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

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Simon Lightwood

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Lightwood]

Clause 39 would require the Secretary of State to implement a vision zero programme in the bus sector, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries in the course of bus operations. The clause was inserted as a non-Government new clause in the other place.

The Government support the principle behind vision zero, because we do not want any deaths or serious injury on our transport network, but where vision zero programmes are being taken forward, such as in London and Greater Manchester, the focus of the strategies is wider than just buses; they are multimodal and take a safe-system view across the transport network. A nationwide programme would cut across the Department’s plans for a road safety strategy and promote a one-size-fits-all approach that is unlikely to work in different settings, such as rural areas. Local leaders are best placed to design the programmes that work to eliminate serious injuries in their local areas.

By creating a national programme that would significantly overlap with wider local transport authority management, the clause would undermine the Bill’s intention to empower local areas. It is therefore inconsistent with the Bill’s principles. The Bill aims to empower local leaders to take control of bus services so that they meet the needs of their communities. That includes making the best decisions to encourage safer transport networks in a given area. The Government therefore oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I rise to strongly support clause 39, which was the inspiration of Lord Hampton, the Cross Bencher who tabled it in the other place. It would require the Secretary of State to collaborate with industry stakeholders to implement a vision zero programme for buses, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries during bus operations and improving overall safety in the sector. It is very hard to argue against that as an objective for the Bill.

The Minister expressed support for the concept and direction of travel. His primary argument against the clause was that it would somehow get in the way of a multimodal approach to the reduction of injuries on transport, but there is no reason why it need do so. It could co-ordinate with a multimodal transport response. Nothing in the clause prevents it from being part of a wider piece of work. I accept that the legislative requirement would be limited to the bus sector, but a non-legislative multimodal approach would be perfectly permissible, and it is a ministerial sleight of hand to suggest otherwise. The Minister is using some other review as an excuse not to keep this very good clause.

The reason why it is a good clause is that personal injury to passengers on buses caused by sharp braking is a significant issue. A 2019 study for Transport for London showed that three quarters of bus passenger injuries in London were due to non-collision incidents, such as sharp braking or harsh manoeuvres. This disproportionately affects older females and standing passengers, whether they are standing for the journey or standing on their approach to a stopping place.

The challenge with the current statistics is that they are binary—they report either collision injuries or non-collision injuries—and are not broken down further into, for example, sharp braking or avoiding manoeuvres. The clause would help to get to the bottom of where risk lies, expose the data and lead to an effective focus on remediation efforts. I strongly support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

The clause requires bus operators that are contracted to operate a franchising scheme or enhanced partnership to record data about all assaults and violent behaviour that have taken place on their services. The clause requires that data to be shared with the relevant local transport authority. It also requires local transport authorities to consult relevant trade unions about any staff safety issues arising from the data. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the other place, and I do not consider it necessary.

First, the clause duplicates work already done by the Home Office and the police. All incidents reported to the police under the Home Office crime recording rules, whether by victims, witnesses or third parties, and whether crime-related or not, will result—unless immediately recorded as a crime—in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police. That is in line with the vision that all police forces in England and Wales should have the best crime recording system in the world—one that is consistently applied, delivers accurate statistics that are trusted by the public, and puts victims’ needs at its core.

Secondly, the clause may not be compatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, as no limits are placed on what the data to be collected and shared may include. It does not specify what should be collected or how frequently, and no enforcement mechanism is attached. That may result in inconsistent data. As drafted, the clause relates to contracted services, which would exclude all the local transport authorities that have entered into enhanced partnerships with private operators. For such practical reasons, the Government will seek to remove the clause from the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is rather unedifying to see the Government hiding behind arguments about article 8. If they seriously thought that article 8 was a practical consideration that prevented the adoption of the clause, why did they not seek to amend the clause? They were perfectly capable of tabling a clarifying amendment to make the clause compliant with article 8, if they really had genuine concerns about such compliance. They could have done it, but they have chosen not to. It does not befit the Minister to hide behind that as a defence for the Government’s inaction.

The clause deals with the recording and sharing of data about assaults. It was proposed by the noble Lord Woodley in the other place. The Government should be aware of that, because it was after all drafted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I am sure the Government are good union supporters and, in other situations, I would have expected them to be highly supportive of union recommendations, although I seem to recall—I think I am right—that the RMT is not officially affiliated to the Labour party. Perhaps that explains why the clause is about to be removed from the Bill.

The clause imposes a duty to record all data about assaults and violent behaviour, and a duty to consult any relevant trade unions about issues of staff safety arising from that data, which is eminently sensible. Before I go into more detail, I want to clarify that most bus journeys are in fact very safe. Data from Transport for London for 2024 suggests that only 9.6 crimes are committed per million journeys in London. I do not have the data in front of me, but I think that the equivalent data for rural Norfolk might show it is even safer.

It is an increasing trend in London, however, as 4,167 crimes on London buses were reported as violence against the person in 2018-19, which was an increase of 2.5% on the previous year. In the west midlands, another hotspot, violent crime on buses increased 7% year on year in the latest statistics. Bus driver assaults is an important subsection of such crime, and in London between 2011 and 2013, on average four bus drivers every single day were assaulted or verbally abused. According to a Unite the union survey in 2024, 83% 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.

That is the important bit: if bus drivers are reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults, why is requiring the proper recording of data associated with assaults such a bad thing? Surely the first step to change would be to understand the full nature of the problem. The clause would lead to better data, and therefore better support for bus drivers and passengers faced with violent crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

To respond to new clause 10, the English national concessionary travel scheme costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations, such as extending the hours in which a pass can be used, would need to be carefully considered. As I said to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion regarding new clause 9, local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations.

A review into the ENCTS was concluded in 2024, which included an assessment of the travel times of the scheme; the Government are considering next steps. On that basis, and as the new clause would cut across the ENCTS review, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister refers to the cost of concessions. Has he made an assessment, or is he aware of what the assessed cost would be, of removing the time restriction, as proposed in new clause 48?

[Simon Lightwood]

As I have already explained, local authorities across the country already have powers to use their funding, and they have done so on many occasions.

New clause 32, which is on a similar theme, would require an assessment of the impact of and means to removing restrictions on concessionary travel passes. As all hon. Members know, the Government’s intentions are to give power to local leaders to determine their local priorities. That is why the £900 million of bus funding secured in the spending review will enable local leaders to expand their offer on concessions beyond their statutory obligations, if they so choose. I have said that the Government are considering our next steps on the ENCTS review. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk not to press the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

An excellent settlement was secured for buses in the latest spending review. Although we need to determine how to spend it most efficiently, the Government recognise that ensuring that the funding is distributed fairly is of great importance.

New clause 17 would require us to come forward with a report detailing a proposed revision of the formula that is currently being used. The current formula is based on local need, taking into account factors such as levels of deprivation, population size and bus mileage. The new clause is therefore not needed. The Government have already said that we will review the current formula and engage with stakeholders in doing so.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The new clause would introduce the simple but crucial requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula within six months of the Bill’s passage, alongside an explanation of its rationale, an assessment of its distributional impacts, and any alternative models considered but not adopted.

We all recognise that bus services are a lifeline for many of our constituents, connecting people to work, education, healthcare and social functions, and yet we come back to Banquo’s ghost: funding. There are cheques being written by local authorities that opt for franchising, but where that funding will come from is absent from the Bill—it is totally opaque. The new clause would resolve that. It would not dictate what the funding formula should be. Instead, it would ensure that when a funding formula is proposed, it is done on an evidence basis, as described in subsection (2)(b), and transparently. Such transparency is essential to maintain trust in the system, especially after the vast overspends in Greater Manchester.

The new clause is proportionate and constructive, and aims to fix the significant concerns around the lack of funding detail in the Bill overall. It would help to ensure that the significant investments we make in bus services deliver the greatest possible benefits, particularly for communities that rely on them most. I will press it to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is an important new clause that deals with poor performance franchising. Subsection (1) would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement on when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services were persistently failing because of poor operational or financial management. Subsection (2) says that the statement must set out the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service and how those are to be identified, and that it must clarify the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.

As Members will be aware, under the Bill, franchising provides local authorities with significant powers to shape, manage and procure bus services in their areas. With those powers should come an equally important responsibility: the duty to ensure that services are delivered efficiently, sustainably and to the high standards that the public rightly expect. The new clause addresses that important gap in the legislation. It requires the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to lay before Parliament a clear statement outlining their intentions and mechanisms for intervention in circumstances where franchising arrangements persistently fail due to poor operational or financial management.

I will cut to the chase: we have franchising on the railways. The Government are getting themselves into a very odd position. They are saying, “We are all for devolution. We don’t want to get involved. We are removing the requirement to gain the consent of the Secretary of State to enter into franchising agreements and we have no mechanism to intervene if local transport authorities get themselves into a mess and oversee persistent underperformance.” On rail, however, they take the opposite position and their version of franchising is to nationalise. What would the Government do to remedy the situation if the transport network in a local transport authority persistently underperformed? At the moment, they are expressing no opinion at all on that.

The new clause gives them the power to set out their views. It seeks to ensure that where franchising authorities or franchisees fail to deliver contracted services, there is a backstop of national intervention to guarantee continuity and standards. Buses should not be the poor relation of rail. The new clause brings the franchised bus networks in line with the franchised rail network and introduces further certainty and confidence into the franchising system for operators, passengers and local authorities alike. Everyone will know that where persistent failure occurs, there will be a robust safety net to prevent communities being left with persistently poor franchised bus services.

[Simon Lightwood]

Poor performance by operators delivering franchised services is properly managed through the franchising contracts themselves. The Department’s franchising guidance clearly states that authorities should build mechanisms into their contracts to ensure that better bus service outcomes are delivered and that poor performance from operators can be dealt with. Franchising authorities therefore have the levers to address that without the intervention of the Secretary of State.

On the subject of ensuring that franchising authorities successfully deliver bus services, I highlight that LTAs must produce a robust assessment before developing a franchising scheme. An assessment enables an authority to take an informed decision about whether a proposed scheme would deliver better outcomes for passengers and do so in a way that is financially sustainable. The assessment must, in turn, be independently assured.

