Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

11: Clause 11, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(1A) A franchising authority may not make a direct award of a public service contract under this regulation until it has conducted an evaluation of the operator’s previous performance in meeting accessibility targets, including specific improvements to service accessibility for disabled passengers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that franchising authorities evaluate the incumbent operator’s past performance on accessibility metrics, including improvements for disabled passengers, before granting a direct award.

[A noble Lord]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Despite that enthusiastic welcome, and despite the fact that it is normally a great privilege to speak first to any group of amendments being debated in Committee, I am fairly inadequate in opening this group, given that many noble Lords who wish to speak have direct experience of issues to do with disability and access to the transport system. Consequently, if noble Lords do not object, I intend to speak briefly to the two amendments in this group in my name, and I will then take the opportunity to respond later to remarks made by others who have amendments in this group.

Amendment 11 is about a condition that we propose should be placed on a local transport authority before making a direct award of a franchise, which it is allowed to do under the Bill. The direct award means that there will be no competition, no tendering of the franchise: it will be given to an incumbent operator, and perhaps even to an in-house bus company set up for the purpose, but without competition. There is considerable anxiety and concern about this proposal in the commercial sector generally, because of its non-competitive character. Our suggestion is that, where there is an incumbent operator whose services you can examine and there is a proposal to make a direct award, at the very least, there should be an additional condition whereby an evaluation has to be made of the services it provides to people who are disabled, of the need for accessibility targets, and of what specific improvements it might make to its existing services to meet accessibility targets. I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment or look at something very similar to it. I look forward to hearing what they have to say.

Amendment 42 is also related to accessibility and fits into the broader picture of demand-responsive transport. When I said on Second Reading that the Bill has an old-fashioned, nostalgic air reminiscent of the Attlee Government, I instanced that it seemed to make no reference to demand-responsive transport, which many people feel is at least one of the ways we could provide a public transport network, especially in less populated areas. The Minister seemed to be affronted and said, in effect, that the Bill was full of references to demand-responsive transport. I could not find any, so I am trying to sneak at least one in here. The amendment says that the guidance the Government expect to issue under the Bill on bus infrastructure, stopping infrastructure, stops and so on should at least look at demand-responsive bus services in meeting the needs of disabled bus users. I hope the Government will accept that argument, although I fully take the view that a larger rewriting of the Bill is required not simply on accessibility but to give it that reference to demand-responsive transport that the Minister thinks is there but I think is absent.

Those are the two amendments I wish to mention at the moment. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say, and I will respond to their amendments later, on behalf of the Official Opposition. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moylan. I will speak to Amendments 35 to 39, 43, 45A and 79A, in my name. I thank the noble Lords who have countersigned my amendments. I also support all the amendments in the name of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and have signed them to that effect, but will leave their introduction to her in due course.

Amendments 35 to 39 are on floating bus stops. It seems only right and proper to start by answering the question, “What are floating bus stops?” In essence, where a blind person, wheelchair user or, in fact, anybody has to cross a cycle lane that is part of the pavement to get to the bus, or has to cross part of the carriageway to get to an island representing a bus stop some way into that carriageway, those are floating bus stops. In reality, they are dangerous and discriminatory—a disaster for inclusion and accessibility, not just for blind people, wheelchair users and disabled people but for all users: parents with toddlers in pushchairs and prams, older people and younger people. In fact, anyone who crosses a live cycle lane takes their life in their hands, with not just pedal cycles but e-bikes and delivery bikes going in both directions, often at speeds of 20 mph and above.

So-called floating bus stops were born to fail, built to fail and bound to fail. Why? Tragically, they are predicated on a simplistic solution to a relatively complex issue. They fail on “inclusive by design”, on “nothing about us, without us” and on any concept of accessibility for all road users.

My amendments suggest that the Bill include the concept of inclusive by design. Without it, how can we have anything in this country that is worthy of the title “public transport”? If we continue to have floating bus stops, we will have transport for some of the people some of the time, which is transport for some of the people none of the time. That cannot be the society, communities and transport system we want in 21st-century Britain.

