Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:46 - Division on Motion 8A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 8) - Ayes: 147 / Noes: 189 - Motion 8A disagreed.
19:58 - Division on Motion 8B - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 134 - Motion 8B disagreed.
20:43 - Division on Motion 31A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 31) - Ayes: 138 / Noes: 175 - Motion 31A disagreed.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 1.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
I apologise to the House for my brief absence. In speaking to this Motion, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group and to Motions 1A, 8A, 8B and 29A. It is a pleasure to bring the Bill back to the House for its final stages and to engage on the remaining areas. This is an important Bill that empowers and provides local authorities with the tools to make the right decisions on bus services for their local areas. Debate on the Bill has considered the importance of local bus services and how we need improvement, so I hope that noble Lords will continue to support this ambition.
There have been changes since the Bill was last in this House. These include the removal of some amendments, such as the purpose clause, the assessment of the impact of national insurance contributions on accessing socially necessary local services, and the review of the provision of services to villages. There have been changes that extend the existing zero-emission vehicle measure to Scotland, which replicates the application in England. There is also a carve-out for Wales on some measures, and there are smaller changes on removing unnecessary data overrides and on the variation of franchises.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Motion 1A on the purpose clause. The Government have made it clear throughout the stages of the Bill that improving buses is a priority, and that includes services, performance and accessibility. But the Bill also goes wider, including cleaner and safer travel and providing the ability for local transport authorities to make their own funding decisions. The purpose clause would run contrary to this and could also have unanticipated effects on the interpretation of the Act and the exercise of powers under it. This is something that the Government cannot support.
Motion 8A from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to review the impact of the £2 fare cap on socially necessary local services. My department has already published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 bus fare cap. This showed that the cap delivered low value for money. Work is already under way to undertake a review on the £3 cap. Therefore, a legislative requirement for further evaluative work would be duplicative and unnecessary.
Motion 8A also looks at reviewing the impact of national insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary local services, including transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities, or SEND. This would be impossible to implement, because it seeks a review three months after Royal Assent. Socially necessary local services are likely to take some time to be identified and agreed by local authorities, making any assessment premature.
I understand the ambition behind Motion 8B from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I cannot support Amendment 8C, which seeks to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using services that have been identified as socially necessary local services. I have already set out that the £2 fare cap has been assessed as poor value for money and that work is under way to review the £3 cap. Therefore, any further legislative requirement would be duplicative and unnecessary. In addition, socially necessary local services have not yet been identified and any review into these will take time.
Finally, I turn to Motion 29A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on reviewing the provision of services to villages. I thank her for her engagement on this issue. I reassure her and others that the Government expect local transport authorities to consider the needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts. Measures such as franchising or setting up a local authority bus company take time, so an assessment within two years would not leave enough time to capture and assess the full impact.
However, following discussions, the Government will commit to undertake a review of socially necessary local services and rural services after five years, which will include local bus services used by children with special educational needs and disabilities. The Bill is about improving local bus services. Therefore, this is the appropriate scope for a review of its impact. It is important and right to understand how these services are performing and supporting the local communities who truly need them. I hope this therefore delivers on the ambitions of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and those behind Motion 8B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon.
For special educational needs and disabled children beyond this Bill, the Government have committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools so that fewer children need to travel long distances to a school that can meet their needs. The Government will bring forward a White Paper with plans to improve the SEND system.
I hope noble Lords will accept the other changes in this group that were made in the Lords and have not yet been debated. I beg to move.
Motion 1A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 1)
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion 1A, I will speak to the other Motion that I have tabled in this group. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for being distressingly frank. The background to the Bill is the Government’s payment of the Danegeld, if you like, to their friends in the trade unions and in a network of left-wing local authorities, who have seethed with resentment for many years at the success of the private sector and want to see it effectively eliminated from the provision of public transport services in this country—the same motivation that lay behind the passenger railway services Bill, which we passed before Christmas.
That is why the Conservative group and the House as a whole supported amending the Bill on Report to include a purpose to which the Government could be held to account as to its effect, putting passengers and their needs at the heart of the Bill from the outset. The Government, using their majority in the other place, have deleted that purpose. There is no standard, no accountability, no measure to which we can turn from the Bill itself and say to the Government, “You promised you would achieve this by these measures. You promised that this was the purpose you were setting out to effect and we can hold you to it”. None of that is there. The Bill simply stands on its own, a great experiment with the provision of public transport but with no accountability for the Government behind it. That is the simple fact behind Motion 1A but, as it happens, I do not propose to test the opinion of the House on it.
