Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

As far as I have heard on this third day in Committee and at Second Reading, there has been a majority consensus for the Government’s proposals. What we are trying to do is to draw out those issues that we hope the Government will be able to address. One, as we have heard this afternoon, is rural bus services—and, indeed, access for island services. Equally, we understand that that will probably mean more funding. We had a debate on that on an earlier day in Committee. This is not about criticism or blame; it is about pulling out the issues.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I wonder if I could interrupt the noble Baroness to say that I hope that she realises that this Bill does not give the Government powers to run bus services. The whole point of this Bill is to give powers to local government to run bus services. When she says, “We want the Government to address these issues”, it is unclear to me to what she is referring. If she says that she wants the Government to provide funding to address these issues, that is fine, but if the funding is to be specific and hypothecated to particular purposes—say, to the crossing of bodies of water or certain rural services—then what is the point of giving the powers to local government? They should be making those decisions, wherever the funding comes from. I find the Liberal Democrat position on these provisions very difficult to follow.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

I am not sure who is giving way to whom at the present time. I will come to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in a moment or two, because I would be fascinated to hear his summing up of this matter—I wait with bated breath. Having gorged on those subsidies when he worked for TfL, while his party denuded the rest of the country of bus services, his response will be absolutely fascinating.

I ask the noble Baroness—I hope without causing too much offence—that if these proposals are to be properly implemented, who will provide the finance? It has to be either local or central government. The reality of these matters is that, in the short term, there will not be a massive improvement in rural bus services once this Bill becomes law. I only wish that the opposite were true. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can reassure me that it will be true. However, until we know exactly how funds will be allocated and how great those funds are, I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that, as ably as she moved this amendment, it is, as far as I can see, rather typical of the Liberal Democrats—all motherhood and apple pie.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I mentioned at Second Reading that I had been chairman of the North Wales Transport Commission in 2023-24. I spent a lot of time in north Wales looking at the performance of the bus services there. I am wholly persuaded of the merits of a franchising system in rural areas as well as in more urban areas, because we all know the problems that the existing system has created. However, I should point out—this follows the previous intervention—that doing this work and deciding which routes need to be run and where people wish to go is a time-consuming business. It will take a significant period to monitor where the car journeys are presently being taken and what kind of network is best going to meet the needs of people. I find the notion that there should be review of this within six months or even two years very ambitious, because in the work that I was engaged in it was time-consuming to get anywhere near a feel of how to create an integrated network rather than just a set of buses that were serving individual parts of the of the area.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. We on our side are supportive of the importance of taking into account the needs of people dwelling in rural areas. Indeed, we have our own amendment to a very similar effect in a later group, which could have been disposed of here. Our proposal to the Liberal Democrats was that it be wrapped up with their proposals, but that was rejected, so now it is going to be debated as a separate group, somewhat repetitiously, towards the end of the list. So we generally support this.

A lot of what I wanted to say has been anticipated. I know that he does not like the fact that he and I agree on quite a lot of things, but the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has brought a dose of sensible realism to the debate, for the first time, perhaps, in our Committee. He was supported in that endeavour by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with his practical knowledge of having examined the bus routes, the lack of bus routes and the potential bus routes in north Wales.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said that this Bill will transform bus services. As shorthand for an aspiration, that is fair enough, but the Bill in itself is not going to transform bus services at all, although that might be the aim. What it is going to do is transform the governance of bus services in two ways, both of them subject to the provision of very large amounts of money, which can come only from central Government and which is not apparent at the moment, although we are all aware that a spending review is in hand. Who knows what will happen? You stick in your thumb and pull out a plum. Who knows what is going to arrive for bus services or rural bus services when the Chancellor has completed her work? At the moment, we cannot say. We can say only that a large amount of money will be needed.

The two respects in which the governance will be changed to which I wish to draw attention are, first, that operational decisions about the running of buses are going to be transferred fundamentally from managers of bus service companies, who have a great deal of experience, to committees of councillors with very much less experience. They will take advice, no doubt, and the Government have said that they are going to offer them the advice of the Bus Centre of Excellence to do the sorts of things that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to. They include, particularly, route planning, but these councillors will also be responsible for fare setting, and fares and ticketing is a great skill and art. We might all think that it is terribly easy to decide on a bus fare, but the whole business of fares and ticketing is a professional and skilled business. There is a great deal that they are going to have to do which they will now be responsible for, which previously they were not, with very little skills support because the Bus Centre of Excellence is a relatively small operation.

