Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Lightwood]

I am going to try and make some progress. We have spent a significant amount of time on this.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham once again raised Manchester’s experience with bus franchising. He again quoted figures on the cost of franchising in Manchester. On the first day of the Committee I explained that the figures referred to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network. The adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester has resulted in little additional cost, and evidence to date shows that the model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.

Another franchising model in Jersey encourages both operators and local transport authorities to reinvest into the bus network. The operator keeps fare revenue, and profits that go over a certain set limit are shared between the LTA and the operator. Money is then reinvested by the LTA to improve services. The model adds flexibility and actually supports innovation and draws on the experience of the operator. This model has been tested in other areas through our franchising pilot programme.

The Bill makes some limited changes to the role of traffic commissioners in England, including changing the default position for the registration of services operating under the service permits within a franchised area. The traffic commissioner will also have powers to act against operators who breach the Bill’s mandatory training requirements; we will come on to that later in the Committee’s debates.

The presence of traffic commissioners across the regions and countries of Great Britain means that they are well placed to make decisions about the operation of bus services in different places. The responsibility of traffic commissioners extends beyond buses. To mention just a couple, it includes the licensing of operators of heavy goods vehicles and other service vehicles, and the granting of vocational licences. These responsibilities clearly extend beyond the Bill’s purpose; this Bill is not the place for a wider debate on the role of traffic commissioners.

I reiterate that passengers are at the very centre of this Government’s bus reform agenda. This is about delivering better buses, and people taking the bus more because they offer better connections and are reliable, safe, affordable and integrated into the transport network. Given that, I would ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to press his amendments.

Government amendments 4 and 5, tabled in my name, are intended to provide clarity on the type of services considered “cross-boundary” under clause 7. This means that any service that has at least one stop in an area with a franchising scheme, and at least one stop outside of the franchised area, will be considered a cross-boundary service. This change is logical, simplifies matters for franchising authorities and operators, and will ensure that the benefits of cross-boundary services to multiple communities can be considered, regardless of where the service starts and ends.

Clause 7 gives local authorities greater flexibility in how they access service permit applications from operators. These permits allow bus operators to run services into, or within, a franchised area on a commercial basis, rather than as a franchised service. The Bill introduces new tests that local authorities can use when deciding whether to approve a service permit. These tests allow them to consider a wider range of factors, such as whether the proposed service would benefit passengers outside the franchised area in the case of cross-boundary services.

It is important that franchising authorities are able to benefit from the opportunities that the commercial sector can provide in franchising areas, including for cross-border services, which are those serving a franchising area and nearby areas. These services are important, as the bus journeys that passengers want to make are not necessarily defined by scheme boundaries. This measure aims to give franchising authorities greater flexibility to provide better overall outcomes for passengers.

Clause 8 reapplies the requirement for bus services operating under a service permit in a franchised area to register their routes and timetables with the traffic commissioner. For cross-boundary services, the section of the route outside the franchised area already needs to be registered. The Bill clarifies that the part inside the franchised area also needs to be registered. This keeps the requirements consistent and easier for bus operators to follow.

In addition to the registration requirements, cross-boundary services and any services operated, under permit, wholly within the franchised area, such as sightseeing tours, must also still comply with the conditions of their service permit. This lets franchising authorities maintain control through existing regulations. However, the Bill also gives franchising authorities the power to exempt certain services from registration inside the franchised area if they would prefer to manage them solely through the service permit. Overall, these changes provide clearer rules for operators and authorities, and greater flexibility for authorities, helping to improve service delivery for passengers.

Clause 9 automatically exempts temporary rail and tram replacement services from the requirement to obtain a service permit when operating within a franchised area. As I am sure Members will understand, these services often need to be introduced quickly and to adapt to changing circumstances, so flexibility is essential. By removing the permit requirement, this measure reduces administrative burdens and saves both operators and franchising authorities the time and costs associated with applying for and issuing permits.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is jolly nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. As I spoke to the amendment before lunch, it falls to me now only to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his astute point. I would be glad to include ferries. After all, the new clause proposes better-integrated transport across all modes and modalities. We do not have any ferries other than river-crossing ferries in my constituency.