Similarly, there is an even more unfortunate concept at the heart of so-called floating bus stops. It is the sense that, because of this planning folly of a change, a piece of the public realm that was previously accessible and could be used independently, not just by disabled people but by all people, is no longer accessible and can no longer be used independently and safely.

I suggest in further amendments that we should look at issues of accessibility, wayfinding, advice and audio and visual signals around bus stops. I suggest that the guidance principles set out currently at Clause 22 need significant strengthening to the extent that there need to be cardinal principles in the Bill, not least that the bus must be able to pull up to the kerb—not the kerb at the side of a cycle lane but the kerb of the pavement—and that users need to be able to access the bus from, and alight it to, the pavement without having to cross any cycle lane.

I suggest that we need to have proper, meaningful and ongoing consultation around these so-called floating bus stops. Will the Minister say what happened to the consultation around LTN 1/20? How can we have these pieces of public realm imposed on us without effective, meaningful consultation, not least with DPTAC, organisations of and for disabled people, disabled people and all citizens who rightly have an interest in this matter?

In Amendment 45A, I suggest that on the passage of the Bill we have a moratorium on all new so-called floating bus stops and a review and a refit programme of all existing unsafe, non-inclusive sites. We need a retrofit within a year of the passage of the Bill because floating bus stops are not fit for purpose, not fit for inclusive by design and not fit to be part of a public transport system.

Finally, in Amendment 79A, I suggest that all buses up and down the country have meaningful audiovisual announcements on board within 12 months of the passage of the Bill. Yes, this is a question of accessibility and, yes, this is a question of inclusion, but more than that the great concept underpinning all this is that when you make a change that, on the face of it, is seemingly presented as just for disabled people, everyone benefits. From tourists to people new to an area, audiovisual announcements benefit everyone. I very much look forward to this debate and to the Minister’s response in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, and I will certainly write to her on that basis.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, inspired by the Minister, I shall be brief. Much as I expected, there were many valuable insights in this debate, particularly from public transport users who are disabled. We all learned a great deal from what was said, although, for many of us, very little of it was new because we have heard it before—though we are not always hearing sufficient progress in response.

That meant it was all the more disappointing that the Minister, although he is known to be sympathetic to this agenda, responded to the debate by saying no to everything. He appears to be programmed by the department to say no to every amendment that is put forward. There is always an excuse why each amendment must be turned down. When we return to this Bill on Report, if amendments are put forward as they have been debated in this group, this side of the Committee will consider them very carefully for support. If my noble friend Lord Holmes puts forward amendments based on his current Amendments 38, 43 and 45A, the Official Opposition would certainly be there to support him.

There was a great deal of reference in the Minister’s speech to private meetings he is having with Members of your Lordships’ House and to the prospect of discussion and debate after the Bill is passed about statutory guidance. This will suit the Minister and the department, but we should say—I hope I can speak for every Member of the Committee—that we are here as Members of this House to hold the Government to account in this forum. If it is not possible for us to make progress with amendments in Committee, that is a further reason for saying that we will want them debated and passed on Report or even at Third Reading. Private meetings and promises of consideration when statutory guidance is produced are not enough. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 22 in the name of my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do so because, in simple terms, it seems logical and sensible to go to what we could describe as the Beeching bus routes. They obviously had sense and users at the time. It seems a logical place to stop, alight from the vehicle and consider how they could be brought back into being. When the Minister responds, will he agree that when considering the cost of not having such bus routes, that cost should be measured economically and also socially, environmentally and psychologically, not least the impact on the mental well-being of that local area?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, in this group we are debating one of the principal means by which local transport authorities can intervene in existing provision in order to change it. They would change it by the use of socially necessary routes and networks. That potentially means that it has very powerful ripples in how the rest of the market operates.