I turn, then, to Motion 8A, which covers two subsections that have been removed from the Bill, Clause 14(5) and (6), which your Lordships added on Report for a very good reason. The first, subsection (5), related to the £2 bus fare cap. The fact is that the Conservatives pledged to keep this going for another year. The Government removed it. Of course putting the fare cap up by 50% had an effect on the most vulnerable people, because it is the most vulnerable people—those who are low-paid workers—who depend most on buses for getting to work, for example. Yet the Government say, “We don’t need to consider that. We’re going to look at the effect of the £3 fare cap, so we don’t need to consider the effect of the £2 fare cap”. What is the point of looking at the effect of the £3 fare cap unless you can compare it with the effect of the £2 fare cap? Comparison is the very purpose of that study. The Government having made no concession on that—they could easily have said, “We will do something on the £2 fare cap as part of our review of the £3 fare cap”—and I will, when the time comes, test the opinion of the House.
Finally, on the SEND review, we talk about vulnerability. I remind noble Lords of the fragile structure of the services on which SEND pupils depend. It may be that the Government will resolve all this in the long term and there will not be any distinct SEND pupils because, as the Minister said, they are all going to be mainstreamed somehow, so they will not need to travel, but the fact is that today they do. They rely on a network of small providers, engaged by local authorities, that depend on part-time workers, many of whom earned less in each year than was required to be eligible for national insurance contributions. Because of the drop in the threshold from roughly £10,000 to £5,000, they are now caught by those national insurance contributions, which is having a devastating effect on the cash flow of those small operators, many of which now refuse contracts or are withdrawing from them where they are permitted to do so by their terms. The only result of that will be higher costs for local authorities, with fewer providers—the worst possible outcome.
The Government say they have provided money to local authorities to cover those costs—which, of course, they have. I do not doubt what the Government say as a matter of fact; they have provided money to local authorities. So what is the problem with a review that will actually identify whether that provision has been directed towards those local providers, is working and has been effective, and that the sum involved is correct? There can be no problem with such a review—except that the Government are keen to hide something. Again, when we come to Motion 8A, which captures both those subjects—I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that it has two parts to it: SEND and the £2 fare cap are both comprised in that Motion—I will test the opinion of the House.
I think it is time that the Government listened to what this House says. When it sends modest amendments, simply calling for reviews, to the other place, the Government should start listening and not simply turn everything down as a matter of course, which increasingly seems to be the way in which they want to conduct themselves. I beg to move Motion 1A.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was pleased to hear what the Minister had to say about my amendment. I thank all those who voted for it on Report, including my new Tory best friends, who were very kind to vote for it, and the Lib Dems. It was a novelty and wonderful, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for arranging that.
I think this Bill is doing quite a good job of bringing back quality bus services to urban areas, but we also need to bring good services back to rural areas and villages. That is obvious because rural areas and villages should have just as much love and attention as urban areas. I would see this review as the first step in reducing isolation for those who experience poverty and deprivation, age or ill health and are stuck and cannot go out. For a Green, it is also about reducing car dependency, the number of cars on the road, pollution, road deaths and injuries, so it pays off in every way.
I am glad the Government have accepted the idea of a review. I had hoped they would accept my amendment and put it into their Bill so that I could say that I had changed government legislation. The Minister has told me that what he has done comes under Pepper v Hart. I have no idea what that means, but presumably some of the older Members of this House know. The Opposition Chief Whip says she knows what it is. That is wonderful. However, even when the Minister was telling me that the Government are going to do the review, I was a bit worried about the length of time because five years puts the end of this review into the next Parliament, and who knows what the next Parliament is going to look like? If we have a lot of other types of MPs and perhaps Peers, am I going to be able to hold them to account for the bus review? I am not sure I am. I am glad that the Government are going this way, but I regret that it is not a more powerful signal.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his work on this Bill and for meeting me to discuss any concerns that may remain. We on these Benches are pleased to hear from the Government a commitment to a comprehensive review that will cover many of the issues that we discussed at earlier stages of this Bill and were the subject of many amendments to the Bill earlier in the year. These, we hope, will include the impact on SEN bus services, the £3 bus fare cap and the impact on villages and rural areas. The Government have already mentioned their published review of the £2 bus fare cap.
