Bus Services Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Lilian Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Jones]

I suspect we are going to have a further outburst of Tuesday’s agreeing with each other. Helping passengers with information on how bus services in their areas can meet their transport needs will put more passengers on to buses. That is fundamental to what the Bill is about and why the clause is central to the Bill.

Amendment 12 agreed to.



Amendments made: 13, in clause 18, page 74, line 22, after “routes,” insert “stopping places,”.

This amendment and amendment 14 ensure that information about stopping places is included in the types of information that can be required by regulations under new section 141A of the Transport Act 2000.

Amendment 14, in clause 18, page 74, line 23, at end insert “stopping places,”.—(Andrew Jones.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 13.

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Variation or cancellation of registration: service information

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 19, page 76, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “shall”.

This amendment would specify that regulations will require, rather than may require, operators to provide prescribed information.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 32, in clause 19, page 76, line 13, leave out from “application” to end of line 14.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 31.

[Lilian Greenwood]

It is a pleasure to be back in the Bill Committee and serving under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I hope the Minister will accept the amendments as being helpful and seeking to improve the Bill.

I will begin by explaining the background. The Competition Commission completed an investigation into bus markets in 2011 and recommended that the Government give local transport authorities powers to obtain revenue and patronage information for de-registered services and the right to disclose that information to potential bidders for subsequent tenders. It also recommended a 14-day pre-notification period preceding formal service registrations, variations and withdrawals, which I think was partly aimed at curbing undesirable operator behaviour—bus wars—but was also relevant to its recommendation regarding supported services, specifically in relation to the provision of revenue and patronage information. However, it was not specific in its report about whether those data should be provided by default, or whether the onus should be on local transport authorities to request it. I contend that providing those data should be the default, rather than it having to be requested every time.

Fundamentally, the amendment is about efficiency—the efficient operation of the tendered bus services market and the efficient administration of that market, both of which have clear implications for public funds. It would not be a significant burden on operators to provide the data by default because a competent operator would already have the data to hand, as they would have been vital in informing their decision to withdraw or vary the service.

Nowadays, data are available in electronic form, so it would be fairly straightforward for the local transport authority to agree with operators a standard format for the provision of data. Many have already done so for financially supported services. Service changes where the provision of data is not necessary—for instance, normal frequency increases or minor time changes—can be specified in the regulations, making it clear what data the local transport authority is entitled to.

On the contrary, it would be an administrative burden, both for local transport authorities and operators, for the data to be requested and provided on an ad hoc basis. If the data were provided at the start of the pre-notification period, the local transport authority could make initial preparations for whether and how to replace most effectively the commercial service and, if appropriate, challenge the operator’s intention. That could result in either the operator continuing to provide the service commercially or amending the variation, so that less public sector service support was required.

Provision of the data to all potential bidders would encourage more and better-informed bids, which would result in more competitive prices, a lower risk of successful bidders being unable to sustain the service and, therefore, a lower risk of the need to retender the service, with associated administration costs and potential disruption to passengers. It would, of course, reduce the ability of operators to game the system by withdrawing or reducing a profitable service in the expectation of regaining the service when it was put out to tender.

In summary, having information available as quickly as possible is essential for supporting efficient passenger services and minimising disruption. The amendment seeks to address concerns raised by the Competition Commission and to implement its recommendations most effectively. Making provision of information the default and automatic removes unnecessary bureaucracy. Any draft regulations should align with the provision, making it clear that when an operator applies to vary or cancel a service registered under section 6, the operator should automatically disclose the information to the authority.

[Andrew Jones]

I will speak to amendments 31 and 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham South. They would require operators to provide the prescribed information automatically, without the local authority having to request it. The purpose of clause 19 is to improve competition in the supported services market by putting all bidders on an even footing, which is clearly positive.

Where an operator chooses to reduce or withdraw a service, the clause should help prevent incumbent operators from having an unfair advantage when preparing a bid, if the local authority decides to tender for a replacement service.