I have a number of amendments in this group. In my Amendment 24, I take the opportunity to keep hammering away at demand-responsive transport as a potentially important way forward in trying to ensure that local transport authorities consider demand-responsive services, not simply fixed-route services, as means of meeting social necessity and social need. Again, this is an important point that is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bill, so I have inserted it here as a means of meeting social need, which it must be. Surely anyone who thinks about this for a moment must regard demand-responsive transport as simply being something that whoever drafted the Bill just forgot about. Anyone who understands transport and how it operates nowadays must realise that that has to have its place in the Bill, not least in relation to socially necessary routes.

My Amendment 25 considers a different angle and concerns competition in the market. How are the contracts for these socially necessary routes to be awarded, and to what extent will they effectively allow large operators to lever off existing resources to exclude smaller operators entering the market? No consideration is given to these market issues in the Bill. It is simply assumed that with the state in charge, everything will be absolutely fine. That might be so if you had a completely communist system where all the buses belonged to the Government and nobody was allowed to run a competing service, but that is not what we will have as a result of the Bill. We will have a mixed system, and the effects of the big beast, which is the state throwing itself around the room, on the rest of the market system need to be considered, and it seems that no thought has been given to them. This is one of the areas where those effects might be biggest.

My final amendment, Amendment 29, goes to the heart of the problem that this Bill presents us with, which is that socially necessary routes are possible only if somebody is going to pay for them, and there is no funding in this Bill. Of course, I would not expect a funding package to be in the Bill itself, nor am I proposing that one is inserted into it. My amendment does not do that, but it requires reports on the funding that is being made available for these socially necessary routes. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no promise of funding for this. The £1 billion that was allocated in the October Budget—£750 million to local authorities and £250 million directly to bus companies—is spent. A much larger amount is going to be needed if these provisions are going to have any real effect. Of course I know that a spending review is happening and that the Minister will not be able today to pre-empt it, but unless he addresses these issues head on and give some sense to the Committee and your Lordships’ House on Report that there is real money behind this, he is simply holding out a bogus prospectus to the public. That is why I have tabled Amendment 29, so that the Government would be under an obligation to report on the money that they are making available to support socially necessary services. I think that is the heart of the whole thing in this group, and I hope that the Minister has more to say about it than he was able to say at Second Reading.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendments 26, 27 and 28, which have been tabled by the Government. A review of enhanced partnerships is under way and is due to conclude in the summer. The objective is to identify areas of improvement to deliver a better minimum standard of bus services across the country. Amendment 26 supports improvements to enhance partnerships designed to enable the enhanced partnership scheme to include a broader set of measures that are directed at improving services generally across the entire local area—for example, setting consistent reliability targets across the entire area rather than on specific routes.

Amendment 27 supports the improvement of enhanced partnerships and relates to situations where a local transport authority develops interventions, such as bus lanes and traffic light priority. Where these interventions result in direct and indirect savings to bus operators, it will now be possible for local transport authorities and operators to include measures in the enhanced partnership scheme requiring this additional revenue to be reinvested. This will support the delivery of the bus service improvement plan objectives and improvements for passengers and ensure that the reduction in operating costs is not entirely absorbed by bus operators as profit.

The Government’s final amendment in this group is Amendment 28. Most enhanced partnerships have developed a bespoke variation process through which they can make changes to the scheme rather than rely on the variation process in the Transport Act 2000. However, there may be circumstances where this bespoke mechanism is not working for everyone. This amendment therefore provides local transport authorities with very limited circumstances where they can utilise the statutory variation provisions instead of the bespoke variation mechanism in the EP scheme to make changes to their scheme.

The purpose of this amendment is to allow local transport authorities to make an application to the Secretary of State when an operator is acting unreasonably and has objected to a proposed variation that would be 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, due to unreasonable or obstructive behaviour by one or more operators, or that the variation would benefit the people using the local services, they can direct the parties to follow the statutory variation process instead. 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 interests of the people who use them.

Amendment 21 would alter the definition of socially necessary local services in the Bill to explicitly include entities that have a healthcare or educational aspect. I reassure noble Lords that the definition of “socially necessary local services” includes areas outside large towns and cities and that it includes local services that enable passengers to access essential goods and services. As such, the definition already encapsulates access to healthcare and schools, but I shall look further at what the noble Baroness has said on this matter.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for her Amendment 22, which looks back at services cancelled in the last 15 years to look at socially necessary services in the present and future. I recognise that there have been services recently discontinued that may be considered by a local transport authority as addressing the needs of some of the communities they serve. I shall take that away and look further at what we do in this respect.

