introduced in an area, it may want to prevent disruption of the benefits of an integrated local service there by such an application. I believe it is very appropriate that “may” remains in the clause.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Lady is bending over backwards to think of hypothetical instances in which it is possible that something like that could exist. The fact remains that we must ask—this comes down to the philosophical difference between us, perhaps—whether we are looking after the passenger or the supplier. From my perspective, the Bill should have services for passengers squarely in its sights. If passengers will benefit from a new service, the local transport authority should allow it. After all, the aim of the Bill is to maximise general utility for the wider bus service. Amendment 47 would therefore prevent local authorities from sitting on their hands, as the hon. Lady suggests they might.
Amendment 48 goes one step further. If the previous two amendments were red meat to some members of this Committee, this one will send them over the top. It would scrap entirely the convoluted assessments about balancing benefits and adverse effects in proposed new subsections (5A)(a) and (b). The authority would simply take a view on the benefits for persons making journeys on the proposed service—what is wrong with that? If the service has benefits for customers, why should we not just go for it? It is a straightforward process where applicants are in the driving seat. The amendment would provide higher certainty for applicants and therefore encourage additional service providers.
I anticipate that hon. Members may say, “What about the web—the franchise service—that the local transport authority may be trying to design?” But I seek to remind them about the incentives of providers. Again, I speak as a former businessman. We sometimes forget something in this place. We make lots of rules and we deal with processes ad infinitum, and we think that everyone will be incredibly logical. We say, “Oh yes, they have to go through this process, then that process and the other one, and then the local authority may decide to help them or not.” That ignores the basic maxim of private enterprise, which is that time kills deals. If a process is convoluted by design, it is also, by design, time consuming, and therefore expensive and uncertain in its outcome.
Let us think of a potential service provider looking through these provisions. They would say, “I’ve jumped through the hoops of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), and I’ve demonstrated the evidential basis for this application,” but then there is the discretion at the end where the local authority may, for whatever reason, choose not to award the deal based on some plan for some date in the future that we have not even heard about. Is the provider even going to bother doing it in the first place? This is an important issue of practicality. Commercial organisations respond to incentives, and if we make something long-winded, expensive and complex, they are much less likely to bother doing it. They will employ their capital, their time and their creative energies elsewhere.
Joe Robertson
The more I hear the shadow Minister unpicking all these issues, the more it transpires that the whole franchising model that the Bill offers to local authorities is really rather unattractive. Particularly for smaller local authorities, it is complicated, and there is a huge risk that when the new service is implemented, despite the best of intentions, it will not run in the way that the local authority or commercial provider thought it would. All the while, the local authority—I am thinking in my case of the Isle of Wight council or the potential combined mayoral authority with Hampshire—is taking on that risk of things going wrong. The shadow Minister is getting to the heart of a fundamental problem with the Bill: it will not sort out bus services country-wide, particularly in rural areas. It is really just a model for the big cities.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is right. In broad terms, the Bill facilitates additional opportunities for local transport authorities, which is a good thing. As I have said, allowing franchising is in fact a Conservative concept. It goes back to the days of Mrs Thatcher, but more recently, the 2017 changes allowed franchising without consent for mayoral combined authorities. In fact, any local transport authority was allowed to apply for franchising operations, but with the safeguard that it required the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport, because of the huge commercial risks associated with franchising for local transport authorities, particularly smaller ones. That was an eminently sensible safeguard that I have spoken about previously, so now we have that risk.
Even if the local transport authority is capable of managing that risk, of developing the expertise to design these complex systems in-house, as is anticipated, and of starting a municipal bus company on top of designing the franchise operation, we cannot get away from the conclusion that is expensive. Whichever way it is designed, if it is going to improve services, it will be expensive.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the entire structure of combined authority devolution, particularly in Greater Manchester, which has pioneered much of this work, is about the earn-back or gainshare principle? Early public investment results in economic growth down the line, and higher business rates and tax revenue that then fund some of this work. In other words, in the end, it pays for itself.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that thoughtful intervention. In principle, the answer is yes, which is why we legislated in 2017 to allow that in principle and why we supported Greater Manchester through the implementation of the Bee Network. That happened under not Labour, but the Conservatives. However, it comes with financial risk. There needs to be clarity on where the costs are and an absolute, laser focus on minimising them, just like in any other business.
The hon. Member did not say that the forecast in the Bee Network’s business case, which enabled it to get the go-ahead, was for it to make a profit. I accept that there will be periods where it makes a profit and periods where it makes a loss, but it should break even overall. Over the forecast period, however, the plan was for it to make a profit of £94 million—that was how it was sold. For it to make a planned loss in 2025-26 of £226.3 million and change, given the huge cost overruns that I hinted at in Tuesday’s sitting, is a disaster. It makes me wonder where that has come from.
I remember the hon. Member watching with interest on Tuesday as I talked about the more than £17 million overrun on agency bus drivers, because the transport authority had failed to provide enough qualified drivers having misunderstood the nature of the TUPE regulations regarding their transfer from the previous operators to the franchise process. There was also the massive cost overrun on the purchase of bus depots because it was the only buyer in the market. There was an explosion in costs for the purchase orders for new buses, with a surcharge of £40,000 on every bus that Andy Burnham’s Greater Manchester combined authority buys because of the design requirements that he has put in, including bits of leather on the seats—we will not go into the detail of that.
If we are not absolutely laser-focused on the costs, that is what happens. The biggest overrun, which perhaps I should have led with, was the increase in wages. There has been an increase in unionised power—which arguably could be a good or bad thing—and an increase in hourly rates for bus drivers to £16 an hour, which is above the market rate. There are not just bus drivers in a bus company; there are all sorts of other roles as well.
I should also mention the failure to be efficient with the application of capital. In a private organisation, having bus washers is important, because having clean buses is part of the service and it affects the customer experience. Since the Bee Network has been in place, and the local transport authority purchased the depots, there has been a rather unfortunate occurrence whereby the bus cleaning mechanism—the washers—have been out of action for over a year.
The processes and the efficiency within the new structure have to date proved inadequate to get the funding to repair the washers, because that is capex rather than opex. I am assuming that is what the problem is—that it is an unplanned expense, so the authority has to go through the rigmarole of a public sector procurement process. No doubt it will get there in the end, but the consequence is that the bus depot is sending out buses that have not been cleaned for a year. Is that an improvement in service? No, it is not.
I say that not to denigrate franchising. Franchising can be done well—it is not a necessary consequence of bus franchising that there are dirty buses—but the evidence that we have at the moment is that even a really sophisticated operator such as Greater Manchester, with a mayoral combined authority and the financial resources, but without the experience of running buses, suffers very significant bumps along the road. That needs to be addressed. If that is happening in a large local transport authority, what is the likelihood of it happening in a small one—for example, in Norfolk county council in my neck of the woods? That is one of our problems with the Bill.
Going back to amendment 49, proposed new section 123Q(5B) of the Transport Act 2000 deals with intra-boundary services. I am applying the same logic as I did to amendment 47. Why should local transport authorities have the power to refuse to grant a service permit if they are satisfied that there are benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the area, or to persons living in that area, and that those benefits will outweigh any adverse effect on any existing local service?
All the amendment requires is for local authorities to act in the wider interests of consumers—the passengers. The proposed service might have an impact, but if we are satisfied that overall the net benefit is in the positive column and not the negative, why would we not agree to it? Let us think of the passenger—the consumer—rather than the supplier.
The amendment would be a particularly important safeguard if the local transport authority was also the owner of a municipal bus company, which was the supplier of the local services contract. There would then be an added layer of opacity in the process, because the contractor and contracted would be the same organisation. A challenger brand could then come and say that it wanted to provide additional services, and it could be assessed to be net beneficial to the economy or the people living in that area, nevertheless the local authority could refuse to grant a permit, even though it is the operator that would be adversely affected—let us imagine how that would look.
The temptation, of course, would be to say that the award was refused for wholly improper reasons: a circling of the wagons to protect one’s own. I hope that the whole Committee would agree that that would be an improper reason to deny additional access to the people living in the area, and/or to deny a benefit to the economy, yet there would be a strong temptation. If the authority has built its bus service network, and a little so-and-so comes in and demonstrates that it can go one step better, but that would have a negative impact on the authority’s cosy plans, people in the authority are going to think, “I don’t want to be troubled by this.”
Siân Berry
The shadow Minister was looking at me while making those points, and I agree that our parties have very different philosophies on this issue. The circumstances that he has just described as “cosy” relationships that are improper, are ones that I characterised earlier as public money being invested in building up a market that should not be parasitised. Those are, very clearly, different points of view, and I want to make sure that is on the record at the right time.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member is absolutely right that there is a fundamental difference of philosophy here. She appears to back what I described as the cosy relationship—but let us not use pejorative language; let us call it the mechanism of state supply. She thinks that that is more important than improving the experience of passengers in that location and/or improving the economy, because that is the hurdle that would have to be crossed for the change made by amendment 49 to take effect. I accept, acknowledge and celebrate that difference. As a Conservative, I stand up for the consumer—for the resident—in my constituency, not for the supplier of services, even if it is the state supplier. Those are the people who I represent, those are the services that I am trying to improve, and that is what amendment 49 would do.
The amendment would require the local authority to act in the wider interest of consumers, not that of its own suppliers. That is particularly important where the authority has skin in the game. If I am unsuccessful—as I have a sneaking suspicion that I might be—in persuading the majority of the members of the Committee to support amendment 49, we should at least expect transparency in any decision-making process where the decision taker, the local authority, is taking a decision that affects a municipal bus company owned by that authority. At the very least—as we will discuss in relation to other amendments—we should insist on absolute transparency in those commercial relationships, so that the disinfectant of sunlight can shine on the exact rationale for a commercial opportunity being refused.
Amendment 50, my final one in this group, goes one stage further. It would get rid of the complex “balance of benefits” argument entirely and replace it with a simple assessment of the application: will the proposed service have benefits for the economy of the area or persons living in the area? If yes, the licence would be granted. The impact would be similar to that of amendment 48: it would simplify the process and give agency to the applicant. If they could prove that their service would deliver benefit, the local authority would grant a service permit.
Mr Kohler
I will be more brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have two points to make. I suspect that many of the shadow Minister’s points could be drawn from Hansard 40 years ago when bus deregulation was introduced. The great flaw of bus deregulation was it allowed private providers to cherry-pick profitable routes, leaving local transport authorities no opportunity to cross-subsidise their loss-making routes. That prioritised not passengers, but private providers. I fear that all the amendments would achieve the same end; they would simply allow private providers to cherry-pick profitable routes—often built up by local transport authorities that put effort, time and public money into them—without any provision for the non-profitable routes.
I say to the shadow Minister that equating passengers with consumers oversimplifies the complex issue of rural connectivity, and ends up isolating rural communities. As he admitted, in many rural communities, market mechanisms will not work. These are simply unprofitable routes.
Jerome Mayhew
I fear that the hon. Member and I may agree more than he perhaps thinks. As I said, I accept that rural routes are unlikely to be profitable, but that does not mean they should not be provided. That is why I went on to talk about demand-sensitive transport, as well as to mention the suggestion from the hon. Member for North Norfolk about rural transport hubs. Those can be subsidised, either through an enhanced partnership or through a franchise process. I accept that they will not be part of a purely commercial result, but that is not what I was suggesting in the first place.
Mr Kohler
I heard the shadow Minister say that, and I understand it. However, there is a contradiction in his analysis. He admits that point, but constantly refers to consumers operating in profit-and-loss markets. He is making a very narrow equation, and I fear that allowing public providers in the way he wants would simply undermine the whole rationale behind what we—or the Government—are trying to do with the franchising process. It is too narrow and simply ends up completely undermining what we are trying to do.
Luke Myer
Is it not the case that these are, in fact, not private providers at all? Many are subsidised by other Governments around the world—we see this in our rail and bus networks. Other states are stepping in to make a profit where Conservative Governments have stepped back.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.
To refer to the general comments made by the shadow Minister, I am totally up for supporting things that put passengers first and are aligned to that purpose. I was regretful that the Committee disagreed to clause 1, on the inclusion of the overall purpose of the Bill, in our previous sitting.
The shadow Minister gave a long and wide-ranging speech; I was disappointed that it did not extend to his own personal tactics for rope sabotage, given the provenance of his business background—but perhaps that is for a future hearing. I will leave the Minister to respond to the issues of the words “outweigh” and “persons”, because I feel that it is his Bill to defend, but I do not fear the potential to refuse to the same extent as the shadow Minister.
Let us get back to what we are substantially talking about here, which is the cross-border issue. From my perspective—my constituency and that of the shadow Minister share many geographic characteristics—the whole point is that, however it is looked at, bus transport, even in urban areas, does not make a profit. Franchising is a welcome model because it allows the state, which is funding the operations, to contract to the providers who are going to deliver the service most efficiently and effectively. I do not see room for the entrepreneurial business model and profiteering that the shadow Minister refers to.
Jerome Mayhew
The risk of the franchising model, as we are already seeing in Greater Manchester, is that the size of the contract determines the amount of profit. Although the profit percentage is reduced, it is applied to the full size of the contract. Ironically, there is no incentive for the operator to reduce costs—for example, by pushing down wages—because wages are paid as agreed under the contract, and then the operator receives the 3% or 4% on top of that. My concern is that, as currently evidenced in Greater Manchester, we are seeing costs rise despite services being operated by private sector companies.
Steff Aquarone
The shadow Minister makes a valid point, as is always the case, but it takes us into the philosophical domain again. I gently point out that there are other perfectly profitable industries where the cost-plus model is the industry norm, and where it is possible for investors to make a return.
Nevertheless, to bring us back down to earth, I want to mention a couple of scenarios. One is from my own experience—in fact, from the shadow Minister’s constituency, which I travelled through growing up, where we had two providers leapfrogging each other from Aylsham to Norwich on commuter journeys. It was literally the same service, but if someone happened to get on the wrong bus, they could not get the same route back on the other operator. That is a fine example of why it would be appropriate to refuse a cross-border permit.
Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) sent me an example:
“We also have an issue of cross-county boundary bus routes. For example it takes maximum 10 minutes to drive from Malmesbury (Wiltshire) to Tetbury (Gloucestershire) but up to 2 hours on the bus as there is a huge diversion to another big town and then on to Tetbury through the small villages”.
These measures are about the practicalities of cross-border permits. With more rural areas likely to enter into combined mayoral authority arrangements, that will reduce the need for cross-border permits. Although I am grateful to the shadow Minister, I do not see the equivalence with open access in rail. This is, to me, what validates the franchising model overall, as well as providing for necessary moderation in common-sense, cross-border issues.
Joe Robertson
It may be tempting to think that the shadow Minister was particularly detailed, lengthy and comprehensive in his earlier contribution, but from where I was sitting, he was all too brief. There were a great range of issues that he failed to address, and I feel it is my role to address them.
Before that, I will agree with what the hon. Member for North Norfolk said about different companies providing services to similar or the same destinations, where using one service in one direction means that another service in the other direction cannot be used. Unfortunately, the Government are currently unpersuaded that that is a problem for ferry services to the Isle of Wight, which is a shame, given that the Government—I agree with them on this—are reforming public transport. I will, however, save that debate for another time.
It was good to hear some genuine philosophical disagreement between the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. I am sure that the hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of members of the public listening to this Bill Committee will have noticed that it was done in a polite and respectful way. I think the shadow Minister almost went too far at one stage, and I was nudging the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to intervene—even though she is a Green MP and I am a Conservative—because I think she missed an opportunity to fight back, but maybe she will in a later sitting.
I will make a few brief points on the principle, but they are anchored in amendments 46 and 50. They concern the idea that assessing whether a new proposed service will have an adverse effect on a current local service is slightly academic, contested and possibly futile, especially if we add in the possibility that, although the analysis and conclusion may have been done in good faith, they will not translate when a service is brought into effect and the market is tested.
I therefore completely support the shadow Minister’s amendments seeking to get rid of the analysis of an adverse effect. It is entirely possible that an element of the service could be adversely affected by the introduction of a new service. To some people, that is a net gain; to others, it is a net loss. Who is to say which of those competing groups is more important than the other?
I have a completely hypothetical example. The local economy of my constituency is heavily reliant on tourism, but people also use buses to get to work and my older constituents rely on them for their daily movements, such as going shopping, visiting friends or going to appointments, including at the hospital. We could end up with a bus franchising proposal that has a net positive effect on moving visitors around between the key tourist areas. That may have an overall positive effect on the economy—on paper and maybe in reality—and that effect may trickle down and raise the prosperity of the whole area. However, that proposal could also have a negative effect on the older population, who need bus services to move around year in, year out. They do not need to travel to the key hotspots that drive the tourist economy, but to GP practices and shopping areas, and not tourist shopping areas but those that provide essential goods for residents, particularly older residents.
That example poses a very legitimate question: is it more important to provide a service that leads to a general raising of the economy and wellbeing by improving tourism, which some might say has a trickle-down effect on everyone, including older residents, or is it better to protect people who are more vulnerable and who have fewer opportunities, if any, to use a different mode of transport? People could come to fair but different conclusions about that.
Whether a proposed new service will have an adverse effect on a local service is an unanswerable question, and it cannot be fitted into an assessment. If an assessment can be made at all, it will be entirely reliant on subjective, statist, planned, expert-led analysis. One can only hope that a conclusion drawn from that analysis would translate into the real world and be correct, but it is entirely possible that it would not.
Amanda Hack
The hon. Gentleman’s analogy ignores the passenger transport strategies that local government should already be undertaking, and the fact that local government already does a large piece of work to make sure that those strategies are relevant to the local economy. The Bill gives local government the opportunity to get the funding—that has not been mentioned—to start making bus services feel like what the local population and economy actually need.
Joe Robertson
I agree with the hon. Lady, but of course, it is more complex than that. Obviously, a local strategy will and should sit at the heart of any decision making, but there are great challenges in assessing whether a new service is fundamentally having an adverse effect on an existing service. Even approaching it in that way slightly negates the idea of holistic planning—rather than considering whether a new service conflicts with an existing service, we should be treating them both as one service.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Thursday 26th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 June 2025 - (26 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 7, page 3, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 48, in clause 7, page 3, line 27, leave out from “there” to end of line 34 and insert—
“is a benefit to persons making journeys on the proposed service.”
Amendment 49, in clause 7, page 3, line 36, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 3, line 37, leave out from “that” to “will” and insert—
“the proposed service has benefits to the economy of the area to which the scheme relates, or to persons living in that area,”.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond.
The Bill recognises that commercial operators can play a key role in providing commercial services that complement franchising schemes and add value to the overall bus offer for local transport users. That includes cross-boundary services, which provide crucial links between communities. That is why we are legislating to introduce new tests that franchising authorities can use in determining whether to grant service permits. The tests allow authorities to consider a much wider range of benefits that services proposed by commercial operators could provide. The new tests will also allow authorities to tolerate some adverse effects to franchised services if they are outweighed by the benefits. Overall, franchising authorities will have greater scope to grant service permits and harness the additionality of the market in delivering great bus networks.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham would, however, undo many of the improvements we are making, and undermine the service permit regime as well as local transport authorities’ ability to franchise. The amendments would largely remove franchising authorities’ ability to even consider whether a commercial service would have an adverse effect on franchised services, while compelling them to grant service permits in the vast majority of cases. In practice, that would mean that commercial services could compete directly with franchised services, undermining the service finances and goals, and ultimately making franchising unworkable.
In direct response to the hon. Member’s comments, the Bill gives greater scope for authorities to grant these additional services. However, as he acknowledged, it cannot be a free-for-all, which is what the amendment would in effect cause. We understand that in Greater Manchester the vast majority of service permits have been granted under the existing test, and the Bill’s measure will allow franchising authorities even more flexibility to grant service permits with applications from operators or in the interest of passengers and local people.
Addressing the claim of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East that franchising is unattractive to smaller rural local transport authorities, the Bill aims to give local leaders greater flexibility to determine how best to plan and deliver bus services to meet the needs of local transport users. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Consideration has been given to rural modes of franchising, and there are plans to pilot models better suited to rural areas, as I have touched on in the past.
While it is for local transport authorities to decide the best option to manage their services, franchising can be an attractive option in a rural setting. It can be used to support a fully integrated network, combining core franchise routes with commercial services operating under a service permit awarded by the authority, ensuring strong branch connections to main corridors.
Simon Lightwood
I am going to try and make some progress. We have spent a significant amount of time on this.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham once again raised Manchester’s experience with bus franchising. He again quoted figures on the cost of franchising in Manchester. On the first day of the Committee I explained that the figures referred to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network. The adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester has resulted in little additional cost, and evidence to date shows that the model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.
Another franchising model in Jersey encourages both operators and local transport authorities to reinvest into the bus network. The operator keeps fare revenue, and profits that go over a certain set limit are shared between the LTA and the operator. Money is then reinvested by the LTA to improve services. The model adds flexibility and actually supports innovation and draws on the experience of the operator. This model has been tested in other areas through our franchising pilot programme.
The Bill makes some limited changes to the role of traffic commissioners in England, including changing the default position for the registration of services operating under the service permits within a franchised area. The traffic commissioner will also have powers to act against operators who breach the Bill’s mandatory training requirements; we will come on to that later in the Committee’s debates.
The presence of traffic commissioners across the regions and countries of Great Britain means that they are well placed to make decisions about the operation of bus services in different places. The responsibility of traffic commissioners extends beyond buses. To mention just a couple, it includes the licensing of operators of heavy goods vehicles and other service vehicles, and the granting of vocational licences. These responsibilities clearly extend beyond the Bill’s purpose; this Bill is not the place for a wider debate on the role of traffic commissioners.
I reiterate that passengers are at the very centre of this Government’s bus reform agenda. This is about delivering better buses, and people taking the bus more because they offer better connections and are reliable, safe, affordable and integrated into the transport network. Given that, I would ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to press his amendments.
Government amendments 4 and 5, tabled in my name, are intended to provide clarity on the type of services considered “cross-boundary” under clause 7. This means that any service that has at least one stop in an area with a franchising scheme, and at least one stop outside of the franchised area, will be considered a cross-boundary service. This change is logical, simplifies matters for franchising authorities and operators, and will ensure that the benefits of cross-boundary services to multiple communities can be considered, regardless of where the service starts and ends.
Clause 7 gives local authorities greater flexibility in how they access service permit applications from operators. These permits allow bus operators to run services into, or within, a franchised area on a commercial basis, rather than as a franchised service. The Bill introduces new tests that local authorities can use when deciding whether to approve a service permit. These tests allow them to consider a wider range of factors, such as whether the proposed service would benefit passengers outside the franchised area in the case of cross-boundary services.
It is important that franchising authorities are able to benefit from the opportunities that the commercial sector can provide in franchising areas, including for cross-border services, which are those serving a franchising area and nearby areas. These services are important, as the bus journeys that passengers want to make are not necessarily defined by scheme boundaries. This measure aims to give franchising authorities greater flexibility to provide better overall outcomes for passengers.
Clause 8 reapplies the requirement for bus services operating under a service permit in a franchised area to register their routes and timetables with the traffic commissioner. For cross-boundary services, the section of the route outside the franchised area already needs to be registered. The Bill clarifies that the part inside the franchised area also needs to be registered. This keeps the requirements consistent and easier for bus operators to follow.
In addition to the registration requirements, cross-boundary services and any services operated, under permit, wholly within the franchised area, such as sightseeing tours, must also still comply with the conditions of their service permit. This lets franchising authorities maintain control through existing regulations. However, the Bill also gives franchising authorities the power to exempt certain services from registration inside the franchised area if they would prefer to manage them solely through the service permit. Overall, these changes provide clearer rules for operators and authorities, and greater flexibility for authorities, helping to improve service delivery for passengers.
Clause 9 automatically exempts temporary rail and tram replacement services from the requirement to obtain a service permit when operating within a franchised area. As I am sure Members will understand, these services often need to be introduced quickly and to adapt to changing circumstances, so flexibility is essential. By removing the permit requirement, this measure reduces administrative burdens and saves both operators and franchising authorities the time and costs associated with applying for and issuing permits.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is jolly nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. As I spoke to the amendment before lunch, it falls to me now only to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
As amendments 49 and 50 are almost identical to the previous amendments, my discretion is not to proceed to a vote.
Amendments made: 4, in clause 7, page 4, line 10, leave out “but” and insert “and”.
This amendment and Amendment 5 widen the category of services that are capable of being cross-boundary services.
Amendment 5, in clause 7, page 4, line 11, leave out
“begins or ends, or begins and ends,”
and insert
“has one or more stopping places”.—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment and Amendment 4 widen the category of services that are capable of being cross-boundary services.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Report on assessment of proposed scheme
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 10, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).
(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’;
(A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert—
‘, and
(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.
(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—
(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and
(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’
(A4) After subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’”
This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 59, in clause 10, page 6, line 37, at end insert—
“(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000.
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead.
Clause stand part.
Clause 11 stand part.
Government new clause 4—Miscellaneous amendments.
New clause 15—Franchising scheme: restriction—
“Where a franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, prepare an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme under section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 but fail, for any reason, to make and publish a scheme under section 123H of the Transport Act 2000, they must not initiate another franchising assessment for the same area, or a substantially similar area, for a period of five years from the date on which the assessment was prepared.”
This new clause prevents franchising authorities from repeatedly conducting franchising assessments for the same or substantially similar areas within a five-year period if they do not proceed to make and publish a franchising scheme.
New clause 36—Franchising assessments to consider integration of public transport—
“In section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme), at the end of subsection (3) insert—
‘(g) how the proposed scheme will allow for or facilitate integration across modes of public transport.’”
This new clause would require an assessment of a franchising scheme to include an assessment of the impact on integrated transport.
Mr Kohler
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. While I am broadly supportive of much of the Bill, we must not lose sight of the fundamental challenge—the lack of sufficient funding and expertise in local authorities to fully take advantage of the powers that it provides.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak to my new clause 36, but I will first touch briefly on my concerns about new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham.
I can see the case that the hon. Member and his colleagues are trying to make about the importance of periods of stability for bus operators. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon says, the timeframe proposed does not strike the right balance. Five years would be longer than the term of a metro mayor or local authority, meaning that the bad work of a previous mayor or administration could tie the hands of their successor and, most importantly, could leave residents stuck with the same problems for half a decade. Given the timeframes at play, I think a better compromise could be found. It would be bad news for democratic accountability if a previous administration’s botch job—or even intentional mismanagement, perish the thought—of a franchising assessment could prevent its newly elected successor for taking action over the entire course of its term.
I also have concerns about the impact of local government reorganisation under the current drafting of the new clause. It says that
“the same area, or a substantially similar area”
could be covered by a whole new authority or administration within the timeframe, where a franchising assessment is prevented. That means that a body that has been wholly abolished could leave its successors hamstrung.
I appreciate the intention behind the clause, and I am grateful to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham and his team for raising the concerns of the industry about the timeframes. However, I wonder whether a compromise could be found on Report that better balances operators’ concerns with democratic accountability.
My new clause 36 would make a very simple addition to the assessments for franchising schemes, ensuring that we look into how a new scheme can lead to better integration for different modes of transport. People feel that there is a lack of joined-up thinking between our bus and train networks in many rural areas. Arguably, that is down to the current set-up, with two private companies responsible for services but under no requirement to consult or collaborate on delivering more linked-up services.
Joe Robertson
I take the hon. Member’s point about joining up buses and trains. As I am on the Committee, might he also include ferries in that analysis?
Steff Aquarone
I thank the hon. Member for his astute point. I would be glad to include ferries. After all, the new clause proposes better-integrated transport across all modes and modalities. We do not have any ferries other than river-crossing ferries in my constituency.
My constituents have found the issue of lack of co-ordination so frustrating that they have carried out research into it themselves; I thank David and James for furnishing me with the statistics. The first bus to arrive misses the first train of the day from Sheringham by a mere six minutes. For those who are not familiar with the Bittern line, it does not quite have central London regularity, which means that it is roughly an hour until the next possible train arrives. At other points during the day, there is either a 45-minute wait or hoping for a delay so that the bus arrives before the train departs.
A more joined-up approach would benefit both bus operators and train companies, allowing seamless integration of travel and reducing the miles in the journey to be carried out by car. My new clause would add to the franchising assessment the ability to see how franchising could make that transport integration a reality.
I do not think that franchising is a silver bullet to create integrated transport, which is why we will later consider an amendment that I have tabled that would add the enhanced partnership model. However, while we are expanding how franchising works, it would be remiss of us not to add common-sense thinking about integrated transport for those who are embarking on franchising for the first time.
I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said about amendment 57. We have got to fund it, too.
Jerome Mayhew
I will start with clause 10, to which explicit reference has not yet been made, and under which section 123D of the Transport Act 2000, which refers to auditing, is to be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8). Subsection (2) sets out that a franchising authority may not proceed with a proposed franchising scheme unless it has obtained a report from an “approved person” on the assessment of the proposed scheme.
The approved person—this is important—will replace the requirement to obtain a report from an auditor. We read, under the new drafting, that the approved person must be independent, but based on that drafting we have no idea what other qualities the approved person may or may not have.
Subsection (3)(c) requires the report to state whether the information relied on in the authority’s or authorities’ assessment is of sufficient quality for the purposes of the subsections, which I will not go into. Subsection (4) will replace section 123D(3); it states that the Secretary of State must issue guidance as to when it is appropriate to appoint an approved person and what the franchising authority needs to take into account when selecting an approved person, including in relation to whether a person is independent. Subsection (7) sets out that an approved person means a person specified in regulations by the Secretary of State.
That raises the question whether the local transport authorities have the technical know-how and/or financial competence to create and then run these franchises. That is the big question that we have been debating backwards and forwards over the past few days. We know that they are expensive; we know that they are complex. I will not rehash arguments that I have made already, which we can take as read. We know that it is crucial that any plans be fully developed, properly costed, stress-tested for viability and generally fit for purpose before we press go on an entirely new system.
The requirements of clause 10 are important in facilitating that stress testing. On the face of it, the clause appears to water down the independent oversight, particularly on financial management. One of the core risks of franchising, as we have discussed, is the transfer of commercial risk from the operator to the local authority. That is a very significant change—one of the most significant changes.
Here we are, having a report on the plans: we no longer need an auditor who is financially qualified. Instead, we have an approved person. It could be an auditor, but we just do not know. The only qualification that we are told the approved person will have is their independence. That is a good thing, but subsection (7) writes a blank cheque to Ministers:
“‘approved person’ means a person specified…in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
We have not seen those regulations; I assume that they have not yet even been drafted. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the point. What specifications will he seek to put into the regulations?
If the Government want the Committee to vote in favour of substituting an approved person for an auditor, it behoves the Minister to tell us the kind of people who would qualify as an approved person, beyond their mere independence. I look forward to his detailed response, so that members of the Committee can feel satisfied that we are discharging their duty properly by understanding at least the direction of travel of the regulations.
I want to know what qualities, qualifications or expertise will be required. I question why the term is not defined in the Bill, but instead left to future regulations. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to sit down now and decide what kind of person we wish an approved person to be. It is not dependent on future information becoming available. It seems to be slightly sloppy drafting to define a term in reference to a future regulation—that is no definition at all.
Simon Lightwood
I will start with amendment 57, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk, which would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central Government funding to support the provision of bus services under franchised schemes. Under the Transport Act 2000, franchising authorities are already required to undertake a rigorous assessment to determine whether bus franchising is feasible, affordable, and deliverable in their area. The franchising assessment and the independent assurance report must then be published alongside the franchising consultation, ensuring transparency regarding the local transport authority’s decision. That comprehensive planning and assurance process significantly reduces the likelihood of needing central Government oversight and intervention, making the amendment unnecessary.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked for an update on my Department’s engagement with relevant stakeholders to identify approved persons. Bodies in the accountancy sector could include the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. To identify who else may qualify as an approved person, the Department intends to hold discussions with other stakeholders, including the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and industry bodies such as the Confederation of Passenger Transport.
My Department will also look at whether those with senior and extensive experience in either the bus sector or local government could provide assurance. Guidance will be provided to franchising authorities, setting out considerations to be taken into account when selecting an independent approved person. The reason why the clause is subject to future regulations is that qualifications will change over time, so it is right to have the flexibility to respond to those changes.
The core principle underpinning the Bill is that decisions should be made at the most appropriate level, specifically by devolving to local transport authorities the power to manage bus services within their area. The amendment would undermine the intention of the Bill. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will withdraw it.
Amendment 59, also tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk, is a probing amendment on whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the approved person role within three months of Royal Assent. The Department intends to introduce secondary legislation defining “approved person” alongside updated bus franchising guidance to facilitate implementation of the new measures. That work cannot be completed within three months of Royal Assent, as it requires thorough engagement with the sector and the progression of a statutory instrument. The existing legislation will remain in force until secondary legislation is delivered; I hope that gives some reassurance. The Bill gives franchising authorities significant flexibility to specify services in ways that are tuned to the needs of local bus users. More detail on how franchising authorities can use that flexibility will be set out in guidance.
The purpose of clause 10 is to broaden the pool of persons able to conduct assurance reports of proposed franchising schemes. Under current legislation, authorities that have developed an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme must obtain an independent assurance report that looks at whether the assessment has been developed with robust financial and economic information and whether the analysis is sufficient. However, the requirement that the report be conducted by an “auditor” has meant that very few people are willing and able to carry out that assurance.
The clause seeks to remove the bottleneck and make the franchising process quicker and less costly and, by enabling expertise to be brought in from the wider industry, increase the quality of the independent review. It will also give a franchising authority more flexibility to decide when to appoint an independent assessor, allowing the assessor to provide informal feedback to the authority much earlier in the assessment process, potentially saving both time and money. The Department intends to set out further qualifications and experience in secondary legislation, which will enable a greater number of professionals to undertake assurance and remove the bottleneck that currently exists.
Clause 11 requires franchising authorities to consult disabled bus users, prospective users or representative organisations before making a franchising scheme.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am really heartened by clause 11 and I welcome it. I am sure the Minister agrees that consulting people who live with disabilities is vital for any future public transport service. Even with the best of intent, one cannot plan accessible services without understanding the lived experience of disabled users and the associated infrastructure.
Simon Lightwood
I completely agree.
The clause is intended to ensure that local transport authorities understand the perspective of disabled people and make franchising schemes that are better informed by the priorities of disabled passengers and take account of their needs more effectively. The clause sits alongside the schedule, which will introduce similar consultation requirements when authorities vary existing franchising schemes.
Government new clause 4 first corrects an issue in the Transport Act 2000. The Act currently states that when preparing a franchising assessment, authorities must consider the local transport plans of any neighbouring Scottish councils, which is unnecessary because Scottish councils do not have local transport plans. The new clause addresses the matter, while maintaining a requirement for franchising authorities to consider bus-related policies adopted by councils in Scotland. It will also require franchising authorities to consider whether a proposed franchising scheme would support the implementation of bus-related policies adopted by neighbouring Scottish transport partnerships, and require franchising authorities to consult Welsh Ministers and Scottish transport partnerships, where appropriate, as part of a consultation on establishing a franchising scheme. Finally, the new clause makes a technical change to define the term “council in Scotland” for the purposes of part 2 of the Transport Act 2000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 7 to 16.
The schedule.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 12, alongside the schedule to the Bill, sets out new, bespoke variation procedures for authorities to follow when they wish to make changes to a franchising scheme. The procedures are clear and simple, to address the difficulties that franchising authorities have faced in interpreting existing legislation. They are also streamlined to enable franchising authorities to make minor changes in a more nimble way, balancing appropriate levels of consultation and transparency. This measure will reduce costs and timescales for franchising authorities in meeting the needs of local bus users.