Finally and crucially, I stress that franchising authorities should ultimately be accountable to local people for bus provision and service standards delivered by a franchised network. It would be contrary to the wider principles of the Bill for the Secretary of State to break that line of accountability. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will consider withdrawing the new clause.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister’s comments fail to address the need for a final backstop, so I will press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

If I may, I want to put on record my thanks to you, Dame Siobhain, and the other Chairs of the Committee over the past couple of weeks. I also want to thank the Clerks, who have literally done a marathon today, running backwards and forwards—it is great to see active travel alive and well. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers overseeing proceedings. I also thank the officials who have supported me in bringing this important legislation forward, and for helping me navigate my very first Bill Committee on the Government Front Bench.

Finally, I also thank hon. Members on all sides of the House for their valuable contributions and insights throughout these sittings. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon—please pass on my regards to him. I thank them for the insights that they have brought and the very good-natured way in which they have contributed to the Committee sittings. I know that we all want to deliver the best possible public transport system for our constituents, and I very much look forward to further engagements with hon. Members on the Bill.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I associate myself with all the Minister’s comments, particularly those regarding the officials and everyone who has made this Committee work over the last few weeks. I am very grateful to hear the Minister’s nice words about how he was listening carefully to what we said. If that were the case, I wonder why he did not accept any of our amendments, but it may just be a question of time—he may reflect further on them. It is great that we have managed to finish a day early, at the time that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Halifax, had in her mind. I also thank her for the way in which she has managed the operation of this Committee behind the scenes.

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

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Simon Lightwood

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Lightwood]

A range of funding pots could be used for the remediation work. As I mentioned, the pause will focus on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Research by University College London, commissioned by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, identified such layouts as particularly problematic. The hon. Member for Wimbledon specifically raised the question of auditing existing floating bus stops. Clause 32(1)(b) will place a duty on local authorities to respond to requests from the Secretary of State for information on stopping places. That power is broadly drafted and would allow the Secretary of State to ask for information about the number and location of floating bus stops provided by the authority. Transport for London has also undertaken a form of audit on its floating bus stops.

We expect such audits to naturally form part of developing local funding programmes. However, my Department will ask local authorities to undertake that work, alongside setting out to them its expectation on the pause. We will work together with local authorities in a pragmatic way to collate information on floating bus stops. Much of the information is already held by local authorities, and I recognise that it is important to addressing this issue. Local authorities will be able to use a wide range of existing funding streams to audit floating bus stops in their areas. For example, the consolidated active travel fund includes capital and revenue elements that can be used for audits, early feasibility work and capital remediation schemes.

I have heard the concerns of hon. Members about the behaviour of some cyclists. I am happy to set out my commitment to working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators in this space to support awareness raising through communication on this issue. On Report, I will return with further updates on the Government’s plans. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to enabling more people to walk, wheel and cycle. Good-quality segregated infrastructure is vital to making cycling safer. However, we must ensure that it is delivered in a way that keeps the public realm accessible for everyone. As I outlined, my Department and Active Travel England are focused on helping local authorities to implement change in a way that is more consistent and accessible, through research, awareness raising and good practice.

Moving to the amendments, I will begin by discussing amendments 40 to 43. Amendment 40 would place a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to give guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. Clause 30 as drafted gives the Secretary of State flexibility to issue guidance when it is appropriate and based on proper evidence, engagement and policy development. Replacing “may” with “must” in clause 30(1) would create a statutory obligation, impacting that discretion. Such a duty could risk forcing the premature publication of guidance, before the necessary consultation, or the gathering of evidence or stakeholder input, has been completed. That could lead to guidance that is incomplete, inconsistent and frankly unfit for purpose.

I have already spoken about the requirement to consult DPTAC, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. That will ensure that any guidance developed is effective, proportionate and responsive to the needs of all passengers. I would like to reassure the Committee that this Government are committed to publishing guidance to ensure that stopping place infrastructure around the country is safer and more accessible to all. However, I am concerned that amendment 40 would frustrate, rather than support, our ability to ensure that the drafting works for all passengers.

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

I challenge the Minister’s rationale on clause 30. I understood him to be saying that making a duty mandatory might force the Government to issue guidance before consultation is undertaken, but there is nothing in the clause that suggests that. If he wishes to propose that as an argument against amendment 40, he needs to set out what it is in said amendment that would require the issuing of guidance prior to any consultation or standard operating procedures. I cannot see anything like that.

[Simon Lightwood]

We will have to agree to disagree on that, I am afraid.

Amendment 41 seeks to extend the Secretary of State’s power to give guidance, including for the purpose of enabling disabled people to make journeys without the use of a floating bus stop. The intent would be to produce guidance that advises authorities to construct stopping places in a way that would enable people to travel without crossing a cycle track.

Essentially, that means providing guidance to authorities that floating bus stops should not be installed and should, if already installed, be removed, where work in the scope of this guidance is undertaken. Authorities, as listed in clause 36, would then be required to have regard to the guidance. This Government do not believe that a complete ban on floating bus stops is appropriate, given the need to improve safety for cyclists and to enable more people to cycle. The requirement to publish statutory guidance, to which local authorities are required to have regard, will enable the Government to set out clearly what is expected of authorities in terms of making floating bus stops accessible.

Amendment 42 would mandate that the Secretary of State “must” issue guidance, specifically about the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and facilities, and how authorities engage with others in relation to stopping places. The statutory guidance will cover a broad range of considerations in relation to stopping places including, as I said, location, design, construction and, where relevant, maintenance. By amending the clause to say that the Secretary of State must give guidance about certain characteristics of a stopping place, the amendment risks being overly prescriptive and would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to develop guidance informed by stakeholder engagement.

Amendment 43 has two separate purposes. It seeks to ensure that relevant authorities, which have a duty to have regard to the guidance on safety and accessibility of stopping places, always comply with the recommendations of the guidance. The only exception to this would be where there are exceptional local circumstances not to do so, and only if authorities have obtained prior written approval from the Secretary of State.

We expect that all relevant authorities will comply with their duty to have regard to guidance under clause 30. It is crucial, however, that authorities have the flexibility to apply those solutions that work best in each location and in individual circumstances. Without that flexibility, we risk preventing authorities from progressing infra-structure upgrades that might otherwise have been considered, rather than encouraging them to do so. Amendment 43 would also require the Secretary of State to make a judgment on a case-by-case basis as to what constitutes exceptional local circumstances. Given that those will differ in each case, that may be difficult to provide in a consistent manner.

The amendment also seeks to introduce a statutory pause on the construction of floating bus stops and shared bus stop boarders. It would do this by requiring authorities that have a duty to have regard to the guidance under clause 30 not to proceed with construction of such stopping places until guidance on floating bus stops is issued by the Secretary of State under this clause.

It is unclear how this amendment of clause 30 on the stopping place guidance and the floating bus stop guidance in clause 31 would relate to each other. The latter must be published no later than three months after Royal Assent, while the clause 30 guidance has a longer timetable, with no statutory deadline. In practice, that means that guidance on floating bus stops would be available in the short term, but not under clause 30. The practical effect of the amendment would be to negate the guidance under clause 31, because local authorities would not be able to use it. That would delay authorities’ ability to plan and carry out works to make floating bus stops more accessible. The amendment is disproportionate and, along with amendments 40 to 42, unnecessary.

I turn to amendments 29 to 31 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Amendment 29 seeks to expand the purposes for which statutory guidance can be issued to include matters such as safety on pavements along the route, access to toilet facilities and real-time information, some of which are beyond the intended scope of the guidance. Although those are important considerations, many are already covered within the scope of clause 30. The current drafting of the definition of “facilities” provides sufficient flexibility for the guidance to address accessible information and other relevant facilities.

Welfare facilities for drivers are covered in existing bus franchising guidance. In enhanced partnership areas, it is the responsibility of operators to provide adequate welfare facilities for drivers. That can be discussed and agreed with local transport authorities as part of the partnership. I have already spoken about the information provisions in the Bill. Bringing multiple sources of information together in one place will help to improve the situation for passengers and ensure a more consistent approach, as the hon. Lady said.

Issues such as pedestrian safety on pavements and at crossings are addressed through existing statutory duties on local authorities, and do not require repeating here. The consultation requirements that I have set out will ensure that the guidance reflects expert advice on the issues that matter most, including safety and the facilities that are provided at bus stops.

Amendment 30 seeks to narrow the definition of “facilities” in subsection (7) by specifying that such facilities should include those provided to assist people with accessing a stopping place from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route. Amendment 31 seeks to clarify that the definition of “facilities” includes facilities providing information to passengers. The definition of “facilities” in the clause is deliberately broad to ensure that the guidance can cover a full range of accessibility features, such as information facilities or facilities in the surrounding area of stopping places that support access. Highlighting specific types of facility would risk unhelpfully reducing flexibility or, potentially, conferring priority on the provision of one type of facility.

On facilities that provide access to the nearest stopping place on any route, some bus stops, particularly those in rural areas, are located very far apart, on dual carriageways or in places with one-way traffic systems. If the hon. Lady’s intention is to capture all facilities between stops, that is outside the scope of the guidance. The amendments would also pre-empt proper and full consultation with disabled stakeholders to determine what may be most appropriate. For the reasons I have set out, amendments 29 to 31 are unnecessary, and I ask that they not be moved.

I turn to the three amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Amendment 65 deals with service information at stopping places—in particular, real-time arrival information. I have explained that statutory guidance can cover the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and the facilities in the vicinity. I have also covered the broad definition of “facilities”, which will enable guidance to be given on a range of accessibility features and nearby features; facilities providing service and real-time information would fall within the existing definition in subsection (7). I am concerned that the amendment would give the impression that one feature or facility has priority over the others covered in the guidance. The amendment would also pre-empt consultation with stakeholders, including on what disabled passengers themselves consider a priority.

Amendment 60 seeks to strengthen the duty on authorities in subsection (6). It would require them to

“take reasonable steps to implement”

guidance, in place of the current requirement to “have regard to” it. The amendment was also tabled in the other place. Although the Government did not accept it, we listened carefully to the concerns raised and tabled Government amendments to strengthen the package of accessibility measures in the Bill. They include clause 21, which will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan.