The other way in which the governance is going to be transformed—and this is what relates to my three amendments in this group, which I will dispose of briefly in a moment—is that for the first time, effectively, the Secretary of State is going to be issuing guidance that will shape the provision of bus services in a way that simply is not the case when bus services are provided privately. As far as I am aware, that is not the case in Manchester, let us say, where there is no great guidance coming from the Government. Manchester has adopted franchising powers already. But there will be guidance and the local transport authorities, in providing bus services, are going to be subject to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think I will offend too many people if I say that no one could object to this amendment. Fares play an important role, but I do not think we should overemphasise the role they play. Travel West Midlands, a company with which I was involved for some years, did regular passenger surveys—largely a tick-box exercise, for obvious reasons, handed out by the driver or staff at bus stops. Funnily enough, fares never topped the list of complaints; reliability, congestion and safety all came before fares for passengers in the West Midlands. That is not to play down the impact of fares on passenger carrying, but it should be kept in perspective.

As for the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, I kept count at Second Reading, and that is 11 different reviews, reports and committees that the Conservative Party has so far advanced in the debates on this legislation. I hope that management time—or ministerial time, for that matter—can perhaps concentrate more on running effective services and less on producing reports to the demand of the Conservative Party, largely about matters that its period in office considerably worsened for the bus industry.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am again very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke. I am surprised that I have to help the noble Lord, Lord Snape, understand that very frequently in Committee, as a way in which to provoke some sort of debate or to probe the Government’s intentions, it might be appropriate to ask for a report without necessarily wanting to amend the Bill in that direction when we come to Report—ill named, perhaps. I am sure he realises that his jibe against the Conservative Party has fallen flat.

I was rather pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that she would welcome opening things up to the private sector to develop interesting, innovative and technological apps and ways of paying. I think that is the first thing we have heard said in favour of the private sector in Committee so far.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and, in a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Snape—what he was saying was to some extent a response to what the noble Baroness had been saying—bring us to the heart of a debate that most politicians try to run away from: how bus services and other public transport are to be paid for. What is the role of fares in paying for them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 51 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, would require local transport authorities to review the impact of bus fares on patronage. Where a local transport authority has delivered fare interventions to encourage patronage, such as Cornwall’s bus fares pilot and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority Mayor’s fare intervention, they have already commissioned independent evaluation reports to measure their success. Bus service improvement plans already in place also include measures addressing bus fares to encourage greater use of buses. We must recognise that changes to fares are usually delivered at the same time as other transport interventions that support and improve bus services. It would therefore be challenging to attribute any change in patronage solely to a change in the fare charged to passengers.

Your Lordships will have noted that the Government are in the process of negotiating the outcomes for which local transport authorities will be held accountable in respect of buses, as part of their recent respective comprehensive funding settlements. In addition to outcome monitoring at a local level, we will continue to monitor fare impacts at a national level to inform future fare cap decisions.

In passing, I note the noble Baroness’s observations about whether Shropshire adopted the £2 fare cap. I am informed that all except six bus services in Shropshire were covered, although I would not say that the bus network in Shropshire was either adequate or satisfactory. One of the effects of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be to enable local transport authorities to do better by the various means embraced within it. I therefore submit that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, is unnecessary because of the actions already taking place.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for Amendment 63, which seeks to examine the impact of ending the £2 national bus fare cap. The department has prepared a full monitoring and evaluation report of the £2 national bus fare cap, which has just been published. The report is available to read and I will make sure that noble Lords present have the link to it. It suggests that urban populations are more likely to have used the scheme, where of course journeys are shorter and fares are more likely to be £2 or less. In fact, the average fare payable on buses prior to the scheme’s introduction was between £2 and £3. The Government’s adoption of a £3 cap, and the added safeguard of increases above £2 being limited to the rate of inflation, do a great deal, at the cost of £150 million, to continue to ensure that millions can access better opportunities and get greater bus use.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