My constituents have found the issue of lack of co-ordination so frustrating that they have carried out research into it themselves; I thank David and James for furnishing me with the statistics. The first bus to arrive misses the first train of the day from Sheringham by a mere six minutes. For those who are not familiar with the Bittern line, it does not quite have central London regularity, which means that it is roughly an hour until the next possible train arrives. At other points during the day, there is either a 45-minute wait or hoping for a delay so that the bus arrives before the train departs.

A more joined-up approach would benefit both bus operators and train companies, allowing seamless integration of travel and reducing the miles in the journey to be carried out by car. My new clause would add to the franchising assessment the ability to see how franchising could make that transport integration a reality.

I do not think that franchising is a silver bullet to create integrated transport, which is why we will later consider an amendment that I have tabled that would add the enhanced partnership model. However, while we are expanding how franchising works, it would be remiss of us not to add common-sense thinking about integrated transport for those who are embarking on franchising for the first time.

I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said about amendment 57. We have got to fund it, too.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will start with clause 10, to which explicit reference has not yet been made, and under which section 123D of the Transport Act 2000, which refers to auditing, is to be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8). Subsection (2) sets out that a franchising authority may not proceed with a proposed franchising scheme unless it has obtained a report from an “approved person” on the assessment of the proposed scheme.

The approved person—this is important—will replace the requirement to obtain a report from an auditor. We read, under the new drafting, that the approved person must be independent, but based on that drafting we have no idea what other qualities the approved person may or may not have.

Subsection (3)(c) requires the report to state whether the information relied on in the authority’s or authorities’ assessment is of sufficient quality for the purposes of the subsections, which I will not go into. Subsection (4) will replace section 123D(3); it states that the Secretary of State must issue guidance as to when it is appropriate to appoint an approved person and what the franchising authority needs to take into account when selecting an approved person, including in relation to whether a person is independent. Subsection (7) sets out that an approved person means a person specified in regulations by the Secretary of State.

That raises the question whether the local transport authorities have the technical know-how and/or financial competence to create and then run these franchises. That is the big question that we have been debating backwards and forwards over the past few days. We know that they are expensive; we know that they are complex. I will not rehash arguments that I have made already, which we can take as read. We know that it is crucial that any plans be fully developed, properly costed, stress-tested for viability and generally fit for purpose before we press go on an entirely new system.

The requirements of clause 10 are important in facilitating that stress testing. On the face of it, the clause appears to water down the independent oversight, particularly on financial management. One of the core risks of franchising, as we have discussed, is the transfer of commercial risk from the operator to the local authority. That is a very significant change—one of the most significant changes.

Here we are, having a report on the plans: we no longer need an auditor who is financially qualified. Instead, we have an approved person. It could be an auditor, but we just do not know. The only qualification that we are told the approved person will have is their independence. That is a good thing, but subsection (7) writes a blank cheque to Ministers:

“‘approved person’ means a person specified…in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

We have not seen those regulations; I assume that they have not yet even been drafted. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the point. What specifications will he seek to put into the regulations?

If the Government want the Committee to vote in favour of substituting an approved person for an auditor, it behoves the Minister to tell us the kind of people who would qualify as an approved person, beyond their mere independence. I look forward to his detailed response, so that members of the Committee can feel satisfied that we are discharging their duty properly by understanding at least the direction of travel of the regulations.

I want to know what qualities, qualifications or expertise will be required. I question why the term is not defined in the Bill, but instead left to future regulations. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to sit down now and decide what kind of person we wish an approved person to be. It is not dependent on future information becoming available. It seems to be slightly sloppy drafting to define a term in reference to a future regulation—that is no definition at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Clause 12, alongside the schedule to the Bill, sets out new, bespoke variation procedures for authorities to follow when they wish to make changes to a franchising scheme. The procedures are clear and simple, to address the difficulties that franchising authorities have faced in interpreting existing legislation. They are also streamlined to enable franchising authorities to make minor changes in a more nimble way, balancing appropriate levels of consultation and transparency. This measure will reduce costs and timescales for franchising authorities in meeting the needs of local bus users.