However, I reiterate the points made in the other place. The purpose of statutory guidance under clause 30 is to support authorities to provide consistent, safe and accessible road infrastructure suited to the needs of their area. It is not intended to set a single rigid standard for bus stations and stops that is applicable to all circumstances. Allowing authorities to consider the guidance and its application in relation to different stopping places will allow them space to assess other relevant factors in their decision making. A more onerous requirement would not provide that flexibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

That is precisely why Active Travel England is doing this work—so that we can identify a design standard in order to ensure that our transport systems are accessible for everybody.

The new clause would also, in effect, ban floating bus stops by requiring all buses to pull into the kerb, regardless of local cycling needs. That would not be appropriate, because we must continue to ensure that cyclists are also able to travel safely. I have spoken at length about the action that my Department is taking, the research of Active Travel England, and the funding available to support local authorities. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat those points, but for those reasons I ask hon. Members not to press the new clause to a Division.

New clause 47 tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham has similarities to new clauses 12 and 40. Beyond the points that I have made about practicality and necessity, the new clause raises various practical issues. For one, local authorities with works under way would be unable to complete them. Unfinished works on pavements and roads may put pedestrians at risk, and unfulfilled contracts may impose costs on local authorities. In addition, the term “inclusive-by-design”, which is used in the new clause, is not a legally recognised term. It is unclear what design principles would apply to that requirement, which may create confusion for local authorities. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for the Minister’s considered response to all the amendments. I spoke in favour of a number of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is not a member of the Committee. The mathematics of the Committee are pretty obvious, so I will treat the majority of them as probing amendments. Some of them have done their work, and I hope that those that the Minister batted away will be quietly reconsidered when he is back in the comfort of his ministerial office. I consider amendment 40 to be one such probing amendment, so I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—

“(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if—

(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and

(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.

(6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)

This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

The drafting of the amendment looks complex, but its outcome is quite simple. It removes Welsh services where it is considered that the Welsh Government can achieve a similar outcome to clause 33. The clause closes a loophole whereby some drivers of school services are not required to have a criminal record check, including checking the children’s barred list. Although this matter is reserved, the Welsh Government have agreed to implement measures through the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill currently going through the Senedd that will lead to a similar outcome.

The Welsh Government have agreed that services operating under a local bus service contract or permit, which will be established through the Bus Services (Wales) Bill, will require operators to ensure that the appropriate criminal record checks are done for qualifying drivers of school services. They have also agreed that local authorities and governing bodies of schools in Wales must have regard to the Wales learner travel guidance under section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008, which can include guidance about criminal record checking. The Welsh Government have advised that they will update the guidance so that drivers of services provided by those bodies will be subject to the same checks required by clause 33. Ultimately, even though the amendment removes Wales from the Bill, we are clear that drivers of all closed school services will require a criminal record check.

Clause 33 seeks to mandate bus operators to carry out enhanced criminal record certificate and children’s barred list checks for drivers of closed school services, or to check the update information in relation to a previous enhanced criminal record certificate every three years, where the driver undertakes such services frequently or on more than three days over a 30-day period. When I refer to a “closed school service”, this is a service that is not open to the public. It is not a public service that stops at or near a school; it is used solely to transport schoolchildren to school and home again.

Under current legislation, when a public service vehicle operator is contracted by a school or local authority to provide closed school bus services, there is statutory guidance that advises local authorities and schools to ensure that a safeguarding check has been carried out at an appropriate level for each driver. For these drivers, it is expected that each one will have an enhanced criminal record certificate, which includes a check on whether the driver is on the children’s barred list.

However, the Government have been made aware that other closed school bus services are currently operating independently, not contracted or operated by schools or local authorities. In these cases, there is no explicit requirement for drivers to have an enhanced criminal record certificate, including a children’s barred list check. Clause 33 aims to close that loophole so that contracted school services are not being held to a higher standard than commercial school services, and that children are safe on all closed school bus services, regardless of whether they are contracted or commercial.

By requiring operators to carry out checks of the children’s barred list, the operator will know whether the driver is barred from working with children. The clause will mean that in addition to the driver committing an offence by driving children while being barred, the operator will also commit an offence if they permit the driver to drive on their service. Currently, operators are not mandated to carry out checks on their drivers and so can rely on their having no knowledge that the driver is barred as a defence. The clause changes that.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not rehearse the rationale behind the need for the proposed new sections in clause 33; the Minister has set that out pretty clearly. However, there is one issue that I seek clarification on from him or his officials.

The clause makes it an offence for an operator to permit a driver to drive a closed school service if the operator either knows or has reason to believe that the driver is barred from undertaking regulated activity relating to children. So far, so good. That is an offence and it comes under the criminal justice system.

The clause also requires the operator to check the enhanced criminal record certificates at least every three years, and it sets out how that can be achieved, but it is silent as to whether the failure to do so is an offence. I have a question for the Minister: if an operator fails to comply with the duty to check every three years, what are the practical consequences? Is that failure an offence? I stand to be corrected on that; I may have misread the clause when I read it some time ago. If it is not an offence, how does he intend proper enforcement to be undertaken, because without robust enforcement and information on the consequences of failure to comply with the clause, the safeguarding duty risks being diminished?

I will not go into the details of Government amendment 76. I fundamentally accept the need for it, because it deals with devolution. It does prompt a question about timescales, however, which the Minister might be able to put my mind at rest about. We want these improvements to be made, because they address the safety of children and the provision of transport for children, which are important. Yet through the devolution process that we all have to respect, we run the risk of a delayed response in devolved areas of the country, because there is currently no guarantee of timescales in the clause.

I understand the constitutional niceties that the Minister has to comply with, but it would be helpful for Committee members, and for Members of the House more widely, to receive some assurance that conversations have at least taken place with the devolved Administrations, so that they are fully aware of the need for this amendment and their own legislative processes are not unduly delayed. If he could reassure me on that point, I would be grateful.

[Simon Lightwood]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him some further details about those points, if that will suffice.

Amendment 76 agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Training about crime and anti-social behaviour

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

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Simon Lightwood

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

As I was saying this morning, clause 28 enables local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to tackle antisocial behaviour on vehicles, as well as within and at bus-related infrastructure, such as bus stations. The clause was developed to address the current situation, in which there are no specific powers available to local transport authorities to make byelaws to deal with antisocial behaviour on their bus networks. Certain local transport authorities could use the general powers contained in section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 for this purpose, but those powers are not available to all local transport authorities, most notably metropolitan combined authorities.

The clause is intended to provide flexibility to local transport authorities to effectively enforce against antisocial behaviour on the transport network and to ensure greater consistency across the country and across public transport modes. Through these byelaws, local transport authorities can provide authorised persons with the power to enforce against antisocial behaviour, including the ability to issue fixed penalty notices where they have reason to believe that an offence has been committed.

Clause 29 ensures that the new byelaw powers being granted to local transport authorities are also available to Transport for London. TfL has requested to be included in this provision. Although TfL officers can deal with antisocial behaviour at bus stops and bus stations under existing byelaws, they cannot easily enforce against nuisance behaviour on the buses themselves. Closing this loophole gives TfL the same powers as other local transport authorities in England and will help to make buses in London safer for passengers and for staff.

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

It is good to see you back in your rightful place, Dr Allin-Khan. Clause 23 is not a controversial element of the Bill, so I will not detain the Committee for too long. It gives local transport authorities and Transport for London sensible new powers to enforce against fare evasion.

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

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Simon Lightwood

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank hon. Members for their further comments on socially necessary local services. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke at the last sitting about devolution and local decision making. Of course I support the principle of good decision making at the local level, and that is what the Bill is seeking to achieve by empowering local leaders.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked how local transport authorities’ decisions on socially necessary local services could be challenged. My Department included clause 14 to deliver greater protection for socially necessary local services and transparency for passengers. Members of the Committee have remarked that the definition given in the clause provides scope to reflect local passenger needs and the specific circumstances of different local areas. It will be for an enhanced partnership to make decisions based on those needs. Mandating an arbitrary level of service takes power away from communities and local leaders and could harm the overall long-term financial sustainability of local bus services.

Local transport authorities will need to vary their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to include a list of socially necessary local services. They must comply with the requirements of their EP schemes to avoid the risk of legal action, such as a judicial review, for not properly implementing the measure. If someone did wish to challenge a decision taken by a local authority, judicial review would be the most appropriate route. Guidance will be published in due course as part of the Government’s enhanced partnership review.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked specifically about proposed new subsection (9A), inserted by the Bill into section 138C of the Transport Act 2000. This is necessary, as it requires an enhanced partnership to set out a process that would be followed if an operator proposed to cancel a socially necessary bus service, or vary one in a way that was likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access the goods, services, opportunities or activities mentioned in the clause.

The hon. Member mentioned the £2 fare cap. The previous Government funded this fare cap until the end of 2024, with some fares likely to revert to more than £10 on the most expensive routes unless a new scheme was introduced to replace it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will make some progress, but I can probably paraphrase what the hon. Member was going to say: “It was in the manifesto.” Well, you must excuse me, Dame Siobhain, if I do not take the word of the Conservative manifesto; we heard numerous uncosted spending promises from the previous Government, and now that has all seen the light of day, we can see it was not worth the paper it was written on.

The monitoring and evaluation report for the first 10 months of the £2 national fare cap was published in February 2025, and, as I have mentioned already, it was considered to offer low value for money. Maintaining the cap at £2 for the entirety of 2025 would have cost an estimated £444 million, so the £3 bus fare cap represents a £293 million saving. At the spending review, the Government announced an extension of the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027. The ability of local authorities to influence bus fares is tied to the bus operating model that they choose; in areas with enhanced partnerships, fares are set by the bus operators.

Regarding school services, the Government do not expect the recent national insurance increase to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is extraordinary to hear the Minister say that, given the entire sector is shouting from the rooftops that it will be an existential crisis for the provision of SEND travel. I simply do not understand what data the Minister or his officials are relying on to support his bold statement that it will not have an impact. If he is going against the reasoned objections of the sector as a whole, he needs to come forward with the data that he is relying on.