Amendment 22A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to ensure that when a local transport authority provides a tendered service, it receives the same level of protection as a commercial service. On the assumption that the reference to tendered services refers to services subsidised by the local transport authority, these already receive the same level of protection as other commercial services under this measure. Clause 12 does not differentiate between a tendered service and one provided on a commercial basis. If a local service is considered to be a socially necessary local service, Clause 12 requires the local transport authority to list it in their enhanced partnership plans, irrespective of whether it is tendered or purely commercial. On this basis, the amendment is unnecessary.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 23. This would have the effect that, where a socially necessary local service has been cancelled, the local authority will step in to provide a service when another bus operator cannot be found. It also sets out the implementation steps once the local authority establishes a replacement service. I reassure the noble Baroness that under Clause 12 when an operator wishes to cancel or amend a service, they will need to consider alternatives to mitigate any adverse effects of changes to such services.

I point out that local transport authorities are already under a duty to secure public passenger transport services that they consider appropriate to meet the requirements of the area and which would not otherwise be met. This is likely to include socially necessary local services. Clause 12 should result in additional transparency by identifying the socially necessary local services in enhanced partnership areas. This will provide the Government with additional information to inform decision-making around funding for local bus services. Local transport authorities have the best understanding of the needs of their local communities. Any additional obligations introduced through legislation would place an undue burden on local authorities and undermine their independence.

I turn to Amendments 24, 25 and 29 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Amendment 24 proposes that demand responsive bus services be specifically considered as a measure for mitigating the possible adverse effects caused by the cancellation of a socially necessary local service. I consider that such considerations should be left to the local transport authority. The Bill sets out that enhanced partnership schemes must include requirements that apply when a socially necessary local service is cancelled or materially altered. These must include consideration of alternative options to mitigate the effects of a cancellation. This will include how demand-responsive bus services could be deployed.

The purpose of Amendment 25 of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is to ensure that local transport authorities have regard to maintaining a competitive market. I believe this amendment to be unnecessary because there are existing legislative protections that will ensure that local transport authorities sufficiently consider the impact of their actions under this measure on the market. The decision about how to manage the local network rightly rests with the local transport authority. In making decisions around what measures to include in their enhanced partnership, local transport authorities will need to consider impacts on competition. Existing legislation also requires LTAs to consult with the Competition and Markets Authority when varying their enhanced partnership under the new clause. If the local transport authorities were to decide to set up a local authority-owned bus company or provide service subsidies to fill a service gap, there are wider legislative and regulatory frameworks that will apply and are sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I move that Clause 18 do not stand part of the Bill. I also wish to move that Clause 19 do not stand part of the Bill and, with your Lordships’ permission, I will speak briefly to both clause stand part notices at the same time and once only.

Clauses 18 and 19 are concerned with information that is to be extracted from local transport authorities but also from bus operating companies. I am perfectly happy with the notion that we should try to have as much information in the public domain as possible, and of course I do not intend—as I think noble Lords will understand—that these clauses should disappear entirely. This is a probing amendment, so to speak, to try to find out exactly what the Government think they are doing in this regard. I will speak very briefly to them.

First, quite a lot of the information being sought here, not least on the costs of particular routes and the revenues per route, would be commercially sensitive and belong to a particular company. The fact that Clause 19 allows that to be published in the name of the company is significant. These companies may well be operating a route for a particular local transport authority and another route in an adjacent area, very close by, in an entirely commercial sense. The information sought of them can have real commercial consequences. Nothing here assures me that the Government are respecting companies’ entitlement to have their commercial information protected in what they propose.

There are some difficulties in requiring this information. Having had a long association with the board of Transport for London, I am trying to think of a bus route in London where TfL could produce its cost and the revenue from it just like that. That is not entirely how bus services operate normally. Perhaps revenues do, but costs come down to a lot of questions about allocations that can be highly contentious.