Not all local authorities will want to provide a subsidised service. If the requirement to provide information were automatic, it could present an unnecessary burden on both the operator and the council when there is no intention to proceed. They would simply be required to provide information to the local authority, even if no one intends to make use of it.

There is nothing in the provisions to prevent a local authority whose default position is always to consider tendering for replacement service from reaching an agreement with operators in their area for the information to be provided automatically, but compelling such activities regardless of need seems unnecessary and a bit excessive.

I hope that explanation and the reassurances are helpful to the Committee and that the hon. Lady feels able to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

It is addressed by the fact that the local authority can request, at its instigation, data from the bus operator to prevent that from happening. It will have transparency on that. I am aware of such things happening in theory—the case was made by the hon. Member for Nottingham South—but the system is there to prevent that from happening. The question is whether the information is given at the request of the local authority or automatically, regardless of need.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does the Minister not think that it could reduce bureaucracy if operators knew that they would always have to provide that information, rather than the local authority having a limited period to request the information and the operator then having to go away and find it? If it is readily available, as it must be if the operator has considered withdrawing or amending a service, surely it would be simpler if operators always provided that information.

[Andrew Jones]

The information will clearly be available, because the operator will be making a commercial decision, based on information. However, if the authority has no intention of taking it forward, do we need to go ahead with this proposal, or is it excessive? If sufficient interest in doing so is expressed in the current consultation, I am happy to consider adding a mechanism in the draft regulations under the clause to allow a local authority to notify operators if it wishes always to receive such information, but otherwise I think that it is excessive.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for that assurance. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Andrew Jones]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 19, page 76, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) In this section “local transport authority” has the meaning given in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000.”’

This amendment adds a definition of a term, “local transport authority”, which appears in the clause.

Clause 19 provides powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations that enable local transport authorities to request information on the revenue and patronage of commercial bus services that are being withdrawn or reduced, and to disclose that information to bidders for subsequent tenders. Amendment 15 is a little dry and technical. It basically adds a definition to the term “local transport authority” to clarify that it has the same meaning as in section 108(4) of the Transport Act 2000. It is necessary because otherwise there would be no clarity about the definition of a local transport authority in proposed new section 6C of the Transport Act 1985.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Bus companies: limitation of powers of authorities in England

“(1) A relevant authority may not, in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether the relevant authority is acting alone or with any other person.

(3) In this section—

“company” has the same meaning as in the Companies Acts (see sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the Companies Act 2006);

“form a company” is to be construed in accordance with section 7 of the Companies Act 2006;

“local service” has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1985 (see section 2 of that Act);

“Passenger Transport Executive”, in relation to an integrated transport area in England or a combined authority area, means the body which is the Executive in relation to that area for the purposes of Part 2 of the Transport Act 1968;

“relevant authority” means—

(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) an Integrated Transport Authority for an integrated transport area in England;

(e) a Passenger Transport Executive for—

(i) an integrated transport area in England, or

(ii) a combined authority area.”—(Andrew Jones.)

This amendment prohibits county and district councils in England, combined and integrated authorities in England and passenger transport executives in England from setting up companies to provide local services.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

New clause 3 would require all bus drivers, as well as staff at bus terminals, to complete approved disability, equality and awareness training. That training should include mental and physical disabilities, including hidden disabilities, and make particular mention of those on the autistic spectrum.

An EU regulation on the rights of bus and coach passengers came into force in March 2013, and its chapter 3 relates to disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility. We are aware that the UK legislated to provide certain exemptions to the regulation’s requirements, including from the article 16(1) requirement for disability awareness training for personnel of carriers and terminal-managing bodies. In 2014, the then Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), said:

“This exemption was applied in line with Government policy on adopting any EU legislation, to make full use of any derogation that would reduce costs to business. This policy ensures that UK businesses are not put at a competitive disadvantage compared with their European counterparts.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 173WH.]

Put as bluntly as that, it rather sounds as though the Government’s view is: “Stuff passengers, stuff safety; all that counts is cost to business.” I am sure the Minister will be able to set me right on that.