Government amendments 7 to 10 to the schedule relate to the procedure for varying franchising schemes. Amendments 7 to 9 would have the effect of confirming that the requirements to consider the local transport plans of neighbouring authorities apply only where an authority is required to have such a plan. Scottish authorities are not required to have local transport plans. The amendments, however, clarify that a franchising authority must consider whether expanding the area of their franchising scheme would support the implementation of any other bus-related plans and policies adopted by Scottish councils. Amendment 10 will ensure that franchising authorities consider Scottish transport partnerships’ transport policies when assessing a variation to a franchising scheme, where relevant.
Government amendments 11 to 16 also amend the schedule and will require franchising authorities to consult with Welsh Ministers and Scottish transport partnerships before varying a franchising scheme that would affect them. In the case of Wales, that is in addition to the requirement already in the Bill for Welsh local transport authorities to be consulted, where relevant. It is also appropriate to consult Welsh Ministers in the light of the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill, which is before the Senedd. The amendments future-proof the Bill, given the Welsh Government’s ambitions to franchise their entire bus network.
The schedule sets out the detailed procedures for varying an existing franchising scheme. There are separate procedures for variations to extend the geographical area of a scheme, reduce the area of a scheme, and other types of variation. There are three parts to the schedule, setting out the specifics of the different procedures, depending on whether a variation is expanding or reducing a scheme.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 12 amends the Transport Act 2000 to set out the new process for varying a franchise scheme. In particular, subsection (2)(b) removes the minimum notice period of six months before a variation can come into effect. I will not seek to divide the Committee on this, but what assessment has been undertaken of the impact of a reduced notification period on service providers? What confidence can the Minister give current service providers that the impact will be minimised? What was the original rationale for the six-month delay, and what has changed to remove the need?
Government amendments 7 to 10 are sensible clarifications to ensure that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act applies only where such policies are mandatory. I fully agree with them. Government amendments 11 to 16 tidy up the requirement for consultation with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, where a proposed franchising scheme under amendments 11 and 12, or a variation of an existing scheme under amendments 13 to 16, would affect the devolved area. Again, that is a sensible clarification that needs no further elaboration.
Simon Lightwood
I have already explained our position.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
Procedure for varying franchising scheme
Amendments made: 7, in the schedule, page 44, line 29, leave out
“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 8 and Amendment 9, ensures that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 applies only where authorities are required to have such policies.
Amendment 8, in the schedule, page 44, line 30, before “those” insert
“by neighbouring local transport authorities of”.
See the statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 9, in the schedule, page 44, line 31, before “other” insert
“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.
See the statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 10, in the schedule, page 45, line 14, at end insert—
“(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consider the policies of a neighbouring Scottish Transport Partnership when assessing a proposed variation of a franchising scheme.
Amendment 11, in the schedule, page 46, line 39, at end insert—
“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.
This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.
Amendment 12, in the schedule, page 47, line 13, at end insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.
This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.
Amendment 13, in the schedule, page 49, line 22, at end insert—
“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.
This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.
Amendment 14, in the schedule, page 49, line 38, at end insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.
This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme area where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.
Amendment 15, in the schedule, page 51, line 11, at end insert—
“(ai) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation;”.
This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.
Amendment 16, in the schedule, page 51, line 39, at end insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13
Direct award of contracts to incumbent operators
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 13, page 8, line 5, after “operators” insert—
“or local government bus companies”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 35, 36 and 37, would mean that franchising authorities may directly award public services contracts to local government bus companies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 72, in clause 13, page 8, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) either the contract is a local service contract in relation to a franchising scheme, or
(b) the contract is awarded to a local authority bus company.”
Amendment 35, in clause 13, page 8, line 12, after “operator” insert—
“who is a local government bus company or”.
Amendment 36, in clause 13, page 8, line 27, after “operator” insert—
“or local government bus company”.
Amendment 37, in clause 13, page 8, line 37, after “regulation,” insert—
“‘local government bus company’ has the meaning given in section 22 of the Bus Services (Amendment 2) Act 2025 and”.
Clause stand part.
Siân Berry
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond. I am delighted to present a number of amendments to clause 13. The clause should be in the Bill; I can clearly see why we would want to directly award a contract to an incumbent to keep an existing contract going. This seems to me to be the ideal place to insert the opportunity to make a direct award to a local government bus company, the new type of body set out in clause 22—I believe that would be a really good move.
I have tabled several amendments to add the words “or a local government bus company” in order to make the whole thing make sense. Amendment 34 would add “local government bus companies” to the title of the proposed new regulation in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023; amendment 35 would add the choice of a “local government bus company” to the direct award options; amendment 36 would add the name of the local government bus company to the information required; and amendment 37 would add reference to the definition of a local government bus company as set out in clause 22.
We need these changes to help make integrated local transport planning simpler and less bureaucratic. There are many examples of hugely successful publicly owned bus companies across the UK, including Lothian Buses and Reading Buses. The publicly owned Nottingham City Transport bus service is consistently ranked one of the best in the country.
Councils operate very differently from the wider market. They have strict budgetary restrictions and costly rules of commissioning. That means that, without explicitly making it easier for local authorities to take advantage of the new powers in the Bill, we might just be going through the motions. These changes are necessary in order to really incentivise local authorities to get involved in providing transport, not just in planning for it. To have real weight, the Bill must make it easier for local councils to make direct awards. That would mean that they could transform local services more efficiently for the passengers who need them, which would be of real public benefit.
The tools for local authorities to do this actually already exist in secondary legislation. Regulation 13 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations states:
“(1) A competent local authority or a group of authorities providing integrated public passenger transport services may—
…(b) award a public service contract directly to an internal operator.”
If we made these amendments to the Bill, I believe that the wording in the regulations would automatically change to include the terminology “a local government bus company”.
I would really like the Government to consider making the amendments, or to take up the point in some other way. In order to plan and deliver local public transport, councils and local transport authorities must be able to act in this way. We should not simply rely on the existing regulations; we should state the powers explicitly in the Bill.
Amendment 72 is not in my name, but I note that it covers much the same ground.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 13 amends the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 to allow franchising authorities to make a direct award for the first local service contract under a franchising scheme to the “incumbent operator”—that is the important phrasing. The intention, as I read it, is to allow for a smooth transfer of operations to the new scheme, where the qualifying conditions are met. Proposed new regulations 16A(1)(a) and (b) specify that the award must be of a local service contract within the franchising scheme and where no local services are currently provided. Proposed new regulation 16A(1)(c) sets out that the operator must have provided the same or similar services for at least three months prior to the new contract.
I acknowledge the objectives of the clause, but I am concerned that it raises more issue than it addresses. The approach could look like a cosy agreement, which is a theme that I have addressed a couple of times today. Where we are awarding a further contract to an existing contractor, without going to market or tendering more widely, there is a perception, if not a reality, of a cosy agreement. It cuts out competition and favours one operator over the others, and it is not just for a short period; it is for a period of up to five years, as set out in clause 13(3).
The likelihood of a challenge from other bus operators in the area, who are angry about being excluded, may well be quite high, yet proposed new regulation 16A(2) requires the local transport authority to publish information relating to the contract only within six months of granting the direct award. We therefore have a transfer that may look like a sweetheart deal between the local transport authority and the existing service provider, which may be the municipal bus company but could equally be a private provider, while the judicial review, which is the mechanism by which an external aggrieved party can challenge that decision, has an application deadline of three months—12 weeks. Under the clause, the requirement to publish the information on which that judicial review could be based falls fully three months after the judicial review deadline, so there is a problem with the timings set out in the Bill.
What is the point of publishing the information in subsection (3) six months after the date of the award? Other operators cannot go to judicial review, because the deadline has already passed, so what use is it and to whom? I have a simple question for the Minister. What process should operators follow to challenge a sweetheart deal, as they obviously should be able to do? If the information is six months’ old, it cannot be through judicial review, because they will not have been provided with the information before the three-month deadline.
What process do the Government recommend that operators should follow, and what information will be available to them? What is the reason for such a long delay in providing information? The information is there from day one, because the local authority and the existing provider will have signed a contract, so all that needs to be done is publish it. What governance provisions will be in place to guard against improper preference, because it may well feel like that has been involved to excluded competitors looking in from the outside? They need to have extra special confidence that there is sufficient governance in place to guard against that, especially if the provider is a municipal bus company, for the obvious reason that they have skin in the game—I will not rehearse that argument.
Amendment 72, tabled by the Green party, would have an effect similar to amendments 34 to 37 by removing the ability to grant a contract to a private operator working outside a franchising scheme—for example, in an enhanced partnership.
Jerome Mayhew
I am so sorry—it is in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald).
I will therefore address amendments 34 to 37, which would allow for a direct award to local government bus companies. I fully understand the rationale behind the Bill, but looking at clause 13, I do not think that that award is excluded by the current drafting, because the term of art is “operator”, and a public bus company could be an operator.
Siân Berry
For clarity, the intention behind my amendments is not to allow for incumbent operators that are local government bus companies to be added to the Bill; it is to ensure, completely separately, that any local bus company at any time, or an incumbent operator, can be given a direct award.
Jerome Mayhew
That was absolutely not clear from the drafting, and I do not feel able to support such opaque drafting. It would not be right to slip in five words and change the whole meaning of the clause. Perhaps it would be better to draft a new clause; I suspect the hon. Lady has time to do so before the end of the Bill’s consideration.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 34 to 37, but the Bill already enables the direct award of franchising contracts to local authority bus companies.
Clause 13 allows for the direct award of franchising contracts to incumbent operators under specific conditions that are set out in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. It would reduce transitional risks for local government authorities and operators when moving to a franchised network. It applies equally to private operators and LABCos. If a LABCo is an incumbent operator, it could absolutely be directly awarded a franchised contract under the clause, as could a private operator, if that was desired by the franchising authority. Clause 13, therefore, already allows franchising authorities to direct awards to LABCos.
Amendment 35 would allow a franchising authority to direct awards to a LABCo that is not an incumbent operator. For good reasons, clause 13 includes a restriction on direct awards to incumbent operators—that is, that any operator providing local services in an area immediately before a franchising scheme is made has been doing so for at least the three months prior. Those reasons include providing a stable and controlled contractual environment for staff and assets during a transition, while providing continuity of services to passengers. It also means that operators are established in, and familiar with, the area. That greater operational knowledge will help to drive more effective long-term procurement of competitive franchise contracts through data collection and sharing.
Those benefits are most likely to be achieved by franchising authorities working in areas with operators that have an established and reliable presence in the network and with whom they have established effective working relationships. I therefore hope the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will withdraw her amendment. Clause 13 already provides most of the powers she seeks, and keeping the incumbent element is an important part of ensuring some of the core benefits of the measure.
Siân Berry
I very much appreciate that my amendments would do different things from clause 13, and I also appreciate that the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 provide the ability to make a direct award to an internal operator at other times. However, I worry that if we do not make sure that we have that ability in primary legislation—I cannot find it elsewhere in the Bill—there is a risk that private companies will issue legal challenges against direct awards. That is the key thing that I would like the Government to address, potentially in a different clause.
Simon Lightwood
I simply do not feel that that is necessary. The way in which it is set out is clear enough.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East for tabling amendment 72. Clause 13 allows for the direct award of initial franchising contracts to incumbent operators under specific conditions that are set out in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. In doing so, we aim to reduce transitional risks for local transport authorities and operators when moving to a franchised network.
Clause 13 applies equally to private operators and LABCos. If a LABCo is an incumbent operator, it could be directly awarded a franchised contract under the clause. For good reasons, clause 13 includes a restriction on direct awards to incumbent operators only—that is, that any operator providing local services in an area immediately before a franchising scheme is made has been doing so for at least the three months prior. Those reasons include providing a stable, controlled, contractual environment for the transition of staff, as I have mentioned.
Clause 13 enables franchising authorities to directly award the first franchising contracts to incumbent operators. That is not about shutting out competition; it is about providing a stable, controlled environment to manage the transition to a franchising model. Long-term franchise contracts will be competitively tendered in the usual way.
Franchising authorities may wish to use the direct award measure to help to manage the transfer of staff and assets, gather data to inform future franchise contracts, and provide flexibility to stagger the tendering of competitive franchise contracts at different times. It may also help to support small and medium-sized enterprise operators to gain experience in a franchising model.
Direct award can be used only under specific conditions. For example, direct award contracts have a maximum duration of five years and are only for net cost contracts. In many cases, a shorter duration will be appropriate. Further, only the incumbent can receive a direct award contract for the same or substantially similar services.
Siân Berry
I do not; I just hope that the Government realise what I was trying to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Socially necessary local services
Mr Kohler
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 14, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
“(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must—
(a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities;
(b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities;
(c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models.
(4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting—
(a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area;
(b) users of local services;
(c) NHS providers;
(d) education providers;
(e) local employers and businesses;
(f) people with disabilities; and
(g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.”
This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 64, in clause 14, page 10, line 34, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—
(a) the number of socially necessary local services in England;
(b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled;
(c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services;
(d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation;
(e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and
(f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.
(9) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues.
Mr Kohler
Clause 14 is a vital provision in the Bill that seeks to strengthen the provision and protection of routes that are deemed socially necessary. I will begin by addressing the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, before turning to others.
Although I fully support the principle behind clause 14, there are several areas where it can and must be strengthened to ensure that it functions as a genuinely effective tool for safeguarding essential bus services. Under the clause, the Transport Act is amended to require that local transport authorities maintain a list of socially necessary routes and review it from time to time. Crucially, there is no detail on how that review should be conducted. That lack of clarity risks rendering the duty vague and unenforceable.
Amendment 66 seeks to address that gap. It sets out how the review process should work, requiring that gaps in network coverage be identified and that changes to improve the network are actively considered. Importantly, it would also ensure that reviews and amendments take place in consultation with relevant stakeholders. That would embed transparency and accountability into the process.
Amendment 64 would require a biannual review by the Secretary of State of the level and condition of socially necessary services across the country. Given that local authorities will already be maintaining those lists, it is not an unreasonable burden. Rather, it would create national oversight and parliamentary scrutiny—something currently missing from the system. Having consistent data on ridership, frequency and cancellations would greatly improve transparency, inform better decision making, and keep socially necessary services at the forefront of Government planning and funding.
Amendment 39, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on behalf of the Green party—
Steff Aquarone
I rise to speak to clause 14 and amendments 66 and 64, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.
I warmly welcome the clause’s protection of socially necessary services. I have spoken before about how important local bus services are for our rural areas, and I want to bring that to life because the term “socially necessary” does not do justice to the significance of those services. For many, a more accurate term would be “lifeline” services. They are absolutely vital for many small villages, and they are often far from profitable. Although they may not bring a grand economic boost to the operator or local authority, they bring a huge social benefit to the communities that they serve.
Jerome Mayhew
I rise to speak briefly in support of Liberal Democrat amendment 66, which inserts a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of the existing network of local services—through proposed new subsection (4B)(a)—and the requirement to identify any gaps in provision, through proposed new subsection (4B)(b). Proposed new subsection (4B)(c) states that what further action the local transport authority intends to take to address the gaps identified must be set out.
Proposed new subsection (4C) would require the authority to publish both the assessment and the resulting plan after the relevant consultation. It is clearly a good idea to identify the scale of opportunity in the local area as well as what is already available. Such good information would inform good future decisions, so I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
Amendment 64, which was also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a statement every six months with information on socially necessary services across a county and the number of whole routes cancelled, as well as frequency and days of the week. I am not supportive of it. Although I understand the rationale behind the amendment, and it would be interesting to have that information on a regular basis, it would be truly onerous to require the Secretary of State to provide that every six months for services right across the country. As with all things, when we are trying to design effective government, we have to balance benefit and cost. In my respectful view, such a requirement tips into being simply too onerous.
Assessments are, by their nature, local or regional, and I do not understand the practical utility of national reporting when the people who really need to know the information are in the local transport authority that would be providing the information in the first place. I therefore confirm my support for amendment 66 and my opposition to amendment 64.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for tabling a series of amendments to the clause. Amendment 66 would ensure that local transport authorities review their current local bus network to identify any gaps. I agree with hon. Members that it is important for local transport authorities to understand and know their networks. However, the desired effect of the amendment is already covered by the Transport Act 2000, which places a requirement on an authority to meet the needs of people living or working in their area. The local transport plan, which must be prepared by a local transport authority, is an important document that establishes the transport needs of local communities. Indeed, the existing measures in the Bill go even further than the 2000 Act by ensuring that members of the enhanced partnership work together to identify key socially necessary services, and to develop a robust plan in case any changes are proposed to them.
I turn to amendment 64. The Department already publishes large amounts of bus data through both the Bus Open Data Service and bus statistics on gov.uk. The Bill provides for even more data collection under clause 24, which specifically ensures that data collected by the traffic commissioner is shared with the Secretary of State. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We already deliver a large amount of information to the public that can help them to understand all services operating in their area—not just socially necessary services—and may include many of the details listed in the amendment.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 14, page 9, line 32, after “activities,” insert—
“(iv) health care services, or
(v) schools and other educational institutes,”.
This amendment would include services which enable people to access health or educational services in the definition of ‘socially necessary local services’.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 38, in clause 14, page 9, line 35, after “activities.” insert—
“(16) A service which was abolished in the 15 years before the day on which the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 was passed may also be considered a socially necessary local service for the purposes of this section and section 138C.”
This amendment would mean that previous bus services could be considered as socially necessary local services.
Siân Berry
I am pleased to move an amendment that both I and Liberal Democrat colleagues had the idea of. The Liberal Democrats have withdrawn their version of the amendment, but we are essentially aiming at the same thing: to be specific in proposed new section 138A of the 2000 Act by specifically naming healthcare services, schools and other educational institutions as activities that we as a Parliament consider to be essential. I believe that that would really help transport planners to focus their efforts on those particularly essential services. It would strengthen the clause considerably.
In the past, I have worked with many young people who value bus services and feel undervalued when those services are not helping them to get back and forth to school. When they are not able to take part in after-school activities in the same way as their peers at the school whose parents can drive them back and forth, there is a social justice issue that deserves its own bullet point, as part of the clause.
I do not need to tell Members about the importance of public transport access to hospitals and other healthcare services. Later, we will discuss amendments pressing for the timing of older and disabled people’s bus passes to be extended so that they can access healthcare services with their free cards. The actual provision of the services is the absolute bottom line here, and they should be named. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose my amendment.
Amendment 38 was originally proposed by my Green party colleague, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, in the other place. It aims to include clearly in the definition services that have been cancelled. If this aspect of the Bill is to work effectively, it is essential that it works to undo the damage caused by cuts made in bus services, particularly local authority-supported ones since the start of the enormous austerity squeeze on local councils.
The proposed time period of 15 years in amendment 38 is no accident—it goes back to the start of austerity. Many figures show the loss of bus services around the country since the beginning of that period. For example, a Campaign for Better Transport figure shows that from 2012 to the second year of the pandemic, 2021, more than a quarter of all bus services across England, measured in vehicle kilometres, were lost. For the number of regulated services, which is a different measure of service capacity, the loss was 29%.
It will come as no surprise to my colleagues from the east of England that one of the regions with the biggest losses was the eastern region, alongside the north-west of England. The services lost were socially necessary, and they ought to be able to be defined as currently socially necessary, even if they do not exist. I commend both amendments to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
Amendment 39 would add healthcare services, schools and educational facilities to the list of socially necessary local services. The hon. Lady is, of course, right that those are important destinations for bus services—so important that they would without doubt come under the services side of the definition. Since the clause as drafted refers to enabling
“passengers to access…essential goods and services”,
the amendment is otiose.
I understand the political point that the hon. Lady is seeking to make through amendment 38 but, as drafted, nothing could be done with that information under the clause. In fact, the amendment would have a negative effect, because it would simply muddy the waters with historical data without being helpful in establishing the future direction of travel for local transport authorities.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I was planning to say a few words about amendment 39, but the shadow Minister has really said it: it not necessary to include healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes in the definition. Of course, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that those things are important. I can think of dozens of important and socially necessary places where buses might go, but I would not propose to add them all to clause 14(2)(c), not least because when attempting to make an exhaustive list, it is always possible to leave things out, and there is great scope for argument over issues on the periphery that some people think are important and others do not.
The measure’s wording is broad. A “social necessary local service” is defined as one that allows passengers to access: “essential goods and services”, which is very wide; “economic opportunities (including employment)”, which is very wide; or “social activities”, which is also very wide. Plainly, healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes fall within those definitions, so the amendment is unnecessary. However, I welcome the hon. Lady’s highlighting those things, because healthcare and schools plainly rank very highly.
Mr Kohler
The Liberal Democrats strongly support amendment 39, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. As has been said, it is remarkably similar to, if not the same as, an amendment that we tabled in the House of Lords. It rightly proposes to expand the definition of “socially necessary local service” to include routes that serve healthcare facilities. I recognise the argument that the existing definition already covers them, but we think it is important to explicitly include hospitals, GPs and clinics. Accessing healthcare is a social necessity that should be explicitly recognised in law.
The same is true of education. From conversations with my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), to name a few, I know that there are growing concerns about school and college bus routes being cut, leaving students unable to travel independently to their places of learning.
The Government may argue that such services are already included under the definition but, if that is the case, why not make that explicit? Clarifying it in statute would only strengthen the Bill and provide clearer guidance for local authorities.
Simon Lightwood
Amendment 39 is not necessary as this issue has already been addressed during debates on the Bill in the other place. At the time, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail made a statement on the Floor of the House to the effect that the definition of a socially necessary local service encapsulates access to healthcare and schools as “essential goods and services”. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the Government’s intention. That being said, the Government will produce official guidance for local authorities on the issue of socially necessary local services. That guidance will refer to healthcare services and educational institutions as constituting “essential goods and services”.
Amendment 38 would expand the definition of socially necessary local services to include services that have been abolished in the past 15 years. In addressing it, we should consider the practical issues. A service that has been cancelled in the past 15 years may no longer meet the current needs of the community, which change over time. Furthermore, it is possible that previous services may have been folded into newer and more relevant bus routes. For those reasons, the amendment might not yield the expected beneficial outcomes.
That is by no means a prohibition or limitation on the powers of local transport authorities, however. As local transport authorities continually evaluate the needs of their communities, they still retain the power to consider implementing services along former routes, if they believe that doing so would address the needs of their communities. The amendment is therefore not necessary, so I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion not to press it.
Siân Berry
On a point of clarification, clause 14 adds proposed new subsection (15)(b) to section 138A of the Transport Act. The measure is quite specific that a current service is envisaged—it refers to a service “if cancelled”. Amendment 38 would respond to that by making sure that recently cancelled services were covered. Such services might have been taken away because operators anticipated the risk that they would be defined as “socially necessary”. Can the Minister reassure us on that point?
Simon Lightwood
I did not give way, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s additional comments.
Simon Lightwood
It is fine. I do not believe that the amendments are necessary.
Siân Berry
I do not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Kohler
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable.
(4B) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to—
(a) the scope and nature of the service;
(b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps;
(c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs;
(d) a timeline for the operation of the service;
(e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall.
(4C) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (4B)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered.
(4D) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (4C).
(4E) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).”
This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 74, in clause 14, page 10, line 34, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where—
(a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and
(b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service.
(8) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme.
(9) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so.
Mr Kohler
Amendments 54 and 74 would establish a real safety net for socially necessary routes. Amendment 54 would place a duty on local authorities to step in to deliver a service when no commercial operator will do so, while placing a reciprocal duty on the Government to provide financial support to enable it. Amendment 74 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State to create a formal funding mechanism for such services. The mechanism would include clear eligibility criteria, ensuring that local authorities could not designate routes as socially necessary arbitrarily, but must demonstrate clear social need. Together, the amendments would ensure that essential routes do not disappear due to market failure. They offer a practical, balanced solution to a growing problem, and I urge the Committee to support them. If we believe that these routes are socially necessary, we must find a mechanism to ensure that they are provided.
Jerome Mayhew
The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 54 would place a duty on local transport authorities to identify and then satisfy the need for all—and I stress “all”—socially necessary services, irrespective of supply, under an enhanced partnership. The amendment does not explain how the services would be supplied by the local authority—presumably, there would be a tender process—but it would require the authority to produce a report within six months. That report would identify the need, estimate the costs of provision and associated funding gaps, estimate the impact of a new service
“on local accessibility and transport needs”,
provide
“a timeline for the operation of the service”,
and specify local funding shortfalls. That measure, if adopted, would be a truly revolutionary departure for the identification of local need and subsequent funding, because it would hand demand assessment to the local authority, but the cost of provision to the Secretary of State. What could possibly go wrong? I genuinely look forward to the Minister supporting the amendment and explaining how he will fund that.
The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74 would require the Secretary of State to advance proposals within 12 months to
“guarantee a service for socially necessary services”,
where that service has been absent for six months and
“the local transport authority is unable to run the service.”
That is a second extraordinary proposal, because it would again place identification of need—according to the highly subjective definition of social necessity—in the hands of the local authority, but would give the Secretary of State a legal duty to supply that assessed need. It envisages the Department for Transport directly running individual routes that have escaped the design of the franchise network or the enhanced partnerships. Presumably, since the Department for Transport has to supply for that need, it will be liable for procuring, right across the country, individual routes that are not part of a wider contractual arrangement. There we have it: the Department of Transport directly running individual routes, spread across the country, independent of wider bus provision. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.
Steff Aquarone
Amendment 54 is a really important protection for the safe and necessary services that I described. The shadow Minister’s points perhaps highlight the issue of funding more generally in bus franchising and enhanced partnerships.
The amendment would ensure that steps are taken within six months of identifying a route as socially necessary to ensure that the route actually runs. It would also enable the Government to provide them with support and funding to ensure that the route is available, if the financial burden on the local authority is deemed too great. This is another useful protection for the socially necessary services to ensure that they are not another victim of the funding crisis in local government. I have already made clear how important these services are and why we have to ensure that they are protected.
Looking at the perilous financial position of our county council in Norfolk, I fear that there could come a point where that spectacular fiscal mismanagement means that they cannot afford to keep these services going. In that instance, I do not think that my constituents should be the ones who are punished. The Government should step in to protect their access to all the services and opportunities that a socially necessary service provides.
To conclude, I am pleased that the importance of bus services has been truly recognised in law. I am supportive of the sentiment and much of the drafting of the clause. However, if we accept the importance of these routes, we should not make a half-baked attempt to protect them. We should ensure that all important services are considered when deciding on socially necessary routes, and that there are strong protections for both these services and our communities that they serve.
Simon Lightwood
Amendment 54 seeks to establish a process for local transport authorities to implement a socially necessary service where no operator has decided to do so. However, I believe it is unnecessary, because legislation already exists to address that issue. Under section 63(1) of the Transport Act 1985 and section 9A of the Transport Act 1968, local authorities are already under a duty to secure public passenger transport services that they consider appropriate to meet the requirements of the area, and which would not otherwise be met. Clause 14 also sets out that enhanced partnership schemes must include a requirement to investigate alternatives that can be provided if a socially necessary service is cancelled or varied in such a way as to have a materially adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access necessary goods and services.
The amendment also places an obligation on local authorities to fund specific bus services. However, as I set out before, how local authorities choose to spend their funding is a matter for them. I reflect on previous comments from the Liberal Democrats about being all for devolution, but also liking to stipulate exactly how to do it from the national centre. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on how and where to prioritise their local bus grant. Restricting the range of choices for how an LTA does so would go against the spirit of the Bill, and it is our aim to give more control to local leaders. I have outlined why I believe that the amendment is not needed, and I ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk to withdraw it.
Steff Aquarone
I am a little disappointed that the Minister did not address the shadow Minister’s accusation of passing the financial buck directly to Government in his response. The measure is fundamentally about funding to protect services. If the Minister is relying on sections in previous Acts of Parliament, the interpretation of those sections is not a given without specific reference, which the Bill does not make. I do not share the Minister’s confidence that those obligations will be upheld.
Simon Lightwood
I think it is sad that the hon. Gentleman does not share my confidence in local areas being able to shape their services.
I now turn to amendment 74, which is the final non-Government amendment tabled to clause 14. It seeks to ensure that there is a Government-backed scheme that will guarantee that all socially necessary local services continue to operate. As I am sure I have mentioned before, this Government have reaffirmed our commitment to bus services in the recent spending review by confirming around £900 million each year from 2026-27 to maintain and improve vital bus services. Allocations for that fund will be made through the bus funding formula, which already takes account of local need. The Department is also committed to review the current formula and ensure that it is allocated as fairly as possible. That will take place in due course.
Simon Lightwood
Again, it is local areas that are best placed to use the resources given to them. We do not have a magic money tree. I know that the Liberal Democrats have a supply of those, but unfortunately we do not. The Department is also committed to reviewing the formula and ensuring that the money is allocated as fairly as possible. That will take place in due course. Once the allocations are made, it is then for local transport authorities to prioritise their funding according to the needs of their communities. It is right that they make those decisions and Government should not be asked to intervene. I therefore ask the hon. Members to seek to withdraw this amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 14, page 10, line 27, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
This amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap and of the level of employer’s national insurance contributions.
Simon Lightwood
Subsections (5) and (6) of clause 14 were inserted by non-Government amendments in the Lords. This amendment seeks to remove those subsections. Clause 14(5) places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the implications of ending the £2 national fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services, as proposed in the Bill. Assessing the impact of the withdrawal of the previous fare cap on specific routes would be pointless while the current cap is in place. At the spending review, the Government took the decision to extend that cap to March 2027. Moreover, in February 2025, the Department published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 fare cap. That showed that the cap delivered low value for money. Work is already under way to undertake a review of the £3 bus fare cap. Therefore, a legislative requirement for further evaluative work is duplicative and unnecessary. That subsection is also impractical. Socially necessary local services are a new measure introduced by this Bill; they were, therefore, not in place at the time of the £2 bus fare cap and could not, therefore, have any measurable effect on it. It will also take some time for local transport authorities to identify socially necessary local services.
Clause 14(6) places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of how the level of employee’s national insurance contributions may impact on the provision of socially necessary bus services. That includes an assessment of how transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities are affected. That subsection cuts across existing work of the Department for Education, which has committed to reform the special educational needs and disabilities system. It is also impractical because it is seeking to review three months after Royal Assent. Socially necessary local services are likely to take some time to be identified and agreed, making that assessment premature. I have explained why the Government are seeking to remove both subsections. Having explained why the Government are seeking to remove subsections (5) and (6), I turn to the remainder of clause 14.
Clause 14 introduces requirements in relation to socially necessary local services in areas with enhanced partnerships. Enhanced partnerships are statutory partnerships where local transport authorities and bus operators agree on binding goals to improve bus services in their area. This measure will require local transport authorities to identify the services that they consider socially necessary local services as defined in the Bill, and include them as a list in the enhanced partnership plan. Enhanced partnership schemes will need to specify requirements that apply when the operator of a socially necessary local service proposes to cancel or vary the registration of a service in such a way as is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access essential goods and services, economic opportunities or social activities. Schemes must also require local transport authorities to consider whether any alternative arrangements may be made to mitigate the effects of cancellation or variation.
This will not require additional funding. In practical terms, local transport authorities and bus operators will be incorporating the measure into their established processes. Once the legislation has passed, we will be working with stakeholders to implement the measure. Local transport authorities must vary their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to comply with clause 14 within one year of its coming into force. We will be publishing guidance in due course to help local transport authorities and bus operators with the implementation of the measure.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I support clause 14 and the Government’s proposed measures. Good decisions depend on good information, and in the East Cleveland part of my constituency we have seen far too many decisions made in a black hole of information, which has seen many routes disappear over many years. I now have many villages left in isolation.
It has fallen to local campaigners to step up and make the case that such routes are socially necessary, including through protests, rallies and so on, to try to save them. That is exactly what happened in the case of the Stagecoach 1 and 2 in my constituency, which was created as a result of a sustained campaign. However, that route is not sufficient, because it misses out certain villages and does not go down the high street in Brotton, for example. It also misses out several residents, of which one example is a lady called Norma Templeman who I promised I would mention in the House. She lives in North Skelton and is 87 years old. She said a few months ago:
“You have no idea how isolated this makes us golden oldies feel.”
I would never use such language to refer to her, because I think she is full of energy, even if she is 87. It should not fall to an 87-year-old lady to campaign to save and extend routes like the Stagecoach 1 and 2, or the demand-responsive transport service that she benefits from, which, again, runs out of money every few months, and there has to be a sustained campaign to try to save it. The entire model is inefficient.
I hope that the mayor in our region will seek to use the powers in the Bill and introduce a franchising model. So far, he is resistant to do that, so I ask for some clarity from the Minister on devolution—which we covered in the previous debate—with reference to clause 14. The principles set out in the various pieces of legislation on combined authorities, particularly the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, set out that the role of a combined authority is to act as it says on the tin: to be a combination of the local constituent member councils and their leaders. We have an odd situation in Teesside wherein the councils and their leaders want to have a franchising system but the mayor is resistant to doing so.
In the House on 14 May, I asked a Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government whether the Government accept the principle of subsidiarity, wherein power should sit in the lowest possible tier of government and local communities should have the strongest say. The Minister accepted that principle in his response. He said that devolution should not just be
“a shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to a regional or sub-regional body that is far away from communities and the local authority.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 135WH.]
He said the transfer of power is a good, but it is not the “whole job”, and communities should be able to “take control for themselves”. I hope that that is also the case when it comes to these powers. We should not have a mayor sitting above the community—above even the local authorities, which make up the LTA—and not using the powers and the funding that this Government are giving him to act.
For Norma’s sake, and the many Normas in all my communities and communities across the country, I support the clause and the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will deal with this in a slightly different order from that in which the Minister addressed it. I will deal with clause 14 in toto, and then look at Government amendment 6, which removes two subsections from the clause.
Clause 14 amends the Transport Act 2000 by requiring local transport authorities to identify and list services in the enhanced partnership area that are “socially necessary local services”—we have already discussed this at some length this afternoon—and then to specify requirements that must be followed if a bus operator of those services wishes to vary or cancel them. Subsection (2) amends section 138A of the Transport Act 2000, which talks about enhanced partnership plans and schemes, and it requires local transport authorities to identify and list socially necessary local services within their enhanced partnership plans—so far, so sensible.
The term is defined in subsection (2)(c), which inserts proposed new subsection (15) into section 138A and provides a definition of “socially necessary local service” as,
“a local service which—
(a) enables passengers to access—
(i) essential goods and services,
(ii) economic opportunities (including employment), or
(iii) social activities, and
(b) if cancelled, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access those goods, services, opportunities or activities.”
That is not necessarily a problem, but it is worth noting that this definition is quite subjective in its application. It is not easily measurable what such a service is, nor is it standardised between local authorities. The Minister will say, “Devolution will allow a thousand blossoms to bloom,” and I conceptually agree. However, I wonder whether, if we have different interpretations of the same term—“essential goods and services”—in different parts of the country, that raises a question about how the provisions will be applied across the board.
I understand the desire to devolve assessments to local need, but the determination does, after all, have commercial consequences for operators. As ever, where commercial opportunities are challenged or threatened, that brings with it a risk of legal challenge. That is why I raise the flag with the Minister—I am not going to do anything about it—that this is a potential future pitfall, where different local transport authorities apply the same definition differently.
If the Minister recognises that the definition is subjective, is he concerned about the risk of challenge? The route to formal challenge within an enhanced partnership structure would typically be by judicial review. Is there another form of challenge that the Minister would recognise as part of this process? What guidance will be given to local transport authorities in the assessment process? He referred to some guidance in his earlier responses; I saw him glance towards his officials. I would be grateful for more detail.
I think the issue can be dealt with through guidance, so it would be helpful to understand what form it will take for local transport authorities. Has that already been formulated? Either way, do we have an indication of when the guidance will be published? It is clearly an important document when looking to turn these concepts into practical policies.