Government amendments 7 to 10 to the schedule relate to the procedure for varying franchising schemes. Amendments 7 to 9 would have the effect of confirming that the requirements to consider the local transport plans of neighbouring authorities apply only where an authority is required to have such a plan. Scottish authorities are not required to have local transport plans. The amendments, however, clarify that a franchising authority must consider whether expanding the area of their franchising scheme would support the implementation of any other bus-related plans and policies adopted by Scottish councils. Amendment 10 will ensure that franchising authorities consider Scottish transport partnerships’ transport policies when assessing a variation to a franchising scheme, where relevant.

Government amendments 11 to 16 also amend the schedule and will require franchising authorities to consult with Welsh Ministers and Scottish transport partnerships before varying a franchising scheme that would affect them. In the case of Wales, that is in addition to the requirement already in the Bill for Welsh local transport authorities to be consulted, where relevant. It is also appropriate to consult Welsh Ministers in the light of the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill, which is before the Senedd. The amendments future-proof the Bill, given the Welsh Government’s ambitions to franchise their entire bus network.

The schedule sets out the detailed procedures for varying an existing franchising scheme. There are separate procedures for variations to extend the geographical area of a scheme, reduce the area of a scheme, and other types of variation. There are three parts to the schedule, setting out the specifics of the different procedures, depending on whether a variation is expanding or reducing a scheme.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 12 amends the Transport Act 2000 to set out the new process for varying a franchise scheme. In particular, subsection (2)(b) removes the minimum notice period of six months before a variation can come into effect. I will not seek to divide the Committee on this, but what assessment has been undertaken of the impact of a reduced notification period on service providers? What confidence can the Minister give current service providers that the impact will be minimised? What was the original rationale for the six-month delay, and what has changed to remove the need?

Government amendments 7 to 10 are sensible clarifications to ensure that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act applies only where such policies are mandatory. I fully agree with them. Government amendments 11 to 16 tidy up the requirement for consultation with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, where a proposed franchising scheme under amendments 11 and 12, or a variation of an existing scheme under amendments 13 to 16, would affect the devolved area. Again, that is a sensible clarification that needs no further elaboration.

[Simon Lightwood]

I have nothing to add.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

No answer to the questions?

[Simon Lightwood]

I have already explained our position.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Procedure for varying franchising scheme

Amendments made: 7, in the schedule, page 44, line 29, leave out

“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 8 and Amendment 9, ensures that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 applies only where authorities are required to have such policies.

Amendment 8, in the schedule, page 44, line 30, before “those” insert

“by neighbouring local transport authorities of”.

See the statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 9, in the schedule, page 44, line 31, before “other” insert

“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.

See the statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 10, in the schedule, page 45, line 14, at end insert—

“(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.

This amendment requires a franchising authority to consider the policies of a neighbouring Scottish Transport Partnership when assessing a proposed variation of a franchising scheme.

Amendment 11, in the schedule, page 46, line 39, at end insert—

“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.

This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.

Amendment 12, in the schedule, page 47, line 13, at end insert—

“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.

This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.

Amendment 13, in the schedule, page 49, line 22, at end insert—

“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.

This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.

Amendment 14, in the schedule, page 49, line 38, at end insert—

“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.

This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme area where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.

Amendment 15, in the schedule, page 51, line 11, at end insert—

“(ai) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation;”.

This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.

Amendment 16, in the schedule, page 51, line 39, at end insert—

“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13

Direct award of contracts to incumbent operators

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 13 amends the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 to allow franchising authorities to make a direct award for the first local service contract under a franchising scheme to the “incumbent operator”—that is the important phrasing. The intention, as I read it, is to allow for a smooth transfer of operations to the new scheme, where the qualifying conditions are met. Proposed new regulations 16A(1)(a) and (b) specify that the award must be of a local service contract within the franchising scheme and where no local services are currently provided. Proposed new regulation 16A(1)(c) sets out that the operator must have provided the same or similar services for at least three months prior to the new contract.