Within this group, for our Benches, the one key area remains the affordability of bus fares. We think the overall package of legislation in this Bill will help to transform bus services across the country and equip local transport authorities with a wide range of powers to deliver the right services to their local communities in the right way, but this needs to go hand in hand with affordable bus fares. 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. Budgets are tight for many families, forcing difficult choices between transport and other essentials. Bus fares outside cities such as London are very expensive. Without addressing fares, we think the Bill risks deepening existing inequalities and leaving many people isolated. 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, we think there is a hole in the plan.
The amendment that passed in this House on Report was about a review. It was not about providing a £2 bus fare scheme to support bus routes, particularly socially necessary routes, which are a lifeline for many villages and rural areas. The Motion in my name that we will get to would insert Amendment 8C into the Bill and ensure that the legislation contains a statutory commitment to the £2 bus fare scheme for socially necessary routes. It would require the Secretary of State to take all necessary steps to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using socially necessary local services. We believe this is a far clearer amendment to the legislation, putting into action what we are committed to and ensuring a focus on the £2 bus fare cap by the Secretary of State. I hope Members on all sides of the House will see the merit in this provision to enhance further this bus legislation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and look forward to testing the opinion of the House on this later.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this issue as the introducer of the £2 bus fare cap and the person who wrote the relevant sections of our manifesto, which committed to keep it for the duration of the Parliament and fund it, importantly, from savings that we were going to make in rail services. We do not spend enough time in this country talking about buses. Two and a half times more journeys are made by bus than by the national rail network. You would not know that from the national press, which is very London-centric on this subject, but in most parts of the country buses are critical, so I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
I shall say a word or two about my noble friend Lord Moylan’s purpose clause and his remarks on that. He talked about the Government trying to help their friends in local authorities. What is interesting about this legislation is that, if you look at what has happened to bus services, the real challenge, and one of the problems, is that what happened during the pandemic is that a significant number of people stopped using buses for rather obvious reasons and never returned. That caused a huge financial problem for the bus network and has caused lots of routes that were previously profitable not to be profitable. The thing that is missing in the legislation is that you can offer local authorities the powers to franchise services all you like, but unless the Treasury is going to give local authorities the money to pay for those bus services, all you do is take loss-making services that are being reduced by private sector operators or by local authorities that cannot pay for them, and the local authority ends up having to take them away because it has no ability to pay for them.
When this legislation gets on to the statute book, I will be interested to see whether the Government fund the powers to the level that you would have to in order to deliver an improvement to bus services. I suspect, given the dog’s breakfast the Chancellor is making of the economy and the fact that there is less rather than more money available for public services, that that is not going to happen, but we will see how that develops in the future. I think my noble friend Lord Moylan does not have to worry in one sense, because I do not think this cunning plan that the Government have implemented to help local authorities is going to help them at all.
Specifically on the cap, the Minister talked about the review of the £2 bus fare and said that it was not good value for money. What he missed out was that the Government decided, without having concluded the review of the £2 bus fare cap, to have a £3 bus fare cap, which suggests that they like the principle, but introduced it and picked a number without having done the review on the £2 bus fare cap in the first place. That demonstrates not sensible, evidence-based policy-making but a Treasury-driven “Let’s just reduce the cost of the policy and not look at the impact it was having”.
When I talked to bus companies, I found there were two issues relating to the bus fare cap that were important in driving up bus ridership. One was the obvious one, which is that it reduced the cost. Particularly in rural areas—as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords—where you often have to take a number of parts of a journey with a number of fares, it drove down the cost of those journeys. That is really important for people going to work or accessing education, so that had a big impact.
The other thing was the clarity and the consistency that it provided in communicating the level of bus fare to people, which had, I have to confess, a rather surprising impact. When talking to bus companies, I asked the question, “If we were to take this away, what would you do to your pricing structure?” What was interesting was that they all said having a round-number bus fare had a surprisingly powerful effect on their ability to market services to consumers, rather than people not knowing what a bus fare was going to be and a whole range of complexity. I think it needed a bit more time to bed in, and that is why I support a proper review having been carried out.
To go back to the point I made about funding, what we suggested—to take savings from the reforms that we were going to put in place for rail services and use some of that to fund the bus services—would have rebalanced where people chose to take their journeys. More people depend on bus services for important local journeys. Whether to access education, to access the health service or to access employment, far more people across the whole of the country use bus services to do that than use the rail network.