A study of the effect of the £2 bus cap would be very valuable—let us remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said that in her rural part of Dorset it was transformative; I think that was the word she used about it having a significant effect in that part of the world—and we look forward to reading it. But my noble friend Lord Effingham was also asking for a study of what the effect of increasing it would be when that is introduced, which would be equally valuable and show the other part of the equation, if noble Lords see what I mean. I press the Minister because I do not want him to miss the point inadvertently. Is a similar study of the effect of increasing the cap to £3 after an appropriate period—six months or a year—something to which he can commit himself today to illuminate that picture for us?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I will certainly think about whether, and at what stage, the department would look at that further. I am certainly not going to commit to it today, because we are looking at wide-ranging legislation about bus services in general, but I wanted to inform the Committee that the work on the £2 bus fare cap is now published.

Amendments 74 and 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also concern the £2 bus fare cap, which I have just addressed. They are clearly intended to seek its reintroduction. Bearing in mind what the average bus fare is, that the Government are proposing to continue with a £3 cap and that fares between £2 and £3 will go up only by the rate of inflation, I hope she will agree that those amendments are unnecessary. However, the noble Baroness referred to the wider retailing of bus tickets, which is obviously a good idea; from time to time, I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Access to bus services should be widely available, and not understanding the fare structure or being able to buy a bus ticket are the worst reasons for not using the service.

In my view, and in the Government’s view, the provisions in this Bill that allow local transport authorities a choice of enhanced partnerships or franchising, or even their own bus companies, will enable local transport authorities to look at wider retailing. Of course, the ultimate aim is not to sell bus tickets at all but for people to use credit cards or bank cards directly as means of payment. We want the bus industry and bus services to move towards that, and I believe that this Bill will facilitate it.

Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, looks for a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme. The Government want everybody who needs it to have access to public transport and are committed to improving the system. The English national concessionary travel scheme costs about £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations, such as the hours in which the pass can be used being extended, would need to be carefully considered. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on a previous occasion in the Chamber, the Government are not considering changes to the scheme at the moment.

However, local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations. We see this in London, where individuals aged 60 and over are eligible for the 60+ Oyster card, and similar schemes already exist in other parts of the country, where local authorities have chosen to provide specific support to their communities through offers that go beyond their statutory obligation. That ability for local transport authorities will continue, and no part of this Bill will restrict it. A review into the English national concessionary travel scheme concluded in 2024, and my department is currently considering the next steps.

Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of making buses free for children. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money to taxpayers while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people. Bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. In fact, youth concessions are currently offered by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of the 85 local authority areas in England outside London. Local authorities also have powers to introduce concessions or discounts for young people. Since buses are local and the Government are committed to devolution, that is where we believe that such choices should be made in respect of free and reduced-rate travel for children.

Finally, I note the observations by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about demanding or wanting reports following my noble friend Lord Snape’s helpful intervention. This Bill has been carefully thought through. The first requirement when it becomes an Act of Parliament will be that it works for local authorities, communities and bus passengers. No doubt there will be reports in due course but, frankly, I am not looking for any of them to be carried out now or in the immediate future because, as my noble friend observed, our efforts ought to be concentrated on running the bus service better rather than writing reports about why it does not work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

This group of amendments is really important, because training is an essential part of this new move to different models for providing bus services across the country. I particularly wanted to highlight the important amendment from my noble friend Lady Pinnock, because local transport authorities will be taking on significant new powers. We must not underestimate that, and it will be vital that their staff, stakeholders and members who sit on the authorities have a comprehensive training package, so they understand the legislation, framework and landscape—and accessibility and what that truly means, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, rightly highlighted. I liken this to thinking about planning and licensing requirements and what has transformed local government over the last couple of decades in terms of training and the quality of decision-making in that space: we need to look at this in a similar way. I really hope the Minister will respond positively to these amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate. I have great sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, as she knows. We will support her in her continuing campaign, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, to put the case on behalf of disabled people for proper consideration in relation to public transport services.

