Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 17th December 2024
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Read Hansard Text
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 8th January 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks 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
(3 months 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
(2 months, 2 weeks 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
(2 months, 2 weeks 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
(1 month 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 weeks, 5 days 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.