Quite apart from the difficulty of extracting this information, the main purpose in these two Motions that the clauses do not stand part of the Bill relates to the protection of commercial confidentiality, to which private companies are entitled. There are circumstances in which one can imagine private companies choosing not to bid because their existing business would be threatened by the information they would be required to produce about particular routes. It is important that the Government should be clear about their intentions, what they expect and how they will protect that information, before we proceed with these clauses as drafted.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I was rather surprised to see these latest amendments, which seek to remove whole clauses from the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

They are probing.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

If I can continue without being heckled, I am assured that they are probing and that the noble Lord does not want to see these clauses completely removed. He has raised an interesting point about commercially sensitive data. As we know, in running a transport network, data and information are absolutely crucial and transparency is key. All this helps us improve services, so I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response, particularly around commercial sensitivity.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on Clauses 18 and 19.

On Clause 18, there is currently no one single source of information for passengers about bus service registrations or similar information about services that operate outside traffic commissioner-administered areas. Information on local bus services is fragmented, and this clause seeks to improve this state of affairs. As such, it enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring franchising authorities to submit information about services operating in their areas. This information will be similar to that provided on the registration of a service with the traffic commissioner, and it will be provided to the Secretary of State.

Together with Clause 17, Clause 18 lays the groundwork for a new central database of registration information, bus open data and information about services operating outside traffic commissioner-administered areas. This will provide passengers with a single source of information about local services. It is important to clarify that this provision does not reinstate the requirement for franchised services to be registered with a traffic commissioner. Rather, it provides the power to require franchising authorities to provide information to the Secretary of State, thereby enabling its inclusion in the new central database.

In addition, Clause 18 broadens the categories of data that the Secretary of State may collect regarding local services and the vehicles used to operate them. This power extends to gathering information from franchising authorities concerning franchised services and allows the department to collect additional data aimed at improving transparency within the sector. It might be said that the clause would answer the earlier intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about whether all buses actually conform to the PSVAR regulations and, therefore, it would be useful in that respect, too.

Crucially, Clause 18 also empowers the Secretary of State to collect data that will support the monitoring of local service operator performance and assist in the effective exercise of ministerial functions. That might include, for example, information relating to the costs associated with operating a service and the number of staff involved in its operation. I hope that explanation is sufficient to allow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to withdraw his opposition to the inclusion of the clause.

On the noble Lord’s opposition to the inclusion of Clause 19, the clause works in tandem with Clause 18 to support greater public transparency, and thus accountability, over local bus services. While Clause 18, in part, provides for greater information collection going forward, Clause 19 ensures that equivalent historical information already held by the department can be published. The clause achieves this by amending the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 to insert two new sections to enable the publication of existing operator-level bus data. It also provides for the Secretary of State to give notice to industry prior to the publication of such data.

Section 9 of the Statistics of Trade Act requires the consent of individual undertakings before information identifying them can be published. The newly inserted Section 9B disapplies Section 9 of the 1947 Act in relation to information about relevant local services that has been collected under Section 1 of that Act from PSV operators’ licence holders, or their representatives. This disapplication applies during a qualifying period, beginning on 1 May 2015 and lasting until the day when this clause of the Bill comes into force. Disapplying the requirements in Section 9 will allow the department to publish operator-level information collected during the qualifying period, even in cases where consent cannot reasonably be obtained from the large number of individual operators concerned. That point is crucial. The requirement to obtain consent from each individual operator would result in inconsistent data provision. This, in turn, would mean some communities not having access to the same level of information about local bus services as others, or indeed equivalent information for all services within a single community.