I was mildly tickled by the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. One of my deep concerns, which I have tried to express in as gentle a way as possible throughout this Committee, has been the adequacy and competence of local councillors to take on the role envisaged for them by this Bill. I had not imagined that a vice-chairman of the LGA should give such ringing endorsement to my concerns, to the point where she actually said that training should be mandated by statute for those who will take part in making those decisions. We are at one on this in our concern.

None the less, I am not entirely sure—here I suspect that I will sound a bit like the Minister, and I speak as a former local councillor—that the idea of a statutory training programme in this area would be appropriate. There is a false analogy with training for the exercise of planning and licensing functions, because those are almost invariably what are referred to as quasi-judicial functions that relate to individuals making applications relating to their property, business, premises or whatever. They need to be taken in an appropriate legal framework, rather than a political framework. It is appropriate that councillors are given training in that legal background where they are called on to make those decisions.

The sort of decisions that will be made here are not in that category, so I wonder whether this approach is necessary. In fact, even it were appropriate to have statutory training, I would not have training on the provisions of this Bill, which is what the amendment calls for but, rather, training of the sort that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Snape, could provide: training in how to run a bus company and make the hard, crunchy decisions that you will be confronted with about how to manage your resources in a way that maximises your revenue while allowing you to provide as many, but not necessarily all, of the socially important services that you would like to provide. Those are the hard, crunchy things that people will need to be trained in, rather than understanding the legal background provided by this Bill.

In a way, I am delighted to find myself holding hands with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on this topic, but I am not sure that I can support her on the wording of this amendment.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address Amendments 54 and 55 together. I listened carefully, as I hope that I always do, to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who talked about her real experience of travelling by bus. Anything less than 100% accessibility is unacceptable, and I completely agree with her.

The Government are determined that power over local bus services is put back in the hands of local leaders across England. That is why the department recently allocated over £700 million of bus grant for local transport authorities in 2025-26 by formula. Funding for bus services is also provided through the local government finance settlement. In fact, specifically, the 2025-26 funding included money for additional officer capability, for either additional officers or help equivalent to additional officers, to help each local transport authority in the choices that this Bill will give them.

The Government have also established the Bus Centre of Excellence, which I am sure we will continue to return to. Work is also under way to provide even more active support to local transport authorities that wish to explore franchising. I take this opportunity to make noble Lords aware of the Government’s plans to pilot different franchising models particularly suited to more rural areas. This funding, along with potential local transport authority bus funding in future financial years, is available to support implementation of the Bill’s measures.

It is, of course, wholly reasonable to expect the people who deliver policies and support services that help disabled people to understand their legal rights, needs and expectations. This afternoon, we will come on to the primary training needs of bus drivers, who are the visible front line of the bus service. The Government are clearly committed to helping authorities deliver the service improvements that we all want to see, whether it is through tailored assistance, the additional funding to which I have referred or the Bus Centre of Excellence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, with his amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has opened up one of the most important and least discussed areas to do with bus operations in a way that presents many of us who have experience of responsibility, one way or another, for bus services—in my case, a non-executive responsibility for a number of years—with real challenges and difficulty. The question we must ask ourselves is whether bus operators have the right mentality about safety. I say that in the light of what has been achieved in the construction industry, for example, over the past 20 years, where a focus on zero accidents and injuries has transformed the way of working. Of course, zero is never quite achieved, but very close to zero is now achieved on construction sites. A deliberate programme and a deliberate change in mentality has brought that about. On the railways, there is a strong focus on that mentality, and I wonder whether it exists on the buses: are we, in fact, way out of date in our attitudes towards safety?

I want to mention that I have just become an officer of the newly reconstituted APPG on Women in Transport. The relevance is that many of these issues to do with safety are women’s issues. There is the obvious question of violence against women and girls on buses; the APPG will look at that, but there is the broader issue of safety in general. I do not have up-to-date statistics, but it used to be the case, admittedly some years ago, that a very large percentage of women over the age of 65 presenting at A&E were there because they had suffered an injury inside a bus—not from a bus collision but inside a bus, very often because of aggressive or inappropriate braking on modern buses, which have very sharp brakes. The safety regulators, of course, think, “Yes, we must have the sharpest and most modern brakes, just as for a motor car”, but in a motor car you are sitting down and strapped in, whereas on a bus you are frequently standing up, because buses are designed to carry standing passengers. Sharp braking results in people falling over. Very often, proportionally, it is elderly women who are falling over and being injured. Do we take proper account of that? Are we recording it? Are we thinking actively about what we should do about it? The situation has not improved in the 20 years or so that I have been making this point about elderly women inside buses.