The Government have done the reverse. The first thing they did was come in and give railway drivers—some of the best-paid public servants—a pay rise and ask for nothing in return; they got no productivity improvements for the rail user. That money could have been spent on improving the quality of bus services across the country. That would have been the right decision, and it is the decision that we were going to make. When we do not see increases to funding for bus services—when we simply give local authorities the powers to franchise but with no money to deliver that—then people on all sides of your Lordships’ House will think that making savings in the rail network and putting the money into buses would have been the right decision. I am sorry the Government chose not to do so.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harper for reminding us of the importance of funding and the fact that the Bill is almost meaningless unless large amounts of funding are attached to it for local authorities. That is not an original point; it is one that was made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, at an earlier stage of debate on the Bill, but we have still heard nothing about the large amounts of funding that the Government are going to have to put into buses in order to make the Bill a reality.
I turn to the Motion by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who happens today to be sitting behind me, and who is apparently my new best friend. I understand—I hope I am not traducing her here—that she is not intending to divide the House on her Motion, but if she did then we would stick loyally with her as we did before. The Conservative Party is and always has been the party of villages, and whoever speaks up for villages in your Lordships’ House will have our support. It is a tragedy that the Government are willing to defer for a whole five years—into a new Parliament, when there is no doubt that they will not be the Government—a commitment to look at the effect of their policies on villages.
None the less, I have made it clear that I do not intend to divide the House on Motion 1A, so at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Motion 1A.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 2 to 7.
“Miscellaneous amendments
(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 123B (assessment)—
(a) for subsection (3)(b) substitute—
“(b) whether the proposed scheme would contribute to the implementation—
(i) by neighbouring local transport authorities of those authorities’ policies under section 108(1)(a), and
(ii) by neighbouring relevant local authorities of other policies affecting local services that those authorities have adopted and published,”, and
(b) in subsection (7)—
(i) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and
(ii) after that paragraph insert—
“(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, or”.
(3) In section 123E (consultation)—
(a) in subsection (4), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed scheme;”, and
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (e), and
(ii) after that paragraph insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, or”.
(4) In section 162(1) (interpretation of Part 2), at the appropriate place insert—
““council in Scotland” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;”.”
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 8.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I should advise the House that if Motion 8A is agreed to then I will not be able to put the Question on Motion 8B on the grounds of pre-emption.
Motion 8A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 8)
Baroness Pidgeon
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 8C instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“(5) The Secretary of State must take all necessary steps to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using services that have been identified as socially necessary local services in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.””
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 9 to 27.
“(4A) Where a local service is provided both inside and outside England, subsection (4) does not authorise the provision of information which relates to any part of the service which is provided outside England.”
“29AA Application of section 29A duty: services in Wales
(1) Section 29A (duty to check barring information) applies in relation to a school service that takes up or sets down passengers at one or more points in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.
(2) But the regulations may not provide for that section to apply in relation to—
(a) a service for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares—
(i) that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(ii) to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) a service that is provided under arrangements made by a body to which the duty in section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 applies (duty of local authorities and governing bodies to have regard to guidance given by Welsh Ministers).”
“144G Application of training requirement: services in Wales
(1) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 144F apply in relation to a local service which has one or more stopping places in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.
(2) But the regulations may not provide for those subsections to apply in relation to—
(a) a local service that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) a local service to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru.”
“(8A) The Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1865) are amended in accordance with subsections (8B) and (9).
(8B) In regulation 8, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) Paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to the enforcement of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of Regulation 181/2011 as they apply to a terminal managing body by virtue of paragraph 1A of that Article, and the designated body responsible for the enforcement of those requirements as they so apply is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.
(1B) The enforcement authority in relation to the requirements of regulations made under section 36 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.””
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 28.
“Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland
(1) The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 is amended as follows.
(2) Before the italic heading preceding section 36 insert—
“Zero-emission vehicles
35B Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services
(1) The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3) to provide the service in Scotland.
(2) A service falls within this subsection if it is a local service which has one or more stopping places in Scotland and which—
(a) is registered under section 6 of the 1985 Act, or
(b) is not required to be registered under that section because of section 13B(1)(a).
(3) A vehicle falls within this subsection if—
(a) it is constructed or adapted to carry both seated and standing passengers, with the number of seated passengers being more than 22 (determined in accordance with regulations made under section 26 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981),
(b) it is first registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 on or after a date specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the tailpipe emissions from it include any of the following—
(i) carbon dioxide,
(ii) carbon monoxide,
(iii) hydrocarbon,
(iv) nitrogen oxide,
(v) particulates.