The newly inserted Section 9C requires the Secretary of State to publish a notice specifying the information intended for publication at least 30 days in advance, and further details the locations where such notices must be published. These provisions will enable the timely and transparent publication of operator-level bus data, improving access to information while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is of course right that in a commercial undertaking, this information might be considered commercially confidential, it is also essential for the local transport authority representing the users of these services to be able to access such information in order correctly to plan bus services in their areas, for the benefit of all the people who live there. That is the justification for this clause, so I hope he will accept it and withdraw his opposition to it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I did not hear anything in what the Minister said that remotely addressed the question of commercial confidentiality. The practical effect of this Bill is likely to be that some areas, possibly quite few, take up franchising as an option, while others continue with enhanced bus partnerships. One or two may even set up a municipal bus company, although I doubt whether many will. The fact is that a great part of the bus services provided in this country will continue to be provided by private companies, very often on a commercial basis. The Government’s whole strategy depends on a healthy, prosperous, well-functioning private sector being able to continue. To treat it in this way, as if its commercial considerations were an afterthought, bodes very ill for the way the Government are approaching this topic.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I think the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is missing the point slightly. We talk about who is running the buses; people who see the way that Bee Network buses are run in Greater Manchester will unlock the questions that the noble Lord is asking. How do we get to rural routes? How do we cover the distances to schools? How do we go where the privatised bus companies will not, because the profit is not there? Where do you find the money to fill those gaps to make those routes work?

If you bring the buses under your control, the profit that would go to big companies is reinvested. That then funds rural routes and routes to hospitals and schools and for the disadvantaged. It is a simple mathematical thing: instead of putting profits in the hands of shareholders, you put them in the hands of local authorities, which can then do exactly as the noble Lord wants, which is to run the buses profitably.

It is a myth—people have seen what has happened in Greater Manchester and will happen in Yorkshire and other areas—that a transport authority with very little vision will decide that it is easier to go its own way than to deliver what is clearly a better, more punctual service, with better public satisfaction and cheaper fares. Those are the benefits of going down the road that we have taken in Manchester, and I hope the Bill enables other transport authorities to partake of it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I beg the Committee’s indulgence for a moment to respond to that magnificent expostulation of a classic Marxian view of the world. It is very hard to see how the noble Lord has found himself on the Liberal Democrat Benches when he believes that one has just to eliminate the profit for the surplus released to pay for everything you might want. The truth is that you need an awful lot of subsidy to run socially necessary services to places that have insufficient passengers to justify commercial services. Those subsidies are necessary, whether you release the modest profits that bus companies make or not.

Most of the country relies on private bus operators. Manchester is a special case because of the density of the population. We rely on private bus services and those companies need to flourish. The Government are not remotely thinking about their interests; they are an afterthought. It bodes very ill for the future of bus services in this country that the Government are so inconsiderate of them.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel compelled to respond to the last point.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The noble Lord has not finished his speech yet.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will finish it by feeling compelled to respond to the last two interventions. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to his doubt that you could see the cost and revenue for each bus service in London; I beg to differ, because I was responsible for running the thing for 15 years. I absolutely assure him that we knew, to the nearest penny, the revenue and cost allocation for all the routes. That enabled us to provide a broadly acceptable service, in very different circumstances, over the considerably varied area of Greater London.

I also assure the noble Lord that that knowledge is collected by any responsible bus operator in the rest of Britain. The point is that it ought to be available to local transport authorities which are keen to offer comprehensive bus services in circumstances where a number of bus operators do so. Many of them are not competed against by others, because they cannot match their comprehensive standards. That means that the local transport authority does not have the information to understand what might be substituted in its place for communities that have a very poor service.

I defend both these clauses very strongly. I think good information about this is absolutely necessary. This is not about selling biscuits or buckets; it is about providing public services for people in this country who wish to go about their business and go to work, school, hospitals and other places.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 24 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, at Second Reading I expressed very serious concerns about part of Clause 24. In opposing the clause standing part of the Bill, my approach has been not to rewrite what the Government have proposed in the Bill—and therefore to provide them with an alternative policy—but to ask them seriously to consider and explain their current policy as it stands in the Bill. To that extent, this is like my previous clause stand part probing notices. But, on this particular issue, it is very clear that we are likely to come back on Report with specific amendments to change the text of the Bill, unless we hear something that explains it more satisfactorily than it has been so far.