The UK’s five-year exemption from the EU directive requiring bus drivers and terminal staff to go undergo disability awareness training runs out in 2018. Given that the future status of such protections and exemptions is uncertain, we think it would be helpful to introduce clarity around mandatory disability, equality and awareness training. We understand from the guidance that the Government intend to do that, but given that the exemption is likely to still be running when the so-called great repeal Bill is brought forward, we believe it should be put in the Bill to ensure that it actually goes forward.

In 2014, the Government reviewed the exemption under article 16(2) to see whether drivers were receiving adequate disability training. The published responses showed, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the bus industry thought it was doing enough overall, while disabled people thought that it was not. My colleagues in the other place submitted an amendment but withdrew it following assurances from the Government Benches that

“there will be means other than this Bill to address any need to ensure that these requirements continue to apply to bus operators in the UK once we leave the European Union…We recognise the importance of driver disability training and are developing guidance to help implement it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2016; Vol. 774, c. 665.]

I see no reason why the Bill should not be the means to address mandatory disability awareness training for bus workers—after all, it is a Bill about buses. We hope for a positive response.

The Government’s amendment on audio-visual systems, which I will return to, is linked to buses in a similar away. It seems fitting that an amendment on disability awareness training could be included in the Bill to put our minds at rest. The draft regulations say that the Government are developing best practice in delivering disability awareness training, but to me that sounds like the training would still be optional and not nationally mandated. Particularly concerning is the comment that:

“Britain will in due course be leaving the EU. Until we do so we will meet our legal obligations.”

That sounds like a minimalist approach, and the Opposition believe that we need to do better.

As I mentioned earlier, we are keen that disability awareness training also covers hidden disabilities such as neurological conditions. The Government funded national training for bus drivers as part of the Think Autism strategy, but we would like to see that go further in its scope and for the Secretary of State to ensure that training meets the needs of passengers with all forms of hidden disabilities.

In December 2015, when the then Secretary of State for Transport was asked if he would consider encouraging bus companies to give their staff more disability awareness training, he said:

“I will certainly give encouragement—not that they should need it—to the bus companies to make sure that facilities for disabled people are available and that their staff know the right way of making those facilities available to them. That is incumbent on all bus companies.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1136.]

However, in 2014, the Government estimated that only about three quarters of all bus and coach drivers had completed some form of disability awareness training.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend welcomed the Government’s change of heart on the provision of audio-visual indicators. However, many examples show why that is not sufficient and why we need the wider disability awareness training. I saw a piece by Patrick Robert, who travels with his guide dog. He said:

“I have had…some bad experience with bus drivers not stopping at the bus stop but a few metres away. Obviously if a bus driver does not stop in front of me, it makes it impossible for me to discuss with them and check the bus number.”

Does that not precisely show the mismatch? If bus drivers do not have sufficient disability awareness training, even if there is an audio-visual system on the bus, they might not even stop to allow a person with a visual impairment to get on.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that example, which clarifies the point. I doubt whether there is any disagreement on wanting better standards among drivers and on ensuring that they are properly trained to spot all these issues. In the end, the way to drive up standards is not to rely on voluntarism. We all know from our own experiences that many good employers will do that, but some will not. A level playing field where good employers are not disadvantaged is all we seek. This is a chance to offer the good employers a helping hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I rise to support new clauses 3 and 4 and to speak to new clauses 7 and 9. Let me begin with new clause 7. My hon. Friend mentioned the Supreme Court decision in the case of FirstGroup Plc v. Paulley, which attracted a great deal of interest and led to the need for further clarification, which new clause 7 seeks to provide. Perhaps it would be helpful to remind the Committee of the Paulley case, which gave rise to the need for a change.