Clause 14(2)(a) inserts new paragraph (ba) into section 138A(3) of the Transport Act 2000, requiring local transport authorities to identify which local services in their area are socially necessary services and to list those services in the enhanced partnership plan. Clause 14(2)(b) inserts new paragraph (4A) into section 138A of the 2000 Act, requiring local transport authorities to keep the list of socially necessary services under review and amend it as necessary. The idea here is presumably to ensure that the list of socially necessary local services reflects any sudden network changes in an enhanced partnership area. So far, so good.
Jerome Mayhew
No, I am pleased to say that I am not, Sir Desmond. Clause 14(6) makes specific reference to this. It was a requirement that was inserted into the Bill by the other place. I will read it to you:
“The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the impact of the level of employers’ National Insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities…and lay it before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
As such, this is fairly and squarely in the scope of not just the Bill, but this clause. Government new clause 6 would specifically remove that subsection, so I am setting the scene as to why that is a very bad idea.
We understand the effect, which will be a 15.2% increase in employment costs. If an employee works 780 hours on the minimum wage, they earn around £8,923, which is currently below the minimum threshold. In that instance, following the increase, the employer’s national insurance contribution will go from £0 to £678. That is the additional cost of that employment. Who will pay for that in a SEND contract?
The Chair
We are talking about the impact on the provision of necessary bus services, but you have strayed into taxis.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you for that indication, Sir Desmond, but exactly the same arguments that apply to the providers of bus services for a fee also apply to taxis. You can insert the word “bus” whenever I have said “taxis”; exactly the same argument applies for both providers.
The additional cost of employing a part-time worker, such as a bus driver, in a bus company would be £1,303 per employee per annum, so we have a real problem. Bus providers—and others—are being swept up in the net of increased employer national insurance contributions. It is simply a fact that a large number of the school contracts will become unsustainable under the current format, yet no payments have been offered, either as part of this Bill or elsewhere, to compensate local transport authorities, county councils or whichever authorities are responsible for the provision of bus contracts for education and special education needs, even though the actions of this Government are making these contracts unsustainable.
Thousands of these contracts around the country will need to be handed back to local education authorities. Staff will be made redundant, causing a further shortage of drivers for passengers, and thousands more schoolchildren will be left without transport unless there is movement on this. There needs to be movement of one form or another. In an ideal world, bus SEND provision would be excluded from employer national insurance contributions. However, in the absence of that, an alternative form of funding must be provided, if it is still the Government’s desire that provision be made by local authorities for bus services for SEND children.
For this reason, subsection (6), which mandates a review of how the increase in national insurance contributions from 6 April will affect socially necessary bus services, including SEND transport services for children, is so important. The provision would mandate that the review be laid before Parliament within three months of Royal Assent. This is urgent. The negative impact has already started. We need movement from the Government, or there will be real problems that affect real people. Again, these are the most vulnerable in our society. I therefore oppose Government amendment 6, which inexplicably seeks to remove this necessary assessment from the Bill.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 1st July 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 July 2025 - (1 Jul 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, and to send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Teas and coffees are not allowed during the sittings. If gentlemen want to take their jackets and ties off, that is fine by me. The last thing I want is a Member to collapse in the heat; that overrides any idea of sartorial elegance. When I call Members to speak, I will endeavour to call their party as well to assist people in the Public Gallery.
Clause 14
Socially necessary local services
Amendment proposed (26 June): 6, in clause 14, page 10, line 27, leave out subsections (5) and (6).—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap and of the level of employer’s national insurance contributions.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I have concluded my remarks on this group.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Before I came to this place, I sat on the highways and transport scrutiny committee at Leicestershire county council, so I have spent a lot of my professional life talking about buses. As is not out of the ordinary for someone living in a rural or semi-rural constituency, however, I have also spent a lot of my personal life talking about them, as cuts and broader threats to our services are often the subject of conversation around the dinner table.
We all have residents such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke about in our previous sitting. For example, my constituent, Jacky, fought hard to reinstate the bus service in Whitwick in my constituency, and won, ensuring that people can get to the local doctor and pharmacy. That is a socially critical service. A few years ago, the service between Coalville in my constituency and Hinckley in the neighbouring constituency was withdrawn at short notice in the middle of an academic term. North west Leicestershire and Hinckley both have further education colleges, and that essential link between the two was withdrawn in the middle of people’s courses. If the local authority had responded to campaigners then, it would have realised that the bus route between those two urban parts of Leicestershire was a socially necessary service.
In big cities, cutting one service leaves a dent, but in rural areas such as mine, it leaves a crater—and craters have been appearing all over my constituency. Bus services were cut by 62% under the previous Government. What bus providers and councils see as cutting costs, we see as cutting lifelines to education, jobs and healthcare—cutting connections with our communities. Members can imagine my constituents’ frustration when they heard a few weeks ago that notice had been served on a route between Ashby and Loughborough. The local authority has found an alternative to protect the service, but the timings are such that students now have to catch their bus even earlier to get to college.
Bus services are not just about transport; they are about opportunity, inclusion and dignity. When a young person in Measham cannot reach their college in Loughborough, or an elderly resident of Ibstock cannot get to their medical appointment, that is not an inconvenience but an erosion of their independence. We cannot afford to keep asking our communities to do more with less. That is why I welcome the Bill’s ambition. Finally, we have committed the resources that are needed to protect socially necessary services in my community and many others.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Clause 14 is so important, because it is about socially necessary routes—those that are critical to the community. It explicitly includes employment and, as the Minister conceded last week, also catches things such as hospital appointments, GP appointments and education.
Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister has hidden behind localism. Now, I am a Liberal, so subsidiarity is part of my DNA; I believe in devolving power, but national Government must not wash their hands of their responsibilities. It is reminiscent of the old Conservative trick from the Thatcher era, of Government distancing themselves from their responsibilities. Funding is crucial, but as we heard in the debate last week on amendment 54, the Minister says it is not for Government to decide what to do with it. They have given a bit of money, and now it will be up to local authorities.
The Minister even quoted other Tory lines about how there is no “magic money tree”, and I agree—there is not. So we need growth. We do not get growth by wishing on a star, taxing jobs by increasing employer’s national insurance contributions, or tying ourselves in knots with red lines over Europe rather than meaningfully re-engaging with the EU customs union. That is the way to grow the economy; that is the way we pay for these things. The Government cannot talk about growth, do nothing about it, and say to local authorities, “We have given you almost a billion pounds, and you can now go and sort out buses,” because local authorities do not have the finances.
I am straying from the Bill. I have thus far referenced the omissions from the Bill, such as money. By inserting subsections (5) and (6), the House of Lords sought to focus attention on the Government’s commissions—namely, the end of the £2 fare cap, and the disastrous effect of hiking employer’s NI costs on the provision of special educational needs and disabilities bus transport. The Government’s decision to table an amendment removing those subsections is plainly a mistake, one that threatens to undo the constructive and necessary work undertaken in the Lords. The provisions were added to ensure that Ministers are held accountable for the consequences of their decisions—specifically, the rise in national insurance contributions and the short-sighted decision to increase the cap on bus fares.
As the National Audit Office made clear in its report published last Friday, bus services are lifelines, not luxuries. They are essential for the young, for older people, for households without a car, and for those on the lowest incomes. The Government’s decision to scrap the £2 fare cap is not just wrong, but an outrage. It is a direct hit to the most vulnerable. The NAO report revealed that the lowest-income households—those in the bottom 20%—take more bus journeys on average than any other income group, at 42 journeys per household per year. Those are essential journeys to work, school, the shops or the doctor. Removing the fare cap would mean those people—the poorest in our society—paying more to do the basics of daily life. Subsection (5) rightly sought to introduce a review to assess the impact of increasing the fare cap on people’s ability to access socially necessary routes. Scrapping the review removes transparency, accountability and the Government’s responsibility to understand how their decisions impact real lives.
The same principle applies to subsection (6), which calls for an assessment of the impact of changes to national insurance on SEND transport. Transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities is not a side issue; it is central to an inclusive, accessible education system. Without that form of transport, many children cannot get to school. Increasing employer’s NI contributions risks undermining the viability of the services, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made clear last week. The operators who run them are under increasing financial pressure. Without proper assessment and oversight, we risk sleepwalking into a situation where routes are cut, service levels fall, and SEND pupils are left without reliable transport. That would be an unforgivable failure of not just policy, but basic fairness.
Including a requirement to review the impact does not bind the Government’s hands; it simply asks them to look at the evidence, consider the consequences of their actions, and take responsible steps to mitigate harm where needed. We must protect these services for their users and uphold the principle that no one should be left behind due to financial pressures beyond their control. I urge the Government to reconsider and not shy away from scrutiny. They should own their decisions and be prepared to measure their impact. That is what responsible government demands.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to make my first speech in Committee with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, particularly on a matter as important to the residents of towns and villages in Cannock Chase, which I represent, as socially necessary local services.
When I first read the Bill, clause 14 was one of the measures that I was most delighted to see, along with the extension of the option of franchising to non-mayoral areas, such as mine in Staffordshire, and the scrapping of the ideological ban on council-owned bus companies, which could be an important part of the picture when restoring routes in areas like mine. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to attend its first sitting, when rural bus services were discussed.
The reality for many rural communities including some of my villages, which face reductions in services or being completely cut off, is that they mourn the loss of bus routes because they are now unable to take the bus to access vital facilities and services. Residents of the village of Slitting Mill, just outside Rugeley, have no bus service at all. When I go door-knocking there, I always hear from residents about the opportunities and freedoms that they have lost as a result. One resident told me, almost wistfully, as if she were speaking of a bygone age, of when she used to be able to catch a direct bus from her little village to the centre of Wolverhampton, where she worked. She told me that she does not blame young people for moving out of the village because of that lack of connectivity, or for not returning if they want to start a family. If someone in Slitting Mill does not have a car, their prospects for employment and training are very limited.
In my home village of Norton Canes, residents in the most deprived part of our community, on and around the Norton East Road, have been cut off for many years because the No. 3 bus skirts around the bottom of the road, and the No. 60 around the top. Although the walk of 10-ish minutes is no bother for residents without mobility issues, many of the residents who made best use of the services that went down Norton East Road are older. Many have told me that they do not even bother to catch the bus now. That is just one example of how shrinking services are exacerbating the decline of ridership.
Many residents use the bus to get to their GP appointments, and to scans, tests and secondary care services at Cannock Chase hospital. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have heard from constituents who often have to spend huge chunks of their income on taxis—accessible taxis are like hen’s teeth in my neck of the woods—or have to rely on relatives to drive them. Such relatives are hard to come by during working hours, but that is when most health services are open. Had clause 14 been in place when the withdrawal of services from Norton East Road was proposed, we would have had some back-up in opposing that on the grounds of its impact.
I am sure that we have all heard accounts of children and young people not being able to get to school or enjoy social time with their friends because of a lack of bus services, especially in rural and suburban areas. That restricts the horizons of the next generation. Such matters should be, but often are not, taken into account when proposals are made or services are slated for withdrawal.
Those three examples from my constituency show what the Bill means to communities such as mine, which have been let down by the broken bus system for far too long. Buses should work for people and communities, first and foremost. Clause 14 puts that aspiration at the heart of the Bill; I hope it will stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank hon. Members for their further comments on socially necessary local services. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke at the last sitting about devolution and local decision making. Of course I support the principle of good decision making at the local level, and that is what the Bill is seeking to achieve by empowering local leaders.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked how local transport authorities’ decisions on socially necessary local services could be challenged. My Department included clause 14 to deliver greater protection for socially necessary local services and transparency for passengers. Members of the Committee have remarked that the definition given in the clause provides scope to reflect local passenger needs and the specific circumstances of different local areas. It will be for an enhanced partnership to make decisions based on those needs. Mandating an arbitrary level of service takes power away from communities and local leaders and could harm the overall long-term financial sustainability of local bus services.
Local transport authorities will need to vary their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to include a list of socially necessary local services. They must comply with the requirements of their EP schemes to avoid the risk of legal action, such as a judicial review, for not properly implementing the measure. If someone did wish to challenge a decision taken by a local authority, judicial review would be the most appropriate route. Guidance will be published in due course as part of the Government’s enhanced partnership review.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked specifically about proposed new subsection (9A), inserted by the Bill into section 138C of the Transport Act 2000. This is necessary, as it requires an enhanced partnership to set out a process that would be followed if an operator proposed to cancel a socially necessary bus service, or vary one in a way that was likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access the goods, services, opportunities or activities mentioned in the clause.
The hon. Member mentioned the £2 fare cap. The previous Government funded this fare cap until the end of 2024, with some fares likely to revert to more than £10 on the most expensive routes unless a new scheme was introduced to replace it.
Simon Lightwood
I will make some progress, but I can probably paraphrase what the hon. Member was going to say: “It was in the manifesto.” Well, you must excuse me, Dame Siobhain, if I do not take the word of the Conservative manifesto; we heard numerous uncosted spending promises from the previous Government, and now that has all seen the light of day, we can see it was not worth the paper it was written on.
The monitoring and evaluation report for the first 10 months of the £2 national fare cap was published in February 2025, and, as I have mentioned already, it was considered to offer low value for money. Maintaining the cap at £2 for the entirety of 2025 would have cost an estimated £444 million, so the £3 bus fare cap represents a £293 million saving. At the spending review, the Government announced an extension of the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027. The ability of local authorities to influence bus fares is tied to the bus operating model that they choose; in areas with enhanced partnerships, fares are set by the bus operators.
Regarding school services, the Government do not expect the recent national insurance increase to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel.
Jerome Mayhew
It is extraordinary to hear the Minister say that, given the entire sector is shouting from the rooftops that it will be an existential crisis for the provision of SEND travel. I simply do not understand what data the Minister or his officials are relying on to support his bold statement that it will not have an impact. If he is going against the reasoned objections of the sector as a whole, he needs to come forward with the data that he is relying on.
Simon Lightwood
I would simply say that it is expected that the private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes in their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.
New clause 37—Variation of enhanced partnership schemes to improve integration of public transport—
“In section 138K of the Transport Act 2000 (variation), at the end of subsection (5) insert ‘or—
“(c) improve integration across modes of public transport.”’”
This new clause would mean that an enhanced partnership scheme could not be varied unless it would improve integration across different modes of public transport.
New clause 50—Consultation of trade unions—
“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section 138F, at the end of subsection 6 (f) insert—
‘(fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,’”.
Simon Lightwood
I will start by addressing clauses 15 to 17.
Clause 15 will broaden the scope and increase the flexibility of measures that may be included in an enhanced partnership scheme, by amending the Transport Act 2000 to replace references to specific routes with broader wording that covers local services in their entirety, thereby expanding the scope from measures that apply to individual routes to those that can apply across all local services in an enhanced partnership area. It means that local transport authorities and bus operators will be able to include in an enhanced partnership scheme measures that are more general in nature, rather than being limited by route. For instance, an enhanced partnership scheme will be able to introduce consistent fares and consistent reliability or punctuality targets across the entire area.
Clause 16 was developed in response to concerns from local transport authorities about their ability to require financial reinvestment in local services under the current statutory arrangements for an enhanced partnership. It will provide local transport authorities with a power to specify requirements in enhanced partnership schemes to create financial reinvestment schemes, which may require operators to reinvest any additional profit received as a result of interventions from local transport authorities, the Government or others.
The measure is intended to help to increase the level of operator commitment to the schemes and encourage operators to reinvest in the bus market. It will also help to ensure a greater return on central Government investment through the reinvestment of some operational savings back into the local bus market. Following the enhanced partnership review, which is currently under way, the Department will update guidance to assist local transport authorities and operators in understanding how the power can be used.
Most enhanced partnerships have developed a bespoke variation process through which they can make changes to a scheme, rather than relying on the variation process in the 2000 Act. However, there may be circumstances in which the bespoke mechanism does not work for everyone. Clause 17 provides that, in very limited circumstances, local transport authorities can make changes to their scheme by using the statutory variation provisions instead of the bespoke variation mechanism in the enhanced partnership scheme.
The purpose of the measure is to allow the local transport authority to make an application to the Secretary of State if an operator is acting unreasonably and has objected to a proposed variation that would have been made under an existing bespoke variation mechanism in an EP scheme. If, on application by the local transport authority, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the variation cannot be made because of the unreasonable or obstructive behaviour of one or more operators, or that the variation would benefit the people using the services, the Secretary of State can direct the local transport authority to follow the statutory variation process instead.
Additionally, the clause provides that a variation may be made using the statutory process if it is one that the local transport authority is required to make in relation to socially necessary local services. The measure is designed to provide some protection to local transport authorities to deal with deadlocks in partnership negotiations and to enable changes to local services that are in the best interest of the people who use them.
New clause 37, which was tabled by the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Wimbledon, would broaden the reasons for varying enhanced partnership schemes under Section 138K of the Transport Act 2000. However, existing legislation allows for enhanced partnership schemes to be varied if that brings benefits to the people who use local services in the whole or any part of the area to which the scheme relates. The legislation thereby already covers the improved integration of different modes of transport, as this will have benefits for the people who use local services.
Under the 2000 Act there is also an existing duty on local transport authorities to develop and implement policies that promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport in their area. As the Committee may be aware, the Government are developing an integrated national transport strategy to set a long-term vision for transport, which will help to inform how transport is designed, built and operated, with passengers right at the centre. I hope that the reasons I have outlined, alongside the existing duties of local transport authorities, have convinced the hon. Members that the new clause is not necessary. On that basis, I ask that it be withdrawn.
I appreciate why my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) tabled new clause 50, and the potential benefits of union representation and input when an enhanced partnership scheme or plan is introduced. I direct my hon. Friend to section 138F of the 2000 Act, which the new clause would amend: subsection (6)(h) states that the authority or authorities must consult
“such other persons as the authority or authorities think fit.”
It can therefore be considered that trade unions already come under the interpretation if an authority feels that would make sense. I appreciate that this would be down to the interpretation of each authority, but my Department believes that the decision on who to include, beyond the required stakeholders originally set out, should lie with the enhanced partnership itself.
My hon. Friend may be aware that the Department for Transport will update the enhanced partnership guidance later in the year. In the updated guidance the Department will make recommendations for best practice and will recommend that unions are considered as consultees where a plan or scheme is introduced or updated. It will also be recommended that unions are also considered as attendees for EP forums if appropriate. I therefore do not consider the new clause to be necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.
I thank Committee members for their further comments on the partnerships. Clauses 15, 16 and 17 were introduced in the other place as Government new clauses to strengthen enhanced partnership provisions in order to widen the measures that can be taken by local transport authorities under an enhanced partnership scheme, to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers on measures that will reduce operating costs, and to ensure that variation or revocation will benefit service users.
As I have said, clause 15 broadens the scope and increases the flexibility of EPs and broadens the wording to cover local services in their entirety. This is important to passengers because routes will not be viewed in isolation and local transport authorities will not be limited by route. That can help with the consistency and reliability of services.
The Government have listened to concerns from local transport authorities, and clause 16 provides them with a power to specify requirements in enhanced partnership schemes to create financial reinvestment schemes, which may require operators to reinvest any additional profit as a result of interventions. This is important because it encourages a commitment from operators to reinvest into the bus market, which I know has been a concern. I reiterate that the Department will use analysis from the previously mentioned EP review to update guidance to assist local transport authorities and operators in respect of how the power can be used.
Clause 17 was introduced because it was found that there were times when a bespoke variation mechanism was not working for everyone. The clause provides local transport authorities with very limited circumstances in which they can utilise the statutory variation provisions, instead of the bespoke variation, to make changes to the scheme. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
Committee members will be pleased to hear that I will whip through the clauses quite quickly. Clause 15 amends the Transport Act 2000 to widen the measures that can be taken by a local transport authority under an enhanced partnership scheme so that they can relate to any local services in the area concerned. That is very sensible; we need not trouble the Committee any longer with consideration of that clause.
Clause 16, which deals with the passenger benefit requirement, replaces section 138C(9) of the 2000 Act. It sets out requirements in respect of local services to allow an enhanced partnership scheme to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers in return for public expenditure on facilities or measures that will reduce operating costs. It is a simple and practical balancing act between the commercial operations that pay for themselves and the socially necessary additions that a local transport authority may wish to negotiate as part of the enhanced partnership. It is about the quid pro quo of how those can be funded other than by direct subsidy.
Clause 16(9)(a) provides that local transport authorities may include requirements that relate to operators establishing and operating arrangements that facilitate an EP scheme, and subsection (9)(b) may require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers if they benefit from action taken by the LTA or other public authorities, including the Secretary of State. Again, this is a sensible adoption of a quid pro quo process rather than having route extension with direct subsidy. For the Conservatives, the provisions seem to sensibly widen the options for trade-offs, and we are supportive of them.
Clause 17 inserts into the 2000 Act proposed new section 138(KA), so that where an EP scheme can be varied in accordance with the scheme, a variation can be made under section 138(K) only when the Secretary of State is satisfied of two things: first, that operators have behaved unreasonably or obstructively, and secondly, that the variation or revocation will benefit the users of local services. Again, this is a sensible approach for the Secretary of State to take and we will not object to clause 17.
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 37 would deal with the variation of EP schemes to improve the integration of public transport. It would mean that a variation to an EP could take place only if it had the effect of improving integration across different modes of transport. Although I understand and applaud the rationale behind the drafting of the new clause, one has to be careful of the unintended consequences, because it would prohibit any change to an EP that did not also improve integration across different modes of transport. Many variations to an enhanced partnership might have multiple benefits for passengers, but might not have the benefit of improving integration across different modes of transport. Under a strict reading of the new clause, such improvements would be prohibited. I know that is not the Liberal Democrats’ intention, but as the new clause is worded that would unfortunately be the effect.
I will not make any comments on new clause 50, other than that, unusually, I support the words of the Minister in that the trade unions already come under the wording of the Bill.
Mr Kohler
New clause 37 is sensible and constructive. It would ensure that when enhanced partnership schemes are amended, improved integration across modes of public transport is explicitly recognised as a legitimate and desirable reason for doing so.
We have seen time and again, both here in the UK and internationally, that when public transport is properly integrated, it works. It becomes more convenient, reliable and attractive to passengers. People choose to use it and when that happens, buses flourish. Whether it is better co-ordination between bus and rail timetables, joined-up ticketing or clear and consistent information across modes, the benefits of integration are obvious. Without a clear statutory basis for prioritising integration, too often such opportunities are missed.
Simon Lightwood
For the reasons I have outlined, I have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause amends various sections of the Transport Act 2000 to help authorities to better reflect the needs of disabled passengers in the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. It provides that an enhanced partnership scheme can specify requirements to enable disabled people to travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort, including—but not limited to—requirements for the provision of a taxi guarantee scheme.
The clause also requires local transport authorities to consider whether any of the requirements proposed to be included in a new enhanced partnership scheme, or when varying an existing one, will enable disabled people to be able to travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort. It requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people or organisations that represent them before making an enhanced partnership scheme, to ensure that it is as informed as possible by an understanding of the priorities and needs of disabled people.
Jerome Mayhew
We are getting to some of the more interesting parts of the Bill now. The clause amends relevant sections of the Transport Act 2000 on enhanced partnerships and plans to help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled users of local bus services and the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. Subsection (2) inserts proposed new section 138CA into the Transport Act 2000, which provides that:
“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify…requirements about enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services”—
and then we get the good phrase—
“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”,
including for taxi guarantee schemes. It also states:
“Before making an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services”,
and it includes definitions for the purpose of the clause.
Subsection (3) pops proposed new paragraph (ba) into section 138F(6), on consultation. It includes disabled users or prospective users of local services, or organisations representing disabled users, among the list of people or entities that authorities must consult before making an enhanced partnership scheme—so, good progress there.
Subsection (4) inserts proposed new subsections (9) and (10) into section 138K of the Transport Act. It states:
“Before varying an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme as varied will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services…to which the scheme as proposed to be varied relates.”
It is important that the schemes are designed to be widely accessible, including to those with disabilities. Consultation with affected groups in the design of services, as anticipated by subsection (3), is the right approach, and the clause makes clear the importance of designing services with the needs of persons with disabilities in mind. I ask the Minister: what consultation with groups representing persons with disabilities was undertaken prior to the drafting of the Bill? Although I welcome the clause, did the consultation include reference to floating bus stops, as anticipated in clause 30? If so, did the Government take account of that input?
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dame Siobhain. I want to follow up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said and ask a few additional questions, particularly about the provision in clause 18 for persons with disabilities.
I obviously welcome the inclusion of this clause in the Bill—we clearly want to ensure that public transport is as accessible for all as possible—but I am slightly concerned that, in a way, it provides false hope. Subsection (2) states:
“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify”,
so it is a “may”, rather than a “must”. It is nice to have that consultation, but there is an opportunity for the local authority or whoever is providing the bus service not to do it. The clause allows for a consultation, but there are no guarantees that what disabled people want will happen.
I am also slightly concerned about the taxi guarantee scheme. I do not know whether hon. Members have experienced the same thing as me, but my constituency of South West Devon is an interesting mix of urban and rural. It might be thought that large chunks of Plymouth are technically easily accessible, but the Access Plymouth minibus system does not even work across the city, let alone go into the rural parts of the constituency. Out in the South Hams and West Devon, which is a different local authority, the bus services are typical rural bus services: they are not very reliable or frequent.
It is also worth saying that taxis are not reliable either. Just this weekend, a local taxi service that runs out of the village put a post on social media saying, “We’re fully booked this evening.” Even able-bodied people, let alone people with disabilities who are trying to benefit from a taxi guarantee scheme, need to book in advance, so I question the feasibility of delivering on this clause.
We are not only saying that bus services will be reliable for persons with disability; we are offering them a taxi guarantee scheme. Yet we do not know—I assume the Minister will be able to explain this—what assessment has been made of the wider public transport picture or whether the taxis exist to provide the scheme, particularly in our rural communities. I know the Bill seeks to address those places. Ultimately, we need to ensure that we manage the expectations of those we are trying to help with the Bill.
I ask the Minister, what consultation has been held on, and what thought has been given to, the provision of rural services for people with disabilities? The taxi guarantee scheme is a great idea, but is it deliverable? What analysis has been made of that? Secondly, what might stop a local authority from delivering on this, and what assessment has been made of potential obstacles? Apart from the supply of buses and taxis, are there other reasons why a local transport authority might not be able to deliver this?
If it is that important to ensure that persons with disability can access public transport, which is something that I think we all agree we want, then the obvious question is: why does the legislation not say that an enhanced partnership scheme “must” do it? Why does the Bill say just that it “may”? It seems that there is a conflicting ambition here. Perhaps I have answered my own question in saying that there might not be the supply, but if we want to ensure a better world for persons with disability, I am intrigued as to why it does not say that a scheme must do this.
Mr Kohler
The clause, added during scrutiny in the Lords, is a welcome and valuable improvement to the Bill, but we would like to know what consultation was held with disabled groups before it was drafted. Although the changes it makes might seem modest on paper, they have the potential to make a significant difference in improving accessibility across our bus network.
Subsection (2) allows enhanced partnership schemes to specify requirements to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely, and in reasonable comfort on local bus services. The inclusion to allow the specification of a taxi guarantee scheme is also welcome. Although we share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for South West Devon, such a scheme may prove to be vital in ensuring that disabled and other vulnerable users feel comfortable and confident in using the bus. Subsection (3) strengthens the consultation process and ensures that disabled users or organisations representing them are consulted before any EP scheme is made. That is not just good practice; it is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone.
Subsection (4) mirrors that requirement when enhanced partnership schemes are varied, and guarantees that the accessibility is not forgotten as schemes evolve. Authorities must once again consider whether changes enable disabled people to travel independently, safely, and in comfort. These are considered but welcome changes. Accessibility cannot be an afterthought; it must be embedded from the outset and considered at every stage of decision making. These welcome measures help to support that.
Simon Lightwood
I thank hon. Members for their thoughts on the clause. I remind the Committee that the clause was inserted into the Bill because the Government listened intently to concerns in the Lords. The clause will help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled passengers in the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. It will enable the specification of requirements of disabled people to travel independently, safely and in reasonable comfort. That extends to when a local transport authority is varying an enhanced partnership scheme. It will help local transport authorities to understand better the impacts on disabled passengers, and fits into how the Government are reforming transport to make it more inclusive, placing the passenger at the heart of everything we do.
The Government are determined to ensure that, as far as possible, local transport authorities take proper account of the needs of disabled people in using local bus services. The clause will support them in that. I have had many meetings with various groups, including disability groups, and I engage widely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DPTAC—to help and guide us on the Bill. As I said, the clause was a reaction, having listened to concerns in the Lords.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Objections by operators
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 19 will introduce a change to the 28-day operator objection mechanism in relation to EP plans and schemes. Under the Transport Act, local transport authorities are required to provide notice and comply with consultation requirements when they create, vary or revoke an EP plan or scheme. Those arrangements allow an operator of a qualifying local service to object to any proposal to create, vary or revoke an EP scheme at several key stages in the process.
The creation, variation or revocation of an EP scheme cannot proceed if a sufficient number of operators object. Where a sufficient number of operators object, the local transport authority has an opportunity to revise its proposals for reconsideration, and then operators have another opportunity to object.
The mechanism for operators to object is critical to enabling bus operators to have a reasonable say about the content and viability of an individual EP plan or scheme. However, in some cases, local transport authorities have been working with operators in advance of issuing notices, so they have an opportunity to work through any potential objections. The current legislation means that local transport authorities are required to wait up to a month for the objection period to lapse in such circumstances.
Jerome Mayhew
This clause is sensible. The Minister is right that it will streamline the objection process, so that instead of having to wait for a month to see whether anyone has objected, the affected parties will be able to notify the local transport authority in writing that they have no intention of objecting. The timetable will be shortened as a result.
The approach is multi-layered. The measure relates to the preparation, notice and consultation stage, which is section 138F of the Transport Act; the making of plans and schemes, section 138G; the preparation, notice and consultation for variations, section 138L; and the making of variations, section 138M. This is a common-sense approach to preventing unrequired notice periods from delaying the ability of LTAs to take action.
Clause 19(6)(a) will have the effect that where an LTA issues a notice of an intention to revoke an enhanced partnership plan or scheme, it is no longer required to state the date on which the revocation takes effect under the notice. That will allow the LTA to proceed with the revocation where the relevant operators have also indicated that they do not intend to object under the new arrangements. Again, that is sensible streamlining. I applaud the Government on a good tidying-up exercise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Advance notice of requirement to provide information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause will amend provisions in the Transport Act relating to powers of local transport authorities to obtain information about local bus services in connection with any relevant function, including preparing or varying an EP scheme or plan. Existing powers are set out under section 143B of the Act. They mean that operators may be required to provide information requested by local transport authorities within a “reasonable” timeframe specified by the local transport authority and in a specified format.
If it appears to a local transport authority that a bus operator has failed to take all reasonable steps to provide the information, it must inform the traffic commissioner. There have been occasions when operators have not met the timeframes set by local transport authorities.
To support the Government’s intention to strengthen EPs between local transport authorities and bus operators, the clause will amend section 143B to require LTAs to provide a 14 day-notice period before issuing an official request for information under that section. It clarifies that
“When imposing the requirement the authority or authorities must have regard to any representations made by the operator in response to the notice”.
The clause creates a mechanism through which operators can work with local transport authorities before a statutory request for information is issued under section 143B.
Jerome Mayhew
I will be brief. I agree with the explanation given by the Minister. This is a sensible clarification and we have no objections.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Bus network accessibility plans
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—
“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.
(2) In this section, ‘relevant authority’ includes—
(a) a county council in England;
(b) a district council in England;
(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;
(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.
(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
(4) The report must also include—
(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;
(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;
(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;
(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;
(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.
(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 21 requires local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, describing what provision is made in the authority’s area to enable disabled people to use local services. Those plans will also assess how effectively the provision enables disabled people to use local services
“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”
and describe any further action that the authority plans to take to enable disabled people to travel on local services.
The clause specifies that the bus network accessibility plan must be published within one year of the clause coming into force, and subsequently it specifies that it must be reviewed at least every three years, or sooner if substantial changes are made to the local bus network. As it stands, there are no specific obligations for authorities to obtain an understanding of how well local transport networks in their area work for disabled people, or to highlight publicly their approach to network accessibility.
The clause requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people or organisations representing them, as well as operators of local services within their area, when preparing and reviewing bus network accessibility plans. That will help to ensure that authorities review the accessibility of their bus network regularly, including setting out any changes they propose to make, and that disabled people or the organisations representing them will be given a voice when future accessibility interventions are planned.
New clause 23 tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) would
“require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.”
The Government are clear that we need to improve accessibility of our transport network, and I support the spirit of the new clause, which is designed to incentivise local authorities to take responsibility for driving up accessibility standards in their areas. However, clause 21 already places a requirement on local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, which must include details of the accessibility provision that already exists in their area and an assessment of the extent to which the current provision enables disabled people to travel independently, in safety and reasonable comfort, and must set out future plans to improve accessibility. I therefore believe that the proposed measure is unnecessary and urge the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister did a good job of précising the contents of the clause, so I will not repeat that—I know everybody will breathe a big sigh of relief. However, there are some issues; essentially, clause 21 requires a bus network accessibility plan to be created, but it does not then tell us what to do with it. My questions are around the theme of: “So what?” It is all very well to create a plan that just describes the status quo, but there is no requirement to improve. The current effect is to create cost and bureaucratic process with no outcome for passengers.
This is a real problem with both this legislation and legislation more widely: we think process is very important—because we are policy people—so we focus on all the hoops that organisations need to jump through. Too often, however, we forget to take the next step and understand the practical impact of the process on our constituents, in particular those who use buses. There appears to be no positive benefit from the clause as drafted, other than having another document collecting dust on a shelf somewhere.
What is the point of the requirement? It identifies need and describes what the LTA is planning to do about it, but that is it. It feels a bit like virtue signalling without funding, since improvements are expensive, particularly provisions for those with additional needs and disabilities, and do not add significantly to the fare box. What is the practical application of the clause? It applies a significant additional burden on local transport authorities, which have to jump through the hoops that we are creating, but what is the benefit?
New clause 23 in the name of the Liberal Democrats is a different version of the same thing, but I look forward to the explanation and advocacy of it by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The only difference is that the plan would be annual rather than triennial, which would triple the amount of bureaucracy and cost associated with the provision. The new clause would include proposals to improve bus route accessibility but, again, with no requirement actually to change anything. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Member, but both the clause and the new clause are entirely useless without funding attached. Since no reference to such funding appears anywhere in the Bill, that does beg the question, what is the point of the clause and the new clause?
Mr Kohler
In answer to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, our new clause 23 addresses the weaknesses in the existing clause 21. According to research by the National Centre for Accessible Transport, 90% of disabled bus users report facing barriers to using the bus network. Those include space constraints, poorly designed bus stops, the lack of step-free access when boarding or alighting, and the continuing absence of induction loops. Buses are not a luxury for many disabled people; they are a vital connection to work, services, friends and family. Putting accessibility front and centre is not optional; it is essential.
The clause is therefore a step in the right direction. It rightly requires authorities to consider how to make bus services more accessible. However, if we are serious about delivering meaningful progress, we must go further. That is why we have tabled new clause 23, to build on the work started in clause 21 by introducing a requirement for annual reporting on accessibility progress.
The existing clause requires the accessibility plan to be reviewed only every three years. We believe that is too long; three years is a long time in which to do nothing. I draw Members’ attention to subsection (4) of our new clause 23, which lists practical things that the report would have to report on to draw attention to the public, the Government and voters exactly where there are shortfalls in, problems with and obstacles to addressing the need.
