Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moylan and Lord Holmes of Richmond

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.