What happened to Mr Paulley was typical of the experience of many wheelchair users who attempt to board buses. He was told that he could not get on a bus because the women whose pushchair was occupying the wheelchair space refused to move. Mr Paulley was successful in winning his case through the Supreme Court, which held that FirstGroup’s policy did not go far enough, and that the driver should have done more to assist in securing the space for Mr Paulley. FirstGroup was not under an obligation to have a priority policy for wheelchair users requiring that someone who unreasonably refused to vacate the wheelchair space had to leave the bus. Effectively, that means that a priority policy for wheelchair users lacks the teeth of enforcement. That is despite the fact that, under conduct regulations, someone who is eating smelly food or otherwise causing a nuisance and refuses to stop can be asked to leave the vehicle. That seems out of kilter.

The new clause addresses the issue of an enforceable priority for wheelchair users by enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations so that priority for wheelchair users means just that: if a person unreasonably refuses to vacate space, they may be required to leave the vehicle. They would be required to vacate the space only if it was reasonable. If, for example, they had a disability—for example, if they had a guide dog or a walking frame—and therefore required the wheelchair space, they would not be acting unreasonably by refusing to vacate the space. As a last resort, the new clause provides the power to require an individual who unreasonably refuses to leave the space to leave the vehicle. Other options could be considered before such action is taken, such as stopping the bus, which might be done when people refuse to make payment.

In considering that, Lady Hale, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, recognised that the duty to make reasonable adjustment is a duty owed only to disabled people. She said that

“service providers owe positive duties towards disabled people, including wheelchair users, which they do not owe to other members of the travelling public, including parents travelling with small children in baby buggies or other people travelling with bulky luggage...Disabled people are, for very good reasons, a special case.”

That does not mean that I do not recognise the sensitivities and complexities of the issue.

Despite the public awareness brought about by the Paulley case, many disabled passengers still struggle to use the bus regularly because of conflict over the space being occupied by a pram, buggy or bulky luggage. Transport for All has been incredibly effective in advocating change and in highlighting the impact that the lack of clarity has on its members as they try to go about their daily lives.

For example, Jeff Harvey of Camden says:

“I have missed trains, missed events, been late to work meetings and classes when I was a student, and had 3 buses in a row refuse to allow me to board because the space was occupied…Every time I try to board a bus, I feel stressed because I have to be ready for an argument with the driver and/or other passengers, ready to try to raise my voice enough to be heard from the pavement”.

Someone wanting to use a bus simply should not have to feel that way just because they happen to have a disability.

Mark Wilson, a power chair user, says:

“I have been left at bus stops many, many times because there was a parent with a child’s buggy using the wheelchair space and they would not move, and the driver felt unable to ask them, let alone compel them, to move. On average I cannot board a bus due to this buggy effect on one in nine journeys, which is a big number if you consider I might use the bus for four journeys in one day”.

That shows some of the issues that disabled people face.

[Bridget Phillipson]

My hon. Friend raises some important points. We would all hope that common sense would come into those cases. Speaking as a parent who has ridden on buses with a pushchair, I would always give priority to someone using a wheelchair or who had a disability. Given that conflicts can arise and can be stressful for disabled passengers, greater clarity would make things easier for everyone using buses, and enable them to understand what is required of them.

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is right. The amendment is not intended to put drivers into impossible situations. I recognise that they often try to deal with such matters helpfully. I would not want confrontations to arise between drivers and passengers who might be unwilling to move. However, the provision would arm drivers with legal backing, making it easier for them to pave the way for wheelchair users to get access to the space.

I recognise that many drivers in the industry receive disability awareness training and do all they can to help passengers with a range of disabilities to get on the bus, but that should happen everywhere, at all times, and the drivers should have the backing of the law in making sure that wheelchair users’ rights are protected. If guidance came from the Department, that would not be all. The issue is about raising public awareness, and about people understanding the impact. I hope such conflicts would then arise less often.

Bus operators could address the matter through their choice of vehicle design. There is a good argument for two spaces—one for a wheelchair user and a separate one for buggies and luggage. I have seen some buses with a large number of tip-up seats that could be used on routes where it is known that problems tend to arise. Nevertheless, back-up for drivers in dealing with situations could be important.