Then there is the question, which is very pertinent to the Bill, of the way in which franchise contracts operate. My experience is somewhat out of date, but it is a London-based experience where franchising is used, and to some extent the London model is the basis for the Bill and is being rolled out elsewhere. The emphasis in the contracts is on keeping to the timetable, and that is very difficult in urban areas because of congestion and unpredictable events, including roadworks and so forth. Very often, drivers are under pressure—they have a clock and are in direct communication with their control—to make up time because gaps in the service have arisen, and they can do that only by going faster and braking more sharply. Quite apart from the potential effects on passengers inside the bus, which I have already mentioned, the risk of knocking into something, often with very serious effect if that something happens to be a human body walking in the street, is increased.

We are all here saying how wonderful it is—not all of us are saying it with the same level of enthusiasm, admittedly, but there are people in the Room saying how wonderful it is—that we are extending a franchise model, but the structure of the contract on which those franchises will be based needs to be looked at carefully in the light of safety considerations. We should all be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for bringing up this issue.

In relation to Amendment 60, I am not persuaded that we should have a new and separate statutory provision about working time in the Bill, when we already have quite extensive and elaborate working time legislation elsewhere. There is a lot to be said in favour of Amendments 58 and 59. I have a suspicion that they will reappear on Report; if they do, they will deserve very serious consideration indeed.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 58. It seeks to require local authorities to ensure that bus operators provide their drivers with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System, which I will refer to as CIRAS.

The Government are always concerned, as they should be, about any safety incidents in the bus sector, or indeed any other public transport sector. That is why a number of official routes exist to allow anyone to provide confidential, anonymous reporting on safety and standards in the sector, backed up by enforcement. Anyone may anonymously report a lack of safety or conformation to standards in the bus sector to the DVSA intelligence unit, which may use this information to investigate the situation, including by working with other government departments and agencies, as well as police forces.

Comprehensive standards bridge all aspects of bus operation, across the roadworthiness of vehicles, operation of services and driver standards. As I said, they are enforced by a number of organisations, principally the DVSA. The operators of the vehicles are licensed by the traffic commissioners, who consider non-compliance issues seriously and ensure that operators are effectively regulated. The judicial process of the traffic commissioners can and does result in depriving people of operators’ licences and depriving managers of their certificate to run bus operations.

CIRAS provides another route for employees to report concerns. Both Transport for London and Transport for Greater Manchester are members of CIRAS. Being able to report such concerns in a confidential manner is clearly important, and I would encourage employees of member organisations to consider using this service where appropriate. But CIRAS is a third-party service, and it would not be appropriate to include it within the scope of the Bill.

However, I did a bit of personal research on this, and I will say that if we are asking people to report bus safety issues to the DVSA intelligence unit, it would make a lot of sense for access to it to be freely available. When I looked at it, it was quite difficult to find, which is really unhelpful, so I commit that we will see what needs to be done to make sure that the route to report directly to the government agency responsible for safety on buses is as efficient and easy as possible.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for bringing forward Amendment 59. Road safety is a priority for the Government, of course, and we expect bus operators, as I hope I have just said, to adhere to the highest standards of safety. Buses are one of the safest modes of road transport in Great Britain, and my department remains committed to improving safety with appropriate vehicle construction standards and ensuring the safe operation of vehicles. As we have heard, franchising authorities report safety in detail, and I expect that a consequence of this Bill, as it enables other franchising authorities to be established, will be to enable them to report safety in a similar way to how London and Manchester already do. In effect, the franchising authority is taking responsibility for procuring and delivering a bus service.