We need to go further than simply having the requirement. Under the Conservatives, the Access for All programme was left to wither and die on the vine. Unless we actually do something more practical, as we are suggesting, that is what will happen again. I agree that none, or not much, of the Bill will work without adequate funding—that is a given—but we have already made that point, and the new clause would give the oxygen of publicity to what is happening. We think that is important.
We do not think that new clause 23 would impose a significant new burden. It would simply require local transport authorities to produce a short annual update, setting out how they are progressing against the goals in their accessibility plan, to allow for regular scrutiny, course correction where needed and, above all, accountability. If we want a bus system that works for everyone, we must ensure that local authorities do not just create plans, but deliver on them, transparently and consistently. For that reason, we support the clause standing part of the Bill, and we urge the Government to adopt new clause 23.
Simon Lightwood
The driving force here is transparency. It is about having the data and about how local areas ensure, for a whole range of reasons—social, economic and moral—that everyone in their community can access our bus services. I remind Members that the clause 21 was inserted following debate in the other place.
The Government believe that all passengers should be able to travel across the country easily, safely and with dignity. We listened carefully to concerns in the other place and brought forward an amendment to support the Government’s ambition for bus services to become more accessible and inclusive for passengers, and particularly for disabled people.
I will address some of the points raised. First, I have already mentioned that clause 21 places consultation requirements on local transport authorities when developing bus network accessibility plans. It also specifies that these plans must be published within one year of the clause coming into force and reviewed following substantial changes to local bus services, or every three years. For example, if a local transport authority decides to adopt a franchising scheme, my Department would expect it to review the plan.
The clause requires a local authority to describe what action it intends to take to enable persons with disabilities to travel on such services independently and in safety and reasonable comfort—not just to identify the issues. Bus network accessibility plans will enable local authorities to be held to account for appropriately understanding the accessibility of networks and for having a plan to resolve and mitigate those issues.
New clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would place requirements on a wider range of authorities, including those not responsible for bus services. It would be burdensome and duplicative, and likely to result in areas being captured in multiple reports. I confirm that my Department will provide guidance to help local transport authorities to produce proportionate and effective bus network accessibility plans for the benefit of the authority and disabled passengers alike.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Local government bus companies
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 22, page 16, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.
(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.
(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”
This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 17.
Clause stand part.
New clause 39—Assessment of service potential from publicly owned bus operators—
“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the ability of publicly owned operators to deliver more cost efficient and reliable bus services than commercial operators.
(2) Within a month of the Secretary of State concluding the assessment specified in subsection (1), a copy of the assessment must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Jerome Mayhew
I will speak to amendment 51 in my name and set it in the context of clause 22. Subsection (1) repeals section 22 of the Bus Services Act 2017, which stated that the relevant authorities listed in that section could not
“in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service”
in England. Its repeal allows the wide-scale creation of municipal bus companies. That was in the Labour party manifesto, from memory, so I understand why the Government are doing that, and there was also reference in the King’s Speech to encouraging the expansion of the municipal bus company sector. There are currently eight such companies in England and Wales.
It is clearly the Labour party’s ideological position—we should be clear about it—that the state is better placed to run the commercial operations of bus companies than the private sector. That is not about provision, routes, capacity or approach to additional needs; it is the nuts and bolts of how to run a commercial operation—purchasing or leasing, maintaining, training and operating a bus company. Why would a local authority be better at the things that I have just mentioned than a specialist business, the main operation of which is exactly that?
It is a truism that local authorities are not traditionally renowned for their efficiency, and the same could be said of national Government. It is not impossible for them to do a good job—in previous sittings, I have made positive reference to one or two of the existing municipal bus companies that do—and I will not be ideological in the opposite direction, but running commercial operations of this kind is not a natural strength of local authorities. Cost management, customer relations and maintenance and renewal are all natural strengths of the private sector. From my perspective, therefore, this policy change is a very odd decision.
Clause 22 exposes the political approach of Labour, which is more interested in creating the supplier than supporting the passenger. We have seen that theme in clause after clause throughout the Bill. Subsections (2) to (5) create new requirements that mirror existing subsections (1), (2) and (13) of section 74 of the Transport Act 1985, which disqualify directors of existing public transport companies from being members of the local authority that owns the company.
The new requirements will ensure that directors of the new local authority-owned bus companies formed after the repeal of section 22 of the 2017 Act, which I have already referred to, are subject to the same governance requirements. If we are going to do this, that is a sensible safeguard. Subsection (2) provides that a director of a local government bus company who is paid to act in that capacity or is an employee of the company or of a subsidiary is disqualified from being elected or being a member of a relevant authority that controls the company, so there is a degree of separation.
Subsection (6)(b)(ii) disapplies section 73(3)(b) of the 1985 Act, which relates to money borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with a public transport company’s provision of local services. That removes the restriction on existing LABCos in England accessing private borrowing where the money is borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with providing local bus services. I can see why private businesses that have good control of their costs would do that, but allowing additional public sector borrowing by municipal bus companies as well as the very significant commercial risks associated with franchising is another concerning element of the clause.
This is franchising with knobs on. Not only is the local transport authority taking direct commercial responsibility for the provision of services, which has not happened before, it is then, instead of contracting out those services for a fee—which is what franchising is in the majority of cases—going the extra step and being the other side of the charterparty in operating the company to which it is franchising. That is a doubling up of the commercial risk and bets taken by local authorities, and on top of that, they are being allowed to raise debt as part of the operating company. I fear that there may be some trouble ahead as a result of this approach.
What control will be applied to that debt? Who is responsible for the debt on the failure of a LABCo? That is an important question. Does the debt fall with the LABCo or revert to the local authority as the only shareholder? Will it come back to the local transport authority as the ultimate owner? What provisions are in place to protect the public purse? My concern is that this bit has not been properly thought through.
LABCos have an obvious potential conflict of interest. They are owned by the local transport authority, which is the contracting body for the bus services that they supply. Whether true or not, there is a risk of an impression of impropriety if there is not a proper arm’s length approach, so we have to go the extra mile. If we as a Committee decide to support this clause, it is incumbent on us, where we recognise that people will likely think that there is an overly close relationship, to put the safeguards in place now to prevent any indication that that might be the case.
The local authority, as an emanation of the state, should bend over backwards to ensure fair play in the tender process and to ensure that that process is obviously fair—that justice is not just being done, but being seen to be done. It is equally obvious that any contract award process from the local transport authority to a LABCo must be fair.
Coming on to amendment 51, the Procurement Act 2023 sets out a fair process to ensure that no underhand tender activities are being undertaken by a local authority—that is its rationale. Yet although clause 22 takes steps to ensure that directors are at arm’s length from local transport authorities, and cannot be elected members either, it currently does not prevent an exclusion under the Procurement Act for the award of contracts to new—as opposed to existing—LABCo operators. That is a clear lacuna and mistake in the drafting of the clause.
The clause is trying to take account of the transitional processes where there is an existing LABCo—there are eight that we have discussed previously. As it is currently worded, however, it does not prevent local transport authorities from setting up new municipal bus companies. In fact, Labour is encouraging them to do that—or going further than that, as the King’s Speech expressed the desire that there should be many more. Despite that, the clause allows the exclusion of the provisions in the Procurement Act. That cannot be the Government’s intention, or if it is, the Minister needs to tell the Committee that that is the case. That is my first question: is it the Government’s intention to allow the exclusion of the provisions of the Procurement Act in such circumstances—yes or no? If it is, why should those provisions be excluded?
Amendment 51 in my name would fix that oversight. It would ensure that any contract awarded after a franchising scheme by a franchising authority cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a LABCo that meets the specific criteria that it was already providing services on 17 December 2024. In other words, we accept the transitional need for LABCos that have been operating over the last years, or that are currently operating, to be excluded.
However, any new LABCo should be properly compliant with the Procurement Act 2023. That protects the ability to roll over a transitional contract where the previous provider was a legacy LABCo, and stops the creation of a new loophole that would allow a local transport authority to misuse roll-over clauses to bypass the proper tender process and award to its own bus company.
It cannot be the Government’s intention to allow such an abuse of tendering, so if they will not adopt my amendment, what other effective steps will they take? How will they stand up for fair competition, the taxpayer and the passenger—or is their focus, again, on the supplier?
Simon Lightwood
In my time as a Minister, I have visited a number of municipal bus companies and they have all been absolutely outstanding. That is not just my view; look at the awards they have received in competition with private providers. They are deeply embedded in the local community, and indeed they are seen with some civic pride by the people who effectively own the company—the people of the local area. This is far from being an ideological move by the Labour party; we are removing the ideological ban. We are enabling local areas with the tools that they need to deliver better bus services, whether those services are municipal, through franchising or through enhanced partnership schemes. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.
Jerome Mayhew
I asked the Minister a couple of specific questions about debt management, so I would be grateful if he would answer them before moving on. He will, of course, remember that I asked about the provision of debt, the ability of a LABCo to raise debt, and what happens to that debt if the LABCo should fail. Does it return to the local transport authority, as the ultimate owner? Have the Government thought this through?
Simon Lightwood
As I said, any decisions should be underpinned by a rigorous and prudential approach to financing and resources. All local authorities have a duty to manage public money well. Local authorities cannot take on any borrowing unless it is affordable. That is a statutory requirement, and any local authority-owned bus company should be self-financing, as a minimum. Repealing the ban on establishing new local authority bus companies will give local leaders the freedom and flexibility to scale a bus company to match the needs of their passengers, the aims and ambitions they have for the network, and the available funding.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister was looking at his officials. I do not want to put him on the spot—obviously, I do, but not really—if this is a question to which he does not immediately know the answer. If he will write to me, through his officials, with that answer, or clarify it later in the sitting, I would be grateful.
Simon Lightwood
I will absolutely ensure that the hon. Member receives a full response and gets the reassurances that he seeks.
Amendment 51, moved by the hon. Member, seeks to prevent new LABCos from being able to directly award franchising contracts under what is known as the Teckal exemption in the Procurement Act 2023. Clause 22 will help to support public ownership, where desired, by repealing the ban on establishing new LABCos. Local authorities can consider a range of options for structuring a new bus company. One such option could be the establishment of a new LABCo as a Teckal company.
I understand hon. Members’ concerns about Teckal, and it is important to address them, but to do so we must understand what the exemption is and how it is likely to work in practice. Teckel is part of a much wider landscape of public procurement law, and it has been available to local authorities for the provision of services for some time. Use of the Teckal exemption is a complex undertaking that needs to be followed with care, given that it allows contracts outside the usual controls imposed by the public procurement regime.
Specific and rigorous tests are required to use the Teckal exemption. In addition, the development of any franchising scheme, including for a Teckal LABCo, is subject to checks and balances, as set out in legislation. That includes a thorough assessment of the plan, independent assurance and public consultation. Local authorities must be careful to ensure that companies are within the Teckal parameters if they pursue this option. Any local authority looking at Teckal would need to consider very carefully whether it was appropriate for their local context.
Existing precedent for Teckal LABCos in the UK, although limited, suggests that Teckal is largely used in scenarios where private operators are not interested in operating a service, or where they fail—for example, a Teckal award to an operator of last resort. Teckal is open to all public bodies that own any type of commercial company. Removing it as an option only for new LABCos would be an unusual departure from the status quo for existing procurement legislation. As it stands, there does not appear to be any compelling reason to single out new LABCos as the only type of public company that cannot use Teckal. My officials will publish guidance on LABCos once the Bill has come into force, and that will cover use of the Teckal exemption. We will work very closely with stakeholders when developing and drafting the guidance. That will help to ensure that the exemption is used only where the local transport authority believes it will genuinely improve bus services for local passengers in the area.
I turn now to Government amendment 17, which makes changes to clause 22. It will remove Wales from the scope of subsection (6)(b)(i), which inserts new subsection (5)(c) into section 73 of the Transport Act 1985. The amendment has been tabled to ensure that the public transport companies in Cardiff and Newport are not captured by the clause. Subsection (6)(b)(i) clarifies that there are no geographical restrictions on the operations of existing local authority bus companies in England. The amendment ensures that the subsection will only apply in England. It has been agreed with the Welsh Government and is intended to ensure consistency with the Welsh Government’s policy objectives to promote bus franchising. Clause 22 repeals the ban on the creation of new local authority bus companies, formerly referred to as municipals. The clause also clarifies that there are no geographical restrictions, as I mentioned, and I already touched on it being a local decision.
New clause 39, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, to conduct an assessment of the potential and efficacy of LABCo service provision compared to private sector operators. I feel it is necessary to reiterate a key point about many of the measures in the Bill: it gives local authorities the choice to decide how best to operate local bus services for their communities. It does not mandate that they establish a particular bus operating model. The number and type of LABCos set up will therefore depend on local decision making and the available resources in each context. Local authorities already set out their objectives in bus service improvement plans and wider local transport policies in local transport plans. For those considering establishing a LABCo, the enhanced partnership variance process or franchising scheme assessment provides a robust way to assess the evidence for choosing one operating model over another.
Jerome Mayhew
I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments, valiant though they were. I therefore intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Kohler
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 23, page 18, line 42, at end insert—
“154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation
(1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it.
(2) In particular, local transport authorities may—
(a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services,
(b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and
(c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.
(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider—
(a) the size of the operator’s fleet,
(b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and
(c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.”
This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.
Mr Kohler
We welcome the powers in clause 23, which enables local transport authorities to design and deliver grants directly to bus operators in their areas. It is a clear step in the right direction, placing real tools in the hands of local authorities, which know their communities best and are best placed to shape the services that their residents rely on.
Amendment 56 builds on that principle. It would ensure that, when designing grant schemes, local authorities must consider the size of transport operators. Too often, smaller bus companies, many of them deeply embedded in the communities they serve, struggle to compete on an uneven playing field, especially when it comes to accessing capital for improvements or expansion. Our amendment recognises the vital role that those smaller operators play.
By requiring authorities to take those smaller operators’ circumstances into account and, where appropriate, prioritise them in their grant making, we would help to protect local choice, preserve vital routes and foster healthy competition in the sector. In short, this is a modest but meaningful measure to ensure that smaller operators are not squeezed out, and that communities continue to benefit from diverse, responsive and locally rooted bus services. We therefore support amendment 56 and the clause standing part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The Government recognise the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in driving economic growth. The hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon clearly recognise that, too, given the amendment that they have tabled. This Bill aims to support our economic growth mission by giving local transport authorities greater freedom to decide how best to support their local networks.
Amendment 56 is intended to ensure that local transport authorities that choose to use the new powers to design and pay grants to bus operators consider the needs of small operators when designing those grants. The amendment is not needed, however. Clause 23 would do nothing to restrict local transport authorities from choosing to provide greater support to local small bus operators when designing their own grants, provided that those grants comply with competition and subsidy rules. Local transport authorities are already well placed to understand the needs of their small operators, because most are already part of enhanced partnership arrangements with operators in their areas. It will be for local transport authorities to decide the best way to support their local bus networks as a whole.
Finally, local transport authorities, as public authorities disbursing funding, will need to be mindful of the fact that any grants that they design using the powers under the Bill must comply with any relevant legal requirements, such as subsidy controls that ensure they are not distorting the local or national market. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Wimbledon withdraw the amendment.
Mr Kohler
We remain of the view that without the amendment, the proposals will not give small bus companies the benefits that we are seeking to achieve. We are not convinced that that can be done without the explicit mention of small bus companies, as provided by the amendment.
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 24, page 20, line 41, after “1985” insert
“, in connection with a local service which has one or more stopping places in England,”.
This amendment limits clause [24](4) to local services which have one or more stopping places in England.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 19.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 28, in clause 25, page 21, line 24, after “equipment,” insert
“including accessibility and the provision of wheelchair spaces,”.
This amendment would add accessibility information to the list of information which is to be provided to users of local bus services.
Clauses 25 and 26 stand part.
Simon Lightwood
Government amendments 18 and 19 will have the effect of removing services operating in Wales from the scope of clause 24(4). Amendment 18 will mean that only services that have stopping places in England will be captured. Amendment 19 will mean that, in relation to a cross-border bus service, no information will be captured about any part of that service operating outside England. The changes are necessary because bus registration is a devolved matter.
Clause 24 will give the Secretary of State new powers in respect of the provision of information on the registration, variation and cancellation of bus services from operators and local transport authorities. It will enable information about local bus services to flow to, and be shared between, the traffic commissioner and the Secretary of State. The traffic commissioner will retain overall responsibility for registering local bus services and the Secretary of State will host and administer the new database, which will bring all the information streams together.
Useful information will be available online, including on who operates the route, where services go and any changes or cancellations to services. By bringing that all online, we will modernise the information provision and make it more transparent for passengers. The technical detail will be set out in regulations made under the new powers in the Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendment 28, which would add
“accessibility and the provision of wheelchair spaces”
as a specific category of data that the Secretary of State may require from bus operators. I agree that open, transparent information about the accessibility specifications of buses should be available to the public, which is why I am pleased to confirm that we were already intending to use the powers in the clause to request the very same information.
Clause 25 works with clause 24 to enhance oversight, promote data-driven decision making and ensure greater transparency of local bus services. It paves the way to require franchising authorities, which do not have to register services with the traffic commissioners, to provide data about their services to the Secretary of State in order to enable the functioning of the aforementioned database. The clause also adds new categories of data that the Secretary of State may collect about local services and the vehicles used to operate them, and will assist with the monitoring and performance of local services and operators.
Clause 26 works in tandem with clauses 24 and 25 to support greater public transparency and thus accountability over local bus services. It will enable the Department to publish historical data down to the operator level by removing some of the existing restrictions on doing so. That will provide passengers with a baseline from which they can assess the performance of current bus services.
Although the existing data provides a good overview of bus services on the whole, having visibility of the business and operations of a specific identifiable operator will ensure that passengers have trust in their local service and confidence that, if they choose to take the bus, it will meet their needs. Clause 26 achieves that by amending the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 to enable the publication of existing operator-level bus data. It states that the Secretary of State must give notice to the industry prior to the publication of such data.
Section 9 of the 1947 Act sets out rules governing the disclosure and publication of information collected under the Act. In particular, it requires the consent of individual undertakings before information identifying them can be published. Disapplying the requirements in section 9 will allow the Department to publish operator-level information collected during the qualifying period, even in cases where written consent cannot reasonably be obtained from a large number of the individual operators concerned. These provisions will enable the timely and transparent publication of operator-level bus data, improving access to information while maintaining appropriate safeguards.
Jerome Mayhew
We have struggled with some clauses in the Bill, but clause 24 is perhaps the most opaque of all the clauses we have been asked to consider. It takes quite a while to go through all the references to work out what the clause actually means, but once that is done, it becomes clear that it is in fact a tidy-up exercise of the requirement for the registration of local services to the traffic commissioner. It maintains equivalent obligations in Wales as apply to England and ensures that the Transport Act 1985 is read through the lens of subsequent data protections.
The clause also retains the existing power of a traffic commissioner to refuse registration of a scheme if they believe that the applicant has not given them such information as they may reasonably require in connection with the application. The manner and type of such communication will be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations—okay.
The one area that I have some concerns about is clause 24(4), which deals with powers conferred on the Secretary of State, as it appears to go much further than the reasons given in the explanatory notes for why subsection (4) is necessary. I will read a short paragraph from the explanatory notes:
“Subsection (4) enables Traffic Commissioners to share existing registration information with the Secretary of State. It also ensures Traffic Commissioners can provide information about ongoing applications for the registration, variation or cancellation of services received before this clause comes into force”.
That is the rationale behind subsection (4), but its wording gives unfettered power to the Secretary of State to use any information, provided for any purpose, without restriction. The subsection states:
“in which case the information is provided without restrictions on its disclosure or use”.
Why do I care about this, and why is it potentially important? It is simply because the information about a scheme could be deeply commercially sensitive. Not every bus company is a LABCo; there are private sector operators in competition with one another. The commissioner can reasonably require full details of how an operation will be undertaken, including its financial elements. The current drafting of subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to disclose that deeply commercially sensitive information. Operators are required to give that information to the traffic commissioner—without it, the commissioner could refuse to grant an application—and the Secretary of State then gets their hands on it and can do whatever they want with it, without restriction on its disclosure or use. I highlight that point to Minister and, through him, to officials. Why should the Secretary of State have such a wide-ranging power? It is not necessary for the purposes of the Bill, as set out in the explanatory notes, and it just seems to have slipped through the gap. Can the Minister please explain why?
Government amendment 18 makes a technical correction and I have no objection to it. I will also skip over Government amendment 19, in the interest of speed, for the benefit of the Government Whip.
Clause 25 amends section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that require franchising authorities to provide data about services, akin to registration information, which we have just talked about. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the collection and publication of additional categories of information.
The intention of clause 25 is to obtain a better understanding of the nature of the services that are currently being provided, who is providing them and how they are doing so, including an understanding of the vehicles used, the number of staff engaged and the cost. I am developing a bit of theme here, but so what? What will the Government do with this information? Why is it useful? In itself, it does not change behaviour. I am not against the collation of the information, so long as it used to good effect, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of how he intends to use it.
Clause 26 deals with information obtained under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, which gives powers to competent authorities to require organisations to provide data, for economic forecasting, in essence—the kind of data that is used by the Government Statistical Service. Section 9 of the 1947 Act prevents the disclosure of such information that identifies an individual undertaking without the prior written consent of the provider of the information.
That is obviously very sensible. The Government want to find out what is happening in the economy to inform their policies, so under the 1947 Act they gave themselves power to require businesses to provide interesting information about their operations. As an aside, I used to run a business, which was asked for information by the Bank of England on a quarterly or perhaps six-monthly basis so that it could get a feeling for what was happening in the economy. It did not want the Westminster bubble or the square mile bubble; it looked at the real, lived experience of businesses. Those businesses provide useful data, which informs interest rate decisions and Government policy. But the last thing a businessman wants is for that information to be sent out into the public realm with their name attached to it. If they said, “Oh, isn’t it terrible? Orders have gone through the floor and we’re planning to lay a whole load of people off,” they would not want that information to be in the public domain; they provide it in confidence.
Simon Lightwood
From what I have heard from Committee members, we share the goal of improving bus services for passengers. These clauses are a direct response to a problem with how information on bus services is captured. I believe that solving it is critical to delivering better bus services.
Before I address the shadow Minister’s specific points, let me say that the Government have made transparency and open data a key priority. As I set out in detail in my Department’s transport data strategy, transparency fosters accountability, drives improvements in public services by informing choice, and stimulates innovation and growth. It is simply unacceptable that a passenger is unable to consult a single source of information to get a full picture of the services available in their local area and beyond. That is a result of different ways that service registration has been delegated across the country and the fact that there are multiple bus data streams, including the Bus Open Data Service. In fact, many bus registration processes are still completed using paper applications. That is simply inefficient.
Bringing multiple sources of information together in one place will really help to improve the situation for passengers. The Bill will not change who must register a bus service; it will provide a power to change from paper to electronic the means by which a service must be registered with the traffic commissioner.
The shadow Minister expressed concerns about the implications of the measures for bus operators. My noble Friend the Rail Minister addressed that in the other place, saying that we will be mindful of the commercial sensitivity concerns, and I reiterate that commitment. Having greater visibility of individual bus operators will increase accountability and help to build passengers’ trust, in turn giving them confidence to take the bus.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendment made: 19, in clause 24, page 20, line 43, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a local service is provided both inside and outside England, subsection (4) does not authorise the provision of information which relates to any part of the service which is provided outside England.”—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment provides that a traffic commissioner may not provide to the Secretary of State information about cross-border services which relates to any part of the service provided outside England.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Powers of inspectors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 67, in clause 28, page 24, line 37, after “nuisance” insert—
“, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”
This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.
Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.
Simon Lightwood
The clause supports bus franchising authorities and local transport authorities to deal effectively with fare evasion. That is achieved through amendments to the definition of “inspector” in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, to allow local transport authorities and Transport for London to appoint their own transport safety officers, or transport support and enforcement officers, as inspectors, alongside the existing ability for bus operators to do so. That will support the safety of all passengers and enable local authority officers to have the same powers as those who are employed or authorised by a bus operator, ultimately enabling the local transport authority to prevent fare evasion.
On amendment 67 tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for South Devon, I understand what they are seeking to achieve. The Government are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour, including “headphone dodging” on buses. Clause 28 gives local transport authorities powers to make byelaws on their buses, providing them with scope to tackle a broad range of antisocial behaviours. That could include making byelaws to tackle disruptive forms of behaviour.
The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 set out the behaviour expected of drivers and passengers travelling on buses. They provide powers for drivers, inspectors and conductors, or the police, to remove a person from a vehicle if they
“play or operate any musical instrument or sound reproducing equipment to the annoyance of any person on the vehicle or in a manner which is likely to cause annoyance”.
Breach of the rules carries a possible fine of up to £1,000 on conviction. As such, amendment 67 is not necessary, and I ask that the hon. Member for Wimbledon does not press it to a vote.
Clause 28 enables local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to tackle antisocial behaviour on vehicles, as well as within and at bus-related infrastructure, such as bus stations. The clause was developed to address the current situation, in which there are no specific powers available to local transport authorities to make byelaws to deal with antisocial behaviour on their bus networks.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 1st July 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 July 2025 - (1 Jul 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent and to send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We have some visually impaired people in the Gallery who are very welcome. For their benefit and for the benefit of others following the proceedings this afternoon, when I call a Member to speak, I will announce their name and party affiliation. I ask that Members allow me to do so before commencing their speech. For the benefit of those in the Gallery who have not met me yet—you have a different Chair from the one this morning—my name is Dr Rosena Allin-Khan and it is a pleasure to have you here.
Clause 27
Powers of inspectors
Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 67, in clause 28, page 24, line 37, after “nuisance” insert
“, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”
This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.
Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
As I was saying this morning, clause 28 enables local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to tackle antisocial behaviour on vehicles, as well as within and at bus-related infrastructure, such as bus stations. The clause was developed to address the current situation, in which there are no specific powers available to local transport authorities to make byelaws to deal with antisocial behaviour on their bus networks. Certain local transport authorities could use the general powers contained in section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 for this purpose, but those powers are not available to all local transport authorities, most notably metropolitan combined authorities.
The clause is intended to provide flexibility to local transport authorities to effectively enforce against antisocial behaviour on the transport network and to ensure greater consistency across the country and across public transport modes. Through these byelaws, local transport authorities can provide authorised persons with the power to enforce against antisocial behaviour, including the ability to issue fixed penalty notices where they have reason to believe that an offence has been committed.
Clause 29 ensures that the new byelaw powers being granted to local transport authorities are also available to Transport for London. TfL has requested to be included in this provision. Although TfL officers can deal with antisocial behaviour at bus stops and bus stations under existing byelaws, they cannot easily enforce against nuisance behaviour on the buses themselves. Closing this loophole gives TfL the same powers as other local transport authorities in England and will help to make buses in London safer for passengers and for staff.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is good to see you back in your rightful place, Dr Allin-Khan. Clause 23 is not a controversial element of the Bill, so I will not detain the Committee for too long. It gives local transport authorities and Transport for London sensible new powers to enforce against fare evasion.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I think there is some slight confusion among Committee members because my hon. Friend said clause 23 when he meant clause 27.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that intervention; I stand corrected, as I was talking about clause 27. I do not know where clause 23 came from—my subconscious.
Subsection (2) clarifies that regulations can address the powers of an inspector outside of their authority’s area. Subsections (3) and (4) clarify the definition of an inspector. That is all fine.
Clause 28 is the largest clause in the Bill, so although it is not particularly contentious—we are substantially supportive of it—I would not be taking my duty seriously if I totally skipped over it. I will therefore pick and mix and hope that people bear with me while I take a little time to consider how it deals with local transport authority byelaws. It amends the Transport Act 2000, sets out the power of LTAs to make byelaws, and lists the various areas that can be covered.
Proposed new section 144A(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act is relevant to Liberal Democrat amendment 67. The byelaws set out in proposed new subsection (1) relate to travel on services, the maintenance of order and the conduct of persons while using services. Those are the areas of interest about which organisations will have the authority to create byelaws.
Proposed new subsection (2) goes into more detail and states that the byelaws relate to issues including tickets, the evasion of payment of fares, interference with or obstruction of local services, and the prohibition of vaping, smoking and nuisance on local services. I highlight that list, because Liberal Democrat amendment 67 would add “sustained anti-social auditory disturbance” to it.
The two subsections are dealt with differently: proposed new subsection (1) is an exhaustive list setting out the scope for byelaws, but proposed new subsection (2) is a non-exhaustive list of provisions that may be considered. Therefore, proposed new subsection (1) does not allow the consideration of issues relating to noise disturbance and would need to be amended to include that. In my submission, however, proposed new subsection (2) would not need to be amended because it is a non-exhaustive list, so we could go on forever adding things that annoy us on public transport—I would quite like to settle down and consider that. Although I share the Liberal Democrats’ fury and annoyance at antisocial auditory disturbance, I do not think it is necessary to add it to the non-exhaustive list in proposed new subsection (2).
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments on our amendment, but what is the point of including anything in proposed new subsection (2) then? Following his argument, nothing needs to be there.
Jerome Mayhew
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not the Government; it is for them to defend their drafting. If he wants to help to change that, I will happily stand on the Government side and give him the answer he is looking for. The essence of any non-exhaustive list is to give examples. It would not be wrong to give another example, but it is up to the Government whether it is necessary to amend the clause and whether they are prepared to add it to the list. As a matter of law, however, that is the difference between an exhaustive and a non-exhaustive list.
Proposed new section 144B sets out the procedures on byelaws. The Minister spoke about them briefly, and the measure is a reasonable approach to the problem that the Government seek to solve. I will just go back, however, and highlight that the byelaws allow for level 3 fines for these offences. Hon. Members will know that, under the current guidelines, a level 3 fine is £1,000, so the byelaws will allow local transport authorities and Transport for London to impose not inconsiderable fines.
Given that these are substantial powers that can address quite wide-ranging behaviours, and that transport authorities can impose fines of up to £1,000, we collectively need to think about the guidance from the Secretary of State that will accompany this legislation. It is important to get that right, and I invite the Minister to elaborate on the guidance’s likely approach to enforcement. A kind of draconian, one-strike-and-you’re-out enforcement would be deeply unpopular, and it would bring in a whole load of people who were just running for the bus. There are good actors and bad actors: people get caught up in behaviours for all sorts of reasons, and we need sensible guidance about enforcement.
Clause 29, on TfL byelaws, is a similar clause that simply seeks to apply a similar approach to TfL. I will not go through it, but the points that I made about clause 28 apply.
Mr Kohler
Clause 28 introduces powers for local authorities to make byelaws for buses. That is welcome, and I agree that the behaviour that the clause already lists should be prohibited. There is, however, a clear omission. With passengers already paying extortionate fares to be packed in like sardines on buses, we should at least ensure that they do not face the added indignity of someone’s blaring TikTok feed. That is why our amendment 67 seeks to add the words
“including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”
The amendment would explicitly allow transport authorities to bring in byelaws that ban persistent antisocial noise, such as music or videos played out loud on personal devices. It is a sensible, proportionate response to a problem that has been left unchecked for far too long. Let us be clear: we are not talking about a small inconvenience. The scale of the problem is significant.
Recent polling has found that almost two in five people say that they have experienced others playing music out loud often or sometimes, while only a quarter report experiencing it rarely. Furthermore, a majority of respondents say that they would not feel comfortable asking someone to turn down their music on public transport. Women feel especially unable to challenge such antisocial behaviour; almost two thirds say that they would not feel comfortable doing so.
Furthermore, playing music and other content loudly on public transport is done not only unthinkingly but, on many occasions, in a deliberately intimidatory manner designed to provoke and unsettle others going about their lawful business. The amendment is a sensible step that would ensure local authorities have the tools that they need to combat a growing menace.
Not everyone agrees. I was deeply disappointed when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who also happens to be a valued constituent of mine, opposed the measure, dismissing fines for such disruptive and selfish behaviour as “silly”, despite the frustration and discontent that it causes for so many. I find her attitude extraordinary; I would be very surprised if she had not, like so many of my other constituents, experienced the phenomenon on buses across Wimbledon—assuming, of course, that she uses buses.
The right hon. Lady is not alone, however, as I will explore in more detail in a moment. Some have accused me of abandoning my liberal sensibilities in seeking to address the issue. All I would say to such critics is that liberalism is as much about responsibilities as about rights. I do not begin to see how my right to play content loudly on my phone or some other device obviates my responsibility not to cause unnecessary disturbance to others. Whether people are heading to work, taking their kids to school or simply trying to enjoy a moment of peace, they deserve to feel safe and respected on public transport.
Time and again I hear people say that they feel too intimidated to speak up when someone is blasting music or videos from a phone or speaker. The Liberal Democrats want to take tough action on headphone dodgers to ensure that every passenger feels safe and respected, and can travel in peace. We urge all parties to support the amendment and finally bring an end to commutes filled with unnecessary noise, disturbance and frustration.
In what has become a running motif of the Committee, the Minister has said that the amendment, like so many that have perished before it, is unnecessary on two broad grounds. First, he argues that the antisocial playing of music and other content already comes within the term “nuisance” under the Government’s proposed new section of the 2000 Act.
That is clearly open to challenge, however: I have already quoted the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears not to regard such thoughtless or intimidatory disturbance as a nuisance. Perhaps more significantly, in what has become an increasingly rare experience for the Conservative leader, she appears to still be speaking for most of her parliamentary party—although not, it seems, for the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on this issue at least—given the jeers and heckling directed at me from the Opposition Benches when I raised headphone dodgers at Prime Minister’s questions recently. I humbly suggest to the Minister that it is worth noting the Prime Minister’s answer to my question. Pointing at the jeering Conservative Benches, he said:
“We take this seriously; the Conservatives laugh about it.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2025; Vol. 766, c. 324.]
Here is the Minister’s chance to prove that the PM is a man of his word by accepting our amendment and showing that the Government do take sustained antisocial auditory disturbance seriously in the face of those who would—bizarrely—argue that it is not a nuisance.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I rise to support the clause, and in particular the elements in proposed new section 144A of the Transport Act 2000 on nuisance and antisocial behaviour. In the community of Hemlington in my constituency, there have recently been disgraceful attacks on bus drivers and buses by young people in the community. I commend the work of Cleveland police, which responded using an innovative so-called Trojan bus filled with plain-clothes police officers who then arrested and apprehended the individuals committing those crimes.
I am asking for clarity on how those provisions in the Bill fit with the broader legislative framework on nuisance and antisocial behaviour, including in relation to people who are not necessarily bus passengers but who are outside and may be disrupting transport. I hope that the Minister can give us some more information on that.
I welcome the provisions in the clause, because we have to address antisocial behaviour and the way that it impacts our public transport system. I support this clause, and I am pleased that we have these provisions in the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
After the Liberal Democrat contribution, I was missing my headphones—[Interruption.] I say that with love. I thank Committee members for their further comments on the powers to make byelaws contained in the Bill.
The Government are focused on tackling antisocial behaviour. Improving the safety of our bus network is one of the Government’s aims in reforming buses, because that is critical to giving passengers, particularly women and girls, the confidence they need to take the bus. Different powers are currently available for different transport modes, and the powers that certain local transport authorities hold for light or heavy rail are not in place for buses. That has created a situation where local transport authorities rely on a patchwork of powers to enforce against poor behaviour, and some authorities are unable to act at all against those committing antisocial behaviour. The Bill remedies that situation by providing powers to create and enforce bus byelaws.
On the question of what constitutes antisocial behaviour, the Bill lists specific behaviours that byelaws can cover, such as vaping, smoking and interfering with or obstructing services and vehicles. My Department plans to issue non-statutory guidance about the content of byelaws that will take the existing railway byelaws as a starting point, which should help to ensure consistency across different transport modes.