I acknowledge the objectives of the clause, but I am concerned that it raises more issue than it addresses. The approach could look like a cosy agreement, which is a theme that I have addressed a couple of times today. Where we are awarding a further contract to an existing contractor, without going to market or tendering more widely, there is a perception, if not a reality, of a cosy agreement. It cuts out competition and favours one operator over the others, and it is not just for a short period; it is for a period of up to five years, as set out in clause 13(3).

The likelihood of a challenge from other bus operators in the area, who are angry about being excluded, may well be quite high, yet proposed new regulation 16A(2) requires the local transport authority to publish information relating to the contract only within six months of granting the direct award. We therefore have a transfer that may look like a sweetheart deal between the local transport authority and the existing service provider, which may be the municipal bus company but could equally be a private provider, while the judicial review, which is the mechanism by which an external aggrieved party can challenge that decision, has an application deadline of three months—12 weeks. Under the clause, the requirement to publish the information on which that judicial review could be based falls fully three months after the judicial review deadline, so there is a problem with the timings set out in the Bill.

What is the point of publishing the information in subsection (3) six months after the date of the award? Other operators cannot go to judicial review, because the deadline has already passed, so what use is it and to whom? I have a simple question for the Minister. What process should operators follow to challenge a sweetheart deal, as they obviously should be able to do? If the information is six months’ old, it cannot be through judicial review, because they will not have been provided with the information before the three-month deadline.

What process do the Government recommend that operators should follow, and what information will be available to them? What is the reason for such a long delay in providing information? The information is there from day one, because the local authority and the existing provider will have signed a contract, so all that needs to be done is publish it. What governance provisions will be in place to guard against improper preference, because it may well feel like that has been involved to excluded competitors looking in from the outside? They need to have extra special confidence that there is sufficient governance in place to guard against that, especially if the provider is a municipal bus company, for the obvious reason that they have skin in the game—I will not rehearse that argument.

Amendment 72, tabled by the Green party, would have an effect similar to amendments 34 to 37 by removing the ability to grant a contract to a private operator working outside a franchising scheme—for example, in an enhanced partnership.

[Siân Berry]

To clarify, amendment 72 is not my amendment.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am so sorry—it is in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald).

I will therefore address amendments 34 to 37, which would allow for a direct award to local government bus companies. I fully understand the rationale behind the Bill, but looking at clause 13, I do not think that that award is excluded by the current drafting, because the term of art is “operator”, and a public bus company could be an operator.

[Siân Berry]

For clarity, the intention behind my amendments is not to allow for incumbent operators that are local government bus companies to be added to the Bill; it is to ensure, completely separately, that any local bus company at any time, or an incumbent operator, can be given a direct award.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

That was absolutely not clear from the drafting, and I do not feel able to support such opaque drafting. It would not be right to slip in five words and change the whole meaning of the clause. Perhaps it would be better to draft a new clause; I suspect the hon. Lady has time to do so before the end of the Bill’s consideration.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 34 to 37, but the Bill already enables the direct award of franchising contracts to local authority bus companies.

Clause 13 allows for the direct award of franchising contracts to incumbent operators under specific conditions that are set out in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. It would reduce transitional risks for local government authorities and operators when moving to a franchised network. It applies equally to private operators and LABCos. If a LABCo is an incumbent operator, it could absolutely be directly awarded a franchised contract under the clause, as could a private operator, if that was desired by the franchising authority. Clause 13, therefore, already allows franchising authorities to direct awards to LABCos.

Amendment 35 would allow a franchising authority to direct awards to a LABCo that is not an incumbent operator. For good reasons, clause 13 includes a restriction on direct awards to incumbent operators—that is, that any operator providing local services in an area immediately before a franchising scheme is made has been doing so for at least the three months prior. Those reasons include providing a stable and controlled contractual environment for staff and assets during a transition, while providing continuity of services to passengers. It also means that operators are established in, and familiar with, the area. That greater operational knowledge will help to drive more effective long-term procurement of competitive franchise contracts through data collection and sharing.

