Wednesday 2nd April 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
“(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.