Rebecca Smith
Given the Minister is comparing the rail system with buses, and saying that he wants to bring buses into line with the railway, I am intrigued about who will do that enforcement. We have the British Transport police on the railway, and there are signs everywhere and a phone number that someone can call, but at the moment on buses—I have been on ones where antisocial behaviour is taking place—it ultimately falls to the driver to enforce against that. Is that what the Minister is saying will happen as a result of this legislation? Will there be additional powers or will an additional force be created to enable that enforcement to take place—or is that entirely down to LTAs to figure out for themselves?
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Lady will have seen in the Bill that there is an element of ensuring that bus drivers and other persons in bus companies are given training on antisocial behaviour, particularly violence against women and girls, so that when it is safe to act, they can intervene in the interests of public and driver safety.
I talked earlier about the potential for transport safety officers in local transport authority areas, not just among bus providers. Ultimately, the design of that and how it is enforced, depending on the byelaws, will of course be a matter for the local transport authorities themselves, but this is about giving them the powers and allowing them to put those byelaws in place. Obviously, they need to be enforced. Sometimes it is also a matter of communicating this stuff. We have all been on other modes of transport where it is not adhered to.
As I said, my Department plans to issue non-statutory guidance on the content of the byelaws. That guidance will take the form of existing railway byelaws and is expected to emphasise the “educate, engage and enforce” approach. As I said in my opening remarks, I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon—despite my jest—on the need to take action against antisocial behaviour, but powers already exist to take action against playing music or videos loudly on buses. The training that I talked about a moment ago will only help to raise awareness of that, both with passengers and with drivers. In relation to enforcement at bus stops and stands, there are areas where divergence is expected in enforcement practices. That is likely to include stops and stands, which by their nature are harder to define than parts of the railway estate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Local transport authority byelaws
Amendment proposed: 67, in clause 28, page 24, line 37, after “nuisance” insert
“, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”—(Mr Kohler.)
This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 30, page 32, line 6, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 29, in clause 30, page 32, line 9, at end insert—
“including their safety on pavements and crossings on routes to, from and between stopping places in both directions of the routes,
(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,
(ab) providing clear and accessible information, including real-time information, about services calling at stopping places and in the wider area,”.
This amendment would require guidance relating to stopping places issued by the Secretary of State to include consideration of the provision of toilet facilities and travel information, as well as to promote the safety of people using pavements and crossings near the stopping places.
Amendment 41, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, after “comfort” insert
“without having to cross a cycle track to board the bus or continue their journey after alighting”.
This amendment would extend the purpose of the guidance issued by the Government to include enabling disabled people to travel without having to cross a cycle track in order to board a bus, or once they have alighted.
Amendment 42, in clause 30, page 32, line 14, delete “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to include the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places.
Amendment 65, in clause 30, page 32, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.
This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.
Amendment 60, in clause 30, page 32, line 30, leave out “have regard to” and insert
“take reasonable steps to implement”.
This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.
Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if—
(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and
(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.
(6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”
This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.
Amendment 55, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).
(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 30, in clause 30, page 33, line 3, after “place” insert
“from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route”.
Amendment 31, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, after “the” insert “information and”.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 44, in clause 31, page 34, line 17, at end insert—
“(9) For the purpose of this section, “floating bus stop” is also to be understood as including “shared bus-stop boarders”.”
This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Clause 31 stand part.
Amendment 45, in clause 32, page 34, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.
(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”
This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Clause 32 stand part.
New clause 11—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—
“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.
(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.
New clause 12—Prohibition of new floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.
New clause 13—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops—
“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.
New clause 40—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—
(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;
(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.
(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.
New clause 47—Prohibition on new floating bus stops and proposals to retrofit existing stops—
“(1) No local authority may construct any new floating bus stops after the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review all existing floating bus stops to identify changes that need to be made to adapt such stops in line with fully accessible, inclusive-by-design principles.
(3) Following the review, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement which outlines—
(a) the changes which will need to be made to existing floating bus stops;
(b) the steps the Secretary of State will take to make the required changes; and
(c) the guidance which will be provided to local authorities on how to retrofit existing floating bus stops.”
Jerome Mayhew
It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who tabled amendment 40, is not here to move it herself. This amendment would change one word for another in subsection (1) of clause 30, which is about safety and accessibility of stopping places. This subsection says:
“The Secretary of State may give guidance about stopping places for local services, and facilities in the vicinity of such stopping places, for the purposes of”
and then there is a whole list. Amendment 40 proposes to swap the word “may” for “must” to make that a mandatory requirement.
I will now talk about clause 30 in its entirety, putting amendment 40 in context, because this is a very live issue. Many people are concerned about the current state of stopping places and the urgent necessity to take effective action to remedy what has become an increasingly dangerous situation. Clause 30 will create a new power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance concerning
“the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places”
used by public service vehicles providing local services, and the facilities in the vicinity of such stopping places.
The guidance will be provided for the purpose of facilitating disabled persons’ travel on local services, enabling them to do so
“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”—
that phrase we have become familiar with—and improving the safety of persons using facilities. The guidance may include “location, design,” and importantly,
“construction and maintenance of stopping places and facilities in the vicinity”.
When publishing, revoking or substantially changing such guidance, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. Local traffic authorities, local transport authorities and National Highways, which are responsible for commissioning new and upgrading or maintaining existing bus stations and stops in England, will be required to have regard to the guidance when commissioning such activity, as set out in subsection (6).
While I welcome the overall aim of the clause—to make travelling on bus networks more accessible, comfortable and inclusive for disabled people—I have significant concerns, and I am not alone. That can be seen by the huge number, relatively speaking, of amendments and new clauses suggested in relation to clause 30.
The clause states that the Secretary of State will be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, but there is a risk that one group of people with experience is being chosen to advise the Government, and the wider disabled community is not being consulted. Why has the Minister not consulted more widely with persons with disabilities?
Can the Minister confirm that the anticipated guidance has no statutory power of compulsion? The only sanction I can find is in clause 32(3), which states that the Secretary of State may issue a statement of non-compliance. That is it. The question is: if there is a statement of non-compliance, so what? What actual powers do these two clauses, acting together, give the Secretary of State to enforce change?
In that context, we can see that amendment 40, in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, is important because it makes the Secretary of State’s guidance on stopping places mandatory. It is a very important issue. There is an established need for guidance, given the current controversy. It should not be in the gift of the Secretary of State—he or she should be getting on with it. Why would the Government object to amendment 40?
The Member who tabled amendment 29 is not here, so I will not respond to it. I will speak to amendment 41, again tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea, which deals fairly and squarely with floating bus stops. Over the next couple of hours, we will be rehearsing a lot of the information that the Committee has received about the dangerous difficulties and problems that partially sighted and blind passengers, in particular, have found with accessing floating bus stops when they have to cross over live cycleways.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I have just looked at how long floating bus stops have been in use in the UK, and I found that they were first installed in London around 2013. That was clearly under the previous Government, some 12 years ago. I also did a quick search of Hansard to see if the hon. Member had mentioned floating bus stops in the House before. Apparently he has not, so can he tell us what he has done previously to address the issue? He has said that he has long-running concerns about it. Why has he not raised the question of floating bus stops in the House before?
Jerome Mayhew
What a clever, clever intervention. Floating bus stops were introduced in 2013 under the coalition Government; I fully accept that. I was first elected in 2019, so I could not have spoken either in favour of or against the adoption of floating bus stops. This is the first occasion on which legislation has come before us in which floating bus stops have been an issue. The hon. Member is quite right that I have not mentioned it before.
While I have entered the private Member’s Bill ballot, I have not been successful. If I had been, would I have introduced a private Member’s Bill solely about floating bus stops? Perhaps not—I stand guilty as charged. However, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, while it is always tempting to throw political brickbats around, there are, even in this room today, people who are living with the consequences of floating bus stops. We should be working collaboratively to find a workable solution that helps real people.
Amendment 42, which is also in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, makes mandatory something that is simply advisory, as the clause is drafted. The amendment would require such guidance to include:
“the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places.”
Can the Minister describe a situation in which the Secretary of State would not wish to provide such guidance? I am sure he would accept that there are some very serious problems here that need to be addressed. Given that the Secretary of State will want to do this in any circumstance that either he or I could envisage, why would he object to making the requirement mandatory?
Amendment 65, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would expand the screen information associated with bus stopping places. The amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places could include—or, if amendment 42 is adopted, must include—guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place. Accessibility guidance addresses not just physical infrastructure but information provision, which is equally crucial for enabling disabled people—particularly those with cognitive impairments, who rely on the reassurance of timings, and blind or partially sighted passengers, who require audio information —to travel independently and confidently. Amendment 65 would extend such benefits beyond disabled people to older passengers, tourists and passengers who do not have technology such as smartphones. I support that intention.
As ever, I have concerns about the funding associated with the amendment, because we have to accept that there is a very significant cost to these undoubted improvements. I question whether all local authorities and bus operators have the technical capacity and, most importantly, the funding to install and maintain real-time information displays at every stopping place. I am aware that there is such infrastructure in large metropolitan areas such as London. However, what about rural areas, such as the ones that the hon. Member for North Norfolk and I represent? It is a very different picture there.
Let us not forget that this legislation will apply to every local authority in the country, so some pretty small local transport authorities will be applying whatever comes out of the Bill. Will they have the funds and resources to satisfy the amendment, if it is adopted? I hope that it is adopted, and that the Government say, “This is a very good idea, and we will fund it”, but I am not holding my breath.
Amendment 60, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would beef up clause 30 by replacing the words “have regard to” with
“take reasonable steps to implement.”
The amendment would ensure that the authorities listed in subsection (6) took reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State was implemented. Members will be aware that “reasonable steps to ensure” is a legal term of art, so it is not just about making a list; it has a degree of compulsion to it. An LTA could be challenged, through the judicial review process, on whether such reasonable steps had been taken.
Again, it all comes down to money. I agree with the ambition behind amendment 60, but change costs money, and the Government are not providing the support. This provision would leave LTAs open to costly challenges by rights groups. I say that it is costly because to mount a successful defence against an argument that reasonable steps had not been taken, the LTA would have to demonstrate in its response that it had done so, taking into account its financial position, resources and ability to raise funds. We already know that, under the Bill, a debt-raising ability is being applied to both bus companies and local authorities.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The shadow Minister is right to say that legal action is likely to be brought by rights groups, but does he not agree that good, accessible design should not be price-tagged based just on the cost for those who need it? In fact, good, accessible design benefits everyone, and it could be part of the reason why more people use public transport.
Jerome Mayhew
I agree with everything that the hon. Member for North Norfolk said. As I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, this would undoubtedly improve the service provided not just for people with disabilities but for all of us. I will not speak to amendment 43, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; others may wish to do so.
Amendment 55, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff, which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The training would have to be made available to bus operating companies. I support the intention behind the amendment, as guidance alone will not deliver accessible infrastructure unless staff understand and implement it. Training will help to embed best practice among bus staff and improve disabled passengers’ safety and confidence. There is again a “but”, though.
One reason to hesitate is money, but there is also a lack of detail about training providers and the additional financial burdens on local transport authorities. Where will the money come from to conduct the training in franchise bus systems? We have already seen how costly franchising alone can become, with the Bee Network. I would love to have another crack at those numbers and get the Minister finally to admit that he is wrong and I am right, but I will not, as I have tried it three or four times already. The amendment would add even more financial burden on local transport authorities, with a lack of detail about funding.
Clause after clause, we are seeing, first, how expensive the proposed changes are, and secondly, how financially risky they are. Those are two different things. Something can be expensive but the risk is adopted by another organisation, or it can be expensive and the risk lies with the taxpayer. The Bill as a whole, and these clauses in particular, create more financial risk for the taxpayer, particularly in local transport authorities, and a more expensive process, because all these good things are expensive. We want to achieve all of them, but we are not seeing Government money following their ambition.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for highlighting the cost risk for local authorities. He referred to the greater risk for small local authorities, of which my own Isle of Wight council is a very good example. It is dwarfed by other transport authorities, and on cost risk alone would be unable to make use of the so-called freedoms in the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is quite right, but in partial defence of the Government’s position, they are not requiring a change; they are facilitating a change should a local authority choose to go down the franchising route. None the less, concerns remain, and my hon. Friend is quite right to highlight them. Many local authorities will wish to pull the levers of state, and this looks like a shiny new lever. They are being led by the charismatic mayoral combined authorities—well, charismatic to some; I couldn’t possibly comment. Transport for Greater Manchester is now being followed by Liverpool and Transport for West Midlands. Those are the trailblazers. They are all going for what we have described as full-fat franchising.
I am concerned that for many local authorities, being seduced by this new opportunity, as they might see it, will be a terrible mistake, and they will come an absolute cropper. Think of the cost of running a franchise service: even if a local authority has not created a municipal bus company and is just contracting out the franchise services, the commercial risk stays with the local authority. That could easily bankrupt a local authority of the size of the Isle of Wight. It is a very significant concern, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it.
Amendment 30 was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who is not in her place. The amendment would, in clause 30, after “place” insert
“from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route”.
When we consider the usability of a bus stop, whether it is a floating bus stop or a shared use bus stop boarder, we should have it in mind that that the vast majority of people who take a but journey will want to come back in the opposite direction. The interrelationship between the bus stop on one side of the road and the bus stop on the other is important. The amendment highlights that and includes it in the Bill.
Joe Robertson
Does the shadow Minister agree that it is slightly ridiculous to expect cyclists to be able to recognise that somebody disabled is seeking to cross a cycle lane? That seems to assume that people with disabilities are instantly recognisable, which is a very old-fashioned view of disability. It is plainly ridiculous to expect cyclists to make such a recognition. It is bad for them as well as being plainly bad for people with disabilities.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend is right. I do not want to demonise cyclists. Cyclists are not out there actively trying to mow down pedestrians seeking to cross at floating bus stops; they are doing their best in the vast majority of cases, but we have created, with the best of intentions, a conflict between foot passengers and cyclists. I would submit that we have the balance of convenience wrong, and we should be brave and bold enough to admit where we have made a mistake and should take effective steps to improve the situation.
Floating bus stops are inherently inaccessible and dangerous. They compromise the safety of people with visual impairments, who potentially cannot see or hear cyclists. They confuse wheelchair users and those with mobility impairments, who are put off using public transport. New clause 12 would strengthen democratic oversight by requiring proposals to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
New clause 13 was also tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; in her absence I shall set out what it does. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared use bus boarders to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England. I made clear in my earlier remarks the dangers caused by floating bus stops to the safety of disabled, partially sighted, blind and elderly people, and I support the new clause, as it would add further checks and balances to clause 31 and strengthen the Government’s stance on the issue.
The requirement on the Secretary of State to commission an independent safety and accessibility review and to undertake that review in collaboration with groups representing disabled people would not only help to ensure that the Government’s response to floating bus stops was evidence-based and centred specifically on safety concerns and the lived experience of people trying to use such bus stops, but accommodate consulting the wider disabled community, not just the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.
New clause 40 was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon and he will be delighted to hear that he has my support. I will leave it to him to rehearse all the details of the drafting, if he wishes to; suffice it to say that that the new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops—not future ones, but the ones that are already there—and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure that they are fully accessible and safe. I welcome any amendments that add checks and balances to the Bill to help to ensure the safety of passengers and nullify the safety issues with floating bus stops. My new clause 47 accommodates the aims of new clause 40(2), but goes one step further by prohibiting any new floating bus stops after the day on which the Bill becomes an Act. I fully support the Liberal Democrat new clause.
Members will be delighted to hear that my new clause 47 is the last clause in this group, so I will sit down in a moment. Were the new clause to be adopted, it would do three important things. Subsection (1) would establish an immediate prohibition on the construction of new floating bus stops by local authorities—so we would stop digging. That is the first thing: we would stop making new floating bus stops. Subsection (2) would compel the Secretary of State to review existing infra-structure to assess compliance with accessibility and inclusive design principles—that is, to see what we have and to analyse it to see whether it is accessible. Subsection (3) would require a clear and public statement to Parliament setting out what changes would be made, what steps the Secretary of State would take to ensure that they were delivered, and what guidance would be issued to local authorities to support that work.
The new clause is designed to be a pragmatic response to persistent and credible concerns raised by the disabled community, charities representing blind people and elderly bus passengers who have to struggle with the safety challenges that persist with these bus stop designs.
Mr Kohler
Is there not a contradiction? Subsection (2) seems to suggest that there are ways of designing out the problem, whereas subsection (1) bans all new floating bus stops. If subsection (1) were offering a moratorium until the design issues had been addressed, we could support it, but subsections (1) and (2) do not sit well with each other.
Jerome Mayhew
Given my criticisms of the hon. Gentleman’s drafting of previous amendments, I am sure he is delighted to raise this drafting concern. I respectfully disagree with him, as new clause 47 takes a sequential approach to stop the problem getting worse, then to identify the cause of the problem, and then to require the Government to set out how to fix it. I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman and his conscience to decide whether he feels able to support the new clause, should it come to a Division.
New clause 47 strikes the right balance between a pragmatic approach towards existing floating bus stops, a requirement for the Secretary of State to review all floating bus stops to identify the changes that are needed, and a firm but necessary stance against the construction of any further floating bus stops. The principle of inclusive design must be a main priority when we think about bus stops, and my new clause would achieve that. I urge the Committee to think carefully about it, and to see if they can find it in their hearts to support it.
Mr Kohler
There is a lot to cover, but I will not take as long as the shadow Minister. Amendments 40 and 42 are sensible, as making guidance mandatory rather than permissible would keep the right balance. This is clearly an issue for many people, and having clear Government guidance on the accessibility of stopping places would be a positive step. As the shadow Minister said, surely the Minister will want to produce guidance, so making it mandatory would not be an onerous obligation.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not here to press amendment 29, but my party supports it and will press it. This positive amendment would ensure that there is guidance on toilet facilities—which are clearly an issue, particularly for people with a disability or medical condition—and on travel information in relation to floating bus stops.
Liberal Democrat amendment 65 would mean that accessibility guidance includes guidance relating to the provision of information at a stopping place, and amendment 60 would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that the disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented. Although the Bill makes provision for the publication of new statutory guidance to improve the accessibility of bus stops, service information provision is not mentioned. Up-to-date route and timetable information, as well as real-time arrival boards, are crucial for all passengers, especially those without access to digital tools. It also improves passengers’ feeling of control and security. In Wimbledon, many signs have been removed and not replaced, which is a real issue for older people and the digitally excluded. For those who do not have access to an iPhone, this sort of information is critical.
Amendment 65 would address that need by ensuring that legislation covers both infrastructure and information provision, including up-to-date route maps, timetables and real-time arrival information at bus stops, ensuring accessibility and safety for all users. It would help to prevent people becoming disoriented or isolated, ensuring that disability does not stand in the way of navigating a local bus route.
Amendment 60 would ensure that disability provisions are properly actioned. “Reasonable steps” is a legal term of art, and the shadow Minister’s criticism does not hold because the costs would be part of deciding whether it is reasonable. Having regard to guidance on disability could see many transport authorities fail to implement anything substantive, but this amendment would require them to take reasonable steps to deliver the guidance—that is, they must be reasonable steps.
Accessibility is not a nice-to-have; equal access for all passengers is essential. If disabled people are unable to travel to their doctor’s appointments, to see their friends or to access work because of poor accessibility, the impact on their lives is intolerable. For accessibility, legislation needs to talk in terms of duties and steps that must be implemented rather than just a consideration that can be done away with. However, as I said, the amendment emphasises reasonable steps, not unreasonable ones.
Rebecca Smith
I am intrigued: does the hon. Member agree that we also have an issue where pedestrian crossings land straight on to cycle routes on busy main roads? Although it is outside the scope of the Bill, would his proposed review also look at that? For example, when a visually impaired person or someone using a wheelchair crosses Vauxhall Bridge Road, which is very busy, they are sent straight into a cycle lane that cuts across it. Does he agree that, in an ideal world, it would be nice to address that too?
Mr Kohler
I completely agree with the hon. Member. With the welcome increase in active travel and the number of cyclists, we need to address the conflicts that arise on the road. If one goes to the continent, it is part of their DNA—cyclists, motorists and pedestrians understand their relationship—but the same is not true in this country.
The new clause proposes a review of existing floating bus stops within six months and would require the Secretary of State to come up with a plan. This is a proportionate, evidence-led and pragmatic path forward that puts safety, accessibility and inclusion at its heart. I have been lobbied by eloquent advocates from Guide Dogs and the RNIB, who are concerned that the review of the existing provision that we are proposing will be biased in favour of floating bus stops, so I make it absolutely clear that we would expect the Secretary of State to include representatives of those organisations along with other charities in that review process.
Moving on to new clause 47, I am aware that some think there is no solution to this problem apart from banning floating bus stops. However, from my conversations with visually impaired colleagues, both in Parliament and beyond, I believe that compromise can be achieved. I counsel the Committee to reach a compromise that does not pit the blind and disabled against cyclists.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 3rd July 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 July 2025 - (3 Jul 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 29, in clause 30, page 32, line 9, at end insert—
“including their safety on pavements and crossings on routes to, from and between stopping places in both directions of the routes,
(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,
(ab) providing clear and accessible information, including real-time information, about services calling at stopping places and in the wider area,”.
This amendment would require guidance relating to stopping places issued by the Secretary of State to include consideration of the provision of toilet facilities and travel information, as well as to promote the safety of people using pavements and crossings near the stopping places.
Amendment 41, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, after “comfort” insert
“without having to cross a cycle track to board the bus or continue their journey after alighting”.
This amendment would extend the purpose of the guidance issued by the Government to include enabling disabled people to travel without having to cross a cycle track in order to board a bus, or once they have alighted.
Amendment 42, in clause 30, page 32, line 14, delete “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to include the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places.
Amendment 65, in clause 30, page 32, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.
This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.
Amendment 60, in clause 30, page 32, line 30, leave out “have regard to” and insert
“take reasonable steps to implement.”
This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.
Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if—
(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and
(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.
(6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”
This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.
Amendment 55, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).
(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 30, in clause 30, page 33, line 3, after “place” insert
“from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route”.
Amendment 31, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, after “the” insert “information and”.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 44, in clause 31, page 34, line 17, at end insert—
“(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.”
This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Clause 31 stand part.
Amendment 45, in clause 32, page 34, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.
(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”
This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Clause 32 stand part.
New clause 11—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—
“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.
(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.
New clause 12—Prohibition of new floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.
New clause 13—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops—
“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.
New clause 40—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—
(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;
(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.
(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.
New clause 47—Prohibition on new floating bus stops and proposals to retrofit existing stops—
“(1) No local authority may construct any new floating bus stops after the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review all existing floating bus stops to identify changes that need to be made to adapt such stops in line with fully accessible, inclusive-by-design principles.
(3) Following the review, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement which outlines—
(a) the changes which will need to be made to existing floating bus stops;
(b) the steps the Secretary of State will take to make the required changes; and
(c) the guidance which will be provided to local authorities on how to retrofit existing floating bus stops.”
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, especially as this is my first time speaking in a Bill Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you so much, everyone.
Few issues are more important to people than bus services generally and the accessibility of bus services and buses, which is at the core of clauses 30 and 31. Indeed, few topics come up more often when I talk to residents on the doorstep. It is often residents with the most highest needs who rely on the bus network; that includes our neighbours who are blind, who are partially sighted or who have other sight issues. Ensuring that our buses are accessible and safe for everyone is incredibly important.
I welcome those in the Public Gallery who are here to listen to the debate. I thank them for raising important issues of accessibility, especially as they relate to so-called floating bus stops. As safe cycling infrastructure is rolled out to encourage more people out of cars and on to bikes and scooters for valid environmental, health and fitness reasons, in some places we are essentially fitting a third transport network into the existing two: cycle infrastructure is being added to motor vehicle and pedestrian infrastructure. That is challenging to get right and is relatively new, so it is right that the Government are looking at how it is designed so that it works for everyone.
Some people like floating bus stops; some people hate them. Some floating bus stops work well, while others are poorly designed. Some simply do not work for anyone—not pedestrians, not bus users and not cyclists. As a cyclist myself, I am acutely aware of that. We have a new floating bus stop on Rifford Road in Exeter. Although some residents in the local area have praised the design, others have raised concerns about it to me. I am pleased that the Government have listened carefully to the discussion about floating bus stops, generally and in the other place, and have heard people’s very real concerns.
In accepting Lord Blunkett’s amendment on the matter, the Government committed to issuing guidance on the design of floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent. I welcome that and hope that interested groups will be able to feed into the process.
There is a particular issue with the design of one type of floating bus stop, such that passengers alight or disembark from the bus directly on to the cycle track. I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to a pause on that specific type of infrastructure, which applies to any in England that are currently in the design phase.
I also welcome the fact that the Government are taking cyclists’ behaviour seriously. Although the vast majority of cyclists obey the rules and are respectful of others, the proposed new penalties and offences for dangerous cycling in the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that a signal is sent to all cyclists about safe cycling behaviour. I believe that that will ensure that the tiny minority of cyclists who recklessly disregard others will face the full force of the law.
Overall, I believe that the clauses that we are considering are a welcome compromise. I hope that they will lead to more work to ensure that cyclists and pedestrians, including people who are blind or visually impaired, can avoid designed-in conflict. I do not believe that this issue is fundamentally insoluble. We must be able to find a way to deliver protected cycle lanes where necessary for people, including children, to cycle safely, while also allowing people to embark on and alight from buses very safely and securely.
The Chair
May I apologise to members of the public in the Gallery? When I was chairing on Tuesday, I made the point that I would announce Members and their party, for people in the Gallery who are visually impaired. Our last contributor was Steve Race, the Labour MP for Exeter. I call Siân Berry, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will speak primarily about my amendments 29 to 31, but I will also say a few words about clause 31.
Amendment 29 would amend clause 30(1), which concerns the guidance for stopping places for bus stops. It is a very good clause, but my amendment would ensure that the Bill specifies additional information to be included in the guidance so that it is truly comprehensive as to what bus users need at a bus stop. It includes reference to safe and accessible travel to and from bus stops in the surrounding area, not just accessibility from the bus stop to the bus, as well as reference to toilet facilities for both passengers and drivers. It aims to ensure that clear information is set out, including standards written into the guidance for real-time bus information. If my amendment is not agreed to, I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister that those issues will be considered in the guidance. There is a strong case for ensuring that the guidance covers them. Additionally, I support amendments 40 and 42, which would usefully replace “may” with “must” in respect of the guidance.
In ensuring safe and accessible travel to and from bus stops, it is important that we ensure that people can get to them across things like junctions or main roads that are difficult to cross. People often need to be able to get from the bus stop where they get off to one on the other side of the road to get the bus back. In almost every case, they will need to cross the road that the buses use, so that they can switch directions. An accessible route across the road between two bus stops is an essential component of accessible travel, and it needs looking at in the guidance.
I have a very long history of work on toilets, from my time in the London Assembly. That is primarily down to my former colleague Caroline Russell, who is still in the London Assembly advocating for the issue. The cross-party transport committee in the London Assembly, which at the time was led by a Conservative, published a great report called “Driven to Distraction”, which has been submitted as written evidence. It sets out various issues that bus drivers face—pressure, fatigue and all sorts of things that I will address later. Recommendation 5 in the report makes it very clear that the need to use a toilet is an issue for many drivers. We have many more female drivers with serious pressures on them, particularly if they have their period. We also have some older drivers who may experience difficult issues in trying to access toilets while they work.
Making sure that drivers have access to toilets is very important. I also draw Members’ attention to the written evidence from Lorraine Robertson, a veteran bus driver. She has worked with other bus drivers to put together what she calls the bill of rights for bus drivers, which contains the right to a clean, serviced toilet and rest facilities on all bus routes. That is incredibly important.
Other work done by the London Assembly, including by my former colleague Caroline Russell, includes highlighting the loo deserts that exist on the tube network. It is very easy for an individual London Assembly member to gather information on that; they simply have to ask Transport for London. However, it is much harder to gather such information on bus stops and bus routes, which is one reason why I am trying to put a requirement into the Bill. The fact that someone can travel for half an hour or more on the tube with no toilet services available was instrumental in persuading the Mayor of London to start correcting the situation. He has adopted a goal that sets out a maximum travel time before there is access to a toilet near or inside a tube station.
Ministers should consider having a standard for a maximum travel time on buses before there is access to a loo, for the benefit both of drivers and of passengers. I think that the Mayor of London has adopted a standard of something like 20 minutes. When we think about bus routes in smaller towns and cities, access to a public toilet within 20 minutes of travel time is not an onerous thing to make local transport authorities pay attention to.
On information, I refer hon. Members to the “Better Bus Stops” report by the Campaign for Better Transport, which has done extensive research into what is needed for bus stops. The report talks about having things like toilets at all interchanges. The campaign is very clear that real-time information is incredibly important, but currently there is no national standard. In Brighton and Hove, at Preston Park station, the real-time information for people disembarking from trains, telling them when the next bus is arriving at the nearest bus stop, is out of action because the bus company and the council are switching to a new system. It would be really good for the Government to start laying out standards for a good bus stop and good real-time information, and for local transport authorities to start adopting a common system that can stay in action instead of being switched around when contracts change. Those would all be real improvements to clause 30 that the Minister should consider.
Amendment 30 would amend clause 30(7) by adding to the definition of “facilities” information about access to a bus stop in the nearby area. That would make it a bit clearer that that information is part of the facilities around bus stops, to make them more accessible. I have received some correspondence from campaigners who are in the room today asking that my amendment 30 be withdrawn. I just want to clear up a slight misunderstanding. The amendment does not refer specifically to crossings across cycle lanes or anything to do with floating bus stops. As I have said before, it is primarily about ensuring that bus passengers can reach their return stop accessibly, but also that they can cross nearby junctions. That is what the amendment refers to.
On clause 31, I would like to add some words of support. I am very persuaded by some examples that I have been shown by campaigners, particularly about shared borders, which I understand that Ministers are now reconsidering have any support for at all in the guidance. I have also seen some very bad examples of inadequate traffic islands and crossing facilities for floating bus stops. I have heard very convincing testimony about the guidance on the placing of zebra crossings across cycle lanes. When bus stops are used by multiple routes, buses are often unable to stop at the place where people might expect; the bus will sometimes have to stop much further back, and it really does create confusion, so real thought needs to be put into the guidance. By and large, clause 31 is very good as it stands, but we should feed learning into it on an ongoing basis. That is best done through guidance, not through a moratorium or by putting anything too specific into the Bill. It is important that it can be adjusted when learning arises from practice.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Am I right that the hon. Lady is suggesting that a partially sighted person or a disabled person is somehow lower down the hierarchy than a cyclist, simply because they are on a bus rather than walking or cycling?
Siân Berry
Let me clarify. Absolutely not: the hierarchy starts with people who are on foot or wheeling, and it moves down, via cycling, with motor vehicles at the bottom.
I would like to read out the evidence from the London Cycling Campaign. Its design solutions would ensure that the roads are safe, and many of them involve having extra space. The evidence sets out that
“extra space could also mean wider pavements, better sightlines”,
for cyclists who need to give way and
“less fraught interactions at floating bus stops between different mode users.”
The London Cycling Campaign argues that we should
“ensure bus services, walking, wheeling and cycling all get appropriate priority and capacity in funding, design guidance and on the ground in terms of physical space. And that likely means being more willing to reduce space and priority for private motor vehicles in more locations.”
That hierarchy is what I referred to. Where things are really difficult, it may be the right solution in a lot of cases to keep the bus on the main carriageway and make the other vehicles wait. However, that is for the design guidance. None of us is a traffic engineer—unless a Member wants to interrupt and point out that they are. That guidance must be produced in consultation with disabled people, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted, and it must also have the hierarchy in mind. Those designing the guidance should be much more willing to take space away from vehicles and to keep buses on the carriageway, if that is necessary to provide sufficient space to ensure that the roads are safe and accessible.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I rise to talk briefly about floating bus stops and therefore new clause 47. Floating bus stops exist not least to help with the flow of cyclists, and I support that aim, but they present challenges for the safety of pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities. As ever when it comes to sharing the highway, pavements, and areas in and around bus stops, everything is a balance. It is about satisfactorily mitigating the risk.
The challenge with floating bus stops relates particularly to people with disabilities. Of course, cyclists have a responsibility not to hit people, and the vast majority of cyclists are safe users of roads and cycle lanes. Some people, not everyone, have a slightly old-fashioned—I might say ignorant—assumption that somebody with a disability will be very visible, and that it should be obvious to cyclists that they need to take special care. That is simply not the case. That is an old-fashioned, outdated and, as I say, in some cases ignorant view. Disabilities, including physical disabilities, can be very hard to identify.
I would support the prohibition of new floating bus stops, and I support all the elements of new clause 47, which is about safety and about recognising the challenges, particularly for those with disabilities. We need to get this right. I urge the Government to support the new clause.
The Chair
Perhaps I should declare an interest: tomorrow morning at 10.30 am, I will be having a meeting about floating bus stops with representatives from Transport for London outside Colliers Wood tube station. Should any Member wish to join me, they would be most welcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Given that this is a large group of amendments, and given the legitimate concerns of the Committee, stakeholders and disabled people, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for the length of the remarks that I am about to make. I will deal first with clauses 30 to 32 before moving to the amendments.
Clause 30 will introduce a power for the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance covering the location, design, construction and maintenance of bus stopping places, for the purpose of promoting safety and facilitating the travel of disabled people. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence, and that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and incorporate design features that promote their personal safety.
Relevant local authorities and National Highways will be required to “have regard to” the guidance when commissioning new or when upgrading or maintaining existing infrastructure in England. A duty to “have regard to” guidance has been extensively considered by the courts and is a well understood legal concept. Local transport authorities will know that they must not simply read the guidance and ignore it; otherwise, their decision will be open to legal challenge. Although the duty is to “have regard”, it is expected that guidance will be followed unless there are good reasons not to do so.
The Government intend that the guidance will support authorities to provide infrastructure that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use. That is why the clause requires the Secretary of State to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee when providing new guidance, changing it significantly or revoking it. Engagement with DPTAC and other groups representing disabled people will support the Department to understand the priorities and perspectives of disabled people with a range of impairment when developing the guidance. Members of the Committee may be aware that DPTAC fulfils a function as my Department’s statutory adviser on the needs of disabled transport users.
Clause 31 requires the Secretary of State to publish statutory designed guidance on floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent, to which local authorities will be required to have regard when designing new floating bus stops or altering or removing existing ones. The guidance is already in draft and will reiterate the pause on shared use boarders, as well as providing advice to authorities on how to improve accessibility at other types of floating bus stops. To ensure that the voices of disabled people are heard and understood, the Department will also be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on the guidance before publication. The guidance in clause 31 is separate from the statutory guidance on bus stopping places set out in clause 30, but the two documents will overlap. When that guidance is provided, we will ensure that they align.
Clause 32 sets out requirements on demonstrating how authorities have had regard to the guidance about the safety and accessibility of stopping places in clause 30, and about floating bus stops in clause 31. The clause provides a power for the Secretary of State to request information from local authorities on stopping places provided by them and used by local services, including how they have had regard to the statutory guidance. This will enable the Government to better understand what progress has been made across England to ensure that bus stops and, where relevant, facilities in their vicinity are safe and accessible for all users.
The information received can be published, and if the Secretary of State believes that an authority has not fulfilled its duty, they may publish a statement to that effect. This is intended to allow the Government to promote accountability and encourage compliance where they have been made aware of concerns. Local transport authorities can also be subject to judicial review if they do not have regard to the guidance. We will set out more details on how this process may work in developing the statutory guidance.