Those benefits are most likely to be achieved by franchising authorities working in areas with operators that have an established and reliable presence in the network and with whom they have established effective working relationships. I therefore hope the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will withdraw her amendment. Clause 13 already provides most of the powers she seeks, and keeping the incumbent element is an important part of ensuring some of the core benefits of the measure.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister may say that “essential services” is a wide, catch-all term that will cover this issue, but I am increasingly concerned that we are using imprecise and wide-ranging terms to avoid making any specifications that ensure important protections. It is irresponsible for us to leave the Bill in that state, and wait for a group of residents to have to challenge a service withdrawal in the courts as they fight for their definition of an essential service. As drafted, I do not believe that the Bill provides an adequate level of protection for access to medical appointments and health services, but we can avoid all that hassle if the Government accept the amendment.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I rise to speak briefly in support of Liberal Democrat amendment 66, which inserts a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of the existing network of local services—through proposed new subsection (4B)(a)—and the requirement to identify any gaps in provision, through proposed new subsection (4B)(b). Proposed new subsection (4B)(c) states that what further action the local transport authority intends to take to address the gaps identified must be set out.

Proposed new subsection (4C) would require the authority to publish both the assessment and the resulting plan after the relevant consultation. It is clearly a good idea to identify the scale of opportunity in the local area as well as what is already available. Such good information would inform good future decisions, so I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.

Amendment 64, which was also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a statement every six months with information on socially necessary services across a county and the number of whole routes cancelled, as well as frequency and days of the week. I am not supportive of it. Although I understand the rationale behind the amendment, and it would be interesting to have that information on a regular basis, it would be truly onerous to require the Secretary of State to provide that every six months for services right across the country. As with all things, when we are trying to design effective government, we have to balance benefit and cost. In my respectful view, such a requirement tips into being simply too onerous.

Assessments are, by their nature, local or regional, and I do not understand the practical utility of national reporting when the people who really need to know the information are in the local transport authority that would be providing the information in the first place. I therefore confirm my support for amendment 66 and my opposition to amendment 64.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for tabling a series of amendments to the clause. Amendment 66 would ensure that local transport authorities review their current local bus network to identify any gaps. I agree with hon. Members that it is important for local transport authorities to understand and know their networks. However, the desired effect of the amendment is already covered by the Transport Act 2000, which places a requirement on an authority to meet the needs of people living or working in their area. The local transport plan, which must be prepared by a local transport authority, is an important document that establishes the transport needs of local communities. Indeed, the existing measures in the Bill go even further than the 2000 Act by ensuring that members of the enhanced partnership work together to identify key socially necessary services, and to develop a robust plan in case any changes are proposed to them.

I turn to amendment 64. The Department already publishes large amounts of bus data through both the Bus Open Data Service and bus statistics on gov.uk. The Bill provides for even more data collection under clause 24, which specifically ensures that data collected by the traffic commissioner is shared with the Secretary of State. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We already deliver a large amount of information to the public that can help them to understand all services operating in their area—not just socially necessary services—and may include many of the details listed in the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I am pleased to move an amendment that both I and Liberal Democrat colleagues had the idea of. The Liberal Democrats have withdrawn their version of the amendment, but we are essentially aiming at the same thing: to be specific in proposed new section 138A of the 2000 Act by specifically naming healthcare services, schools and other educational institutions as activities that we as a Parliament consider to be essential. I believe that that would really help transport planners to focus their efforts on those particularly essential services. It would strengthen the clause considerably.

In the past, I have worked with many young people who value bus services and feel undervalued when those services are not helping them to get back and forth to school. When they are not able to take part in after-school activities in the same way as their peers at the school whose parents can drive them back and forth, there is a social justice issue that deserves its own bullet point, as part of the clause.

I do not need to tell Members about the importance of public transport access to hospitals and other healthcare services. Later, we will discuss amendments pressing for the timing of older and disabled people’s bus passes to be extended so that they can access healthcare services with their free cards. The actual provision of the services is the absolute bottom line here, and they should be named. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose my amendment.

Amendment 38 was originally proposed by my Green party colleague, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, in the other place. It aims to include clearly in the definition services that have been cancelled. If this aspect of the Bill is to work effectively, it is essential that it works to undo the damage caused by cuts made in bus services, particularly local authority-supported ones since the start of the enormous austerity squeeze on local councils.