[Simon Lightwood]

I would simply say that it is expected that the private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes in their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I will start by addressing clauses 15 to 17.

Clause 15 will broaden the scope and increase the flexibility of measures that may be included in an enhanced partnership scheme, by amending the Transport Act 2000 to replace references to specific routes with broader wording that covers local services in their entirety, thereby expanding the scope from measures that apply to individual routes to those that can apply across all local services in an enhanced partnership area. It means that local transport authorities and bus operators will be able to include in an enhanced partnership scheme measures that are more general in nature, rather than being limited by route. For instance, an enhanced partnership scheme will be able to introduce consistent fares and consistent reliability or punctuality targets across the entire area.

Clause 16 was developed in response to concerns from local transport authorities about their ability to require financial reinvestment in local services under the current statutory arrangements for an enhanced partnership. It will provide local transport authorities with a power to specify requirements in enhanced partnership schemes to create financial reinvestment schemes, which may require operators to reinvest any additional profit received as a result of interventions from local transport authorities, the Government or others.

The measure is intended to help to increase the level of operator commitment to the schemes and encourage operators to reinvest in the bus market. It will also help to ensure a greater return on central Government investment through the reinvestment of some operational savings back into the local bus market. Following the enhanced partnership review, which is currently under way, the Department will update guidance to assist local transport authorities and operators in understanding how the power can be used.

Most enhanced partnerships have developed a bespoke variation process through which they can make changes to a scheme, rather than relying on the variation process in the 2000 Act. However, there may be circumstances in which the bespoke mechanism does not work for everyone. Clause 17 provides that, in very limited circumstances, local transport authorities can make changes to their scheme by using the statutory variation provisions instead of the bespoke variation mechanism in the enhanced partnership scheme.

The purpose of the measure is to allow the local transport authority to make an application to the Secretary of State if an operator is acting unreasonably and has objected to a proposed variation that would have been made under an existing bespoke variation mechanism in an EP scheme. If, on application by the local transport authority, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the variation cannot be made because of the unreasonable or obstructive behaviour of one or more operators, or that the variation would benefit the people using the services, the Secretary of State can direct the local transport authority to follow the statutory variation process instead.

Additionally, the clause provides that a variation may be made using the statutory process if it is one that the local transport authority is required to make in relation to socially necessary local services. The measure is designed to provide some protection to local transport authorities to deal with deadlocks in partnership negotiations and to enable changes to local services that are in the best interest of the people who use them.

New clause 37, which was tabled by the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Wimbledon, would broaden the reasons for varying enhanced partnership schemes under Section 138K of the Transport Act 2000. However, existing legislation allows for enhanced partnership schemes to be varied if that brings benefits to the people who use local services in the whole or any part of the area to which the scheme relates. The legislation thereby already covers the improved integration of different modes of transport, as this will have benefits for the people who use local services.

Under the 2000 Act there is also an existing duty on local transport authorities to develop and implement policies that promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport in their area. As the Committee may be aware, the Government are developing an integrated national transport strategy to set a long-term vision for transport, which will help to inform how transport is designed, built and operated, with passengers right at the centre. I hope that the reasons I have outlined, alongside the existing duties of local transport authorities, have convinced the hon. Members that the new clause is not necessary. On that basis, I ask that it be withdrawn.

I appreciate why my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) tabled new clause 50, and the potential benefits of union representation and input when an enhanced partnership scheme or plan is introduced. I direct my hon. Friend to section 138F of the 2000 Act, which the new clause would amend: subsection (6)(h) states that the authority or authorities must consult

“such other persons as the authority or authorities think fit.”

It can therefore be considered that trade unions already come under the interpretation if an authority feels that would make sense. I appreciate that this would be down to the interpretation of each authority, but my Department believes that the decision on who to include, beyond the required stakeholders originally set out, should lie with the enhanced partnership itself.

My hon. Friend may be aware that the Department for Transport will update the enhanced partnership guidance later in the year. In the updated guidance the Department will make recommendations for best practice and will recommend that unions are considered as consultees where a plan or scheme is introduced or updated. It will also be recommended that unions are also considered as attendees for EP forums if appropriate. I therefore do not consider the new clause to be necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.

I thank Committee members for their further comments on the partnerships. Clauses 15, 16 and 17 were introduced in the other place as Government new clauses to strengthen enhanced partnership provisions in order to widen the measures that can be taken by local transport authorities under an enhanced partnership scheme, to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers on measures that will reduce operating costs, and to ensure that variation or revocation will benefit service users.

As I have said, clause 15 broadens the scope and increases the flexibility of EPs and broadens the wording to cover local services in their entirety. This is important to passengers because routes will not be viewed in isolation and local transport authorities will not be limited by route. That can help with the consistency and reliability of services.

The Government have listened to concerns from local transport authorities, and clause 16 provides them with a power to specify requirements in enhanced partnership schemes to create financial reinvestment schemes, which may require operators to reinvest any additional profit as a result of interventions. This is important because it encourages a commitment from operators to reinvest into the bus market, which I know has been a concern. I reiterate that the Department will use analysis from the previously mentioned EP review to update guidance to assist local transport authorities and operators in respect of how the power can be used.

Clause 17 was introduced because it was found that there were times when a bespoke variation mechanism was not working for everyone. The clause provides local transport authorities with very limited circumstances in which they can utilise the statutory variation provisions, instead of the bespoke variation, to make changes to the scheme. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Committee members will be pleased to hear that I will whip through the clauses quite quickly. Clause 15 amends the Transport Act 2000 to widen the measures that can be taken by a local transport authority under an enhanced partnership scheme so that they can relate to any local services in the area concerned. That is very sensible; we need not trouble the Committee any longer with consideration of that clause.

Clause 16, which deals with the passenger benefit requirement, replaces section 138C(9) of the 2000 Act. It sets out requirements in respect of local services to allow an enhanced partnership scheme to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers in return for public expenditure on facilities or measures that will reduce operating costs. It is a simple and practical balancing act between the commercial operations that pay for themselves and the socially necessary additions that a local transport authority may wish to negotiate as part of the enhanced partnership. It is about the quid pro quo of how those can be funded other than by direct subsidy.

Clause 16(9)(a) provides that local transport authorities may include requirements that relate to operators establishing and operating arrangements that facilitate an EP scheme, and subsection (9)(b) may require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers if they benefit from action taken by the LTA or other public authorities, including the Secretary of State. Again, this is a sensible adoption of a quid pro quo process rather than having route extension with direct subsidy. For the Conservatives, the provisions seem to sensibly widen the options for trade-offs, and we are supportive of them.

Clause 17 inserts into the 2000 Act proposed new section 138(KA), so that where an EP scheme can be varied in accordance with the scheme, a variation can be made under section 138(K) only when the Secretary of State is satisfied of two things: first, that operators have behaved unreasonably or obstructively, and secondly, that the variation or revocation will benefit the users of local services. Again, this is a sensible approach for the Secretary of State to take and we will not object to clause 17.

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 37 would deal with the variation of EP schemes to improve the integration of public transport. It would mean that a variation to an EP could take place only if it had the effect of improving integration across different modes of transport. Although I understand and applaud the rationale behind the drafting of the new clause, one has to be careful of the unintended consequences, because it would prohibit any change to an EP that did not also improve integration across different modes of transport. Many variations to an enhanced partnership might have multiple benefits for passengers, but might not have the benefit of improving integration across different modes of transport. Under a strict reading of the new clause, such improvements would be prohibited. I know that is not the Liberal Democrats’ intention, but as the new clause is worded that would unfortunately be the effect.

I will not make any comments on new clause 50, other than that, unusually, I support the words of the Minister in that the trade unions already come under the wording of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

The clause amends various sections of the Transport Act 2000 to help authorities to better reflect the needs of disabled passengers in the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. It provides that an enhanced partnership scheme can specify requirements to enable disabled people to travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort, including—but not limited to—requirements for the provision of a taxi guarantee scheme.

The clause also requires local transport authorities to consider whether any of the requirements proposed to be included in a new enhanced partnership scheme, or when varying an existing one, will enable disabled people to be able to travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort. It requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people or organisations that represent them before making an enhanced partnership scheme, to ensure that it is as informed as possible by an understanding of the priorities and needs of disabled people.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We are getting to some of the more interesting parts of the Bill now. The clause amends relevant sections of the Transport Act 2000 on enhanced partnerships and plans to help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled users of local bus services and the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. Subsection (2) inserts proposed new section 138CA into the Transport Act 2000, which provides that:

“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify…requirements about enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services”—

and then we get the good phrase—

“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”,

including for taxi guarantee schemes. It also states:

“Before making an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services”,

and it includes definitions for the purpose of the clause.

Subsection (3) pops proposed new paragraph (ba) into section 138F(6), on consultation. It includes disabled users or prospective users of local services, or organisations representing disabled users, among the list of people or entities that authorities must consult before making an enhanced partnership scheme—so, good progress there.

Subsection (4) inserts proposed new subsections (9) and (10) into section 138K of the Transport Act. It states:

“Before varying an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme as varied will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services…to which the scheme as proposed to be varied relates.”

It is important that the schemes are designed to be widely accessible, including to those with disabilities. Consultation with affected groups in the design of services, as anticipated by subsection (3), is the right approach, and the clause makes clear the importance of designing services with the needs of persons with disabilities in mind. I ask the Minister: what consultation with groups representing persons with disabilities was undertaken prior to the drafting of the Bill? Although I welcome the clause, did the consultation include reference to floating bus stops, as anticipated in clause 30? If so, did the Government take account of that input?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

This clause is sensible. The Minister is right that it will streamline the objection process, so that instead of having to wait for a month to see whether anyone has objected, the affected parties will be able to notify the local transport authority in writing that they have no intention of objecting. The timetable will be shortened as a result.

The approach is multi-layered. The measure relates to the preparation, notice and consultation stage, which is section 138F of the Transport Act; the making of plans and schemes, section 138G; the preparation, notice and consultation for variations, section 138L; and the making of variations, section 138M. This is a common-sense approach to preventing unrequired notice periods from delaying the ability of LTAs to take action.