Under subsection (3) of the new clause, priority wheelchair spaces would mean that a wheelchair user has priority over a space unless it is not reasonable for passengers to move. Passengers must give up the space for the wheelchair user if it is reasonable to do so, and—this gives it the teeth of being required by regulation —a passenger who unreasonably refuses may, if necessary, be required to get off the bus. That has hopefully dealt with new clause 7.

New clause 9 would require operators to publish their accessibility policies. Essentially, it supports the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge requiring bus operators to have accessibility policies. It seems entirely right that, if they have them, they should also be required to publish them. Buses are a particularly important form of travel for disabled people, but standards of accessibility vary greatly among bus companies—some are really excellent and others leave something to be desired. Disabled people using public transport need to know in advance what provision is made, and should not face a postcode lottery.

The Government say they want an integrated transport policy. I am sure we would all agree with that, but we need consistency for that to happen. Without it, disabled people may not have the confidence to travel, especially when they have to cross different local authority areas or use different modes of transport. I have seen the experience of Claire Lindsey from Greenwich, who has talked about travelling on the tube as an autistic person. She says that she needs to have a fixed daily routine and know what is going to happen:

“This routine means always needing to travel the same way to and from places. When there are diversions, journey restrictions or cancellations, it doesn’t just irritate me, it can feel like the end of the world and it can cause an ‘autistic meltdown’—an extreme panic attack which causes me to pass out.”

For someone like Claire, using different modes of transport with different levels of protection and accessibility would be hugely problematic.

The proposal is not unreasonable—precisely the same requirements are made of rail operators. When the Bill was in the Lords, an amendment was tabled to introduce a system requiring bus companies to operate policies like the disabled people’s protection policy, which is used across train operators, and it seems reasonable to apply the same to bus operators. I have already mentioned audio-visual indicators. It is welcome that the Government acted on that, and in many ways this measure would simply extend it to all disabled people and the whole range of different disabilities. That should not be onerous, because it is good business and what any employer should be doing under the Equality Act 2010 in any event. Given that we have DPPPs for train companies, there is no reason why something similar could not be developed for bus companies.

The fact that bus companies are not responsible for bus stations and bus stops should not be a reason for not explaining what their policies are and what they are doing to make bus travel accessible. Government guidance for local authorities will help to bridge the gap and complement the requirements on companies. Finally, I hope the Minister is minded to accept my hon. Friend’s new clause requiring bus companies to put in place policies for making their services accessible. It seems entirely reasonable that where they have such policies, they should also publish them.

[Andrew Jones]

We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill, both here and in the other place, that bus services must work for the people they serve. We have heard examples from colleagues this morning about how important buses are for people with disabilities. We know that is the case, and that buses and taxis are the two main modes of transport for people with disabilities.

New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, seeks to require bus drivers and other staff to complete disability awareness training. I am sure the Committee will be pleased to hear that there is much in the new clause that I agree with—I too have met campaigners and charities. Disability awareness training can help transport staff to provide the assistance that disabled people require, and I agree that we should all expect bus drivers to complete it. That is why we fully support the implementation of article 16 of EU regulation 181/2011, which from 1 March next year—a full year before the hon. Gentleman’s proposal would take effect—will require drivers to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

At the core of new clause 4 is a new legal requirement to comply with an existing legal requirement. In the light of the comments I have made, I cannot see the benefit of that.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I want to press the Minister a little further on that. I appreciate that there is already a requirement for bus operators to make reasonable adjustments but, frankly, the Paulley case would not have gone all the way to the Supreme Court if there was not a need for further clarity. If the Minister agrees that the wheelchair space should provide priority to the wheelchair user, rather than others who might wish to use that space, surely such legal clarity would be helpful to drivers who seek to ensure that that right is there for the disabled person. I am not sure I understand why the Minister is reluctant to provide that.