The proposed time period of 15 years in amendment 38 is no accident—it goes back to the start of austerity. Many figures show the loss of bus services around the country since the beginning of that period. For example, a Campaign for Better Transport figure shows that from 2012 to the second year of the pandemic, 2021, more than a quarter of all bus services across England, measured in vehicle kilometres, were lost. For the number of regulated services, which is a different measure of service capacity, the loss was 29%.

It will come as no surprise to my colleagues from the east of England that one of the regions with the biggest losses was the eastern region, alongside the north-west of England. The services lost were socially necessary, and they ought to be able to be defined as currently socially necessary, even if they do not exist. I commend both amendments to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Amendment 39 would add healthcare services, schools and educational facilities to the list of socially necessary local services. The hon. Lady is, of course, right that those are important destinations for bus services—so important that they would without doubt come under the services side of the definition. Since the clause as drafted refers to enabling

“passengers to access…essential goods and services”,

the amendment is otiose.

I understand the political point that the hon. Lady is seeking to make through amendment 38 but, as drafted, nothing could be done with that information under the clause. In fact, the amendment would have a negative effect, because it would simply muddy the waters with historical data without being helpful in establishing the future direction of travel for local transport authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

Amendments 54 and 74 would establish a real safety net for socially necessary routes. Amendment 54 would place a duty on local authorities to step in to deliver a service when no commercial operator will do so, while placing a reciprocal duty on the Government to provide financial support to enable it. Amendment 74 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State to create a formal funding mechanism for such services. The mechanism would include clear eligibility criteria, ensuring that local authorities could not designate routes as socially necessary arbitrarily, but must demonstrate clear social need. Together, the amendments would ensure that essential routes do not disappear due to market failure. They offer a practical, balanced solution to a growing problem, and I urge the Committee to support them. If we believe that these routes are socially necessary, we must find a mechanism to ensure that they are provided.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 54 would place a duty on local transport authorities to identify and then satisfy the need for all—and I stress “all”—socially necessary services, irrespective of supply, under an enhanced partnership. The amendment does not explain how the services would be supplied by the local authority—presumably, there would be a tender process—but it would require the authority to produce a report within six months. That report would identify the need, estimate the costs of provision and associated funding gaps, estimate the impact of a new service

“on local accessibility and transport needs”,

provide

“a timeline for the operation of the service”,

and specify local funding shortfalls. That measure, if adopted, would be a truly revolutionary departure for the identification of local need and subsequent funding, because it would hand demand assessment to the local authority, but the cost of provision to the Secretary of State. What could possibly go wrong? I genuinely look forward to the Minister supporting the amendment and explaining how he will fund that.

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74 would require the Secretary of State to advance proposals within 12 months to

“guarantee a service for socially necessary services”,

where that service has been absent for six months and

“the local transport authority is unable to run the service.”

That is a second extraordinary proposal, because it would again place identification of need—according to the highly subjective definition of social necessity—in the hands of the local authority, but would give the Secretary of State a legal duty to supply that assessed need. It envisages the Department for Transport directly running individual routes that have escaped the design of the franchise network or the enhanced partnerships. Presumably, since the Department for Transport has to supply for that need, it will be liable for procuring, right across the country, individual routes that are not part of a wider contractual arrangement. There we have it: the Department of Transport directly running individual routes, spread across the country, independent of wider bus provision. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.

[Steff Aquarone]

Amendment 54 is a really important protection for the safe and necessary services that I described. The shadow Minister’s points perhaps highlight the issue of funding more generally in bus franchising and enhanced partnerships.

The amendment would ensure that steps are taken within six months of identifying a route as socially necessary to ensure that the route actually runs. It would also enable the Government to provide them with support and funding to ensure that the route is available, if the financial burden on the local authority is deemed too great. This is another useful protection for the socially necessary services to ensure that they are not another victim of the funding crisis in local government. I have already made clear how important these services are and why we have to ensure that they are protected.