Clause 19(6)(a) will have the effect that where an LTA issues a notice of an intention to revoke an enhanced partnership plan or scheme, it is no longer required to state the date on which the revocation takes effect under the notice. That will allow the LTA to proceed with the revocation where the relevant operators have also indicated that they do not intend to object under the new arrangements. Again, that is sensible streamlining. I applaud the Government on a good tidying-up exercise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Advance notice of requirement to provide information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Simon Lightwood]

The clause will amend provisions in the Transport Act relating to powers of local transport authorities to obtain information about local bus services in connection with any relevant function, including preparing or varying an EP scheme or plan. Existing powers are set out under section 143B of the Act. They mean that operators may be required to provide information requested by local transport authorities within a “reasonable” timeframe specified by the local transport authority and in a specified format.

If it appears to a local transport authority that a bus operator has failed to take all reasonable steps to provide the information, it must inform the traffic commissioner. There have been occasions when operators have not met the timeframes set by local transport authorities.

To support the Government’s intention to strengthen EPs between local transport authorities and bus operators, the clause will amend section 143B to require LTAs to provide a 14 day-notice period before issuing an official request for information under that section. It clarifies that

“When imposing the requirement the authority or authorities must have regard to any representations made by the operator in response to the notice”.

The clause creates a mechanism through which operators can work with local transport authorities before a statutory request for information is issued under section 143B.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will be brief. I agree with the explanation given by the Minister. This is a sensible clarification and we have no objections.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Bus network accessibility plans

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—

“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.

(2) In this section, ‘relevant authority’ includes—

(a) a county council in England;

(b) a district council in England;

(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;

(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.

(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

(4) The report must also include—

(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;

(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;

(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;

(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;

(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.

(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”

This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

[Simon Lightwood]

Clause 21 requires local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, describing what provision is made in the authority’s area to enable disabled people to use local services. Those plans will also assess how effectively the provision enables disabled people to use local services

“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”

and describe any further action that the authority plans to take to enable disabled people to travel on local services.

The clause specifies that the bus network accessibility plan must be published within one year of the clause coming into force, and subsequently it specifies that it must be reviewed at least every three years, or sooner if substantial changes are made to the local bus network. As it stands, there are no specific obligations for authorities to obtain an understanding of how well local transport networks in their area work for disabled people, or to highlight publicly their approach to network accessibility.

The clause requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people or organisations representing them, as well as operators of local services within their area, when preparing and reviewing bus network accessibility plans. That will help to ensure that authorities review the accessibility of their bus network regularly, including setting out any changes they propose to make, and that disabled people or the organisations representing them will be given a voice when future accessibility interventions are planned.

New clause 23 tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) would

“require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.”

The Government are clear that we need to improve accessibility of our transport network, and I support the spirit of the new clause, which is designed to incentivise local authorities to take responsibility for driving up accessibility standards in their areas. However, clause 21 already places a requirement on local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, which must include details of the accessibility provision that already exists in their area and an assessment of the extent to which the current provision enables disabled people to travel independently, in safety and reasonable comfort, and must set out future plans to improve accessibility. I therefore believe that the proposed measure is unnecessary and urge the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister did a good job of précising the contents of the clause, so I will not repeat that—I know everybody will breathe a big sigh of relief. However, there are some issues; essentially, clause 21 requires a bus network accessibility plan to be created, but it does not then tell us what to do with it. My questions are around the theme of: “So what?” It is all very well to create a plan that just describes the status quo, but there is no requirement to improve. The current effect is to create cost and bureaucratic process with no outcome for passengers.

This is a real problem with both this legislation and legislation more widely: we think process is very important—because we are policy people—so we focus on all the hoops that organisations need to jump through. Too often, however, we forget to take the next step and understand the practical impact of the process on our constituents, in particular those who use buses. There appears to be no positive benefit from the clause as drafted, other than having another document collecting dust on a shelf somewhere.

What is the point of the requirement? It identifies need and describes what the LTA is planning to do about it, but that is it. It feels a bit like virtue signalling without funding, since improvements are expensive, particularly provisions for those with additional needs and disabilities, and do not add significantly to the fare box. What is the practical application of the clause? It applies a significant additional burden on local transport authorities, which have to jump through the hoops that we are creating, but what is the benefit?

New clause 23 in the name of the Liberal Democrats is a different version of the same thing, but I look forward to the explanation and advocacy of it by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The only difference is that the plan would be annual rather than triennial, which would triple the amount of bureaucracy and cost associated with the provision. The new clause would include proposals to improve bus route accessibility but, again, with no requirement actually to change anything. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Member, but both the clause and the new clause are entirely useless without funding attached. Since no reference to such funding appears anywhere in the Bill, that does beg the question, what is the point of the clause and the new clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

The driving force here is transparency. It is about having the data and about how local areas ensure, for a whole range of reasons—social, economic and moral—that everyone in their community can access our bus services. I remind Members that the clause 21 was inserted following debate in the other place.

The Government believe that all passengers should be able to travel across the country easily, safely and with dignity. We listened carefully to concerns in the other place and brought forward an amendment to support the Government’s ambition for bus services to become more accessible and inclusive for passengers, and particularly for disabled people.

I will address some of the points raised. First, I have already mentioned that clause 21 places consultation requirements on local transport authorities when developing bus network accessibility plans. It also specifies that these plans must be published within one year of the clause coming into force and reviewed following substantial changes to local bus services, or every three years. For example, if a local transport authority decides to adopt a franchising scheme, my Department would expect it to review the plan.

The clause requires a local authority to describe what action it intends to take to enable persons with disabilities to travel on such services independently and in safety and reasonable comfort—not just to identify the issues. Bus network accessibility plans will enable local authorities to be held to account for appropriately understanding the accessibility of networks and for having a plan to resolve and mitigate those issues.

New clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would place requirements on a wider range of authorities, including those not responsible for bus services. It would be burdensome and duplicative, and likely to result in areas being captured in multiple reports. I confirm that my Department will provide guidance to help local transport authorities to produce proportionate and effective bus network accessibility plans for the benefit of the authority and disabled passengers alike.

Question put and agreed to. 

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Local government bus companies

[Jerome Mayhew]

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 22, page 16, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.

(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.

(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”

This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will speak to amendment 51 in my name and set it in the context of clause 22. Subsection (1) repeals section 22 of the Bus Services Act 2017, which stated that the relevant authorities listed in that section could not

“in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service”

in England. Its repeal allows the wide-scale creation of municipal bus companies. That was in the Labour party manifesto, from memory, so I understand why the Government are doing that, and there was also reference in the King’s Speech to encouraging the expansion of the municipal bus company sector. There are currently eight such companies in England and Wales.

It is clearly the Labour party’s ideological position—we should be clear about it—that the state is better placed to run the commercial operations of bus companies than the private sector. That is not about provision, routes, capacity or approach to additional needs; it is the nuts and bolts of how to run a commercial operation—purchasing or leasing, maintaining, training and operating a bus company. Why would a local authority be better at the things that I have just mentioned than a specialist business, the main operation of which is exactly that?

It is a truism that local authorities are not traditionally renowned for their efficiency, and the same could be said of national Government. It is not impossible for them to do a good job—in previous sittings, I have made positive reference to one or two of the existing municipal bus companies that do—and I will not be ideological in the opposite direction, but running commercial operations of this kind is not a natural strength of local authorities. Cost management, customer relations and maintenance and renewal are all natural strengths of the private sector. From my perspective, therefore, this policy change is a very odd decision.

Clause 22 exposes the political approach of Labour, which is more interested in creating the supplier than supporting the passenger. We have seen that theme in clause after clause throughout the Bill. Subsections (2) to (5) create new requirements that mirror existing subsections (1), (2) and (13) of section 74 of the Transport Act 1985, which disqualify directors of existing public transport companies from being members of the local authority that owns the company.

The new requirements will ensure that directors of the new local authority-owned bus companies formed after the repeal of section 22 of the 2017 Act, which I have already referred to, are subject to the same governance requirements. If we are going to do this, that is a sensible safeguard. Subsection (2) provides that a director of a local government bus company who is paid to act in that capacity or is an employee of the company or of a subsidiary is disqualified from being elected or being a member of a relevant authority that controls the company, so there is a degree of separation.

Subsection (6)(b)(ii) disapplies section 73(3)(b) of the 1985 Act, which relates to money borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with a public transport company’s provision of local services. That removes the restriction on existing LABCos in England accessing private borrowing where the money is borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with providing local bus services. I can see why private businesses that have good control of their costs would do that, but allowing additional public sector borrowing by municipal bus companies as well as the very significant commercial risks associated with franchising is another concerning element of the clause.

This is franchising with knobs on. Not only is the local transport authority taking direct commercial responsibility for the provision of services, which has not happened before, it is then, instead of contracting out those services for a fee—which is what franchising is in the majority of cases—going the extra step and being the other side of the charterparty in operating the company to which it is franchising. That is a doubling up of the commercial risk and bets taken by local authorities, and on top of that, they are being allowed to raise debt as part of the operating company. I fear that there may be some trouble ahead as a result of this approach.

What control will be applied to that debt? Who is responsible for the debt on the failure of a LABCo? That is an important question. Does the debt fall with the LABCo or revert to the local authority as the only shareholder? Will it come back to the local transport authority as the ultimate owner? What provisions are in place to protect the public purse? My concern is that this bit has not been properly thought through.

LABCos have an obvious potential conflict of interest. They are owned by the local transport authority, which is the contracting body for the bus services that they supply. Whether true or not, there is a risk of an impression of impropriety if there is not a proper arm’s length approach, so we have to go the extra mile. If we as a Committee decide to support this clause, it is incumbent on us, where we recognise that people will likely think that there is an overly close relationship, to put the safeguards in place now to prevent any indication that that might be the case.

The local authority, as an emanation of the state, should bend over backwards to ensure fair play in the tender process and to ensure that that process is obviously fair—that justice is not just being done, but being seen to be done. It is equally obvious that any contract award process from the local transport authority to a LABCo must be fair.