My understanding is that Clause 24 inserts into the Transport Act 2000 a new obligation on the holders of PSV operators’ licences in relation to training. I have no objection at all to the idea that there should be an obligation to train staff, and I have no objection to Clause 25, which has a similar sort of effect but relates to training about disability. All of that is to the good.

My specific concern is with subsection (2) of what would be new Section 144F in the Transport Act 2000, where the training requirement under consideration is specified as:

“the person has completed training the aim of which is to assist the person to identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”—

that, after all, is a large number of criminal offences—

“and … anti-social behaviour, within the meaning given by … the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003”.

The person to whom this is directed can be only the driver of the bus, as buses run with one person operating them almost exclusively in this country. So the driver of the bus is expected to be trained, and the public are encouraged to think that the driver of the bus will be trained, to a point where they can

“identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences … and … anti-social behaviour”.

That potentially places a burden on bus drivers that is wholly inappropriate, given their role and their salary, and given that they will almost certainly be on their own on that bus when something happens. Many of the incidents that one can easily envisage would be encompassed by this training would be incidents that, as I said at Second Reading, the Metropolitan Police Force or another police force would respond to with one, two or three uniformed officers. Yet the implication is that a bus driver on their own will be able to

“identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences … and … anti-social behaviour”.

The Minister well understands bus operations—that goes without saying—more perhaps than any other Minister who might come here would understand them, but he cannot seriously mean what it says in the Bill. It is possible that he will say, “Oh no, you must misunderstand—when we talk about training and identifying, that is all really so that the drivers know how to report it to the appropriate people”. They have radios and they can communicate to their higher operator and the police, and things like that—and that is the appropriate response that we would be talking about here. But that is not what the words say; they say “where possible, prevent”, which goes a great deal beyond simply telling a bus driver to operate responsibly and take note of what is going on.

I am utterly baffled by what the Government are considering here, how it would work in practice and how these words are appropriate in this Bill. Something should and could be included, I agree, about training drivers so that they can identify, respond to and take account of this sort of behaviour, which is sadly all too common on buses nowadays. But the words as they stand put bus drivers in a completely impossible position. Apart from anything else, it would make recruitment very difficult indeed.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I have had conversations with bus operators and bus drivers, who are very worried about this issue. Bus drivers tell me that the very act of opening a door to walk out and face a passenger is seen as aggressive. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is absolutely correct on this one.

--- Later in debate ---

While it is possible to draw the wrong conclusions from this clause, the right conclusion is to have proper guidance about the right training so that all bus drivers can be properly equipped to know what they can do safely for themselves and others in these circumstances. There is such training available—I have had some—but it is not consistently available across the country, and this clause seeks to make it so.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The Minister suggested that I had misunderstood the clause and then gave an explanation of it that sounds very reasonable—and one could probably go along with it. The reason why I have misunderstood the clause is, quite frankly, that it does not say in words in the Bill what the noble Lord said. For example, there is no consideration given to telling the driver to conduct himself safely. The words could be quite easily amended to express what the Minister said, which is what this particular paragraph does not do.

I hope that the Minister will feel able to indicate on Report either that the Government will table new wording that will express what he just said much better—I think that would be the better option—or that he would be willing to accept wording drafted by the Opposition that sought to do the same thing. It would be better if the Government came forward with their own wording. It cannot be accepted that this wording stands in the Bill when the interpretation of what it means is so very different from what might be called the natural language interpretation of what stands here.