Looking at the perilous financial position of our county council in Norfolk, I fear that there could come a point where that spectacular fiscal mismanagement means that they cannot afford to keep these services going. In that instance, I do not think that my constituents should be the ones who are punished. The Government should step in to protect their access to all the services and opportunities that a socially necessary service provides.

To conclude, I am pleased that the importance of bus services has been truly recognised in law. I am supportive of the sentiment and much of the drafting of the clause. However, if we accept the importance of these routes, we should not make a half-baked attempt to protect them. We should ensure that all important services are considered when deciding on socially necessary routes, and that there are strong protections for both these services and our communities that they serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I support clause 14 and the Government’s proposed measures. Good decisions depend on good information, and in the East Cleveland part of my constituency we have seen far too many decisions made in a black hole of information, which has seen many routes disappear over many years. I now have many villages left in isolation.

It has fallen to local campaigners to step up and make the case that such routes are socially necessary, including through protests, rallies and so on, to try to save them. That is exactly what happened in the case of the Stagecoach 1 and 2 in my constituency, which was created as a result of a sustained campaign. However, that route is not sufficient, because it misses out certain villages and does not go down the high street in Brotton, for example. It also misses out several residents, of which one example is a lady called Norma Templeman who I promised I would mention in the House. She lives in North Skelton and is 87 years old. She said a few months ago:

“You have no idea how isolated this makes us golden oldies feel.”

I would never use such language to refer to her, because I think she is full of energy, even if she is 87. It should not fall to an 87-year-old lady to campaign to save and extend routes like the Stagecoach 1 and 2, or the demand-responsive transport service that she benefits from, which, again, runs out of money every few months, and there has to be a sustained campaign to try to save it. The entire model is inefficient.

I hope that the mayor in our region will seek to use the powers in the Bill and introduce a franchising model. So far, he is resistant to do that, so I ask for some clarity from the Minister on devolution—which we covered in the previous debate—with reference to clause 14. The principles set out in the various pieces of legislation on combined authorities, particularly the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, set out that the role of a combined authority is to act as it says on the tin: to be a combination of the local constituent member councils and their leaders. We have an odd situation in Teesside wherein the councils and their leaders want to have a franchising system but the mayor is resistant to doing so.

In the House on 14 May, I asked a Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government whether the Government accept the principle of subsidiarity, wherein power should sit in the lowest possible tier of government and local communities should have the strongest say. The Minister accepted that principle in his response. He said that devolution should not just be

“a shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to a regional or sub-regional body that is far away from communities and the local authority.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 135WH.]

He said the transfer of power is a good, but it is not the “whole job”, and communities should be able to “take control for themselves”. I hope that that is also the case when it comes to these powers. We should not have a mayor sitting above the community—above even the local authorities, which make up the LTA—and not using the powers and the funding that this Government are giving him to act.

For Norma’s sake, and the many Normas in all my communities and communities across the country, I support the clause and the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will deal with this in a slightly different order from that in which the Minister addressed it. I will deal with clause 14 in toto, and then look at Government amendment 6, which removes two subsections from the clause.

Clause 14 amends the Transport Act 2000 by requiring local transport authorities to identify and list services in the enhanced partnership area that are “socially necessary local services”—we have already discussed this at some length this afternoon—and then to specify requirements that must be followed if a bus operator of those services wishes to vary or cancel them. Subsection (2) amends section 138A of the Transport Act 2000, which talks about enhanced partnership plans and schemes, and it requires local transport authorities to identify and list socially necessary local services within their enhanced partnership plans—so far, so sensible.

The term is defined in subsection (2)(c), which inserts proposed new subsection (15) into section 138A and provides a definition of “socially necessary local service” as,

“a local service which—

(a) enables passengers to access—

(i) essential goods and services,

(ii) economic opportunities (including employment), or

(iii) social activities, and

(b) if cancelled, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access those goods, services, opportunities or activities.”

That is not necessarily a problem, but it is worth noting that this definition is quite subjective in its application. It is not easily measurable what such a service is, nor is it standardised between local authorities. The Minister will say, “Devolution will allow a thousand blossoms to bloom,” and I conceptually agree. However, I wonder whether, if we have different interpretations of the same term—“essential goods and services”—in different parts of the country, that raises a question about how the provisions will be applied across the board.