(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—
(a) specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine for the purposes of this section what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle,
(b) specify descriptions of vehicle in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply, and
(c) specify local services or descriptions of local service in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply.
(5) The date specified under subsection (3)(b) may not be before 1 January 2030.”
(3) In section 39(1) (penalties)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (c), and
(b) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(ca) operated a local service in contravention of section 35B(1) of this Act, or”.
(4) In section 81(4) (regulations and orders), in paragraph (b), after “35A(1)” insert “, 35B(3)(b)”.”
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group and to Motions 30A and 31A.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his Motion 30A and efforts to raise the important issue of bus safety throughout the Bill’s passage. He is pursuing a Vision Zero programme for the bus sector, which would aim to eliminate serious injuries in the course of bus operations. As I said on Report, the Government are sympathetic to the aims of this Motion and we take safety incidents very seriously—in the bus sector and, indeed, on any mode of transport. The Government are committed to reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads and will publish a road safety strategy in due course—the first such strategy since 2011.
The noble Lord has been an excellent advocate for bus safety, and I am pleased to confirm to him that buses will be included in the strategy. This will be an opportunity to highlight existing good work in the sector, including that of Transport for London and the Bus Centre of Excellence. To take the Bus Centre of Excellence example, it has convened the bus knowledge sharing and incident network, bringing together industry experts, safety specialists and bus professionals to share knowledge, develop best practice and shape policy and regulatory improvements in bus safety.
Of course, road safety is inherently multimodal. It is important that we consider all road users and the environment they operate in, be that on foot, by bicycle, in a car or indeed on a bus, to protect people as much as possible. That is why my department has been looking closely at the safe system principles. This is an internationally accepted, evidence-based approach to road safety, underpinned by five pillars: safe roads, safe vehicles, safe road users, safe speed, and post-crash care. These principles are a core component of Vision Zero programmes that have been adopted both internationally, including by Australia and New Zealand following early adopters Sweden and the Netherlands, and locally by authorities such as West Midlands and West Yorkshire.
The Government will look to utilise these principles in their delivery of the forthcoming road safety strategy. This strategy will lay the foundation for government leadership while providing flexibility for local authorities to determine the most appropriate approach for their local circumstances.
This means that local areas can adopt Vision Zero programmes if they deem it suitable. Increasingly, local areas are doing just that. London’s Vision Zero programme is underpinned by a dedicated bus safety action plan and bus vehicle standards. It provides an exemplar of best practice for other local areas to aspire towards. This is already happening. The noble Lord will know that Greater Manchester and Oxfordshire, among others, have recently adopted Vision Zero strategies of their own. The Government welcome other local areas considering bus safety programmes, or even Vision Zero strategies for their areas, but it must be right for them.
I now turn to Motion 31A, which was previously brought by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and is now tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on the recording and publication of data on assaults. This Government wholeheartedly want to make the bus network safer for everyone, and this includes combating violence against women and girls. In considering whether to increase the level of reporting, it is important to also be conscious of the privacy of those who report incidents and whether individuals are comfortable with sensitive data being recorded and shared with external organisations.
I hope noble Lords will take comfort from the fact that the Government are already taking action to address violence against women and girls. We are due to publish a new violence against women and girls strategy shortly. We have also developed an evidence-based programme to tackle violence against women and girls on transport, working across government and with partners such as the British Transport Police.
I would also like to stress the importance of considering what is already captured by the police and avoiding any duplication. Statistics captured by the police include all incidents that have been reported to them, meaning that incidents of serious assaults and violence that occur on buses are already recorded. This is the case irrespective of whether incidents have been reported by victims, witnesses or third parties. These statistics also include incidents whether they are crime related or not—for instance, incidents not immediately recorded as a crime are still captured in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police. Bearing in mind, sadly inevitably, the sensitivity of some of the details in reports from individual women and girls, it is surely much preferable for these details to be held by the police rather than by local transport authorities or bus companies.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lords feel reassured that the Government have and will continue to take action and that the amendments do not need to be pursued. I also hope noble Lords will accept the other changes in this group that were made in the Lords and have not been debated today. I beg to move.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 30A in my name. I thank the Minister and his team for their engagement during this part, including an email sent rather late last night. Since we last discussed this Bill, about 16 people per day have been injured in bus accidents and one person is killed per month in London alone according to TfL’s own figures. TfL has a Vision Zero policy for bus accidents.