Clause 24 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

47: Clause 27, page 29, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) Local transport authorities must ensure that, in the implementation of this section—(a) the availability, affordability, and reliability of local passenger transport services are not adversely affected,(b) passengers in all areas, including rural and underserved regions, continue to have access to essential services, and(c) sufficient support is provided to bus operators to enable compliance with zero-emission requirements while maintaining service quality.(4B) Before implementing any changes to local service provision under this section, local transport authorities must—(a) assess the potential impact of such changes on passenger services, and(b) consult with operators, passenger groups, and other relevant stakeholders to ensure minimal disruption to service accessibility and affordability.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on local transport authorities to ensure that the transition to zero-emission vehicles does not compromise passenger service availability, reliability, or affordability. It also requires LTAs to consult stakeholders and assess the impact of such changes.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, a small number of amendments here in my name relate to zero-emission buses. I am concerned that the requirement for them is being imposed with excessive harshness and cliff-edge characteristics upon the bus industry. Amendment 47A, which I will talk about first, creates a form of exemption—a continuation that local transport authorities can put in place, particularly for rural services and in locations where battery-powered buses would be inappropriate because the distance that the rural service is running might be more than it could sustain. Generally, it might be appropriate in some rural areas to continue running diesel or hybrid buses for a further period beyond the cut-off that the Government envisage. That would be a relaxation of the requirement and would be welcomed in many parts of the country.

Amendment 47 provides a similar consideration on a broader basis—again, I am not being excessively harsh about all this. Amendment 48A requires the Government to justify their policy on public health grounds by publishing data in relation to the sorts of improvements—particularly air-quality and noise-pollution improvements—that they expect to achieve, for the travelling public and local people, with the changes that they envisage in relation to net-zero buses.

It would be helpful if the Government could take an approach that was a little less ideological and more tailored to what might suit particular areas and populations. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

Amendment 48 is a small but important amendment picking up on a potential anomaly within the Bill. It is something that Baroness Randerson flagged with us before Christmas. The Bill is clear that it wants to see cleaner zero-emission buses providing bus services across the country, and that is something that I would have thought the majority of noble Lords would support. However, this requirement does not seem to cover mayoral combined authorities. This amendment, therefore, seeks clarification from the Government on whether the provisions of new Section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles also apply to mayoral combined authorities. If not, this amendment should be agreed to ensure that every authority is covered.

Transport is a significant contributor to pollution in the UK. In 2021, transport was responsible for producing 26% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions, and the majority of those emissions come from road vehicles, which account for 91% of domestic transport emissions. Getting more cars off the road and more people using quality bus services is essential, as is ensuring that those bus services are as environmentally friendly and zero-emission as possible. I hope that the Minister can provide clarity in this area and put on record today clarification about the subsection at the bottom of page 29, which states:

“The date specified under subsection (2)(b) may not be before 1 January 2030”.


Those I have been talking to in the bus industry are concerned and I think are misunderstanding what is meant by this. Some clarity on the record would be helpful for all concerned.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments cover zero-emission buses, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, have rightly said. The restriction on the use of new non-zero emission buses will not take effect any earlier than 1 January 2030, but the clause places a restriction on the use only of new buses. The noble Baroness is right to raise this issue; I myself have heard some misapprehension about what this actually means. It is about new vehicles, and the flexibility to determine when to replace diesel buses with new electric buses will remain, because if the date were to be 1 January 2030, all vehicles in service on 31 December 2029 would be able to carry on in service.

I will shorten the speech I have been given because it replicates some arguments about the use of electric vehicles, but it is common ground between all those who have spoken on this issue today that the operation of zero-emission buses is a really good thing. I do not think we need a complete assessment from local transport authorities. The important point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made is that there are circumstances in which there can be some further exemptions. In fact, the Bill already provides for the Secretary of State exempting certain vehicle types or routes from the restriction. That is the proposed amendment to the Transport Act 2000, new Section 151A (3)(c), which states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations … specify local services or descriptions of local service in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply”.


There is a considerable flexibility here, in particular the recognition that there may still be services where zero-emission buses at the date at which the Secretary of State sets may not for some reason be capable of operation. However, I hope the noble Lord recognises, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, does, that this is generally seeking to do the right thing in respect of air quality and local bus services.

Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, probes the scope of Clause 27. I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns she raises. The clause will apply to mayoral combined authorities but as drafted, it will not apply to franchised bus services within such areas. I offer assurance that the Government are actively looking into potential options to address this. I hope to return on Report with an update and, were I to need to speak to the noble Baroness, I hope she would be happy if I did so.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and I am glad he acknowledged that there are areas of concern. We may want to return to this, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.