Coming on to amendment 51, the Procurement Act 2023 sets out a fair process to ensure that no underhand tender activities are being undertaken by a local authority—that is its rationale. Yet although clause 22 takes steps to ensure that directors are at arm’s length from local transport authorities, and cannot be elected members either, it currently does not prevent an exclusion under the Procurement Act for the award of contracts to new—as opposed to existing—LABCo operators. That is a clear lacuna and mistake in the drafting of the clause.

The clause is trying to take account of the transitional processes where there is an existing LABCo—there are eight that we have discussed previously. As it is currently worded, however, it does not prevent local transport authorities from setting up new municipal bus companies. In fact, Labour is encouraging them to do that—or going further than that, as the King’s Speech expressed the desire that there should be many more. Despite that, the clause allows the exclusion of the provisions in the Procurement Act. That cannot be the Government’s intention, or if it is, the Minister needs to tell the Committee that that is the case. That is my first question: is it the Government’s intention to allow the exclusion of the provisions of the Procurement Act in such circumstances—yes or no? If it is, why should those provisions be excluded?

Amendment 51 in my name would fix that oversight. It would ensure that any contract awarded after a franchising scheme by a franchising authority cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a LABCo that meets the specific criteria that it was already providing services on 17 December 2024. In other words, we accept the transitional need for LABCos that have been operating over the last years, or that are currently operating, to be excluded.

However, any new LABCo should be properly compliant with the Procurement Act 2023. That protects the ability to roll over a transitional contract where the previous provider was a legacy LABCo, and stops the creation of a new loophole that would allow a local transport authority to misuse roll-over clauses to bypass the proper tender process and award to its own bus company.

It cannot be the Government’s intention to allow such an abuse of tendering, so if they will not adopt my amendment, what other effective steps will they take? How will they stand up for fair competition, the taxpayer and the passenger—or is their focus, again, on the supplier?

[Simon Lightwood]

In my time as a Minister, I have visited a number of municipal bus companies and they have all been absolutely outstanding. That is not just my view; look at the awards they have received in competition with private providers. They are deeply embedded in the local community, and indeed they are seen with some civic pride by the people who effectively own the company—the people of the local area. This is far from being an ideological move by the Labour party; we are removing the ideological ban. We are enabling local areas with the tools that they need to deliver better bus services, whether those services are municipal, through franchising or through enhanced partnership schemes. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I asked the Minister a couple of specific questions about debt management, so I would be grateful if he would answer them before moving on. He will, of course, remember that I asked about the provision of debt, the ability of a LABCo to raise debt, and what happens to that debt if the LABCo should fail. Does it return to the local transport authority, as the ultimate owner? Have the Government thought this through?

[Simon Lightwood]

As I said, any decisions should be underpinned by a rigorous and prudential approach to financing and resources. All local authorities have a duty to manage public money well. Local authorities cannot take on any borrowing unless it is affordable. That is a statutory requirement, and any local authority-owned bus company should be self-financing, as a minimum. Repealing the ban on establishing new local authority bus companies will give local leaders the freedom and flexibility to scale a bus company to match the needs of their passengers, the aims and ambitions they have for the network, and the available funding.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister was looking at his officials. I do not want to put him on the spot—obviously, I do, but not really—if this is a question to which he does not immediately know the answer. If he will write to me, through his officials, with that answer, or clarify it later in the sitting, I would be grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I will absolutely ensure that the hon. Member receives a full response and gets the reassurances that he seeks.

Amendment 51, moved by the hon. Member, seeks to prevent new LABCos from being able to directly award franchising contracts under what is known as the Teckal exemption in the Procurement Act 2023. Clause 22 will help to support public ownership, where desired, by repealing the ban on establishing new LABCos. Local authorities can consider a range of options for structuring a new bus company. One such option could be the establishment of a new LABCo as a Teckal company.

I understand hon. Members’ concerns about Teckal, and it is important to address them, but to do so we must understand what the exemption is and how it is likely to work in practice. Teckel is part of a much wider landscape of public procurement law, and it has been available to local authorities for the provision of services for some time. Use of the Teckal exemption is a complex undertaking that needs to be followed with care, given that it allows contracts outside the usual controls imposed by the public procurement regime.

Specific and rigorous tests are required to use the Teckal exemption. In addition, the development of any franchising scheme, including for a Teckal LABCo, is subject to checks and balances, as set out in legislation. That includes a thorough assessment of the plan, independent assurance and public consultation. Local authorities must be careful to ensure that companies are within the Teckal parameters if they pursue this option. Any local authority looking at Teckal would need to consider very carefully whether it was appropriate for their local context.

Existing precedent for Teckal LABCos in the UK, although limited, suggests that Teckal is largely used in scenarios where private operators are not interested in operating a service, or where they fail—for example, a Teckal award to an operator of last resort. Teckal is open to all public bodies that own any type of commercial company. Removing it as an option only for new LABCos would be an unusual departure from the status quo for existing procurement legislation. As it stands, there does not appear to be any compelling reason to single out new LABCos as the only type of public company that cannot use Teckal. My officials will publish guidance on LABCos once the Bill has come into force, and that will cover use of the Teckal exemption. We will work very closely with stakeholders when developing and drafting the guidance. That will help to ensure that the exemption is used only where the local transport authority believes it will genuinely improve bus services for local passengers in the area.

I turn now to Government amendment 17, which makes changes to clause 22. It will remove Wales from the scope of subsection (6)(b)(i), which inserts new subsection (5)(c) into section 73 of the Transport Act 1985. The amendment has been tabled to ensure that the public transport companies in Cardiff and Newport are not captured by the clause. Subsection (6)(b)(i) clarifies that there are no geographical restrictions on the operations of existing local authority bus companies in England. The amendment ensures that the subsection will only apply in England. It has been agreed with the Welsh Government and is intended to ensure consistency with the Welsh Government’s policy objectives to promote bus franchising. Clause 22 repeals the ban on the creation of new local authority bus companies, formerly referred to as municipals. The clause also clarifies that there are no geographical restrictions, as I mentioned, and I already touched on it being a local decision.

New clause 39, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, to conduct an assessment of the potential and efficacy of LABCo service provision compared to private sector operators. I feel it is necessary to reiterate a key point about many of the measures in the Bill: it gives local authorities the choice to decide how best to operate local bus services for their communities. It does not mandate that they establish a particular bus operating model. The number and type of LABCos set up will therefore depend on local decision making and the available resources in each context. Local authorities already set out their objectives in bus service improvement plans and wider local transport policies in local transport plans. For those considering establishing a LABCo, the enhanced partnership variance process or franchising scheme assessment provides a robust way to assess the evidence for choosing one operating model over another.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments, valiant though they were. I therefore intend to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Government amendments 18 and 19 will have the effect of removing services operating in Wales from the scope of clause 24(4). Amendment 18 will mean that only services that have stopping places in England will be captured. Amendment 19 will mean that, in relation to a cross-border bus service, no information will be captured about any part of that service operating outside England. The changes are necessary because bus registration is a devolved matter.

Clause 24 will give the Secretary of State new powers in respect of the provision of information on the registration, variation and cancellation of bus services from operators and local transport authorities. It will enable information about local bus services to flow to, and be shared between, the traffic commissioner and the Secretary of State. The traffic commissioner will retain overall responsibility for registering local bus services and the Secretary of State will host and administer the new database, which will bring all the information streams together.

Useful information will be available online, including on who operates the route, where services go and any changes or cancellations to services. By bringing that all online, we will modernise the information provision and make it more transparent for passengers. The technical detail will be set out in regulations made under the new powers in the Bill.

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendment 28, which would add

“accessibility and the provision of wheelchair spaces”

as a specific category of data that the Secretary of State may require from bus operators. I agree that open, transparent information about the accessibility specifications of buses should be available to the public, which is why I am pleased to confirm that we were already intending to use the powers in the clause to request the very same information.

Clause 25 works with clause 24 to enhance oversight, promote data-driven decision making and ensure greater transparency of local bus services. It paves the way to require franchising authorities, which do not have to register services with the traffic commissioners, to provide data about their services to the Secretary of State in order to enable the functioning of the aforementioned database. The clause also adds new categories of data that the Secretary of State may collect about local services and the vehicles used to operate them, and will assist with the monitoring and performance of local services and operators.

Clause 26 works in tandem with clauses 24 and 25 to support greater public transparency and thus accountability over local bus services. It will enable the Department to publish historical data down to the operator level by removing some of the existing restrictions on doing so. That will provide passengers with a baseline from which they can assess the performance of current bus services.

Although the existing data provides a good overview of bus services on the whole, having visibility of the business and operations of a specific identifiable operator will ensure that passengers have trust in their local service and confidence that, if they choose to take the bus, it will meet their needs. Clause 26 achieves that by amending the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 to enable the publication of existing operator-level bus data. It states that the Secretary of State must give notice to the industry prior to the publication of such data.

Section 9 of the 1947 Act sets out rules governing the disclosure and publication of information collected under the Act. In particular, it requires the consent of individual undertakings before information identifying them can be published. Disapplying the requirements in section 9 will allow the Department to publish operator-level information collected during the qualifying period, even in cases where written consent cannot reasonably be obtained from a large number of the individual operators concerned. These provisions will enable the timely and transparent publication of operator-level bus data, improving access to information while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have struggled with some clauses in the Bill, but clause 24 is perhaps the most opaque of all the clauses we have been asked to consider. It takes quite a while to go through all the references to work out what the clause actually means, but once that is done, it becomes clear that it is in fact a tidy-up exercise of the requirement for the registration of local services to the traffic commissioner. It maintains equivalent obligations in Wales as apply to England and ensures that the Transport Act 1985 is read through the lens of subsequent data protections.

The clause also retains the existing power of a traffic commissioner to refuse registration of a scheme if they believe that the applicant has not given them such information as they may reasonably require in connection with the application. The manner and type of such communication will be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations—okay.

The one area that I have some concerns about is clause 24(4), which deals with powers conferred on the Secretary of State, as it appears to go much further than the reasons given in the explanatory notes for why subsection (4) is necessary. I will read a short paragraph from the explanatory notes:

“Subsection (4) enables Traffic Commissioners to share existing registration information with the Secretary of State. It also ensures Traffic Commissioners can provide information about ongoing applications for the registration, variation or cancellation of services received before this clause comes into force”.