I am sure the House will join me in sending best wishes for a full recovery to those 16 people hospitalised in the recent Victoria bus crash, including my noble friend Lord Alton. As he said to me, you do not expect to pick up a broken back on your Oyster card on the 8.15 journey to Westminster.
I am greatly heartened, however, by the Minister’s response, and I am glad that the Government are sympathetic to the Motion. The road safety strategy sounds like it is going to be a good thing, as long as it looks at this idea of zero tolerance towards accidents, and at Vision Zero. Having seen how much this has been successfully adopted elsewhere, I look forward to the road safety White Paper.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on these amendments; first, about safety. I bring the House’s attention to the fact that, although we had a debate in Committee on the question of safety with regard to blind and disabled people, particularly at bus stops, to speak from memory, my noble friend the Minister said that he would take away the concerns expressed in that debate and come back later. There is a particular problem—and it was debated fully in Committee—about what have been called floating bus stops, so I do not intend to go into it at any great length now. If safety is to mean anything, it must apply to those who wish to use buses as well as those actually on the vehicles.
Since that debate, my attention has been drawn to British Standard 8300-1 of 2018, headed “Design of an accessible and inclusive built environment”, and to paragraph 6.2.2 on bus stops. It was drawn up in January 2018, and the paragraph on bus stops reads:
“Bus stops should conveniently serve key facilities and services by being located within a reasonable walking distance. They should be adjacent to, but not obstructing, pedestrian routes; and pedestrians should have access to and from the bus stop without crossing cycle routes, including where these run between the pedestrian route and the vehicle carriageway”.
I draw my noble friend’s attention to the fact that concern was expressed from all quarters of the House about the design of floating bus stops and the problems that such a design causes for the blind in particular. The BS that I have just quoted was drawn to my attention only today by the National Federation of the Blind UK. I apologise for raising it at the last minute, but it is a relevant point with regard to this amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to satisfy my concerns as well as those of other noble Lords on this problem.
The other point that I wish to make is about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, although he has not said very much so far. Listening to him earlier, I felt nostalgia sweeping over me at the fact that this legislation and other legislation in the transport field was drafted at the behest of the trade union movement. He did not actually name which trade union he had in mind. A feeling of nostalgia came about because I remembered the days of “reds under the bed” that the Conservative Party was obsessed with at one time—and that has obviously returned. I wonder whether the noble Lord will tell us not only the names of the unions that have such enormous power that they draft legislation these days but those left-wing local authorities to which he referred.
As for the noble Lord’s amendment, it was originally drafted by my noble friend Lord Woodley, who unfortunately could not be present in Committee to move it, so it was never actually discussed. The fascinating thing is that, having attacked these wicked trade unions, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, should pick up an amendment that was tabled by the former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. It is a pleasure to see the noble Lord advocating trade union matters, although he will forgive me for thinking that it is a somewhat cynical approach on his part.
Indeed, I looked at the amendments that the noble Lord moved throughout the passage of this Bill, and most of them demanded inquiries, committees and reports to Ministers. I calculated that at least 40 or 50 new employees would be needed to draft responses to all the requests that he made. The Conservative Party would be the first to complain about the addition of bureaucrats, as it would call them, and the unnecessary recruitment of such people. But one can only describe the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, as a one-man employment bureau with regard to bureaucracy. Few of his amendments have had any relevance for bus passengers or the bus industry—and I look forward to him rising shortly to advocate the policy of a former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Snape. I endorse everything that he said about British Standard 8300. We had a long and extensive debate around floating bus stops and the difficulties for accessibility and inclusion as well as for safety, as the noble Lord rightly points out, for all prospective bus users, not least the blind and sight impaired. Does the Minister believe that current floating bus stops comply with BS 8300, and does the Minister believe that they should? Does he believe that local authorities should comply with BS 8300? What does the Minister see as the role for the British Standard, which clearly sets out a key phrase—although there is much in it—about being able to access the bus without having to cross a live cycle lane.