In respect of operations that are not part of franchise bus services, we have heard this afternoon that this is carried out through the STATS19 framework, which relies on reports from the police. These reports are based on locations identified by geographical co-ordinates. This is a role that cannot be delegated to local transport authorities and ought to stay with the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency because it relates to PSV operator licensing requirements. However, I note the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in respect of accidents away from public roads, which I will go away and have a close look at. I am not familiar with that nuance, but it is clearly important. Trying to divide any sorts of accidents into fault and no fault is fraught with difficulty. In fact, it must be subjective, and therefore I am not sure that we would want to go down that road. I understand his point about recording accidents on public service vehicles wherever they occur, and I will go away and see what can be done about that.

Amendment 60 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to change long-established rules about daily driving time on regular bus services. There are two sorts of driving time rules: one for services that do not go beyond 50 kilometres and one for services that do. These daily limits are well and long established, and I think the gist of my conversation with the noble Lord was that he was looking for an ability for people to report scheduling requirements on bus drivers that make drivers feel that they are not safe. That is a matter that could well be drawn to the attention of the DVSA because it goes to the heart of the repute of the operator. I understand that there may well be drivers who feel that what they are being asked to do is potentially or actually unsafe. That goes back to the process that I have referred to and the ability to report it to either CIRAS, if the people responsible for the operation are members of it, or the DVSA if they are not. I note what he said about this amendment seeking to draw to our attention this important matter.

The noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Moylan, talked about the timetable. No bus timetable in Britain should have any requirement for people to drive unsafely or exceed the speed limit. As a seasoned operator with some background in this, I say to them that very often, certainly in urban areas, what you are in fact looking for is not the timetable to be operated but the reliability of the bus service to be as good as it can be. My experience is that drivers should not feel under pressure to return to the timetable. In many cases, any substantial delay makes that impossible. The training given to bus drivers is about driving safely, having absolute regard to the safety of passengers and, in practice, maintaining the regularity of the service rather than the timetable.

If there are cases where drivers feel that they are being asked to drive unsafely, either by schedule or in practice, it is the reporting mechanism that we need to address because there are people trained in this stuff who can address those issues.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

With the Minister’s permission, I do not think that we are disagreeing and, therefore, I do not think that what he just said about timetables is quite the answer to my point. It may be my fault for expressing it in the way I did. I am sure that I talked about adhering to the timetable—I will look back at it—but he has cast it differently. He said that reliability—that is, the frequency between buses arriving—is what operators seek to maintain, but that is precisely what can lead to the sort of pressure on drivers where a controller says, “Hurry up because the gap between you and the bus ahead has got too large”. That is really what I was talking about and what I meant to express, although I used the language of timetabling.

The key question that the Minister will need to address is to what extent does the contract reward that behaviour? To what extent is reliability rewarded in the contract? In many cases, companies and people behave according to financial incentives. If your narrow margins as a bus operator or a franchise depend on maintaining certain levels of reliability and certain gaps between buses along the service, that is what you will be pushing your staff to do. It comes back to this question of what the contract says and what it rewards.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. Before I got to the railway, I spent most of my adult life trying to encourage people who control bus services not to rely on the timetable but to adhere to a regular frequency. Of course, the truth is that in most urban areas, once you have lost time, the chances of ever regaining it are, frankly, pretty small, and they are even smaller with the increasing use of speed limits of 20 miles per hour. I take the noble Lord’s point but, in the end, this is about people either being required to drive unsafely or believing that they are required to do so. It is certainly possible, and I have seen it done to encourage people to attempt to make time up but, in my experience over the 50 years I have been driving buses—now and again, more recently—it is very difficult to do so.