Having addressed the three clauses, I want to make some general remarks in response to comments from members of the Committee. We recognise that this is about equality and the ability to make independent journeys confidently. We also recognise that more needs to be done to make these installations accessible to all, which is why the Government accepted amendments tabled in the other place that require us to produce statutory guidance and put in place reporting powers to promote accountability. That is why, alongside these legislative measures, the Government have decided to instigate a pause on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists.
In the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail confirmed that the Government will set out details of this pause to local authorities. Of course, it is right that both Houses get to debate and scrutinise proposals on floating bus stops before this pause is instigated. My Department will reflect on the points raised during debates in this Committee, and in further debates on the Bill, before confirming its expectations. The Government are in listening mode, and this is the democratic way forward to ensure that different views are taken into account.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I want to put on record our thanks to the Government for heeding the calls of many who have spoken in this Committee and the other place about the knotty issue of floating bus stops. Clearly, lots of things need to be reviewed and lots of situations need to be untangled. Is the Minister personally confident that his approach will lead to a safe, workable future, both with the assets that are currently in place and those that are, or would have been, planned?
Simon Lightwood
I will continue, and if I do not answer the hon. Member’s question fully, he is free to intervene and ask me once again, but I think I will give the reassurance that he requires.
On the question of funding, we are also exploring further support for local authorities to retrofit existing sites, including the launch of the next consolidated active travel fund round, which will happen shortly. Remediation activities will be explicitly included in the scope of the fund for 2025-26. Local authorities are also encouraged to use a wide range of available funding, such as highways maintenance funding and new funding announced at the spending review, for any remediation works necessary to meet the new design guidance, when it is published.
On a wider point, I remind the Committee that the Government are providing £1 billion in 2025-26 to support and improve bus services in England outside of London. That commitment was followed by the recent announcements in the spending review, with which the Government committed £900 million each year to maintain and improve vital bus services.
Simon Lightwood
This is a very long response. I will make a little more progress.
Siân Berry
On the budgets that the Minister just mentioned, was he clear that the money for retrofitting will come out of active travel funding, rather than bus services funding, or is it a bit of both?
Simon Lightwood
A range of funding pots could be used for the remediation work. As I mentioned, the pause will focus on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Research by University College London, commissioned by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, identified such layouts as particularly problematic. The hon. Member for Wimbledon specifically raised the question of auditing existing floating bus stops. Clause 32(1)(b) will place a duty on local authorities to respond to requests from the Secretary of State for information on stopping places. That power is broadly drafted and would allow the Secretary of State to ask for information about the number and location of floating bus stops provided by the authority. Transport for London has also undertaken a form of audit on its floating bus stops.
We expect such audits to naturally form part of developing local funding programmes. However, my Department will ask local authorities to undertake that work, alongside setting out to them its expectation on the pause. We will work together with local authorities in a pragmatic way to collate information on floating bus stops. Much of the information is already held by local authorities, and I recognise that it is important to addressing this issue. Local authorities will be able to use a wide range of existing funding streams to audit floating bus stops in their areas. For example, the consolidated active travel fund includes capital and revenue elements that can be used for audits, early feasibility work and capital remediation schemes.
I have heard the concerns of hon. Members about the behaviour of some cyclists. I am happy to set out my commitment to working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators in this space to support awareness raising through communication on this issue. On Report, I will return with further updates on the Government’s plans. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to enabling more people to walk, wheel and cycle. Good-quality segregated infrastructure is vital to making cycling safer. However, we must ensure that it is delivered in a way that keeps the public realm accessible for everyone. As I outlined, my Department and Active Travel England are focused on helping local authorities to implement change in a way that is more consistent and accessible, through research, awareness raising and good practice.
Moving to the amendments, I will begin by discussing amendments 40 to 43. Amendment 40 would place a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to give guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. Clause 30 as drafted gives the Secretary of State flexibility to issue guidance when it is appropriate and based on proper evidence, engagement and policy development. Replacing “may” with “must” in clause 30(1) would create a statutory obligation, impacting that discretion. Such a duty could risk forcing the premature publication of guidance, before the necessary consultation, or the gathering of evidence or stakeholder input, has been completed. That could lead to guidance that is incomplete, inconsistent and frankly unfit for purpose.
I have already spoken about the requirement to consult DPTAC, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. That will ensure that any guidance developed is effective, proportionate and responsive to the needs of all passengers. I would like to reassure the Committee that this Government are committed to publishing guidance to ensure that stopping place infrastructure around the country is safer and more accessible to all. However, I am concerned that amendment 40 would frustrate, rather than support, our ability to ensure that the drafting works for all passengers.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I challenge the Minister’s rationale on clause 30. I understood him to be saying that making a duty mandatory might force the Government to issue guidance before consultation is undertaken, but there is nothing in the clause that suggests that. If he wishes to propose that as an argument against amendment 40, he needs to set out what it is in said amendment that would require the issuing of guidance prior to any consultation or standard operating procedures. I cannot see anything like that.
Simon Lightwood
We will have to agree to disagree on that, I am afraid.
Amendment 41 seeks to extend the Secretary of State’s power to give guidance, including for the purpose of enabling disabled people to make journeys without the use of a floating bus stop. The intent would be to produce guidance that advises authorities to construct stopping places in a way that would enable people to travel without crossing a cycle track.
Essentially, that means providing guidance to authorities that floating bus stops should not be installed and should, if already installed, be removed, where work in the scope of this guidance is undertaken. Authorities, as listed in clause 36, would then be required to have regard to the guidance. This Government do not believe that a complete ban on floating bus stops is appropriate, given the need to improve safety for cyclists and to enable more people to cycle. The requirement to publish statutory guidance, to which local authorities are required to have regard, will enable the Government to set out clearly what is expected of authorities in terms of making floating bus stops accessible.
Amendment 42 would mandate that the Secretary of State “must” issue guidance, specifically about the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and facilities, and how authorities engage with others in relation to stopping places. The statutory guidance will cover a broad range of considerations in relation to stopping places including, as I said, location, design, construction and, where relevant, maintenance. By amending the clause to say that the Secretary of State must give guidance about certain characteristics of a stopping place, the amendment risks being overly prescriptive and would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to develop guidance informed by stakeholder engagement.
Amendment 43 has two separate purposes. It seeks to ensure that relevant authorities, which have a duty to have regard to the guidance on safety and accessibility of stopping places, always comply with the recommendations of the guidance. The only exception to this would be where there are exceptional local circumstances not to do so, and only if authorities have obtained prior written approval from the Secretary of State.
We expect that all relevant authorities will comply with their duty to have regard to guidance under clause 30. It is crucial, however, that authorities have the flexibility to apply those solutions that work best in each location and in individual circumstances. Without that flexibility, we risk preventing authorities from progressing infra-structure upgrades that might otherwise have been considered, rather than encouraging them to do so. Amendment 43 would also require the Secretary of State to make a judgment on a case-by-case basis as to what constitutes exceptional local circumstances. Given that those will differ in each case, that may be difficult to provide in a consistent manner.
The amendment also seeks to introduce a statutory pause on the construction of floating bus stops and shared bus stop boarders. It would do this by requiring authorities that have a duty to have regard to the guidance under clause 30 not to proceed with construction of such stopping places until guidance on floating bus stops is issued by the Secretary of State under this clause.
It is unclear how this amendment of clause 30 on the stopping place guidance and the floating bus stop guidance in clause 31 would relate to each other. The latter must be published no later than three months after Royal Assent, while the clause 30 guidance has a longer timetable, with no statutory deadline. In practice, that means that guidance on floating bus stops would be available in the short term, but not under clause 30. The practical effect of the amendment would be to negate the guidance under clause 31, because local authorities would not be able to use it. That would delay authorities’ ability to plan and carry out works to make floating bus stops more accessible. The amendment is disproportionate and, along with amendments 40 to 42, unnecessary.
I turn to amendments 29 to 31 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Amendment 29 seeks to expand the purposes for which statutory guidance can be issued to include matters such as safety on pavements along the route, access to toilet facilities and real-time information, some of which are beyond the intended scope of the guidance. Although those are important considerations, many are already covered within the scope of clause 30. The current drafting of the definition of “facilities” provides sufficient flexibility for the guidance to address accessible information and other relevant facilities.
Welfare facilities for drivers are covered in existing bus franchising guidance. In enhanced partnership areas, it is the responsibility of operators to provide adequate welfare facilities for drivers. That can be discussed and agreed with local transport authorities as part of the partnership. I have already spoken about the information provisions in the Bill. Bringing multiple sources of information together in one place will help to improve the situation for passengers and ensure a more consistent approach, as the hon. Lady said.
Issues such as pedestrian safety on pavements and at crossings are addressed through existing statutory duties on local authorities, and do not require repeating here. The consultation requirements that I have set out will ensure that the guidance reflects expert advice on the issues that matter most, including safety and the facilities that are provided at bus stops.
Amendment 30 seeks to narrow the definition of “facilities” in subsection (7) by specifying that such facilities should include those provided to assist people with accessing a stopping place from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route. Amendment 31 seeks to clarify that the definition of “facilities” includes facilities providing information to passengers. The definition of “facilities” in the clause is deliberately broad to ensure that the guidance can cover a full range of accessibility features, such as information facilities or facilities in the surrounding area of stopping places that support access. Highlighting specific types of facility would risk unhelpfully reducing flexibility or, potentially, conferring priority on the provision of one type of facility.
On facilities that provide access to the nearest stopping place on any route, some bus stops, particularly those in rural areas, are located very far apart, on dual carriageways or in places with one-way traffic systems. If the hon. Lady’s intention is to capture all facilities between stops, that is outside the scope of the guidance. The amendments would also pre-empt proper and full consultation with disabled stakeholders to determine what may be most appropriate. For the reasons I have set out, amendments 29 to 31 are unnecessary, and I ask that they not be moved.
I turn to the three amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Amendment 65 deals with service information at stopping places—in particular, real-time arrival information. I have explained that statutory guidance can cover the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and the facilities in the vicinity. I have also covered the broad definition of “facilities”, which will enable guidance to be given on a range of accessibility features and nearby features; facilities providing service and real-time information would fall within the existing definition in subsection (7). I am concerned that the amendment would give the impression that one feature or facility has priority over the others covered in the guidance. The amendment would also pre-empt consultation with stakeholders, including on what disabled passengers themselves consider a priority.
Amendment 60 seeks to strengthen the duty on authorities in subsection (6). It would require them to
“take reasonable steps to implement”
guidance, in place of the current requirement to “have regard to” it. The amendment was also tabled in the other place. Although the Government did not accept it, we listened carefully to the concerns raised and tabled Government amendments to strengthen the package of accessibility measures in the Bill. They include clause 21, which will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan.
However, I reiterate the points made in the other place. The purpose of statutory guidance under clause 30 is to support authorities to provide consistent, safe and accessible road infrastructure suited to the needs of their area. It is not intended to set a single rigid standard for bus stations and stops that is applicable to all circumstances. Allowing authorities to consider the guidance and its application in relation to different stopping places will allow them space to assess other relevant factors in their decision making. A more onerous requirement would not provide that flexibility.
Steff Aquarone
I appreciate the further information that the Minister has provided. I do not want to repeat my previous question, but does he believe, although he may not want to have to specify it to the Committee, that a safe and viable solution exists—I certainly do—and does he believe that these measures will bring about the improvement in safety that is needed?
Simon Lightwood
That is precisely why Active Travel England is doing this work—so that we can identify a design standard in order to ensure that our transport systems are accessible for everybody.
The new clause would also, in effect, ban floating bus stops by requiring all buses to pull into the kerb, regardless of local cycling needs. That would not be appropriate, because we must continue to ensure that cyclists are also able to travel safely. I have spoken at length about the action that my Department is taking, the research of Active Travel England, and the funding available to support local authorities. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat those points, but for those reasons I ask hon. Members not to press the new clause to a Division.
New clause 47 tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham has similarities to new clauses 12 and 40. Beyond the points that I have made about practicality and necessity, the new clause raises various practical issues. For one, local authorities with works under way would be unable to complete them. Unfinished works on pavements and roads may put pedestrians at risk, and unfulfilled contracts may impose costs on local authorities. In addition, the term “inclusive-by-design”, which is used in the new clause, is not a legally recognised term. It is unclear what design principles would apply to that requirement, which may create confusion for local authorities. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for the Minister’s considered response to all the amendments. I spoke in favour of a number of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is not a member of the Committee. The mathematics of the Committee are pretty obvious, so I will treat the majority of them as probing amendments. Some of them have done their work, and I hope that those that the Minister batted away will be quietly reconsidered when he is back in the comfort of his ministerial office. I consider amendment 40 to be one such probing amendment, so I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if—
(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and
(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.
(6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 33, page 35, line 33, at end insert—
“29AA Application of section 29A duty: services in Wales
(1) Section 29A (duty to check barring information) applies in relation to a school service that takes up or sets down passengers at one or more points in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.
(2) But the regulations may not provide for that section to apply in relation to—
(a) a service for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares—
(i) that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(ii) to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) a service that is provided under arrangements made by a body to which the duty in section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 applies (duty of local authorities and governing bodies to have regard to guidance given by Welsh Ministers).”
This amendment provides for the duty to check the criminal record certificates of drivers of school bus services which have stops in Wales not to apply until switched on by regulations, and excludes that duty entirely for services for which the Welsh Ministers, Welsh local authorities or governing bodies of schools in Wales are responsible.
Simon Lightwood
The drafting of the amendment looks complex, but its outcome is quite simple. It removes Welsh services where it is considered that the Welsh Government can achieve a similar outcome to clause 33. The clause closes a loophole whereby some drivers of school services are not required to have a criminal record check, including checking the children’s barred list. Although this matter is reserved, the Welsh Government have agreed to implement measures through the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill currently going through the Senedd that will lead to a similar outcome.
The Welsh Government have agreed that services operating under a local bus service contract or permit, which will be established through the Bus Services (Wales) Bill, will require operators to ensure that the appropriate criminal record checks are done for qualifying drivers of school services. They have also agreed that local authorities and governing bodies of schools in Wales must have regard to the Wales learner travel guidance under section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008, which can include guidance about criminal record checking. The Welsh Government have advised that they will update the guidance so that drivers of services provided by those bodies will be subject to the same checks required by clause 33. Ultimately, even though the amendment removes Wales from the Bill, we are clear that drivers of all closed school services will require a criminal record check.
Clause 33 seeks to mandate bus operators to carry out enhanced criminal record certificate and children’s barred list checks for drivers of closed school services, or to check the update information in relation to a previous enhanced criminal record certificate every three years, where the driver undertakes such services frequently or on more than three days over a 30-day period. When I refer to a “closed school service”, this is a service that is not open to the public. It is not a public service that stops at or near a school; it is used solely to transport schoolchildren to school and home again.
Under current legislation, when a public service vehicle operator is contracted by a school or local authority to provide closed school bus services, there is statutory guidance that advises local authorities and schools to ensure that a safeguarding check has been carried out at an appropriate level for each driver. For these drivers, it is expected that each one will have an enhanced criminal record certificate, which includes a check on whether the driver is on the children’s barred list.
However, the Government have been made aware that other closed school bus services are currently operating independently, not contracted or operated by schools or local authorities. In these cases, there is no explicit requirement for drivers to have an enhanced criminal record certificate, including a children’s barred list check. Clause 33 aims to close that loophole so that contracted school services are not being held to a higher standard than commercial school services, and that children are safe on all closed school bus services, regardless of whether they are contracted or commercial.
By requiring operators to carry out checks of the children’s barred list, the operator will know whether the driver is barred from working with children. The clause will mean that in addition to the driver committing an offence by driving children while being barred, the operator will also commit an offence if they permit the driver to drive on their service. Currently, operators are not mandated to carry out checks on their drivers and so can rely on their having no knowledge that the driver is barred as a defence. The clause changes that.
Jerome Mayhew
I will not rehearse the rationale behind the need for the proposed new sections in clause 33; the Minister has set that out pretty clearly. However, there is one issue that I seek clarification on from him or his officials.
The clause makes it an offence for an operator to permit a driver to drive a closed school service if the operator either knows or has reason to believe that the driver is barred from undertaking regulated activity relating to children. So far, so good. That is an offence and it comes under the criminal justice system.
The clause also requires the operator to check the enhanced criminal record certificates at least every three years, and it sets out how that can be achieved, but it is silent as to whether the failure to do so is an offence. I have a question for the Minister: if an operator fails to comply with the duty to check every three years, what are the practical consequences? Is that failure an offence? I stand to be corrected on that; I may have misread the clause when I read it some time ago. If it is not an offence, how does he intend proper enforcement to be undertaken, because without robust enforcement and information on the consequences of failure to comply with the clause, the safeguarding duty risks being diminished?
I will not go into the details of Government amendment 76. I fundamentally accept the need for it, because it deals with devolution. It does prompt a question about timescales, however, which the Minister might be able to put my mind at rest about. We want these improvements to be made, because they address the safety of children and the provision of transport for children, which are important. Yet through the devolution process that we all have to respect, we run the risk of a delayed response in devolved areas of the country, because there is currently no guarantee of timescales in the clause.
I understand the constitutional niceties that the Minister has to comply with, but it would be helpful for Committee members, and for Members of the House more widely, to receive some assurance that conversations have at least taken place with the devolved Administrations, so that they are fully aware of the need for this amendment and their own legislative processes are not unduly delayed. If he could reassure me on that point, I would be grateful.
Simon Lightwood
I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him some further details about those points, if that will suffice.
Amendment 76 agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Training about crime and anti-social behaviour
Steff Aquarone
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, after “2003” insert—
“(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).”
This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) The training requirement under this section must not include advice, encouragement, direction or expectation that a person should, at any stage, put themselves in danger.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that any training requirements established under this section do not include guidance that would advise, encourage, direct, or imply that individuals should put themselves in danger at any stage.
Amendment 73, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) Before preparing training under subsection (2), PSV operators must consult trades unions on the proposed content and implementation of the training.”
Government amendment 77.
Steff Aquarone
The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 34 and the introduction of specific training for bus drivers to help them to identify and respond to criminal offences and antisocial behaviour. Everyone should feel safe when travelling by bus. Ensuring that drivers have the confidence and skills to recognise criminal and antisocial behaviour and, where safe, to intervene appropriately, is an important step forward. This is a practical and necessary measure, and we are pleased to see it in the Bill.
Amendment 61 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon seeks to address a worrying gap in the legislation, by ensuring that the training includes identifying the signs of domestic abuse. Local bus drivers often play a central role in their communities. They see the same passengers day in, day out, which puts them in a unique position. They can notice patterns and recognise signs of distress, and they know how to report concerns safely and appropriately.
Domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence. Coercive control, financial abuse and emotional manipulation can be just as damaging. They often go unnoticed, because they do not always meet the threshold of immediate fear for one’s personal safety, but let us make no mistake: those forms of abuse rob victims of their freedom, security and dignity. We must ensure that where there is an opportunity for someone to notice the indications of such abuse, that can be reported swiftly and effectively.
We know, from too many horror stories, that missed opportunities can cost lives. One in five people will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, which is a chilling statistic. We believe it is essential that frontline public service workers, which includes our hard-working bus drivers, receive training to help to spot those signs and act accordingly. This is not about placing undue burdens on drivers; it is about empowering them and all those in public-facing roles, through the proposed training, to be part of a society that recognises abuse and does not turn a blind eye.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 34 concerns crime and antisocial behaviour. It is about improving personal safety and the perception of safety for people, especially women and girls, which was a key component of the Government’s manifesto. The measures aim to train staff in the bus industry to identify and respond to acts of crime, including violence against people, particularly women and girls, and antisocial behaviour. The Minister will deal with the details of the clause in his remarks, so I will reduce my comments as much as I can. Although the principles of clause 34 are, of course, difficult to argue against, I have a number of concerns about the current drafting, similar to the concerns I had with clause 33, that I urge the Minister to address.
Proposed new section 144F(2) of the Transport Act 2000 requires training
“to identify, respond appropriately to and, where safe to do so, prevent”
crime and antisocial behaviour, but it does not set out minimum content standards or accreditation requirements. This is a sensitive issue. We are anticipating drivers putting themselves into certainly confrontational—perhaps even violent—situations, so we have to be very careful what we are asking them to do in the legislation. Will the Minister confirm that it is not the intention of the legislation to require bus drivers to physically intervene in potentially violent situations? That is quite an important point that we need to make clear.
How will we ensure the consistency of training quality across different bus regions? Has any assessment been undertaken of the availability of training professionals across the country? It is not a niche area, but it is certainly a small area of training. If not, how can the Minister impose a requirement without having undertaken an assessment of the ability of the sector to comply with that requirement?
Steff Aquarone
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments on our proposed amendment. Perhaps I can give him some reassurance about my interpretation of the driver’s mandate to intervene in all those situations. Having been on training that sought to raise awareness of a range of issues, including domestic abuse, I know that trainers often say, “No matter what you are taught today, you are not expected to always intervene. If you do not feel safe to do so, do not do so.”
I would apply the same logic, perhaps in a different way, to the amendment: it is not expecting drivers to take on the burden of identifying, let alone resolving, issues of coercive control. However, I think public-spirited drivers—I can think of many such drivers in my constituency, and I am sure the shadow Minister can as well, given that they are often the same people—would want to learn more about how they can spot the signs, and perhaps just report a change in a pattern of behaviour to a local beat manager who may well be entirely familiar with the name of the person concerned.
Jerome Mayhew
I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s greater knowledge of training in this area. I am substantially persuaded by the information that he put forward in his intervention.
Amendment 52, which is in my name, seeks to ensure that any training or requirements established under this clause do not include guidance that would advise, encourage, direct or imply that individuals, in this instance bus drivers, should put themselves in danger at any stage. I am grateful for the Minister’s non-verbal indication during my earlier comments that I was right in assuming that that was not the Government’s intention, but my amendment would make express what the Minister has implied.
Although it is entirely right that drivers and frontline staff receive training to identify, respond to and, where safe, prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour, we must be clear that their personal safety is also essential. The amendment ensures that no training delivered under these provisions would ever advise to the contrary. It preserves the purpose of clause 34 by ensuring staff that are trained to recognise and respond appropriately to crime and antisocial behaviour while guaranteeing that such training will never instruct them to act beyond what is reasonable and safe.
I will leave it the Minister to address amendment 73. Amendment 75, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant senior managers to undertake regular training on disability awareness and accessibility. I appreciate its intention, but I have two concerns. First, it would inevitably place an additional regulatory burden on operators and local transport authorities, where there is currently no clear evidence of an existing gap that needs to be filled.
We have to remind ourselves that we are not running the buses in this Committee; we are creating legislation that requires other people to run the buses in a certain way. As legislators, it is always tempting to think, “Oh, that’s a good idea. Let’s put that in the Bill.” However, we sometimes forget that we are dealing with primary legislation, which requires an Act of Parliament to change. We need to be very careful that we do not create an administrative overload, and this provision would be an additional regulatory burden without clear evidence. We also need to be cognisant of the fact that, although some of the potentially affected organisations will be local transport authorities or large municipal bus companies—at least in the future—many of the affected businesses will be small and medium-sized enterprises, some of which will be very small local bus operators that need to be protected from over-regulation.
Secondly, there is a danger of duplication and confusion when there are other statutory duties and guidance being created in the Bill, particularly those in clause 30 that deal with the safety and accessibility of stopping places. We need to ensure clarity, not an overlapping jurisdiction of training mandates, which may cause regulator confusion. Those are my concerns about amendment 75.
Siân Berry
I am very impressed with the clause; it adds good things to the Bill and it is appropriate that drivers are given good information and training on how to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. Some of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister are covered in proposed new section 144F(2) of the Transport Act 2000, where it says “respond appropriately”. In many cases, the appropriate response may be to call the police, and sometimes it may be to report back to senior people within the organisation or merely to ask that CCTV be reviewed to see whether an offence has been committed. Those are all appropriate actions that do not put people in any danger.
I also want to speak in support of amendment 61, from my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It would be a very good addition to the clause, because many sub-crimes—things that fall below the level of crime—will still raise alarms to do with domestic abuse. A lot of progress has been made in training people who work in pubs and nightlife on the Ask for Angela service. Bus drivers may also be approached and potentially asked for support or help to get away, and they need to be able to respond appropriately. People need training on how to spot others who might be in danger and to act appropriately.
Will the Minister also give us some reassurance? The clause contains the very broad definition of
“criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”.
I want to raise the issue of child criminal exploitation; I tabled related amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill on Report. Issues such as county lines and spotting children in danger could be part of this training. During that debate, I also spoke about the need for people to treat children as children, not criminals, as they might be vulnerable or in danger themselves. There are also issues around unconscious biases and the adultification of black children in particular. Those things might all potentially be within the scope of this training, because it is important that people are given more duties to deal with criminal issues and training to avoid some of the pitfalls.
Finally, I ask the Minister for an update on discussions with trade unions and the potential new duties in amendment 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). Since he is not a member of the Committee, I want to make sure that the Minister responds to his question about involving trade unions to ensure that training is prepared appropriately and in discussion with them.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon and for Didcot and Wantage for tabling amendment 61, which seeks to include domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, as part of the mandatory training for bus staff on crime and antisocial behaviour.
I am glad to confirm to hon. Friends and members of the Committee that clause 34 already captures domestic abuse. That is because domestic abuse is a criminal offence, and the clause outlines that training must cover
“criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”.
Furthermore, under the powers in the clause, the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance that will cover behaviours associated with violence against women and girls. Through that guidance, bus operators will be made aware of the breadth of different types of violence against women and girls, and how to train their staff to identify, respond to, and, where it is safe to do so, prevent incidents of such behaviours occurring on the bus network.
To answer the question from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, guidance on training requirements will be developed in consultation with stakeholders, drawing on existing good practice. The ambition is to empower drivers and other staff to recognise and be able to respond to acts of antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, which may involve passengers, themselves or their colleagues. When determining how drivers and other staff should respond to such incidents, a key consideration will be how to ensure that the personal safety of the employee or employees is not put at risk. I hope I have provided enough assurance for the hon. Member for North Norfolk to feel able to withdraw amendment 61.
Amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, seeks to ensure that guidance issued under the powers in clause 34 does not lead to staff placing themselves in danger at any stage. The Government listened to concerns raised in the other place, including from the hon. Member’s party. We tabled an amendment to clarify that staff will be trained to prevent incidents only where it is “safe to do so”. For the benefit of the Committee, I confirm that staff will not be expected to put themselves at risk or in danger at any stage. Training on crime and antisocial behaviour will help staff to understand ways in which to de-escalate and defuse situations that occur on the bus network. That is a key part of the Government’s vision for making buses safer and more inclusive for all passengers—and, in the case of this clause, particularly for women and girls. I hope the hon. Member is satisfied and will therefore not press his amendment.
Amendment 73 was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). It would require public service vehicle operators to consult trade unions before preparing training for bus drivers and staff who deal with the travelling public, or issues relating to them, on how to identify, respond appropriately to and, where safe, prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour. Specifically, it would mandate that trade unions be consulted on the proposed content and implementation of the training.
Steff Aquarone
I am grateful to the Minister. If he needs to intervene on me, he may, but can he confirm whether the guidance to be issued on training will specifically mention issues around domestic abuse or whether that will be lumped in with general crimes? I know he mentioned that a number of things to do with violence against women and girls will be in the guidance. Can he confirm that specific issues of domestic abuse will be included, rather than lumped in with general crimes?
The Chair
Order. I apologise for interrupting, but at the moment we are summing up this debate rather than coming back to the Minister.
Steff Aquarone
I understand. That was the only thing I wanted to say. Thank you, Dame Siobhain.
Steff Aquarone
Can I just give the Minister the opportunity to provide that clarification? I intended to intervene on him, but he finished speaking sooner than I thought he would, and it would be pertinent to the question you asked, Dame Siobhain.
Simon Lightwood
In the spirit of the Government’s objective to reduce violence against women and girls, I think it would be sensible to make reference to that within the guidance.
Steff Aquarone
I thank the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 77, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert—
“144G Application of training requirement: services in Wales
(1) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 144F apply in relation to a local service which has one or more stopping places in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.
(2) But the regulations may not provide for those subsections to apply in relation to—
(a) a local service that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) a local service to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru.”—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment provides for the training requirement in new section 144F of the Transport Act 2000 not to apply to services that have stops in Wales until switched on by regulations, and excludes that requirement entirely for services for which the Welsh Ministers are responsible or which are provided in Wales under a service permit granted by the Welsh Ministers.
Steff Aquarone
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert—
“144G Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility
(1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility.
(2) The relevant parties are—
(a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence;
(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England
where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services.
(3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding—
(a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services;
(b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and
(c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation.
(5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed—
(a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five year period thereafter;
(b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations.
(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.”
This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regular undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 34, page 37, line 28, leave out from “or” to “the” and insert
“section 144G or of regulations made under those sections,”.
Clause 35 stand part.
Government amendments 20 to 22.
Clause 36 stand part.
Steff Aquarone
I will speak briefly in support of our amendments 75 and 69, which would require relevant senior managers in our bus networks regularly to undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility. Accessibility must be embedded at every level of our public transport system. It should be an intuitive consideration for all staff, from frontline drivers and conductors to the most senior decision makers. Although it is absolutely right that drivers and attendants understand the needs of disabled passengers, that alone is not enough. We must also ensure that those in positions of strategic responsibility—those making decisions about timetables, fleet upgrades, route changes and service delivery—fully understand how their decisions impact on disabled people.
Too often, accessibility is treated as an afterthought rather than a starting point, and that must change. By ensuring that senior managers receive training, amendment 75 would help to create a strong, informed culture of accessibility across the network. It would ensure that inclusion is not just a box to tick but a guiding principle in how our bus services are designed and delivered. After all, improved accessibility and user experience benefits everybody, not just the people for whom it is necessary. This is the right thing to do. It is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone.
I also want to note the recommendations of the recent Transport Committee report into accessibility in the transport system, “Access Denied”. I was proud to be part of the Committee that published the report. The report made recommendations about ensuring that relevant training is suitably co-produced with disabled people, and that the Government ensure an expert unit assesses the quality of available training. In response, the Government told us they were working to create an accessibility charter and that they intend to
“undertake further work to assess how clear and straightforward standards that a charter can help provide could support consistent, high-quality training.”
Will the Minister provide further clarity on what that further work is, and the progress he has made on it? Such an update would be incredibly relevant to the amendments, as it would ensure that the training carried out is of a suitable standard and comes with the needs of disabled passengers and service users at its heart. To conclude, I urge the Government to support amendment 75. It is a simple but powerful step towards better, more inclusive bus services for disabled passengers and for everyone.
Jerome Mayhew
If hon. Members cast their minds back to earlier, they will know my exact views on amendment 75, so I will not repeat them. I will not speak on amendment 69, because my remarks would be similar to those on amendment 75. I will, however, speak briefly on clause 35.
Clause 35 will introduce measures on disability training. There is currently a requirement in article 16 of EU regulation 181/2011 for mandatory training on disability awareness and disability assistance to be undertaken by particular categories of staff of carriers and terminal managing bodies, with different categories of staff required to do different elements of the training. The Government are totally right to realise that that is an unnecessary complication, and that there needs to be a tidying up exercise so that all staff dealing with passengers in the transport sector receive similar training.
Clause 35 streamlines the requirement so that all categories of local bus service staff referenced in article 16 of the EU regulation should undertake both disability assistance and disability awareness training, and stay current every five years. It enables bus drivers and staff who deal directly with the travelling public or issues related to them, including those who provide direct assistance to passengers, to be informed of the needs and experiences of disabled people—quite right too. That is a good clarification.
Clause 36 deals with training about disability and contains further provisions. Its intentions are as decent as those of clause 35, and they are undeniably important. Namely, it seeks to ensure the effective implementation of disability awareness training requirements. However, we need to be aware of the potential issues with regulatory overreach and the administration burden.
Measures under subsection (1) of the clause empower the Secretary of State to require operators to keep, publish and provide compliance records. I am repeating myself slightly, but this is an important point: we are dealing with primary legislation that covers the entire sector. It affects not just big organisations but SMEs; we have to remember that not all operators are large organisations. For SMEs with a small workforce or a small fleet, increases to the administrative burden can be disproportionate to the benefit that such requirements to maintain data can bring to others.
I wonder whether that burden is justified in terms of its outcome, and not just theoretical tidiness. Theoretically, I understand the provision and it makes sense. We are saying, “We want operators to do these things, therefore we want records that are updated and published regularly.” In reality, that comes with a time and labour cost. How will services be improved in practical terms as a result of the additional requirement? Has the Minister already conducted an impact assessment of the additional financial and administrative burdens that the measure will place on smaller local authorities and bus operators?
Government amendment 20 ensures that references in the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 to the “enforcement authority” cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A. Again, I will leave it to the Minister to address the amendment. I hope Committee members are applauding my changed approach to the pace at which I am going through some of these provisions—it is against my better judgment. As a former lawyer, I love going into the subsections, but I am trying to canter on.
There is a concern with amendment 20 that we are loading a whole load of additional obligations on to traffic commissioners, these previously unknown—certainly in my case—servants of the state. A question arises about capacity and the funding necessary to increase it. Traffic commissioners already oversee a vast amount of regulatory functions for operating licensing, vehicle standards and general compliance across the bus and coach sectors. The Bill, particularly clause 36, adds significant additional enforcement duties, and that obviously comes at a cost in both manpower and legal fees. If a commissioner takes enforcement action, they have to be prepared to defend their decisions in court, and that is expensive, particularly if they lose.
We can all agree that there are significant costs associated with the clause, should it be enacted, but the Bill is silent on funding for traffic commissioners—there is no mention of it all. What is the assessed cost to traffic commissioners of the proposed changes, in aggregate? What changes will be made to traffic commissioner budgets to allow for this burden? Will the Minister conduct an assessment of the current work of traffic commissioners and whether they have the resources and time to fulfil this additional duty? Those are minor but important points; we have to think about the practicalities of what we are asking. This is not guidance but primary legislation, so we need to be cognisant of its consequences and prepare for them.
Government amendment 21 follows amendment 20, and I have no comment on it. The same goes for Government amendment 22, which is another procedural tidying-up exercise that I have no objection to.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 3rd July 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 July 2025 - (3 Jul 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 34, page 37, line 28, leave out from “or” to “the” and insert
“section 144G or of regulations made under those sections,”.
Clause 35 stand part.
Government amendments 20 to 22.
Clause 36 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Amendments 75 and 69, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) would require that senior managers in bus operators and local transport authorities undertake disability awareness and accessibility training. The effect of proposed new section 144G of the Transport Act 2000 would be to place an obligation on senior managers in LTAs and operators that organise or provide local or school bus services to undertake training and keep records of having done so.
Through the Bill, we are extending existing training requirements to drivers and customer-facing staff. The measures do not change training requirements themselves. Co-production would be appropriate for those developing training packages. The hon. Member for North Norfolk asked for an update on the accessible transport charter. I can confirm that my Department provides the Transport Committee with regular updates on the progress of the charter and upcoming appearances. He has my commitment that we will do that.
It is certainly important that senior management in bus operating companies and local authorities are aware of disability and accessibly issues, but EU regulation 181/2011, once amended by clauses 35 and 36 of the Bill, will require staff in local services who deal directly with disabled passengers, or with issues relating to the travelling public, to be trained in respect of disability awareness and disability assistance. For staff dealing directly with disabled passengers, that will improve knowledge of their duties and responsibilities, and thus effect change at the direct point of interaction between staff and passengers. That approach aims to strike a balance between improving services while not overly increasing burdens on operators and local authorities.