That is the rationale behind subsection (4), but its wording gives unfettered power to the Secretary of State to use any information, provided for any purpose, without restriction. The subsection states:

“in which case the information is provided without restrictions on its disclosure or use”.

Why do I care about this, and why is it potentially important? It is simply because the information about a scheme could be deeply commercially sensitive. Not every bus company is a LABCo; there are private sector operators in competition with one another. The commissioner can reasonably require full details of how an operation will be undertaken, including its financial elements. The current drafting of subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to disclose that deeply commercially sensitive information. Operators are required to give that information to the traffic commissioner—without it, the commissioner could refuse to grant an application—and the Secretary of State then gets their hands on it and can do whatever they want with it, without restriction on its disclosure or use. I highlight that point to Minister and, through him, to officials. Why should the Secretary of State have such a wide-ranging power? It is not necessary for the purposes of the Bill, as set out in the explanatory notes, and it just seems to have slipped through the gap. Can the Minister please explain why?

Government amendment 18 makes a technical correction and I have no objection to it. I will also skip over Government amendment 19, in the interest of speed, for the benefit of the Government Whip.

Clause 25 amends section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that require franchising authorities to provide data about services, akin to registration information, which we have just talked about. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the collection and publication of additional categories of information.

The intention of clause 25 is to obtain a better understanding of the nature of the services that are currently being provided, who is providing them and how they are doing so, including an understanding of the vehicles used, the number of staff engaged and the cost. I am developing a bit of theme here, but so what? What will the Government do with this information? Why is it useful? In itself, it does not change behaviour. I am not against the collation of the information, so long as it used to good effect, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of how he intends to use it.

Clause 26 deals with information obtained under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, which gives powers to competent authorities to require organisations to provide data, for economic forecasting, in essence—the kind of data that is used by the Government Statistical Service. Section 9 of the 1947 Act prevents the disclosure of such information that identifies an individual undertaking without the prior written consent of the provider of the information.

That is obviously very sensible. The Government want to find out what is happening in the economy to inform their policies, so under the 1947 Act they gave themselves power to require businesses to provide interesting information about their operations. As an aside, I used to run a business, which was asked for information by the Bank of England on a quarterly or perhaps six-monthly basis so that it could get a feeling for what was happening in the economy. It did not want the Westminster bubble or the square mile bubble; it looked at the real, lived experience of businesses. Those businesses provide useful data, which informs interest rate decisions and Government policy. But the last thing a businessman wants is for that information to be sent out into the public realm with their name attached to it. If they said, “Oh, isn’t it terrible? Orders have gone through the floor and we’re planning to lay a whole load of people off,” they would not want that information to be in the public domain; they provide it in confidence.

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

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Simon Lightwood

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 ---

[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]

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 ---

[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.

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

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Simon Lightwood

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Lightwood]

The clause is about mobilisation periods for franchising areas. Existing law states that there must be a period of at least six months between the franchising contracts being made and those services first being delivered on the ground. The clause will enable franchising authorities to set shorter mobilisation periods that work for them and their stakeholders, if they wish. That will speed up the franchising process and ensure that bus passengers do not have to wait for an arbitrary period before experiencing the benefits.

Clause 6 amends references to local services by inserting the words

“which have one or more stopping places”

in certain sections of the Transport Act 2000. That is intended to clarify that the relevant reference to local services includes cross-border services where appropriate. These technical changes support the Bill’s focus on giving franchising authorities more scope to facilitate the provision of cross-border services.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Allin-Khan.

Clause 5 deals with the minimum period before provision of services can be changed. It is not a difficult clause, but it is worth going into some of the subsections in a bit more detail. Subsection (1) omits section 123H(4) of the 2000 Act, which set out that a franchising scheme

“may not specify under subsection (2)(d) or (3)(c) a period of less than six months.”

That meant that at least six months had to expire between the authority making a local service contract and the provision of the local service under that contract.

Clause 5(2) sets out that the transition arrangements in subsection (3) apply where, before the clause comes into force, the franchising authority or authorities have published under section 123E(2) of the 2000 Act a consultation document relating to a scheme or variation of a scheme, but have not yet made the scheme or varied it. Clause 5(3) provides that when making or varying the franchising scheme pursuant to the consultation document, the franchising authority or authorities may specify a minimum period, under sections 123H(2)(d) or 123H(3)(c) of the 2000 Act, that is less than six months.

Although I understand that the Minister and his Department want to smooth out some of the hindrances and streamline the system, and in principle I am supportive of that, the question that begs to be asked is: is there no de minimis period? It may be considered that a six-month period is too long, but what about a one-week period? Is that too short? As drafted, the clause does not provide a de minimis period. What would be the impact on franchise operators if there were an instantaneous change? That is a significant issue that needs to be considered, because we are dealing with operators that are commercial beasts. They have infrastructure, and drivers and staff that have to accommodate changes to these schemes, and yet the Government’s proposed changes would in theory allow there to be no notice at all.

I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Department’s, or the Government’s, thinking on this matter. I accept that six months is itself an arbitrary time limit. Why is it not seven, or five? I accept the rationale, which is that we wish to streamline the provisions in order to make it easier for local transport authorities to undertake these changes and take advantage of some of the opportunities that the Bill provides, but it is important for it to be practical and not to have unintended consequences for bus operators and their commercial activities.

Clause 6 amends sections 123E(4)(a), 123N(2)(a), 123Q(5)(a) and 123R(5)(a) of the 2000 Act. Before I go any further, it is worth reflecting that the reason why the clause is so complicated in its nomenclature is that there have been multiple amendments to the Transport Act. Although I have not researched it, some of that presumably came about through the deliberations of this House when the legislation was drafted, but there have subsequently been multiple alterations.

It begs the question of our approach to legislation in this place when an Act is so often amended. It makes it very difficult, one imagines, for people and organisations—local transport authorities, in particular—to understand what their duties and legal responsibilities are. In many instances, these are not recommendations; they are mandatory requirements, with which failure to comply could lead to judicial review and the kind of lawfare that we as a society often rail against, because we feel that the Government—and by that, I also mean local transport authorities in this instance—cannot get anything done because they are being tripped up by incredibly complex legislation with poor drafting that requires multiple amendments. That is how we get to a “section 123Q(5)(a)”—but that was a slight aside.

Clause 6 further amends the Transport Act by adding to all those subsections the words

“which have one or more stopping places”

after the references to “local services”. In itself, it is a wholly good amendment, and I am not seeking to criticise it. It clarifies that the references to “local services” incorporate any service that has a stopping place in the relevant area, including cross-boundary services operating pursuant to a service permit. However, I wonder whether this clarification was necessary in practice. I would be interested to know whether there have been any instances of local transport authorities being misled by the current drafting—I would be surprised if there had been—or any legal challenge to the current definitions that highlighted a need to clarify an ambiguity. Subject to that clarification from the Minister, I accept that there is nothing wrong with the amendment made by the clause. It is a useful clarification of the Transport Act 2000, to avoid doubt in interpretation, if, in fact, such doubt has ever existed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Simon Lightwood

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

Absolutely, and that is why I was so proud to chair the first bus manufacturers expert panel in March. That is a year-long project with bus operators, bus manufacturers and mayors across the country to try to forge a smooth pipeline of orders to support our fantastic UK manufacturers.

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

The Government know that bus franchising is commercially risky and very expensive for any local authority. We know that because Transport for London costs taxpayers £650 million a year in subsidy, and Andy Burnham’s Bee Network in Greater Manchester is currently on course for an annual deficit of £226 million, when its business plan was for a forecast profit. What is the point of giving risky franchising powers to every local authority in the country when the Government do not provide the money to support them?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not take any lectures from the Conservatives under whose watch we saw 300 million fewer bus miles. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman in Committee and in various exchanges, the full fat franchising—as it is commonly known—in Greater Manchester is only one kind of franchising available to local authorities. Various other methods are available to different areas, including the model adopted in places such as Jersey, which is a partnership between the private operators and the local transport authority so that they can benefit from its skills and knowledge.

I do not recognise—and I have corrected this in Committee—the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes for Greater Manchester, which is performing fantastically, delivering better, more affordable, greener, smoother and reliable services for the people of Manchester.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that answer, and we have four hours of Bill Committee later today to rehearse the arguments yet again. In an earlier answer, the Minister said that he is providing £1 billion of support for buses in this financial year, but surely he knows that £700 million goes to help local authorities navigate the huge administrative burdens that come with franchising and the other schemes that the Government have in mind. That leaves just £255 million for actual bus services across the whole of England. That is only enough to satisfy Andy Burnham for a year, yet we have full fat being pursued by Liverpool and West Midlands. I ask again: where is the money to support those ambitions?

[Simon Lightwood]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, places such as Greater Manchester are part of the group of authorities that have received £15.6 billion to spend in their local areas. It is important to recognise the extraordinary performance of buses in Greater Manchester. Once again, we are not telling local areas which model to adopt for buses: it could be franchising or enhanced partnerships, as well as removing the barrier to municipal bus companies.

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

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Simon Lightwood

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Lightwood]

Clause 2 removes the requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. The measure puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field. It also removes from the process an administrative step that does not provide an effective check on local transport authorities’ plans, given that it occurs before a franchising assessment is produced. I am confident that the measure will make franchising more attractive to local transport authorities by speeding up the overall process.

New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, would require authorities to publish a statement that outlines their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence for deciding whether franchising is the best option to achieve their aims, before they initiate the formal process. The Department for Transport has established franchising guidance; to require local authorities to provide an up-front statement during an exploratory stage would be premature. The franchising scheme assessment also provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise.

Although local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to investigate the right bus model for their area, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The new clause would also make the franchising process slower and undermine the Government’s ambition to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective.

New clause 18 would require local authorities to publish the costs associated with franchised bus services operated by local authority-owned bus companies. Authorities are already subject to statutory requirements to publish detailed information on their spending and financial performance. Under the 2015 local government transparency code, they must regularly publish data on all expenditure over £500, and are required to produce and make publicly available their annual statements of accounts, which are subject to external audit and public scrutiny. The framework ensures a high level of financial transparency and public accountability, making such an additional burden on authorities unnecessary.