[Andrew Jones]

I will come straight to new clause 7, which the hon. Lady tabled. That new clause seeks to provide the means by which wheelchair users must be given priority use of the wheelchair space on buses. I fully recognise the comments that have been made about how difficult this is for bus drivers. That is clearly a fair and accurate comment. I recognise the challenges that wheelchair users face in accessing bus services. That was set out very clearly and powerfully in the written evidence to the Committee from Mr Paulley.

I have highlighted the work that we are doing to understand the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the provision of reasonable adjustments on buses and to identify what interventions might be required as a consequence. It is my intention that we should hear the advice of disabled people, wider passenger groups and communities, and bus operators themselves before we reach a conclusion on the best course of action.

I can see practical difficulties, as I think did the Supreme Court. We have to recognise that wheelchair users will not be the only passengers with a genuine need to use that space. Interventions should also protect the interests of parents with disabled children, those with walking frames and the owners of assistance dogs. This is a complicated issue and we have to take care to find the most appropriate solution.

We have already contacted people to ask them to join the group that we are pulling together. I recognise that there is a timeliness to this work. I assure the Committee that we will respond proactively to the Supreme Court’s judgment, where a need for Government intervention is identified. Without wishing to prejudge the outcome of our stakeholder discussions, I doubt that any new regulatory powers will be required. A range of existing powers, such as the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990, are available to us, should we need them.

Given that, and with my assurance that this is live work that I will continue to treat with great importance, I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham South will recognise that the new clause is a little premature. We need to work through all the implications, but the good will is clearly there to find a practical way forward for the industry.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I certainly welcome the assurances the Minister has given. I would not wish to prevent that work with stakeholders from being undertaken, but will he give us the likely timescale for that work? I recognise that he is being very helpful, but I think that there will be concern among the wider community, particularly those with disabilities, that this matter has been discussed for some time. Although I am mindful of what he has said, I would like some assurance about when the work will be completed.

[Andrew Jones]

It is right to raise the issue of timing. I think that it took five years for Mr Paulley’s case to go through our legal system. We have already started by making contact with the groups who would like to be involved in that work and we intend it to run during the course of the summer. I entirely recognise the timeliness of this and hope that that provides reassurance.

Finally, new clause 9, which also appears in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham South, would require bus operators to publish policies similar to the DPPPs produced by train and station operators, in order to protect the interests of disabled passengers. My colleague in the other place, Lord Ahmad, looked into this issue in some detail. I, too, have considerable sympathy with the underlying aims of the proposal. I have met campaigners on the issue, including Baroness Campbell of Surbiton. I know that for many disabled people, a lack of information on the accessibility of bus services may well prevent them from travelling at all.

Confidence among disabled people was highlighted in our debate this morning, and I entirely agree with that point. Lack of information may ultimately mean that they are prevented from accessing work or excluded from their local communities. We have, therefore, committed to recommend in the guidance that authorities ensure that information on the accessibility of bus services is made available to passengers. That might be in a form provided by the authority itself or individual operators, but we hope it will be of significant help to disabled passengers in making more informed travel choices.

We have been working on the issue with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which has developed a template that we could use. I am keen to publish that as part of the guidance and to encourage all bus companies to use it. That will keep it simple and bring the information together in a presentable way. I thank DPTAC for that work.

The hon. Member for Nottingham South talked about the difference between guidance and mandation. We are seeing significant progress in our bus industry. More than 94% of buses in England now meet the accessibility standards. We want to make it 100%, but that is good progress. Mandatory disability awareness training will be introduced next year. Our work so far with the industry suggests that the vast majority of drivers have already had or are going through that training.

A requirement for all buses to be talking buses is in the pipeline, as we have just discussed, and there is a clear commitment to advise authorities of our view that disabled people must have the information they require. I believe that our bus sector is making significant progress in meeting the needs of all who wish to use its services.

There is a slight concern that a proposal of the kind made by the hon. Lady could lead to a cumbersome approach, although I recognise that was not her intention, as she made clear. I want companies to be focused on delivering for all passengers the services that they need. I am aware that DPPPs are in play in the rail sector. However, there are only 30 companies in our rail sector and more than 1,000 in our bus sector, so the read-across is a little difficult.