In addition, clause 21 will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan. We expect that this new requirement would also help to ensure that relevant senior management in LTAs are aware of accessibility issues in their area. I reassure hon. Members that where school transport is provided by local services, that would fall within the scope of new enhanced training requirements, requiring relevant staff to be trained on both disability awareness and assistance, which will help to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills and confidence to support every passenger appropriately.
I am concerned that the new requirement may increase the administrative burden without necessarily leading to positive results in the experience of disabled passengers at the point of contact with staff and services. I therefore cannot support amendments 75 and 69 and I ask that they be withdrawn.
Clause 35 will require bus drivers and staff providing direct assistance to passengers on local services to complete both disability awareness and assistance training at least every five years to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills and confidence to support every passenger appropriately. Despite progress in recent decades, clauses 35 and 36 have been developed in response to the barriers that disabled people still face when attempting to make bus journeys. The clauses recognise the role that bus drivers play in helping to overcome those barriers, ensuring that disabled passengers’ rights are upheld, and that they are provided with timely and appropriate assistance.
Currently, drivers of local services are already required to complete disability awareness training, but mandatory course content does not cover the practical assistance that they should also provide. Likewise, other customer-facing staff of operators are not currently required to completely training on disability at all. Clause 35 corrects that imbalance. It is about ensuring that passengers on local services can travel anywhere in Great Britain, with any operator or driver, with confidence that staff will help them to travel safely and in comfort. The measures should help to ensure that passengers receive the help they need, and that buses continue to provide an inclusive experience for everyone who uses them.
Amendments 20 to 22 have been tabled to clause 36. Amendment 20 will ensure that a traffic commissioner is responsible for taking action against a terminal managing body. For the benefit of Committee members, terminal managing bodies in the context of this measure are those responsible for terminals identified in regulation 6 of the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013, namely Victoria coach station and Birmingham coach station. The amendments will be relevant to breaches of the training and publication requirements in clauses 35 and 36. Amendment 20 ensures that the enforcement powers in those clauses align with traffic commissioners’ powers to enforce the training and publication requirements in clause 34. Amendment 21 is consequential on amendment 20. Amendment 22 is a minor technical change to ensure that consistent language is used in the 2013 regulations.
Clause 36 works with clause 35 to ensure that staff are sufficiently trained to uphold disabled passengers’ rights. To that end, the clause allows the Secretary of State to set expectations for operator record keeping and data publication on completed disability training and enables the traffic commissioner to apply appropriate sanctions if legal requirements are not met. The traffic commissioners are operationally independent, and it would be for them to determine how best to prioritise the use of enforcement powers given to them. My Department has consulted the traffic commissioners throughout the development of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham mentioned the impact of training requirements on small and medium-sized operators. Our proposals do not prescribe how the training must be undertaken. That is for bus operators to decide, and we expect disability-related training to be undertaken as part of established learning and development programmes.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments and reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Training about disability: further provisions
Amendments made: 20, in clause 36, page 39, line 16, at end insert—
“(8A) The Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1865) are amended in accordance with subsections (8B) and (9).
(8B) In regulation 8, after paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) Paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to the enforcement of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of Regulation 181/2011 as they apply to a terminal managing body by virtue of paragraph 1A of that Article, and the designated body responsible for the enforcement of those requirements as they so apply is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.
(1B) The enforcement authority in relation to the requirements of regulations made under section 36 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.’”
This amendment ensures that references in the 2013 Regulations to the enforcement authority cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A.
Amendment 21, in clause 36, page 39, line 17, leave out from “10” to “insert” in line 18.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.
Amendment 22, in clause 36, page 39, line 21, leave out “this regulation” and insert “these regulations”.—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment brings regulation 10A(1) of the 2013 Regulations into line with regulation 10(1) of those regulations.
Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in England
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 37, page 40, line 23, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 24 and insert “1 January 2027,”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 33, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered before 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 37, page 40, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) A vehicle does not fall within subsection (3) if it previously had the tailpipe emissions listed in subsection (3)(c) but has since been converted to a zero-emission drive train.”
This amendment would qualify buses that have repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies to be considered as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of this Bill.
Amendment 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.
Amendment 58, in clause 37, page 40, line 40, at end insert—
“(6) The provisions of this section apply to any mayoral combined authority in England, where ‘mayoral combined authority’ means an authority established under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.”
This amendment would clarify that the provisions of section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities.
Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 40, line 40, at end insert—
“(6) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing how adequately and easily local transport authorities have been, or will be able to, access funding to replace polluting buses with zero-emission buses for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section.
(7) A report under subsection (6) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of current funding mechanisms available for the transition to zero-emission buses, including grants, loans, and other financial incentives;
(b) an evaluation of the sufficiency of available funding to meet the projected costs and timelines for local transport authorities to achieve a zero-emission fleet by 2035;
(c) a review of the barriers and challenges faced by local transport authorities in accessing existing funding, including administrative burdens, eligibility criteria, and capacity constraints;
(d) recommendations for improving the adequacy and accessibility of funding to accelerate the replacement of polluting buses with zero-emission buses.
(8) In conducting the review under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, bus operators and manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles.
(9) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to ensure sufficient and accessible funding for the transition to zero-emission buses.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the adequacy and accessibility of funding available to local transport authorities to transition their bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The report must include an evaluation of current funding mechanisms, barriers to access, and recommendations for improvements.
Clause stand part.
Siân Berry
Clause 37 is a good clause on the mandate for the use of zero emission buses in England. In essence, as it stands, it sets zero emission standards for new buses registered after a certain date. Rather than mandating that that date may not be before 1 January 2030, my amendments 32 and 33 would set it as 1 January 2027. I think that is the appropriate level of ambition for the Bill.
I am very aware that air pollution remains an enormous, preventable public health threat and that road transport plays its part in that. In certain hotspots in every town and city, bus travel is responsible for a significant amount of the pollution that people breathe in. That pollution is disproportionately experienced by the people who use and wait for those buses, and the pedestrians along the routes of those buses. We need to have the highest possible ambition.
Buses under Transport for London have had that mandate in place since 2021, despite any legal requirement. All buses procured in London since that day have been zero emission capable, and have been deployed without any kind of problem. The investment has been put in, and it was done in part because of the imperative to clean up dirty air. Bus availability is now clearly no obstacle to the amendment being accepted. Double-deckers, single-deckers and all kinds of buses are available to provide services. One constraint, though, is the ability to charge those buses at depots.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I seek clarification on the import of the hon. Lady’s amendment. On Transport for London, she said that no newly purchased bus would be outside this consideration. Proposed new section 151A(1), for which she seeks to bring the date forward, states:
“The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3)”.
Her amendment would therefore mean that no existing bus that was not zero emission at the tailpipe could be used from 2027 onwards. Is that really her intention?
Siân Berry
As I understand it—the Minister might want to intervene if I am not correct—proposed new subsection (3)(b) sets the condition that the bus is first registered
“on or after a date”.
The condition is placed on new buses, not on any bus being used. It gives considerable leeway for existing buses to continue to be used. The clause is about procurement, and that is what I understand it to be mandating.
As I say, not every single bus in London has yet converted to zero emissions, but for several years now, new buses being purchased have had zero tailpipe emissions. That is not to say that they do not create any air pollution at all; much air pollution comes from brakes and tyre wear, and dust off the roads—there is a lot more air pollution than what comes out of the tailpipe.
Simon Lightwood
The amendment would prevent new non-ZEBs from being used on English local bus services from 1 January 2027.
Siân Berry
I thought so—I am not as radical as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham thinks. I think that the amendment is entirely reasonable on bus availability and procurement. It does not speed up the rate of procurement, or mandate that at all.
I am aware that there are challenging issues at certain depots. However, having spoken to private bus operators about this, they often do not lack the willingness to invest in charging infrastructure, and I am sure the imperative for a publicly owned bus company would be even higher. Instead, the constraint for some of them is the ability of the local electricity infrastructure to support the load produced by the rapid charging of very large vehicles with very large batteries.
Jerome Mayhew
As has become my custom, I will start with the clause and then look at the amendments. I will be relatively brief, but it is worth highlighting that clause 37 deals with the use of zero emission vehicles for local services in England. It is intended to prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses in local bus services in England, but inevitably there a number of qualifications to the proposed ban.
Under proposed new section 151A(2)(a), the ban will be limited to local bus services or London local services, the rationale behind which is presumably that long-distance buses do not currently have the technology to reliably use electric batteries, as opposed to other forms of lower-carbon technology. That raises questions about rural services that are classified as “local” but are, in fact, long distance. The county of Norfolk is a big old place, and there are long journeys that are classified as “local”.
I raise a flag at the way in which the Government have sought to vary the classification by taking out long-distance journeys, and assuming that bus battery technology is therefore capable of dealing with all other local services. That is not necessarily the case where long rural routes, which are classified as “local”, still face the same disadvantage in battery technology, as it is currently developed. I am raising that issue with the Minister so that he can go away and think about it. The date of registration is 1 January 2030.
The consequence of the clause is that it bans tailpipe emissions, and there is a separate, but slightly more philosophical, point. I have a challenge to the Government’s policy direction: it looks like the Government are picking winners—in fact, they definitely are—in relation to low-carbon technology. The tailpipe emissions include CO2, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide and particulates, which is all set out in subsection (3)(c). Currently, only hydrogen and electric buses would qualify, so there is a huge implication to this clause.
This is a blanket ban for new registrations, which undoubtedly has some positives but also some negatives of which we collectively ought to be aware. The positives of these vehicles are their quietness and, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion pointed out, air quality. That is a significant positive. I was born and went to school in my early years in London, and the difference in air quality in this city between then and now is enormous. It is a totally different experience from back in the 1970s, when vehicle fumes just enveloped us. That has made a huge difference.
If we agree to the amendment, however, we would be legislating enormous cost increases for the creators of fleets. We need to be careful: the cost of a standard Euro VI compliant bus, which has the most efficient engine, is about £180,000. An electric equivalent is about half a million pounds. These are hugely different orders of cost.
Siân Berry
Is the hon. Gentleman taking into account the lifetime of a bus and the changes in running costs?
Jerome Mayhew
I was just coming to that. The hon. Lady is quite right, but I am talking about the up-front capital cost. The lifetime running cost may well be cheaper for an electric bus, but the creator has to finance their capital cost on day one, whereas the lifetime operating costs are spread over the effective lifetime of the asset, which, for an electric bus, is an interesting question, actually. The lifetime of the structure of the bus may be 15 or 20 years, but we are not yet sure what the effective lifetime of the battery component of the bus is, and whether or not it needs to be replaced after about 10 years. The data is not particularly robust on that. If it means that we have to change out enormous battery banks during the operating process, that would be a significant additional secondary capex cost.
The Department for Transport figures for March 2024 say that there are 29,400 buses used by local bus companies. If we are going to replace all of those, that would be an £8 billion investment. That is very significant, and it is not considered in the impact assessment. There are some long-term savings, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion quite rightly pointed out. It is not just the differential in costs between electric and diesel; there are reduced maintenance costs as well. There are many fewer moving parts with an electric vehicle as well as the lower fuel cost, but the capex costs are front-loaded, and we cannot ignore that. Have the Government considered the financing consequences of imposing large, increased, front-loaded capex costs on bus companies? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
The second issue here is that through the current drafting, the Government are inevitably picking a winner in terms of technology for low-carbon vehicles, because it focuses on tailpipe emissions and ignores whole-life carbon assessments. That is important; again, we must have a balance of approach here. There is a significant benefit in zero tailpipe emissions, which is primarily about air quality as opposed to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.
There are very significant emissions during the construction of large-scale battery-operated buses, and there are alternatives under development. In the life cycle of the vehicle, if we take into account its construction, operation and disassembly, it is likely that new technologies, particularly ones using synthetic fuels, could be lower in carbon terms, albeit emitting Euro VI equivalent particulates at the tailpipe. The Bill denies an opportunity for that market to develop.
There are currently artificially-produced fuels made using renewable energy that have no net CO2 emissions over their life cycle. If they are interested, I can explain the basic process to Members: it uses carbon capture plus hydrogen from renewable electricity, synthesised via processes such as the Fischer-Tropsch or methanol synthesis, to create e-diesel, e-kerosene, e-methanol or e-gasoline. The key benefit is that it works with existing engines and fuel infrastructure, and avoids the enormous carbon emissions from wasting existing built infrastructure and machinery.
We need to understand that we have “spent” an enormous amount of carbon and greenhouse gases in constructing the 29,400 vehicles—buses—already out there, many of which have a natural life that could be extended significantly. We do not even need to convert them: we could just pour a synthetic fuel into the same bus, saving all the carbon associated with the manufacturing of new, large-scale hydrogen or electricity buses. At the very least, that would be a significant transitional material to extend the use of existing, or pre-manufactured, vehicles.
We try to reduce, reuse and recycle, and that would be an absolutely classic case of a good thing, and yet the clause, I am afraid to say, prohibits the development of that market. I suspect that that is not the intention of the Department or the Minister, but that is what will happen.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I want to expand a little on what my hon. Friend was saying about sustainable fuels that are, literally, drop-in fuel alternatives. Anyone watching the British Grand Prix this weekend knows that motor racing is beginning to use such fuel. There is real appetite for manufacturing it in the UK, but regulations get in the way of that happening at the moment. I have secured a meeting to share that with the Minister’s colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy, because it feels like a significant opportunity that would impact not only public transport but, in due course—I appreciate that this is not within the scope of the Bill—general users of vehicles. Ultimately, I think we all agree that we want to get to net zero from the perspective of emissions from vehicles; potentially, however, we need an alternative third way to ensure that the transition can take place.
Jerome Mayhew
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
I accept that currently synthetic fuels are expensive, because they are at the development stage, but I do not believe that the Government’s intention is for the clause to write them out. I recognise that the Minister is unlikely to tear up his clause on my say-so, but I would be grateful if he discussed the issue further with his Department.
I will leave it to the Minister to consider amendments 32 and 33, and the same can be said for amendments 78 and 58, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Finally, therefore, amendment 63 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to produce a report assessing the adequacy of funding for the replacement of emitting buses with zero emission versions.
The amendment is right to focus once again on the central issue of funding, because that is totally absent from the existing drafting of the clause, but—a fatal “but” from my perspective—the amendment focuses on the LTAs. In fact, however, in the vast majority of cases, the cost lies with private operators and not with the local transport authority. The amendment makes no mention of what should be done for them, and that lets the Government off the hook, frankly, of addressing the real problem, which is the bus companies and the impact on them, as opposed to the local transport authorities. That is probably an inadvertent oversight, but I just point it out.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.
I will speak to the clause and from my experience of representing an area that already benefits from the use of zero emission vehicles. Warrington’s Own Buses, our municipal bus company, set out an ambition to replace its entire diesel fleet with a fleet of all-electric buses with the aim of reducing carbon emissions in the town and transforming bus travel in the borough, and it has delivered on that. The all-electric, bright yellow buses, including new double-decker buses, were introduced in 2024. I was delighted to attend the launch.
The new zero emission fleet has many benefits. Noise operation is much reduced, minimising noise pollution and creating a more pleasant environment for passengers and passers-by along the routes. The buses are compliant with the strictest emissions regulations, contributing to cleaner air. They are powered by renewable energy and designed to be as green and carbon neutral as possible. We have an electrified depot that ensures smooth operation of the fleet, and Warrington’s Own Buses has overhauled fleet management with the introduction of a new digital system.
Steff Aquarone
I support the motivations behind clause 37. Making our public transport greener and cleaner is a positive thing and will make it an even more climate-friendly travel option. I note with excitement that Sanders Coaches, which runs many services across my constituency and that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, recently trialled a fully electric bus on the CH1 Coasthopper route between Cromer and Wells—the first ever fully electric bus used by the operator. We can see that rural transport providers are working hard to embrace the green future.
However, we have to recognise the challenges that rural routes face; I associate myself with the remarks made on that topic by the hon. Member. Long distances, limited charging infrastructure and the slim profit margins are all impediments. I would appreciate it if the Minister undertook today to publish, alongside the regulations set out in the clause, guidance and support for rural bus operators on the definitions of local routes. I hope he shares the work and engagement that his Department have done and will be doing with rural operators to make sure that we get this right for them and for the communities they serve.
Amendment 78 is about technology and is similar to something the hon. Member mentioned. It would qualify buses that have been repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of the Bill. “Repowered” means enabled to become zero emission after the date of registration. It involves replacing diesel engines with new, zero emission electric drivetrains mid-life. It is a proven UK innovation that can provide a more affordable and faster route to decarbonisation of our public transport fleet.
For local transport authorities, especially those facing constrained budgets, repowering could present some advantages. First, it can be quicker: companies can convert diesel buses to zero emission in as little as three weeks in their UK facilities. Buses could therefore be back in service quickly, supporting a seamless transition. Secondly, repowering is more cost-effective. A repowered bus can cost less than half the price of a brand-new zero emission vehicle, which could translate to considerable savings for operators and local authorities and allow them to stretch limited resources further. While this route may not work for all buses or local authorities, it is a simple and flexible option to deploy the most cost-effective and timely solution for their fleets. This practical amendment supports British innovation, stretches public funds and accelerates the path to cleaner air and net zero transport, and I urge Members to support it.
Amendment 58 is a small technical change that would clarify that the provisions of proposed new section 151A of the Transport Act 2000 on zero emission vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities. I would appreciate the Minister providing clarity on that point.
Finally, on amendment 63, while the transition to zero emission buses is right and essential for tacking the climate crisis and reducing air pollution, we must be honest about the pressures that transition will place on local authorities. I take the point that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, is making, but in this regard, given the subject of clause 37, I will persist with this point. The pressures on local authority budgets and local transport authorities are why we need amendment 63. It would introduce a sensible and measured requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing how adequate and accessible the central Government funding for zero emission buses has been. It would simply require the Secretary of State to bring forward recommendations on how to improve the system and accelerate the replacement of polluting buses. It is about identifying what works and what does not, and how we can ensure that local transport authorities are properly supported to deliver on one of the Government’s central missions.
Such a report could be helpful for not just local authorities, but the Secretary of State herself when the Treasury inevitably comes knocking asking Departments to justify their spending. Being able to point to a clear evidence-based publicly available report that sets out the scale of funding required to meet our zero emission bus targets will only strengthen the Department’s hand, so I urge the Government to support the amendment.
Simon Lightwood
I will start my comments on this group by speaking to clause 37 stand part and then move to the amendments. The clause will prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses on local bus services in England. The full transition to zero emission buses is a vital part of the Government’s plan to make buses better for passengers and to realise the benefits of lower running costs, cleaner air and smoother, quieter journeys. Bus operators have begun to invest in new zero emission buses, supported by Government funding initiatives. All stakeholders including bus operators, manufacturers and local transport authorities share the ambition to achieve a zero emission bus fleet more quickly.
However, I recognise that there is a need for Government intervention to accelerate bus decarbonisation by supporting the sector with greater certainty of future demand for zero emission buses. The clause seeks to provide that certainty. However, in recognition of the need to provide time and confidence to manufacturers to shift production, and to operators and local transport authorities to plan their fleet transition, the change to the law will come into effect on a date specified by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation. The clause specifies that the restriction on the use of new non-zero emission buses will not take effect earlier than 2030. It also allows for the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of vehicle or local services from the restriction—for example, to enable the relevant local services reliant on those vehicles to still run.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion raised the issue of charging capacity at depots. The clean power action plan includes a programme of connection reform measures aimed at reducing the delays—and I recognise those she has spoken about. The Government are moving from a first come, first served model to an approach based on readiness and strategic alignment. If approved, connection reform proposals submitted to Ofgem by the National Energy System Operator will release up to 400 GW of capacity from the oversubscribed connections queue, accelerating the connections that the hon. Lady talked about for customers ready to connect by the end of 2025.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Ofgem are also considering what further action could be taken to accelerate connections for strategically important demand customers. The Government are working to ensure that they understand the specific conditions affecting bus operators and continue to communicate directly with bus operators to share best practice. Battery ranges are getting better; independent tests carried out on behalf of the Department on the UK bus test cycle show that ranges for electric vehicles can exceed 500 km, and further for hydrogen. The Government’s independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee, have been clear: buses should transition to zero tailpipe technologies, and biofuels should be focused on sectors harder to decarbonise such as aviation and maritime. The purchase costs of zero emission buses have decreased in real terms, and they have become more efficient to run.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 32 and 33 relating to zero emission buses. I appreciate that their intention is to ensure that the English bus fleet is decarbonised as quickly as possible. I can reassure her that the Government share that intention. However, having considered them carefully, the Government cannot support the amendments, and I am happy to set out the reasons why.
Amendment 32 would prevent new non-ZEBs from being used on English local bus services from 1 January 2027. Amendment 33 would enable that by removing the 1 January 2030 restriction currently in the Bill. That would allow the Secretary of State to end the use of new non-ZEBs at an earlier date.
We have stated in the Bill that the measure will not come into effect before 1 January 2030. The precise date will be set by statutory instrument. That will provide the industry with reassurance that the measure will not come into effect suddenly or without warning, and allow sufficient notice to be provided, enabling the industry to prepare for the change to zero emission buses. I am concerned about the impact that an earlier date could have on bus operators and the potential adverse consequences for passengers, such as the cost of decarbonising leading to reduced services and increased fares.
A reduction in bus services could also lead to more journeys being made by car and therefore greater overall carbon emissions. I am also concerned about the potential for job losses in the UK manufacturing sector if an earlier date led to bus operators running diesel buses for longer on certain routes.
As indicated in the published impact assessment for the Bill, there is a significant risk that setting an implementation date too early, before the total cost of owning electric buses reaches broad parity with diesel buses, could have damaging impacts. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw her amendment.
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk for amendment 78. I appreciate its purpose —to encourage the repowering of existing diesel buses, meaning their conversion into zero emission vehicles. I assure them that we support bus repowering—indeed, I opened a plant myself—as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses in the UK. My Department has introduced the zero emission vehicle repower accreditation scheme to help bus operators to ensure that repowered buses get higher standards of efficiency and emission reduction, invest in their existing fleet and become eligible to claim the zero emission bus incentive in the bus service operators grant.
I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Only new diesel buses will be prevented from being used on English bus services; any existing diesel buses, including those that are repowered, can continue to be used. For any new diesel buses registered after the stated date, regulation 16 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 will require the vehicle keeper to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of any changes to the vehicle that may result in the particulars held on the vehicle record becoming incorrect. That includes changes to the engine or propulsion of the vehicle.
Proposed new section 151A(4)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations…specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine…what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle”.
I can assure the hon. Member for North Norfolk that we would ensure that such documents included those that include up-to-date information about the bus’s powertrain. That would allow such buses to be used on English local bus services. I therefore ask him not to press amendment 78.
Amendment 58 tabled by the hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Wimbledon and for South Devon seeks to clarify that the restrictions on the use of non-zero emission buses from a date no earlier than 2030 apply to mayoral combined authorities. I welcome the intention behind the amendment. The Government agree that the restrictions should apply to local bus services in those areas, creating jobs, supporting local economies and accelerating our journey to a zero emission future. That is why, in response to concerns raised in the other place, the Government expanded the measure to apply to all local services in England, including those in London. If a mayoral combined authority operates a relevant service, they will already be subject to the restriction on using non-ZEBs. That means that the measure as it stands in the Bill already fulfils the intention of the amendment.
I thank the hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Wimbledon, for South Devon and for Didcot and Wantage for tabling amendment 63, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent on the ability of local transport authorities to access funding to decarbonise their fleets. The restriction on the use of new non-ZEBs will not come into effect immediately. That will follow careful consideration of all relevant factors by the Secretary of State, including affordability, and it will be fully debated in Parliament as it will be implemented by affirmative secondary legislation. We state in the Bill that the measure will not come into effect before 1 January 2030. That will give the industry and local transport authorities reassurance that the measure will not come into effect suddenly and without warning, and will allow sufficient notice to be provided, enabling them to prepare for the change to zero emission.
Siân Berry
I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments 32 and 33, but I am quite disappointed. I take his points about potential downsides. I assume that, in outlining them, he took into account all the lovely investment that he was just talking about and assumed that there would be no additional Government investment to enable the target date to be met. I would like the law of the land that we create during this process to retain the hope that there may be increases in investment in public transport and buses in future Labour Budgets.
I will withdraw amendment 32, but I would like to press amendment 33 to a vote. That would remove the stipulation that the date cannot be before 1 January 2030 and give Ministers the opportunity to look again at whether an earlier date is possible. I appreciate that it is too much to expect the Minister to accept the new date proposed in amendment 32 today, but I think it is completely reasonable to expect the Committee to agree to give him an opportunity to look again at the date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.—(Siân Berry.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 53—Minimum bus service standards: review—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.
(2) The review conducted under this section must—
(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,
(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”
Simon Lightwood
Clause 38 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review, within two years of the Bill’s enactment, on the level of bus services being provided to villages in England. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the Lords.
The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts. Although the Bill aims to improve bus services, the review required by the clause would not be practical to deliver. Measures such as franchising and setting up a local authority bus company are significant undertakings that will take time. It is unlikely that a review after two years would allow enough time to capture and assess the impact on rural areas. The full impact of a franchising scheme or a local authority bus company is not expected to be seen until the scheme or company has been operating for some time.
Moreover, although I accept the positive intention behind the measure, it is already addressed by the Bill and wider Government policy. The Government are seeking to reverse the long-term decline in bus services, partly by ensuring that the impact of any changes to bus networks is fully assessed and options are fully explored before a service is changed or cancelled. That will be achieved through measures on socially necessary local services, which will help protect and improve services in rural areas.
Beyond the Bill’s reforms, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, with a dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence conference on quality rural bus services this month, and the first two of our franchising pilots, in York and North Yorkshire and Cheshire West and Chester, announced at the spending review. The Government therefore oppose the clause.
Steff Aquarone
I support clause 38, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the provision of bus services to villages in England within two years of the Act being passed. Members will have heard many of my points about the clause in previous speeches, including on amendment 71, which I have pressed to a vote already, but the clause as a whole is not only sensible but essential. I am very pleased that those in the other place added it to the Bill and I hope it will be retained today.
In North Norfolk I have more than 100 villages and hamlets. From Alby and Antingham to Wiveton, Wickmere and Worstead, they are all treasured communities but face challenges with rural transport. Too often, rural communities are treated as an afterthought when it comes to public transport planning. I know this at first hand and my constituents experience it day in and day out. I am sorry to say that the last Government did not do enough in the years that they had to tackle the issues that rural communities face. It is time we stepped up to the challenge of rural mobility.
Villages across England have been cut off by decades of under-investment, deregulation and short-term decision making. The clause acknowledges that rural isolation is not a minor inconvenience, but a daily barrier to work and education, healthcare and opportunity more broadly. The clause rightly demands that the Government take stock of the current state of rural bus provision. It requires an assessment of how many villages are being served by regular bus routes, and it asks important questions about who is being affected—which demographics, which regions and which types of communities are being left behind.
As I said when speaking to my amendments and new clauses on rural bus hubs, having a service to every village might not be the right approach for every area. In many places, moving towards a hub-and-spoke model might be the best course of action. This review would help to identify that and allow us to better understand the current state of play and what steps can be taken to improve the situation.
The clause also rightly mandates consultation with key stakeholders—local councils and transport authorities —who are best placed to speak to the lived reality of rural transport as currently delivered. Without proper scrutiny and transparency, bus networks in rural areas will continue to wither. This review clause is a modest but vital safeguard that ensures we do not look the other way while whole communities are cut off.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long championed the rights of rural communities to fair access to transport. From Cumbria to Cornwall and Norfolk to Newton Abbot, we are fighting for cut-off communities to finally have their challenges heard and their needs addressed. Clause 38 speaks directly to that principle and I urge colleagues across the Committee to support its inclusion in the Bill.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I want to speak in support of clause 38. As a representative of a rural constituency, public transport is one of the things mentioned most frequently when I speak to local people on the doorstep or at events. Car and van ownership in North West Leicestershire is higher than the national average, partly due to the lack of public transport options, including bus and rail.
In the light of the support given to expand local services and our ambition in government, Leicestershire has had an additional £8 million and we are starting to see a change, with bus services no longer being reviewed, reconsidered and cut, but being reviewed with a view to expansion. Bus services are important. People talk about services that have been withdrawn; they feel the loss of service.
As transport is so important, one of the first things I did after I was elected was undertake a local transport survey, and 72% of respondents said that the reason they do not use buses is their frequency and the lack of service and choice. I am sure that the challenge is felt in other constituencies, but local people in my constituency said that buses are infrequent, unreliable, poorly timed and often do not connect towns and villages effectively. That was most commonly felt in Moira, Diseworth, Heather, Ibstock, Ravenstone, Castle Donington, Kegworth and Breedon.
People also said that services stop too early, with no evening or Sunday options, impacting leisure and work. One disabled passenger told me that they can catch a bus to work from Monday to Saturday but cannot be available to work on a Sunday owing to the lack of a Sunday service. Public transport rarely facilitates straightforward journeys to colleges, workplaces or local amenities.
People also said that they needed increased frequency, reliability and coverage, especially in our villages but also in new housing areas. A villager in Belton told me that buses can be unreliable. That has put them off using the service, particularly because, the last time they risked it, they ended up stranded and had to get a taxi home. That happens even in our larger conurbations, where just two weeks ago a resident told me they had to wait for more than an hour for the next bus because the one they had planned to catch simply did not turn up.
Clause 38 provides the opportunity to review and assess the challenges to local services, and to make sure that our ambition reaches all parts of communities, including villages.
Jerome Mayhew
It is very hard to add anything to that. I fully support the comments of the hon. Member, and of the hon. Member for North Norfolk. Clause 38 is excellent. It is a great addition—it was introduced by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in the other place—because it requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of, essentially, the impact of the Bill within two years of its passing. The meat of the clause is in subsection (2), which states that the review must assess
“the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,”
and
“the number of villages in England not served by bus services”,
as well as the
“demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of business services available”,
and finally,
“the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.”
It is the review of, “What have we achieved today?” That report will be useful, because it will kick-start discussion of solutions to rural transport.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk has already referred to Sanders, which is a family-owned regional bus company—I think it has grown such that I can properly call it regional. We also have First Bus in Norfolk. We have a radial approach. We know the impact of the £2 bus fare on ridership in our county: it was very useful, including by enabling residents of Fakenham, in my constituency, to get down to Norwich—that is a bus journey of three quarters of an hour for £2. It has been an effective policy to increase ridership. We will see what impact the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will have on ridership and provision in the country as a whole, especially in rural areas. I suspect that the answer is that it will have absolutely no impact.
A review would expose the Bill for what it is: virtue signalling without any funding at all to support the supposed ambitions of local transport authorities. If the Government vote against clause 38 standing part of the Bill, that will clearly demonstrate their concern that the Bill is performative, that it will not actually make services better, and that it has in fact been a monumental waste of time, without funding.
Time and again, throughout consideration of the Bill, I have said that the Conservative party is not against franchising; in fact, it is a Conservative policy development. In the right circumstances, it is a good solution—it is progress—but we have to accept that it is expensive. The Government are pretending that they are facilitating a whole load of local transport authorities to franchise, but are not giving them any money to do it, so we are left with a meaningless shell. The review mandated by clause 38 would hold the Government to account. If I were proven wrong by the report, and it lists a huge number of additional services that have been supplied as a result of the Bill, I would happily come back here and eat my hat.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I will make a point that I have made before, following on from the shadow Minister’s description of clause 38 as revealing, and of the Bill as transparently not providing funding for anyone. The clause would also be helpful to demonstrate to small local authorities and local authorities that provide over large rural areas, such as my own on the Isle of Wight, the gulf between trying to realise the objectives behind franchising and having responsibility for delivering them, as a small local authority taking on all that financial risk. So, like him, I support the clause standing part of the Bill, if only to reveal to local authorities some of the issues behind it, and that it is not the all-singing, all-dancing solution that they might think.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for the intervention. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.
Moving on, new clause 53 would require a review of the minimum level of bus services required for communities, within a quite ambitious six months. I leave it to the Minister to respond to that.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, for what may be the final time on this Committee. I thank you for guiding us—particularly those of us who are new to the world of Bill Committees—through this process.
I would like to speak in favour of the Minister’s approach to clause 38, which, though clearly well intentioned, perhaps would not have achieved what it was aiming to for England’s villages. On Tuesday, hon. Members heard me mention two of the villages I am proud to represent, Slitting Mill and Norton Canes, and what clause 14—regarding socially necessary services—would mean for them. However, not wishing to have favourites, I am grateful to now have the opportunity to talk about what this Bill will also mean for Brereton and Ravenhill, Brindley, Littleworth, Rawnsley, Hazelslade, Prospect Village, Cannock Wood, Bridgtown, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury.
Like so many parts of England, particularly in rural and semi-rural areas such as mine, bus routes in our villages have been shrinking for many years, while fares have risen. However, I would like to highlight a rare piece of good news, which is that, from 20 July—a successful tender permitting—the No. 60 between Cannock and Lichfield, and the No. 74 between Cannock and Stafford, will begin to run on Sundays once again, and hopefully later into the evenings. The No. 60 in particular is the only service for many of my villages, so that extension will be very welcome.
My constituents have sadly become used to bus services stopping at 7 pm and not running at all on Sundays. From listening to the debate, that is a world away from the experiences in the constituencies of some members of this Committee, but it is the reality in much of our country. When growing up in a village, like I did, or living in a village, like I still do, a bus can be a lifeline—something that I am glad to say we on this Committee have discussed extensively—so the withdrawal or reduction of services means more cars on the road, more people isolated within their homes, and, of course, less cash to invest in, or even preserve, routes. That is why I am pleased to hear the Minister’s assurances on this matter.
I do hope that a review of the benefits of this Bill to England’s villages can be carried out in time, but when the time is right, not by an arbitrary timeframe. By that point, the full benefits of things such as franchising and registers of socially necessary services can be properly assessed. For that reason, I urge fellow members of the Committee who represent villages—like I do—to oppose clause 38 standing as part of this Bill, so that the Secretary of State and the Minister can determine the best approach to ensuring that, once again, buses are there for people and communities first and foremost.
Simon Lightwood
On new clause 53, legislation to guarantee minimum levels of services for communities already exists in the Transport Act 2000. The Bill’s socially necessary local services measure will provide greater protection for existing bus services from being arbitrarily cancelled or reduced. The Department for Transport is also currently undertaking a review into enhanced partnerships, which is set to conclude later this year. We are looking into the potential of developing a set of minimum standards for enhanced partnerships.
I thank members of the Committee for their thoughts on seeking to review the provision of bus services to villages in England. The Government recognise the need to serve villages, alongside improving service, reliability and punctuality, across England, and the role that buses play in linking communities together. We are seeking to reverse the long-term decline in bus services, partly by ensuring that the impacts of any changes to bus networks are fully assessed and that options are fully explored before a service is changed or cancelled.
An evaluation of the Bill, including the impact on rural services, will be completed as part of a wider evidence review of bus franchising. The Government do not want to undermine that analysis by presenting findings before franchising and local authority bus companies have been established. That would not reflect the true impact on passengers.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 39 would require the Secretary of State to implement a vision zero programme in the bus sector, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries in the course of bus operations. The clause was inserted as a non-Government new clause in the other place.
The Government support the principle behind vision zero, because we do not want any deaths or serious injury on our transport network, but where vision zero programmes are being taken forward, such as in London and Greater Manchester, the focus of the strategies is wider than just buses; they are multimodal and take a safe-system view across the transport network. A nationwide programme would cut across the Department’s plans for a road safety strategy and promote a one-size-fits-all approach that is unlikely to work in different settings, such as rural areas. Local leaders are best placed to design the programmes that work to eliminate serious injuries in their local areas.