New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes that includes specific information on rural and suburban areas and coastal communities. The Department for Transport has published franchising guidance, including on the consideration of neighbouring authorities and on the requirement to consult affected areas. The Department continuously refines the franchising guidance, and plans to undertake comprehensive updates after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The introduction of piecemeal additions without considering the guidance in its entirety would risk reducing its effectiveness.

In addition to the guidance, the Department supports LTAs through the franchising and bus reform pilot. The ambition is to explore alternative models that may suit a local area and help to provide evidence for the decision. Lessons learned, tools, templates and best practice will be shared throughout the pilot programme.

New clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require franchising authorities to establish a forum of stakeholders to address staffing and employment issues in the franchising area. It seeks to increase accountability in areas that choose to adopt franchising. I am sympathetic to the new clause’s aims, but it is not the role of central Government to prescribe how local transport authorities run their services. Franchising guidance that covers driver welfare already exists, giving the franchising authority scope to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services. The new clause is therefore unnecessary and I hope it will be withdrawn.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 2 amends the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the availability of franchising schemes. It is essentially a facilitating clause to allow for one of the really important changes in the Bill, which is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to any local authority other than mayoral combined authorities when deciding whether to embark on a franchising scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about which system passengers prefer. The way to really judge that is through ridership—how many people take the buses. It is absolutely right that in Greater Manchester, under the Bee Network, there has been a post-pandemic increase in ridership of about 34%, from memory. However, does the Minister not accept that in Norfolk, where there is an enhanced partnership, ridership has increased by more than 40%, and in Essex, another enhanced partnership area, ridership has increased by more than 50%? The point is that it is not the scheme design that is fundamentally important, but the way in which it is approached. Does the Minister accept that we can have outcomes that are just as good—better outcomes, in fact—through enhanced partnerships as we can through franchising?

[Simon Lightwood]

What the shadow Minister failed to hear in my previous remarks is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to buses. This could be done through franchising; it could be done through municipal bus companies or local authority-operated bus companies; or it could be done through strengthened enhanced partnerships.

Let me touch on franchising, because the shadow Minister talks about Manchester as the full-fat model. A huge number of alternative franchising arrangements are available, including the Jersey model, which I will go into in a moment. Within franchising assessments, there will be a detailed investigation that is then checked robustly for assurance purposes. Obviously, the process as it stands does not provide an effective check on local transport authority plans, because it happens before a franchising assessment is produced.

On the Secretary of State’s consent, as I have said, it is not effective because it is at the beginning of the franchising process. The assessment must look at the finances of the proposed scheme and then be independently assured. Different areas will also have different circumstances when pursuing franchising; the Secretary of State is not in a position to scrutinise them all.

On funding and LTA support, £1 billion of funding was announced for 2025-26, £700 million of which was for local authorities to improve bus services. That is not for franchising per se; as I said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The Government are opening up options to local transport authorities. No LTA is being forced to franchise. No LTA has been forced to franchise through the Greater Manchester model, in fact. The Government are looking at how best to support LTAs, including through franchising pilots, which will include elements of rural communities as well. Funding is provided through the bus allocations for LTAs to decide how to spend. The franchising pilots will look at alternative models, one of which could be a joint venture model like the one in Jersey.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister is right, of course, that all sorts of different franchising schemes and mechanisms are available, and I am looking forward to his description of the Jersey model. However, does he not recognise and accept that, of the authorities that have expressed a direction of travel so far, both Liverpool and West Midlands have also decided to go down what I have described as the full-fat model? It is not just Manchester being an outlier. It is likely that the Bill will ensure—in fact, it is happening already—that full fat is seen as the direction of travel. Does the Minister not think that that is correct?

[Simon Lightwood]

I concede that, at the moment, it tends to be city regions that are looking at franchising, which is why we are doing the pilots to ensure that we have the template approach. We will learn the lessons from the various different franchising models that could be used. As we announced at the spending review, York and North Yorkshire is one of the areas that would be ideally suited to demonstrate the effectiveness of franchising in a rural setting. There was a comment about coastal communities, so let me just put this on the record: this South Shields-born, not SW1-postcoded MP knows full well the importance of buses to coastal and rural communities. In fact, I am the son of a bus driver as well. [Interruption.] I have ticked all the boxes—he was not a toolmaker, though.

Let me touch on Manchester. The figures quoted on franchising costs in Manchester refer to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network, supporting economic growth, greater productivity, access to homes and so on. In 2024-25, the cost of operating the franchised bus network was about £151 million, but it would be misleading to compare that with the £226 million in an attempt to argue that costs have inflated year on year. Greater Manchester was only partway through the three-phase transition to franchising during ’24-25, so the cost was accordingly lower. Transport for Greater Manchester was operating only half of the full network for the majority—nine months—of ’24-25. There is very little additional cost resulting from the adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester, and evidence to date shows that this model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.

Bus depots in Greater Manchester were required to ensure a level playing field when procuring franchised operators; otherwise, there would be an inherent advantage, of course, to incumbent operators. Depot acquisition also recognises the importance of investing to bring infrastructure up to modern standards to deliver a quality service and electrification of the fleet.

Turning to local authority bus companies—LABCos or municipal bus companies—there is a level playing field for arm’s length LABCos, which the existing ones in England are, and for private operators. There is existing legislation and regulations around local authority bus companies.

There will be different ways that LTAs can franchise. Rural areas, for example, could look to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network. It is right to recognise the successes that there have been in Jersey. When I visited in April, I saw at first hand the benefits of franchising and what it has delivered for passengers. A small team have successfully introduced franchising in rural areas. Although that offers useful lessons for rural and suburban communities in England, Jersey offers just one model, and there will be particular local transport challenges and opportunities in other places. Far from stipulating the one-size-fits-all Greater Manchester model, we are exploring and working with local transport authorities throughout the country to demonstrate different forms of franchising to make that a success.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Specification of areas

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Debate between Jerome Mayhew and Simon Lightwood

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on raising the important topic of connectivity in the north-west—an area that was a cradle to so many transport innovations and is home to beautiful countryside and some of our greatest cities and towns. It is not quite Yorkshire, but it is still a pretty special place.

Kick-starting economic growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and the economic performance of the north-west is vital to successful delivery. It is essential that we deliver our plan for change to create more jobs, put more money in people’s pockets and help to rebuild Britain—but, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, we cannot have good growth without the transport connectivity to support it.

A truly connected transport network must be designed and built in collaboration with local leaders. That is why the English devolution White Paper published last year is so important. It is an opportunity to reset our relationship with local and sub-national government and to empower local leaders and mayors to make the right decisions for their communities. We are already seeing the benefits across mayoral areas with the introduction of the Bee network in Greater Manchester, alongside mayors in the Liverpool city region and West Yorkshire who are working towards taking back control of their buses. I will just put on the record how pleased I was to hear yesterday that South Yorkshire will also be taking back control of its buses.

The Government will be still more ambitious, however. First, we will make the process for taking buses back into public control faster and simpler through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill. Secondly, we will give mayors a statutory role in governing, managing and planning the rail network, working alongside Great British Railways. Thirdly, through the English devolution Bill, we will put the roles of mayors on a primary footing, setting out a clear and broad set of powers that will be available to mayors and local leaders.

Our transport network has seen decades of decay. Communities have been cut off and short-changed. Fragmented networks have hindered meaningful change, and the state of our local roads is a result of past under-investment. We are determined to reverse that. An uplift of £200 million was secured at the autumn spending review for city region sustainable transport settlement areas for 2025-26, which was welcomed by the mayoral combined authorities, including Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region, which are receiving over £1.7 billion from the current CRSTS programme.

The autumn Budget announcement also included a commitment of over £650 million in local transport funding in 2025-26 to ensure that transport connections improve in towns, villages and rural areas, and a funding uplift of £500 million for 2025-26 for highways maintenance. Of that £500 million, the north-west region is receiving over £64.8 million in additional funding. In the Budget the Government confirmed investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services and keep fares affordable. Local transport authorities across the north-west have been allocated nearly £150 million for the 2025-26 financial year.

The Government are committed to improving transport across the north, including boosting rail connectivity from east to west. We are already taking forward the trans-Pennine route upgrade—TRU—which will improve rail performance and support growth and housing by reducing journey times and providing more passenger services on the line between Manchester and York. We are delivering the Manchester taskforce programme, which is central to the Government’s ambitious multibillion-pound rail investment across the north. As announced in the autumn Budget, we are maintaining momentum on Northern Powerhouse Rail by progressing planning and design works to support its future delivery.

On our strategic road network we are developing a five-year third road investment strategy that will cover 2026 to 2031. The RIS will be published before the end of 2025. Our vision is for a network that connects more people to more places, making our day-to-day journeys easier and simpler, and building a network that can attract investment, whether that is through boosting efficiency or unlocking land for development.

The integrated national transport strategy will be published this year and will set a long-term vision for transport in England, focusing on how transport should be designed, built and operated to better serve all the people who use it and enable them to live fulfilling lives. We will develop the strategy through collaborative and open engagement with our stakeholders and people who use transport.

It is impossible for me to cover every point raised today, but I will touch on a few. On Northern Rail, it has been made really clear to Northern’s management that the current performance is not acceptable. That is why Rail North Partnership, through which the Department for Transport and Transport for the North jointly manage Northern’s contract, issued it with a notice of breach of contract, which has required Northern to produce a detailed plan to improve its services.

On HS2, transport is an essential part of our mission to rebuild Britain, and I am committed to delivering infrastructure that works for the whole country and of course to improving rail connectivity across the midlands and the north. My ministerial colleagues and I are carefully reviewing the position we have inherited on HS2 and wider rail infrastructure.

On the previous Government’s commitments on investment, I will just remind the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about the £22 billion black hole. They left this Government to pick up the pieces.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way.

We acknowledge that rates of step-free access remain low across Great Britain, which is why the Access for All programme is working to address that. In the Greater Manchester area—