It is the lived experience for blind, sight-impaired and indeed all prospective bus passengers, with an increasing number of these floating bus stops being tragically laid out and commissioned up and down the country, to have to cross a live cycle lane or, worse still, to stop going out, to be effectively planned out of their local communities, a public realm that was previously accessible before the laying out of these so-called floating bus stops. So, I ask the Minister, when he comes to sum up, what is his view on BS 8300? Does he believe the Government should be very supportive of the work that British Standards do and should it not be that all local authorities and, indeed, all those in planning any public realm, when it comes to bus stops should be fully compliant with this very well thought through, very clear, very comprehensive BS 8300.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion 31A and declare my interest as chair of Amey, which works with councils to identify and capture data on road defects. My motion this evening, however, is on a completely separate issue. If I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, as much as I could see that all the praise he was lauding on my noble friend Lord Moylan with regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, was wholly appreciated on the Front Bench here, it was me who raised the subject when we were last engaged on it and I would say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Snape, knows, when it comes to safety in any aspect of life, praise where praise is due and collaboration where collaboration is needed, across party lines. I had no hesitation whatever in praising the unions for their response to the Piper Alpha disaster when I was Minister for Energy, and that has been a characteristic throughout all my political work.
Tonight, however, I am focusing on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, because I thank him and indeed the unions who supported him for first introducing this amendment. I think it is an important amendment, and I have to say that it beggars belief that Labour Party MPs in another place should be voting down the considered and well-argued wishes of the unions on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked me to name the union. I understand that the RMT did a lot of good work in drafting the original amendment.
Lord Snape (Lab)
The fact is that the amendment was never actually debated in Committee because the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, could not be present. The fact is that it has now been adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who I suspect—I hope I can say this without upsetting him too much—is doing it more for political purposes than concern about women and children. The fact is that when men, women or children are assaulted on public transport, those assaults are recorded by the police, so there is no need for that particular amendment, which was never moved in the first place.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that this was never mentioned by my noble friend Lord Moylan. He did not even respond to it, if memory serves me correctly, when we did debate it, and, as he knows, it is perfectly proper and in order for anybody to move an amendment in Committee and people do so. I was intending to speak on it in any event, but, in his absence, the opportunity arose for me to move it because, sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, was not here for what I think was an extremely important issue.
We heard earlier this evening about the number of people who are on buses, as opposed to trains, and the safety of people on buses, particularly the vulnerable—not just the women and girls. I appreciate what the Minister said about the initiative that he is taking for women and girls, but it is also about the vulnerable, the disabled and the children. Many people face abuse and even violence in incidents late at night, in particular on buses, which I think should be a matter of concern to the Committee, which is why I raised it in the first place and why I believe that the unions were right to demand stronger sanctions. Late-night shifts expose drivers and staff to higher risks of violence, abuse and anti-social behaviour. Existing protections were seen by the unions, by the Cross-Benchers and indeed by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party as being inadequate. They all called—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Snape, would as well—for increased action against the night-time risk; against underreporting and poor follow-up; against the lack of a legal mandate. There is a need for accountability and, above all, for protection for vulnerable passengers.
The Minister in another place argued that the clause duplicates work done by the Home Office, and again the Minister this evening highlighted that point. However, I do not think that that bears comparison with what happens in the world of rail. The Railway Accident Investigation Branch, the RAIB, which does very good work, was introduced in order to recognise and to fill the void that existed in terms of what normally happens with police reporting. We needed to go further on the rail, and I believe we need to go further, as I am sure the unions did in helping with this amendment, when it comes to buses. According to the Unite survey last year, 93% of UK bus drivers experienced abuse, with 79% saying that there had been an increase over the previous year and many reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults. I think it is time for action and I think that this modest amendment can go at least one step in the right direction.
The Liberal Democrats were very supportive in another place as well. I will quote Steff Aquarone, who said:
“Here lies the point: at present, too many of those incidents go unrecorded, or are not handled consistently across different operators and regions. Clause 40 would put a stop to that, creating a clear and consistent duty that, if an operator is contracted to run services, it must record this data and share it with the local authority. That is the very least the public expect. Furthermore, the inclusion of a duty on a local transport authority to consult with relevant trade unions regarding issues of staff safety arising from the data collected is a good step. It will ensure that the data is used in practice and could lead to increased safety for staff and passengers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/25; col. 231.]
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to firmly support my noble friend’s Motion 31A. I will not repeat the arguments made so forcefully by noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Morgan of Cotes on Report, but I would like to draw the House’s attention to the findings of the 2025 Girlguiding Girls’ Attitudes Survey, released since Report. It found that 56% of girls and young women surveyed between the ages of 11 and 21 felt unsafe taking public transport by themselves, and 31% avoided it altogether. It is totally unacceptable that women and girls do not feel safe on our public transport network, and it is vital that operators monitor assaults on buses. We need action, we need it urgently, and I will support my noble friend should he choose to divide the House tonight.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on Vision Zero, rightly put safety on buses at the heart of this Bill. Who can argue with the aim of zero fatalities on our roads and a culture in the bus industry of safety throughout? The Government’s clear response in taking this forward, including best practice internationally and the new road safety strategy—I think the Minister said it is the first since 2011—really does show action is taking place in this safety space. It is a great assurance to our Benches.
