Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 30A in my name. I thank the Minister and his team for their engagement during this part, including an email sent rather late last night. Since we last discussed this Bill, about 16 people per day have been injured in bus accidents and one person is killed per month in London alone according to TfL’s own figures. TfL has a Vision Zero policy for bus accidents.

I am sure the House will join me in sending best wishes for a full recovery to those 16 people hospitalised in the recent Victoria bus crash, including my noble friend Lord Alton. As he said to me, you do not expect to pick up a broken back on your Oyster card on the 8.15 journey to Westminster.

I am greatly heartened, however, by the Minister’s response, and I am glad that the Government are sympathetic to the Motion. The road safety strategy sounds like it is going to be a good thing, as long as it looks at this idea of zero tolerance towards accidents, and at Vision Zero. Having seen how much this has been successfully adopted elsewhere, I look forward to the road safety White Paper.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on these amendments; first, about safety. I bring the House’s attention to the fact that, although we had a debate in Committee on the question of safety with regard to blind and disabled people, particularly at bus stops, to speak from memory, my noble friend the Minister said that he would take away the concerns expressed in that debate and come back later. There is a particular problem—and it was debated fully in Committee—about what have been called floating bus stops, so I do not intend to go into it at any great length now. If safety is to mean anything, it must apply to those who wish to use buses as well as those actually on the vehicles.

Since that debate, my attention has been drawn to British Standard 8300-1 of 2018, headed “Design of an accessible and inclusive built environment”, and to paragraph 6.2.2 on bus stops. It was drawn up in January 2018, and the paragraph on bus stops reads:

“Bus stops should conveniently serve key facilities and services by being located within a reasonable walking distance. They should be adjacent to, but not obstructing, pedestrian routes; and pedestrians should have access to and from the bus stop without crossing cycle routes, including where these run between the pedestrian route and the vehicle carriageway”.


I draw my noble friend’s attention to the fact that concern was expressed from all quarters of the House about the design of floating bus stops and the problems that such a design causes for the blind in particular. The BS that I have just quoted was drawn to my attention only today by the National Federation of the Blind UK. I apologise for raising it at the last minute, but it is a relevant point with regard to this amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to satisfy my concerns as well as those of other noble Lords on this problem.

The other point that I wish to make is about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, although he has not said very much so far. Listening to him earlier, I felt nostalgia sweeping over me at the fact that this legislation and other legislation in the transport field was drafted at the behest of the trade union movement. He did not actually name which trade union he had in mind. A feeling of nostalgia came about because I remembered the days of “reds under the bed” that the Conservative Party was obsessed with at one time—and that has obviously returned. I wonder whether the noble Lord will tell us not only the names of the unions that have such enormous power that they draft legislation these days but those left-wing local authorities to which he referred.

As for the noble Lord’s amendment, it was originally drafted by my noble friend Lord Woodley, who unfortunately could not be present in Committee to move it, so it was never actually discussed. The fascinating thing is that, having attacked these wicked trade unions, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, should pick up an amendment that was tabled by the former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. It is a pleasure to see the noble Lord advocating trade union matters, although he will forgive me for thinking that it is a somewhat cynical approach on his part.

Indeed, I looked at the amendments that the noble Lord moved throughout the passage of this Bill, and most of them demanded inquiries, committees and reports to Ministers. I calculated that at least 40 or 50 new employees would be needed to draft responses to all the requests that he made. The Conservative Party would be the first to complain about the addition of bureaucrats, as it would call them, and the unnecessary recruitment of such people. But one can only describe the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, as a one-man employment bureau with regard to bureaucracy. Few of his amendments have had any relevance for bus passengers or the bus industry—and I look forward to him rising shortly to advocate the policy of a former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union.

--- Later in debate ---

30: Page 41, line 26, leave out Clause 39

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister said. I am hopeful that safety will be at the top of this Bill, or at least in the Government’s mind. Therefore, I am minded not to move my Motion 30A.

Motion 30A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 30) not moved.