I understand the desire to devolve assessments to local need, but the determination does, after all, have commercial consequences for operators. As ever, where commercial opportunities are challenged or threatened, that brings with it a risk of legal challenge. That is why I raise the flag with the Minister—I am not going to do anything about it—that this is a potential future pitfall, where different local transport authorities apply the same definition differently.

If the Minister recognises that the definition is subjective, is he concerned about the risk of challenge? The route to formal challenge within an enhanced partnership structure would typically be by judicial review. Is there another form of challenge that the Minister would recognise as part of this process? What guidance will be given to local transport authorities in the assessment process? He referred to some guidance in his earlier responses; I saw him glance towards his officials. I would be grateful for more detail.

I think the issue can be dealt with through guidance, so it would be helpful to understand what form it will take for local transport authorities. Has that already been formulated? Either way, do we have an indication of when the guidance will be published? It is clearly an important document when looking to turn these concepts into practical policies.

Clause 14(2)(a) inserts new paragraph (ba) into section 138A(3) of the Transport Act 2000, requiring local transport authorities to identify which local services in their area are socially necessary services and to list those services in the enhanced partnership plan. Clause 14(2)(b) inserts new paragraph (4A) into section 138A of the 2000 Act, requiring local transport authorities to keep the list of socially necessary services under review and amend it as necessary. The idea here is presumably to ensure that the list of socially necessary local services reflects any sudden network changes in an enhanced partnership area. So far, so good.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Is the hon. Gentleman straying from the Bill? I am struggling.

[Jerome Mayhew]

No, I am pleased to say that I am not, Sir Desmond. Clause 14(6) makes specific reference to this. It was a requirement that was inserted into the Bill by the other place. I will read it to you:

“The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the impact of the level of employers’ National Insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities…and lay it before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”

As such, this is fairly and squarely in the scope of not just the Bill, but this clause. Government new clause 6 would specifically remove that subsection, so I am setting the scene as to why that is a very bad idea.

We understand the effect, which will be a 15.2% increase in employment costs. If an employee works 780 hours on the minimum wage, they earn around £8,923, which is currently below the minimum threshold. In that instance, following the increase, the employer’s national insurance contribution will go from £0 to £678. That is the additional cost of that employment. Who will pay for that in a SEND contract?

[The Chair]

We are talking about the impact on the provision of necessary bus services, but you have strayed into taxis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

Thank you for that indication, Sir Desmond, but exactly the same arguments that apply to the providers of bus services for a fee also apply to taxis. You can insert the word “bus” whenever I have said “taxis”; exactly the same argument applies for both providers.

The additional cost of employing a part-time worker, such as a bus driver, in a bus company would be £1,303 per employee per annum, so we have a real problem. Bus providers—and others—are being swept up in the net of increased employer national insurance contributions. It is simply a fact that a large number of the school contracts will become unsustainable under the current format, yet no payments have been offered, either as part of this Bill or elsewhere, to compensate local transport authorities, county councils or whichever authorities are responsible for the provision of bus contracts for education and special education needs, even though the actions of this Government are making these contracts unsustainable.

Thousands of these contracts around the country will need to be handed back to local education authorities. Staff will be made redundant, causing a further shortage of drivers for passengers, and thousands more schoolchildren will be left without transport unless there is movement on this. There needs to be movement of one form or another. In an ideal world, bus SEND provision would be excluded from employer national insurance contributions. However, in the absence of that, an alternative form of funding must be provided, if it is still the Government’s desire that provision be made by local authorities for bus services for SEND children.

For this reason, subsection (6), which mandates a review of how the increase in national insurance contributions from 6 April will affect socially necessary bus services, including SEND transport services for children, is so important. The provision would mandate that the review be laid before Parliament within three months of Royal Assent. This is urgent. The negative impact has already started. We need movement from the Government, or there will be real problems that affect real people. Again, these are the most vulnerable in our society. I therefore oppose Government amendment 6, which inexplicably seeks to remove this necessary assessment from the Bill.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)