On collecting data on violence on the bus network, we are in absolutely no doubt about the Government’s commitment to this, especially given the awaited VAWG strategy. Given the clear acknowledgement that this data is already collected by the police across the country, and that this new strategy is due, we are satisfied that this concern is being properly addressed, so the amendment is not needed. What is needed is more resources for our police, but that is a debate for another day.
As this Bill seeks to improve bus services across the country, safety in every aspect will be key. We are pleased to hear the way forward to address safety outlined by the Minister.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I was depressed by the remarks of the Minister, but I have been depressed further into almost silence by the astonishing remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The complacency they both show on these two really important issues is staggering.
Since we last debated this, there has been an appalling crash at Victoria bus station, and what is going to change? Nothing. We will have a road safety strategy that will encompass all modes of transport by road, including foot, bicycle and whatever. That is a good thing, and we should have it, but for buses changes are needed in operator mentality and practice. We see no sign of those happening. They will not emerge from a strategy, but only if the Government say, “This is our objective and we will make this happen”. That is what the Minister is not saying. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, did not hear him not saying it clearly enough.
As for my noble friend Lord Moynihan and all this nonsense about what was discussed when, none of that matters. What matters is what my noble friend Lady Owen said—the actual experience of women and girls travelling on buses. They do not feel safe. The Government again come forward with astonishing complacency about this, saying that it is already being done and there is nothing to be added. It really is not good enough. If the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan choose to divide the House on these matters—I make the point clearly to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that that is their choice; I have known my noble friend for what must be nearly 50 years now, and he has never been my glove puppet during all that time—then we will support them, because we think these issues are very important.
Finally, as far as dark influence within the Labour Party is concerned, it is astonishing that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, should make his naive remarks on the day on which Mr Paul Holden’s book The Fraud is published, a tract dedicated to exposing the conspiracy behind the Starmer Government, the undeclared funding and the actions of Mr Morgan McSweeney in destroying Jeremy Corbyn and inserting Sir Keir Starmer as his substitute as leader of the Labour Party. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, is a byword for naive credulity among his colleagues, but I suggest that he should get hold of a copy of the book published today and sit down, perhaps this evening, with a stiff whisky by his hand so that he can prepare to anaesthetise himself against the shocks that will be revealed to him. Then he will realise what nonsense he has just said about my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)
My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord about the nonsense, if he would like. For five years during that period I was a member of the Labour Party NEC, and, to my knowledge, whatever is in that book is probably a lot of nonsense as well.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate. I thank noble Lords for their contributions on the important topic of bus safety. To be clear, this Government want a safer bus network and that is why there are already measures in the Bill aimed at supporting this. The Government take this issue extremely seriously and are committed to delivering road safety improvement across the transport system.
Having listened to the points made on the recording and publication of data on assaults, I reiterate that the Government are already undertaking a programme of work to tackle violence against women and girls, particularly on public transport. We are also keen to avoid any duplication of data that is already captured by the police and to ensure that any captured data is kept by an authority that is supremely capable of looking after it.
We are no longer on Report, but I have listened to my noble friend Lord Snape and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for whom I have great respect. The matter of floating bus stops was discussed on Report. I made a commitment, as did the Minister for buses in the other place, which I will not repeat but which we will stand by. I therefore hope that noble Lords are satisfied and feel able not to pursue their Motions. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 29.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 30.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister said. I am hopeful that safety will be at the top of this Bill, or at least in the Government’s mind. Therefore, I am minded not to move my Motion 30A.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 31.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 32 to 55.
“(1A) Section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland) extends to Scotland only.”
“(3A) Section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland) comes into force—
(a) for the purposes of making regulations, on the day on which this Act is passed;
(b) for remaining purposes, on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint.”
“(4A) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland).”
“(6) For regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (3A)(b) or (4A), see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (Scottish statutory instruments).”
“(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”
“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”
“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”
“(zi) a variation of additional facilities identified under section 123A(3)(d) in the scheme;
(zii) a variation of the plans for consultation included in the scheme under section 123A(9);”
“(ai) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation;”
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”