By creating a national programme that would significantly overlap with wider local transport authority management, the clause would undermine the Bill’s intention to empower local areas. It is therefore inconsistent with the Bill’s principles. The Bill aims to empower local leaders to take control of bus services so that they meet the needs of their communities. That includes making the best decisions to encourage safer transport networks in a given area. The Government therefore oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
I rise to strongly support clause 39, which was the inspiration of Lord Hampton, the Cross Bencher who tabled it in the other place. It would require the Secretary of State to collaborate with industry stakeholders to implement a vision zero programme for buses, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries during bus operations and improving overall safety in the sector. It is very hard to argue against that as an objective for the Bill.
The Minister expressed support for the concept and direction of travel. His primary argument against the clause was that it would somehow get in the way of a multimodal approach to the reduction of injuries on transport, but there is no reason why it need do so. It could co-ordinate with a multimodal transport response. Nothing in the clause prevents it from being part of a wider piece of work. I accept that the legislative requirement would be limited to the bus sector, but a non-legislative multimodal approach would be perfectly permissible, and it is a ministerial sleight of hand to suggest otherwise. The Minister is using some other review as an excuse not to keep this very good clause.
The reason why it is a good clause is that personal injury to passengers on buses caused by sharp braking is a significant issue. A 2019 study for Transport for London showed that three quarters of bus passenger injuries in London were due to non-collision incidents, such as sharp braking or harsh manoeuvres. This disproportionately affects older females and standing passengers, whether they are standing for the journey or standing on their approach to a stopping place.
The challenge with the current statistics is that they are binary—they report either collision injuries or non-collision injuries—and are not broken down further into, for example, sharp braking or avoiding manoeuvres. The clause would help to get to the bottom of where risk lies, expose the data and lead to an effective focus on remediation efforts. I strongly support it.
Steff Aquarone
I have very little to add to the speech of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. Any road death involving a bus is one too many; any injury to a bus passenger is one too many. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon shared the London statistics with me: just last year, there were 20 deaths resulting from collisions involving buses: 10 pedestrians, two cyclists and eight passengers. That tragic toll represents a 17% increase in bus-related fatalities on the previous year. Each death is a tragedy—20 families, 20 sets of loved ones and 20 communities who were shaken by those deaths—and we should be taking action to reduce bus-related death and injury. That is why clause 39 must remain part of the Bill.
It is rare that a non-collision leads to a passenger accident in a car; almost all such non-collision passenger accidents happen on buses. We need a different approach, and that is why we need a specific vision zero ambition in the Bill. That would set the standard for safety and send a message that we will not accept fatalities and injury as inevitable by-products of public transport. I hope the clause remains part of the Bill.
Siân Berry
I support the speeches made by the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for North Norfolk, and I am exasperated that the clause is being rejected. I asked the Secretary of State about incorporating vision zero goals in the road safety strategy, as it is an entirely reasonable aim for there to be no deaths on our roads. To reject such a goal only for buses seems utterly unreasonable, and contrary to what the other place decided.
Every death that is due to a bus is 100% preventable, and we should be setting the goal of eliminating bus-related death. It is already part of the Bill—to take it out is even worse than not including it in the first place. I am very supportive of keeping the clause in the Bill. It does not go into detail about what is required but would merely ensure that the goal is set, which is completely reasonable.
Simon Lightwood
I thank Committee members for their thoughts on the vision zero programme. My noble Friend the Minister for Rail noted in the other place that the Government are “sympathetic to the aims” behind vision zero. We all want a completely safe bus sector with no incidents. Safety goes wider than buses: other modes of transport share a vision for that, and that includes the Department’s work on a road safety strategy. It is the first such strategy in over a decade, which raises the question of why the previous Government failed to keep us up to date.
The Government are already taking steps to improve safety in the bus sector, but we recognise that more needs to be done. We want to eliminate serious injuries and deaths on our transport networks, but the clause cuts across the forthcoming work on the new road safety strategy.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause requires bus operators that are contracted to operate a franchising scheme or enhanced partnership to record data about all assaults and violent behaviour that have taken place on their services. The clause requires that data to be shared with the relevant local transport authority. It also requires local transport authorities to consult relevant trade unions about any staff safety issues arising from the data. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the other place, and I do not consider it necessary.
First, the clause duplicates work already done by the Home Office and the police. All incidents reported to the police under the Home Office crime recording rules, whether by victims, witnesses or third parties, and whether crime-related or not, will result—unless immediately recorded as a crime—in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police. That is in line with the vision that all police forces in England and Wales should have the best crime recording system in the world—one that is consistently applied, delivers accurate statistics that are trusted by the public, and puts victims’ needs at its core.
Secondly, the clause may not be compatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, as no limits are placed on what the data to be collected and shared may include. It does not specify what should be collected or how frequently, and no enforcement mechanism is attached. That may result in inconsistent data. As drafted, the clause relates to contracted services, which would exclude all the local transport authorities that have entered into enhanced partnerships with private operators. For such practical reasons, the Government will seek to remove the clause from the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
It is rather unedifying to see the Government hiding behind arguments about article 8. If they seriously thought that article 8 was a practical consideration that prevented the adoption of the clause, why did they not seek to amend the clause? They were perfectly capable of tabling a clarifying amendment to make the clause compliant with article 8, if they really had genuine concerns about such compliance. They could have done it, but they have chosen not to. It does not befit the Minister to hide behind that as a defence for the Government’s inaction.
The clause deals with the recording and sharing of data about assaults. It was proposed by the noble Lord Woodley in the other place. The Government should be aware of that, because it was after all drafted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I am sure the Government are good union supporters and, in other situations, I would have expected them to be highly supportive of union recommendations, although I seem to recall—I think I am right—that the RMT is not officially affiliated to the Labour party. Perhaps that explains why the clause is about to be removed from the Bill.
The clause imposes a duty to record all data about assaults and violent behaviour, and a duty to consult any relevant trade unions about issues of staff safety arising from that data, which is eminently sensible. Before I go into more detail, I want to clarify that most bus journeys are in fact very safe. Data from Transport for London for 2024 suggests that only 9.6 crimes are committed per million journeys in London. I do not have the data in front of me, but I think that the equivalent data for rural Norfolk might show it is even safer.
It is an increasing trend in London, however, as 4,167 crimes on London buses were reported as violence against the person in 2018-19, which was an increase of 2.5% on the previous year. In the west midlands, another hotspot, violent crime on buses increased 7% year on year in the latest statistics. Bus driver assaults is an important subsection of such crime, and in London between 2011 and 2013, on average four bus drivers every single day were assaulted or verbally abused. According to a Unite the union survey in 2024, 83% of UK bus drivers experienced abuse, with 79% saying that there had been an increase over the previous year and many reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults.
That is the important bit: if bus drivers are reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults, why is requiring the proper recording of data associated with assaults such a bad thing? Surely the first step to change would be to understand the full nature of the problem. The clause would lead to better data, and therefore better support for bus drivers and passengers faced with violent crime.
Steff Aquarone
I, too, am frustrated that the Government did not see fit to address those concerns by amending the clause.
Let us start by being clear: assaults that take place on bus services are not abstract statistics—they are real events affecting real people. Often, drivers and frontline staff are simply doing their jobs and passengers are just trying to get from A to B. We cannot tackle this problem unless we properly understand it. To do that, we need robust, consistent data.
Here lies the point: at present, too many of those incidents go unrecorded, or are not handled consistently across different operators and regions. Clause 40 would put a stop to that, creating a clear and consistent duty that, if an operator is contracted to run services, it must record this data and share it with the local authority. That is the very least the public expect. Furthermore, the inclusion of a duty on a local transport authority to consult with relevant trade unions regarding issues of staff safety arising from the data collected is a good step. It will ensure that the data is used in practice and could lead to increased safety for staff and passengers.
It is clear that the clause is about more than data collection; it is about creating a feedback loop between those who operate bus services, those who oversee them and those who work on them. That would ensure that when violence occurs, it is recorded, known, and acted on. That is how we start to build a safer system for staff and passengers—for everyone. The Prime Minister recently it made clear that abuse of those working in the rail industry is “utterly unacceptable”; he responded to a question on the abuse of rail staff by saying:
“The abuse and assaults on staff are utterly unacceptable. We are taking measures to make sure they are safer.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 281.]
I am sure the Prime Minister believes the Government should take measures to ensure that bus staff are kept safe, not just rail staff. For that reason, the Minister should push to maintain clause 40 in the Bill. It is not only the right thing to do; it seems that the PM backs it too. I want to protect those who serve our communities, and ensure that public transport is not only affordable and reliable, but safe. Clause 40 helps to deliver that vision, and I implore the Government to keep it in the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
I thank hon. Members for their thoughts on recording and sharing data about assaults. In the other place, we highlighted the fact that the Bill already includes measures to enhance the safety of staff and passengers on bus services. As I set out, many operators—and indeed the police and the Home Office—already collect data on assaults, and it makes sense for them to rationalise how best to manage their operators and staff in that respect. We are not seeking to duplicate the work of the police. Victims may also not want to report incidents without their consent, and we should be cognisant of that.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 44—Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—
“(1) In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS) for drivers of PSVs
(1) Local authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).
(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.
(3) Local authorities must consult with trade unions on health and safety matters which arise from reports to CIRAS.’”
This new clause seeks to ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).
Siân Berry
I have tabled a number of new clauses relating to safety of working conditions, health and safety, and reporting of bus safety. I want to speak in detail to new clause 5, but I will speak only briefly on the other related new clauses.
We need to see a step change in attitudes and effort on bus safety. Buses are a poor relation compared with other forms of transport in terms of the amount of work and care that goes into the safety of drivers and working conditions, much to the detriment of public safety. I therefore fully support the written evidence from the RMT. I am disappointed that this issue was not voted on in the Lords, because there is a clear case and a high need for it to be looked at.
It is a shame that a Bill with such potential to include these kinds of measures does not, hence these new clauses. In its written evidence, the RMT argued that
“decades of fragmentation and deregulation has led to poor working conditions in much of the sector and a stark lack of oversight for health and safety. As a report into the UK’s deregulated bus market by former UN rapporteur Philip Alston states ‘privatisation also appears to have resulted in lower quality jobs in the bus sector and unsafe working conditions’.”
Given that the Bill is intended to undo and help to mend some of the harm of privatisation, and to create better standards, these measures need to be brought in.
Bus workers are subject to many health and safety risks, including fatigue. I have met with bus drivers about the impacts of fatigue and the kinds of shifts they have to carry out. We will discuss new clauses about working times later. When drivers spot issues, they need to have a confidential reporting system such as that in new clause 5. It would be good to include in the Bill a means of reporting confidentially without fear of repercussions, which is a safety measure used in many other industries.
I will speak more on the individual measures in the new clauses to come, but they all need to be looked at. They come as a package to ensure that drivers have better working conditions, that there are better qualifications in management, that things can be reported, and that data on the current situation can be collected and used to focus attention on these issues in future.
Simon Lightwood
New clauses 5 and 44 seek to require local authorities to ensure that local bus operators are providing their drivers with access to CIRAS. The Government are deeply concerned about any safety incidents in the bus sector, but the issue was discussed in the Lords, and the Government cannot support in legislation an amendment that specifies a third-party service.
CIRAS is one of a number of suitable routes through which safety concerns can be raised. For example, anyone may anonymously report a lack of safety or conformation to standards in the bus sector to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency intelligence unit. The DVSA may use that information to investigate the situation, including working with other Government Departments and agencies, as well as the police. The Minister for Rail noted the need to raise awareness of that service, and officials are working with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. I remember discussing this very issue with the RMT.
There are comprehensive standards covering all aspects of bus operation, such as roadworthiness of vehicles, operational services and driver standards. Those are enforced by several organisations including the DVSA. Operators of those vehicles are licensed by the traffic commissioners, who also consider any non-compliance issues and ensure that bus operators are effectively regulated. Those regulatory systems also include provisions on the responsibilities and conduct of drivers. Drivers or any member of the public may at present report any concerns to CIRAS if they would rather use that route. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Department is absolutely committed to ensuring safety in the bus sector, and that the new clause is unnecessary.
Siân Berry
I do not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Bus safety performance data
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Bus safety performance data
(1) Local transport authorities must—
(a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and
(b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy.
(2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 45—Bus safety performance data—
“(1) In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Bus safety performance data
(1) Local authorities must publish bus safety performance data online every quarter at a minimum.
(2) Every calendar year, local authorities must submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor to assess the data’s accuracy.
(3) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (2) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.
(4) Local authorities must consult with trade unions on any safety issues detected by this data.
(5) Local authorities must make the release of bus safety performance data by operators a requirement of any franchise they enter into.’”
This new clause seeks to ensure that local authorities publish bus safety performance data every quarter and that franchises place a requirement on operators to release this data.
New clause 49—Bus accident investigation branch—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Bus Accident Investigation Branch.
(2) The Bus Accident Investigation Branch must have the aims of improving the safety of bus travel and preventing bus accidents and incidents.”
Siân Berry
New clause 6 relates to the same issue of bus safety. It requires local transport authorities to collect and publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and to submit that bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of it assessing the data’s accuracy. That is a very important thing that we should be doing at a national level.
This is another probing new clause, so I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about how that will be done in some other way. It is now routinely done in Transport for London’s reporting, which has been incredibly useful for everyone interested in road danger, such as people interested in pedestrian and cyclist safety. It has been a really good thing, so extending it and making it a duty on every local transport authority should be very basic and not resisted.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 6, which I will deal with alongside the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), which deal with the same issue. These new clauses seek to require local authorities to publish bus safety performance on a quarterly basis, which must be audited annually.
Road safety is a priority for the Government, which is why we are developing a road safety strategy—the first, as I have said, in over a decade. The Department for Transport already collects data in respect of reported collisions involving personal injury, and publishes that information at a local authority level. Records of individual collisions are also published as open data. That is carried out through the STATS19 framework, which relies on reports from the police.
We recognise concerns about the lack of data collection for areas off the public highway. As a result of those matters being raised in the other place, the Department is engaging with the standing committee on roads injury collision statistics, which reviews the STATS19 framework to understand how those concerns can be addressed. Data is also collected from public service vehicle operators who must report incidents to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, thanks to the PSV operator licensing requirements.
I hope that provides reassurance that the Department is absolutely committed to ensuring that passengers benefit from safe journeys on bus services, and is working to ensure that passengers can access information about those matters easily. As a result, I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
Siân Berry
This is a probing new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service
“(1) In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert—
‘, subject to subsection (1A).
(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 42—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—
“(1) In the Transport Act 1968, in section 96(1), at end insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).
(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service under provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any consecutive weeks.
(1B) In meeting the condition of subsection (1A), drivers cannot be subject to any loss of pay.’”
This new clause seeks to limit the permitted driving time for bus drivers to no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any consecutive weeks.
New clause 43—Permitted time on duty for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—
“(1) In The Driver’s Hours (Passenger and Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1971, Article 4(2) is amended as follows—
‘(1) In the inserted words before paragraph (a), after “Act” insert “, subject to subsection (2A),”’
(2) At the end of the inserted text insert—
‘(2A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service under provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 must not on any working day be on duty to drive a PSV for more than five and a half hours without a break of 45 minutes.’”
Siân Berry
This new clause would set a permitted driving time for bus drivers—drivers of public service vehicles—that matched the permitted driving time for heavy goods vehicle drivers. Currently, the permitted driving time for bus drivers is considerably less stringent than for HGV drivers. Some of the data that we have received from the RMT on this issue shows that bus drivers can drive up to 10 hours a day and they have a 30-minute break as a minimum—I am sure that many operators operate different shift patterns than that, but this is what is permitted—after five hours and 30 minutes of driving. In every two consecutive weeks, there is a requirement for them to have 24 hours off duty. However, there is some flex in the rules, which means that someone can actually drive for 130 hours across two weeks. To me, that is asking for trouble. I feel that drivers are potentially being put under far too much pressure by these rules and that we need to look at having this kind of limit in our law.
Two similar new clauses have been tabled: new clauses 42 and 43. They take the same limits but treat them more in aggregate, which may be an attempt to be more flexible. I would be really interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how bus drivers’ hours will be regulated in a way that ensures greater safety than is currently the case.
Simon Lightwood
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 7, which I will discuss alongside new clauses 42 and 43. The new clauses seek to align the GB drivers’ hourly rules with the maximum permitted weekly and fortnightly driving limits in the assimilated drivers’ hours rules. They also aim to increase the break requirements for drivers of local bus services in the GB rules to something akin to those in the assimilated rules. The maximum permitted daily driving time for a bus driver is 10 hours, where the driver is providing a regular bus service and where the route length does not go beyond 50 km. The maximum permitted driving time for a driver providing a service beyond that, as well as for coach drivers and HGV drivers, is nine hours, which is extendable twice a week to 10 hours.
While I recognise the hon. Member’s intentions, there are a few unintended consequences to the proposed changes. First, they would increase the number of drivers required to undertake the same amount of work. That would likely have a knock-on impact on the considerable progress made in the last couple of years in addressing bus driver shortages.
Secondly, the proposed changes would likely impact how drivers work. When such a change was previously put to bus operators, they advised that it would result in an increase in the number of drivers having to work split shifts. That is likely to be unpopular with bus drivers, because it would likely mean that they would have to wait around at operating bases for a number of hours. Operators have worked hard to avoid drivers working split shifts when organising shift patterns.
Thirdly, such a change would limit a driver’s earning potential, due to a reduction in the maximum number of hours they could work. The result of all these changes could lead to bus drivers leaving the profession, which would impact the progress made in addressing driver shortages.
Siân Berry
Would the Minister not agree that shorter consecutive hours and more flexible shift patterns might attract more people to consider bus driving as a potential career?
Simon Lightwood
I think that the hon. Member is insinuating that there would be a choice there, but her proposal would remove that choice.
As I was saying, the result of the changes could be bus drivers leaving the profession, which would impact on the progress made in addressing driver shortages and could lead to cuts in the frequency of services or even cuts to entire routes, which I am sure we all agree we do not want to see. Should service cuts occur, they would likely have a disproportionate impact on those on the lowest incomes, who rely most on the provision of bus services. On that basis, I suggest that the hon. Member withdraw the new clause.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 123X insert—
‘123Y Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities
Officials from a franchising authority responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme must have certification from—
(a) the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, and
(b) the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require officials from franchising authorities responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme to have IOSH and NEBOSH certifications.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Siân Berry
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Following on from my other new clauses, this new clause would simply mandate that those who work in franchising authorities and who are responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing franchise schemes be qualified through the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. That would, I hope, lead to greater focus on health and safety in the work that they do.
Simon Lightwood
New clause 8 relates to training for officers in franchising authorities. It specifically focuses on officials from franchising authorities holding certification from the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. Under current health and safety legislation, local transport authorities are required to ensure a safe and healthy work environment, which includes risk assessments, proper training and compliance with health and safety regulations. It is therefore right that a local transport authority that has chosen to franchise determines what level of qualifications is required to ensure that it meets those important requirements.
The effect of the new clause would be an increase in the cost and time that it takes to franchise if the Government required all staff to achieve certification before they started the process. Part of the Government’s bus reform is to simplify and speed up franchising and drive down costs. The new clause would disproportionately impact authorities considering franchising, including those in smaller towns and rural areas. We all agree that health and safety is paramount for bus staff, passengers and the wider public. I will therefore ask my officials to consider that this matter be addressed in the updated guidance for franchising authorities.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Review of the use and costs of bus travel for children
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the use of bus services by children.
(2) The review must assess—
(a) the level of use of bus services by children,
(b) the degree to which cost is a limiting factor in children’s use of bus services,
(c) the potential health, social and environmental impacts of children being unable to use bus services as a result of the cost of those services, and
(d) the potential impact of making bus travel free for children.
(3) For the purposes of any review undertaken under this section, ‘child’ means any person under the age of 18.
(4) In conducting a review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and youth organisations.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children and to consider the impact of making bus travel free for children.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 21—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—
“(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services within their areas.
(2) Any review must assess—
(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;
(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures;
(c) changes which may improve accessibility and increase patronage; and
(d) the potential benefits to bus patronage of the simplification of ticketing systems.
(3) A local transport authority must complete its first review under this section no later than six months after the passing of this Act, with subsequent reviews conducted at least once every three years.
(4) The results of any review conducted under this section must be publicly available.
(5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, and community representatives, and any other stakeholders the authority deems relevant.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services in their areas.
New clause 52—Fare cap for school-only services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, extend the £3 bus fare cap to school-only services.
(2) Where the £3 bus fare cap is subsequently increased or decreased, an equivalent change applies to the cap for school-only services.”
Siân Berry
New clause 9 is about looking again at services for children, particularly their uses of them and the cost of them. The new clause defines a child as
“any person under the age of 18”
and I think that is significant. It means that it overlaps, I think, with new clause 25, which we are debating separately and which looks at 16 to 25-year-olds, but anyone under the age of 18 needs access to buses. They are, almost by definition, not drivers and not always going to have access to a car, but they are always going to need access to essential goods and services and things that help them to thrive, particularly education. I have heard evidence too many times from young people who are struggling to access college for training and other opportunities because of a lack of bus services.
The cost of bus services for children varies hugely around the country. We have many different proposals from different Members, including colleagues in the Liberal Democrats, trying to get the Government to look again at the cost of bus travel for young people as part of the Bill. What I would like to hear from the Minister in response to my new clause and other new clauses that hon. Members have tabled is that the Government will look again at the cost of travel for young people. We have the example of Scotland, where young people can now access buses for free up to the age of 21. We have the example of London and other local authorities that are paying their own money out to make it possible for younger people to get free travel.
It really should be Government policy that young people up to the age of 18, or 21, can travel for free, so that they have the maximum opportunities to access training, social occasions and all the ways in which they become fully fledged adults. I think the Government should be making this a priority in the Bill. They have not yet done that, and this new clause helps them to do so.
Steff Aquarone
I will briefly touch on new clause 9, tabled by the Green party, and I will also speak to new clause 21. Buses are often the first form of transport that children use by themselves, without the supervision of parents. They are vital for many children to get to school every day, as well as socialising, and they are an important way to build independence and allow access to people and places outside their immediate vicinity. As a result, this review is welcome and a positive amendment that the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support.
New clause 21, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, would place a duty on local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage within their areas. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and I do not necessarily share the same degree of pessimism about the Bill overall, but we share a belief in measuring the impacts of changes to policy. In his case, it is franchising, but in mine it is the impact of the fare cap.
This is a simple but important proposal. At its heart, there a basic principle: if we want more people to use buses, we have to understand what is stopping them, and fare levels are a crucial part of that picture. The new clause would ensure that local authorities assess how fare structures influence ridership trends, what changes might improve accessibility, and what role simplified ticketing could play in encouraging more people on to buses.
Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture of their wider consequences on social inclusion, economic activity, environmental goals and so on. That is short-sighted policymaking that this new clause seeks to correct.
Siân Berry
On a point of clarification, under subsection (1) of the new clause, could local transport authorities collaborate to conduct this kind of research? I worry that a single local transport authority might struggle to carry out robust research on its limited amount of data, whereas it might work slightly better if they were to team up.
Steff Aquarone
I could not possibly talk about the inquiries that the Transport Committee is considering undertaking, but I would say that we all have an active interest in how to account for policy impacts on integrated travel as a whole. It may be that the Minister can attend a hearing in the forthcoming inquiry to speak to the exact point that the hon. Lady has just made.
Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture on their wider consequences, as I have said. The evidence is compelling; we know from both national and international experience that lower, simpler fares drive higher patronage. We have seen that with the £2 fare cap still inexplicably being phased out by the Government. With successful fare reform in places such as Germany and the Netherlands, affordable and innovative ticketing has increased public transport use. This new clause would bring that learning to a local level. It would empower transport authorities to act and analyse their policy in an informed away, based not on guesswork but on real data, public consultation and a clear understanding of what works.
This is not onerous. Most of our local authorities are already gathering some, if not all, of this data. What this new clause would do is provide consistency, as well as clarity, and a stronger evidence base for future fare and ticketing policy. It puts passengers and communities at the heart of decision making, and gives us the tools to reverse the long-term decline in bus use that has plagued far too many parts of the country for too long. If we are serious about boosting ridership, cutting emissions and making public transport fair and accessible, we need to understand the role of fares properly. This new clause would help us to do just that.
Simon Lightwood
New clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seeks to require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children, or those under 18, to consider the impact of making bus travel free for them. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money to taxpayers, while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people.
Local authorities and bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. For example, in the year ending March 2025, these concessions were offered by 24 out of 85 travel concession authorities in England outside of London, and by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of 85 local authority areas in England outside of London. A good example of that is Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority, which launched the tiger bus pass, offering bus fares of £1 for those under 25.
We want bus fares to be affordable, which is why we are funding the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027, and confirming around £900 million in revenue funding each year from 2026-27 to maintain and improve vital bus services. As I said, local authorities may choose to use this funding to support such initiatives based on their local needs. As such, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw her new clause.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Review of the English national concessionary travel scheme
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS).
(2) A review undertaken under this section must assess—
(a) the effectiveness and impact of the ENCTS for eligible persons,
(b) the impact of the timing restrictions of the ENCTS, and
(c) the approximate cost of removing timing restrictions of the ENCTS to allow eligible persons to use the scheme 24 hours a day and seven days a week.
(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and relevant user groups.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS) and explore the consequences of removing timing restrictions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 32—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the impact and feasibility of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes.
(2) A review under this section must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of current usage patterns of concessionary travel passes and the impact of existing time restrictions on passengers, particularly persons with disabilities and older people;
(b) an evaluation of the potential social, economic, and environmental benefits of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, including impacts on access to essential health services, goods and services, and social activities;
(c) an analysis of the financial implications for local transport authorities and bus operators of removing time restrictions, and potential funding mechanisms to mitigate any adverse impacts;
(d) investigation of passenger volume at different times and regional variation;
(e) recommendations for any legislative or policy changes required to implement the removal of time restrictions.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local transport authorities;
(b) bus operators;
(c) bus users and organisations representing people with disabilities and elderly people; and
(d) any other persons or organisations whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the completion of the review.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes (such as “Freedom Passes”).
New clause 48—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.
Siân Berry
I will be as brief as I can. New clause 10 and the other new clauses in the group are all aimed at the same thing. It is an anomaly in this day and age that older people and disabled people have a time restriction on the use of their bus passes. The Government must look at that, particularly in relation to recent changes to welfare policies and the ongoing cost of living crisis that means that more and more people, according to the Government’s own aims, will be going to work. They also may be taking part in valuable volunteering for the community. The Government must look at this again, and I support any provision that will achieve that.
Steff Aquarone
New clause 32 in my name and new clause 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion both call for a review into the impact of the current timing restrictions, whereby those eligible for the ENCTS, whether through age or disability, receive free travel only after 9.30 am. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for tabling new clause 48, and I am happy to speak to it. I wish to press new clauses 48 and 35 to a Division, but I will not press any other remaining Liberal Democrat new clause.
New clause 48 would immediately remove the time limit for those with disabilities. It may surprise the Committee to learn that I am going to praise a transport policy of Norfolk county council, which has used its discretion to remove time limitations and allow disabled people to use their bus passes at all hours. I have heard very positive feedback. Therefore, I think the new clause would be a sensible and useful measure. I urge the Government and the Committee to support it.
Simon Lightwood
To respond to new clause 10, the English national concessionary travel scheme costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations, such as extending the hours in which a pass can be used, would need to be carefully considered. As I said to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion regarding new clause 9, local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations.
A review into the ENCTS was concluded in 2024, which included an assessment of the travel times of the scheme; the Government are considering next steps. On that basis, and as the new clause would cut across the ENCTS review, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw it.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister refers to the cost of concessions. Has he made an assessment, or is he aware of what the assessed cost would be, of removing the time restriction, as proposed in new clause 48?
Simon Lightwood
As I have already explained, local authorities across the country already have powers to use their funding, and they have done so on many occasions.
New clause 32, which is on a similar theme, would require an assessment of the impact of and means to removing restrictions on concessionary travel passes. As all hon. Members know, the Government’s intentions are to give power to local leaders to determine their local priorities. That is why the £900 million of bus funding secured in the spending review will enable local leaders to expand their offer on concessions beyond their statutory obligations, if they so choose. I have said that the Government are considering our next steps on the ENCTS review. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk not to press the new clause.
Siân Berry
I shall do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops
“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29— Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;
(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;
(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;
(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;
(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—
(a) local councils and local transport authorities;
(b) bus service operators;
(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;
(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and
(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.
(4) Any report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
Simon Lightwood
An excellent settlement was secured for buses in the latest spending review. Although we need to determine how to spend it most efficiently, the Government recognise that ensuring that the funding is distributed fairly is of great importance.
New clause 17 would require us to come forward with a report detailing a proposed revision of the formula that is currently being used. The current formula is based on local need, taking into account factors such as levels of deprivation, population size and bus mileage. The new clause is therefore not needed. The Government have already said that we will review the current formula and engage with stakeholders in doing so.
Jerome Mayhew
The new clause would introduce the simple but crucial requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula within six months of the Bill’s passage, alongside an explanation of its rationale, an assessment of its distributional impacts, and any alternative models considered but not adopted.
We all recognise that bus services are a lifeline for many of our constituents, connecting people to work, education, healthcare and social functions, and yet we come back to Banquo’s ghost: funding. There are cheques being written by local authorities that opt for franchising, but where that funding will come from is absent from the Bill—it is totally opaque. The new clause would resolve that. It would not dictate what the funding formula should be. Instead, it would ensure that when a funding formula is proposed, it is done on an evidence basis, as described in subsection (2)(b), and transparently. Such transparency is essential to maintain trust in the system, especially after the vast overspends in Greater Manchester.
The new clause is proportionate and constructive, and aims to fix the significant concerns around the lack of funding detail in the Bill overall. It would help to ensure that the significant investments we make in bus services deliver the greatest possible benefits, particularly for communities that rely on them most. I will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Steff Aquarone
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will actually press both this new clause and new clause 35 to a vote. When discussing the Bill, there is an elephant in the room: the Government’s decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3, which is no less than a bus tax on communities across the country. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs to passengers, supported struggling households and, crucially, helped to bring people back to the bus network after years of decline. It was precisely the kind of bold, inclusive transport policy that we need more of, not less.
Fares that have been raised by £1 per trip might not sound prohibitive to some, but for those on a low income or families making multiple journeys each week, that represents a significant burden. Many people who rely on buses are running a household budget without much wiggle room, and an increase of £10 a week, which adds up to hundreds of pounds a year, is not money that some of my poorest or most vulnerable constituents have to spare.
Josh Newbury
I question the logic of the hon. Member’s statement that the increased cost is £10 per week. He is assuming that somebody travelling two journeys per day buys a single fare each time, but most people who use the bus regularly will invest in day savers, weekly savers, monthly savers or even longer season tickets. Perhaps he would like to revise his estimate.
Steff Aquarone
I imagine that there are many different calculations in different parts of the country; mine is based on casework inquiries. A limited number of fare options are available to people in my constituency, as is the case in many rural areas, and I think that £10 is a reasonable approximation.
New clause 19 would ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of the Bill, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to reintroduce the £2 fare cap. It would restore a measure that was working, that passengers appreciated, and that delivered wide social and economic benefits. I urge Committee members to join me in supporting the new clause, axing the bus tax and putting money back into the pockets of our constituents.
Simon Lightwood
I have already explained the Government’s position on the bus fare cap. It ensures that passengers up and down the country have access to affordable bus fares and, through those, improved opportunities.
New clause 19 would provide that operators taking part in the scheme may be given priority consideration in the awarding of financial grants. That may give rise to unintended consequences; for example, it is likely that larger operators would be more able to cap fares at £2, potentially muscling out smaller and medium-sized operators in allocations for grant funding. Moreover, it also might impact service levels by reducing the funding available to keep services viable. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important new clause that deals with poor performance franchising. Subsection (1) would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement on when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services were persistently failing because of poor operational or financial management. Subsection (2) says that the statement must set out the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service and how those are to be identified, and that it must clarify the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.
As Members will be aware, under the Bill, franchising provides local authorities with significant powers to shape, manage and procure bus services in their areas. With those powers should come an equally important responsibility: the duty to ensure that services are delivered efficiently, sustainably and to the high standards that the public rightly expect. The new clause addresses that important gap in the legislation. It requires the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to lay before Parliament a clear statement outlining their intentions and mechanisms for intervention in circumstances where franchising arrangements persistently fail due to poor operational or financial management.
I will cut to the chase: we have franchising on the railways. The Government are getting themselves into a very odd position. They are saying, “We are all for devolution. We don’t want to get involved. We are removing the requirement to gain the consent of the Secretary of State to enter into franchising agreements and we have no mechanism to intervene if local transport authorities get themselves into a mess and oversee persistent underperformance.” On rail, however, they take the opposite position and their version of franchising is to nationalise. What would the Government do to remedy the situation if the transport network in a local transport authority persistently underperformed? At the moment, they are expressing no opinion at all on that.
The new clause gives them the power to set out their views. It seeks to ensure that where franchising authorities or franchisees fail to deliver contracted services, there is a backstop of national intervention to guarantee continuity and standards. Buses should not be the poor relation of rail. The new clause brings the franchised bus networks in line with the franchised rail network and introduces further certainty and confidence into the franchising system for operators, passengers and local authorities alike. Everyone will know that where persistent failure occurs, there will be a robust safety net to prevent communities being left with persistently poor franchised bus services.
Simon Lightwood
Poor performance by operators delivering franchised services is properly managed through the franchising contracts themselves. The Department’s franchising guidance clearly states that authorities should build mechanisms into their contracts to ensure that better bus service outcomes are delivered and that poor performance from operators can be dealt with. Franchising authorities therefore have the levers to address that without the intervention of the Secretary of State.
On the subject of ensuring that franchising authorities successfully deliver bus services, I highlight that LTAs must produce a robust assessment before developing a franchising scheme. An assessment enables an authority to take an informed decision about whether a proposed scheme would deliver better outcomes for passengers and do so in a way that is financially sustainable. The assessment must, in turn, be independently assured.
Finally and crucially, I stress that franchising authorities should ultimately be accountable to local people for bus provision and service standards delivered by a franchised network. It would be contrary to the wider principles of the Bill for the Secretary of State to break that line of accountability. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will consider withdrawing the new clause.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister’s comments fail to address the need for a final backstop, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Simon Lightwood
If I may, I want to put on record my thanks to you, Dame Siobhain, and the other Chairs of the Committee over the past couple of weeks. I also want to thank the Clerks, who have literally done a marathon today, running backwards and forwards—it is great to see active travel alive and well. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers overseeing proceedings. I also thank the officials who have supported me in bringing this important legislation forward, and for helping me navigate my very first Bill Committee on the Government Front Bench.
Finally, I also thank hon. Members on all sides of the House for their valuable contributions and insights throughout these sittings. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon—please pass on my regards to him. I thank them for the insights that they have brought and the very good-natured way in which they have contributed to the Committee sittings. I know that we all want to deliver the best possible public transport system for our constituents, and I very much look forward to further engagements with hon. Members on the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
I associate myself with all the Minister’s comments, particularly those regarding the officials and everyone who has made this Committee work over the last few weeks. I am very grateful to hear the Minister’s nice words about how he was listening carefully to what we said. If that were the case, I wonder why he did not accept any of our amendments, but it may just be a question of time—he may reflect further on them. It is great that we have managed to finish a day early, at the time that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Halifax, had in her mind. I also thank her for the way in which she has managed the operation of this Committee behind the scenes.
The Chair
I thank all Members for being a very pleasant group, and my failings are my own.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.