Given that and my clear and unambiguous commitment to make buses, and public transport in general, increasingly accessible for all passengers, including disabled passengers, I hope that the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Nottingham South will be minded not to press their new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Lilian Greenwood]

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

I will be fairly brief. As the Committee will be aware, bus service operators grant is currently paid as a rebate to bus companies. It is calculated based on the amount of fuel they use. It is therefore a direct disincentive to economising fuel consumption and/or moving to low-emission vehicles. The Department itself acknowledged that under the coalition Government in its “Green Light for Better Buses” document of 2012, which states:

“we were…concerned that a system which pays subsidy according to how much fuel a company uses cannot be right for the twenty-first century.”

They were right about that. Back in 2012, they began to devolve funding in some areas, which were known as better bus areas. The results were encouraging.

The new clause simply seeks to build on that work by terminating the payment of the bus service operators grant directly to bus companies, instead passing the money to local authorities, not least to promote the development of better partnership working, which is part of the thrust of the Bill. Where local authorities set up advanced quality partnerships or enhanced partnerships, it would be incredibly helpful if they could incentivise operators to meet the commitments they make under those partnerships. We could call that the carrot. Conversely, the stick would be to penalise poor compliance by limiting the payment of BSOG to operators, thereby helping them to adhere to the partnership work that had been set up. I am sure we would all recognise that sometimes we agree to do something and really do mean to do it, but we need a bit of a prod to remind us. Giving local authorities control over the bus service operators grant would enable them to do just that. It would be very helpful in enabling partnerships to operate effectively.

In 2012, the coalition Government considered further devolution of BSOG. There was a concern that it might lead to a loss of funding for bus services. That is why, in drafting the new clause, I was very clear that, as the funding passed to local authorities, it would be ring-fenced to be spent on local transport. BSOG needs to be used in such a way that passengers see a maintained or even improved local transport service. We would also like to encourage the bus to be greener and more efficient in the long run.

I hope the Minister will consider this a helpful new clause that follows on from other work he has done.

[Andrew Jones]

Each year nearly £180 million of bus service operators grant is paid to commercial bus operators that run local bus services. A further £40 million is paid to local authorities to subsidise socially necessary local bus services that are not commercially viable. In addition, a further £20 million a year is provided in incentives to bus operators, for example to encourage them to install smart ticketing machines or to use low-emission vehicles.

The new clause would abolish the bus service operators grant that is paid to commercial bus services. The funding would be transferred to be spent on local transport services. I simply do not think that would work effectively in practice. Commercial services often run across local government boundaries. If this approach were implemented, decisions taken by one local authority about funding buses could easily have adverse impacts on adjacent areas. Many of the passengers affected would have no way of making their views known at the local ballot box.

There would be no guarantee under the terms of the new clause that the funding would be used for bus services. It could be used on other means of supporting local transport. Nor does the proposal guarantee additional local authority funding for transport. An authority could simply substitute this funding for existing transport funding and divert that resource elsewhere. The proposal could therefore remove support for local transport entirely.

We are undertaking a review of how BSOG is spent in England and hope to publish details of our proposals later this year. We have already committed to devolve BSOG where franchising is implemented. Overall, I believe that it is right that the grant should generally continue to be paid to commercial bus service operators in a revised form. I hope the hon. Lady feels able to withdraw the new clause.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I have listened carefully to the Minister. I welcome news of the work that he intends to do further to consider how the money could be used more effectively to support the development of local services. Clearly, franchising devolution is welcome, and I hope he considers how devolved BSOG could better support advanced quality partnerships and enhanced partnerships. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

To help the Committee, there is an open-ended sitting this morning—we do not have a cut-off point at 1 o’clock. Both Front Benchers have agreed that we will continue with the remaining business rather than reconvene at 2 o’clock.

Clauses 22 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.