Let us go back to the safety aspect of this. Where the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is going rightly concerns finding a way for bus drivers to express that they are being either expected to drive unsafely or encouraged to do it. I take his point about that very clearly. As I said before, there are all these requirements on franchised authorities, which will report on safety because they are procuring the service. CIRAS is available, where people have chosen to join that third-party organisation, but, where they have not done so, it is about making the route to complaining clearer and more available. I very much hope that that answers the noble Lord’s points. I will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 64 in my name. This amendment places a responsibility on local transport authorities to ensure that bus services remain accessible, not just through affordability but through the diversity of payment methods available. The reality is that different passengers have different preferences on how they want to pay. If we take rural areas, for example, we know that public transport services are often limited in these regions, and buses may be the only form of transport available. For many elderly residents in rural areas, cash is their preferred method of payment. If we remove cash payment options from bus services, we could unintentionally exclude a significant portion of the population, especially in rural and isolated areas where public transport is already sparse. This would not just inconvenience elderly passengers but severely restrict their ability to access essential services such as medical appointments, local shops and social support in the community. For these passengers, financial inclusion is about the ability to pay for their travel in a way that works for them. This amendment is not about one-size-fits-all solutions; it is about recognising that different passengers need different options. The elderly, the digitally excluded and those on lower incomes should be catered for in our transport policies. By ensuring that cash payments remain an option and that services remain affordable for all, we are creating a system that truly works for everyone, not just those who have the latest technology. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 71 and 72 in this group, with a slightly different angle on this interesting topic of payment, which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Effingham. Normally, I like to give the Government a good roasting, criticise them and explain why it is that I am so much further ahead in my ideas than they are. On this occasion, since I have tabled these amendments and made further inquiries, I am glad to say that this will be an easy ride for the Government because they are doing quite a lot on this already and things are going generally in the right direction.

My first amendment relates to the payment by concessionary fare holders, and the second relates to contactless payment. The two may seem to be roughly the same, but they are very distinct. Contactless payment using a bank card, debit card or credit card cannot be used by those who have concessionary rights to travel on the buses because, obviously, if you are going to use a card, that right has to be evidenced by some identifier.

Let me give an example: those who have a national bus pass will have a photo card of a distinctive style, with an English rose on it; I remember that that was an important feature when it was designed. It is a card of a distinctive style with your face on it, and you need it in order to demonstrate your right both to the bus driver, who probably takes no notice of what is on the card, and, certainly, to a revenue protection officer were they to board the bus and check. This cannot be done with a bank card. One therefore needs two types of technology involved, which I want to deal with separately.

In London, the system that was developed for concessionary fare holders was originally the system used for all contactless payment. This was the Oyster card technology, which is still used for concessionary card holders. That includes not just the elderly—the national bus pass people—but also those with freedom passes and young people who have free travel as well. That technology is used.

However, when the national bus pass was introduced—by Gordon Brown’s Government, as I recall—that technology was not used and the DfT preferred its own technology, which goes under the name of ITSO. TfL regarded it as rather clunky, but the fact is that TfL then had to fit all of its bus card readers with equipment that could read two separate technologies in order to read what is going on. This was a very foolish way of going about things. The purpose of Amendment 71 is to suggest that, as this matter develops, there should be a single system that is applicable to concessionary card holders.

Amendment 72 relates to contactless payment. Contactless payment is widely used in London and was promoted by TfL in collaboration with the banks. In fact, it is quite likely that the banks would never have taken the risk of introducing contactless payment into the country if it had not been for TfL turning up and saying, “We have 4 million transactions a day; if we were to get together, maybe we could make contactless work. It will de-risk it for the banks, to some extent, and will give us something even cheaper than the Oyster card system”. I mentioned it being cheaper.

We should bear in mind that the driver of this, from the bus operators’ perspective, is the cost of collection. The point I would make—I would never disagree with what my noble friend Lord Effingham says—is that inclusion is very important, but one has to remember that cash is expensive to collect. It is much less for electronic payments. Of course, you have to pay the banks, but TfL was quite lucky because it had a proposition for the banks, which meant, I think, that it could negotiate a very good deal with them in terms of what it paid per transaction. Certainly, it is much less than the cost of cash collection, or even of Oyster card operation. If you are an ordinary passenger on TfL services nowadays—not a concessionary fare holder—you must notice that all the advertising encourages you to use contactless and not to get an Oyster card at all. That is the direction in which everything is going.

Outside London, however, contactless payment is still rare. The reasons for this are partly that the different bus companies all have different back offices, and the system needs to work in such a way that it will work with all the different back offices. I am perhaps pre-empting what the Minister will say, but I am delighted to be able to say that I have had some very interesting and valuable conversations with Midlands Connect, which is the non-statutory transport body for the West Midlands and the east Midlands. On behalf of the Government, it is carrying out work to develop a system that would work with all the different back offices of the various different bus companies so that it is possible that, over time, we could have contactless payment on buses throughout the rest of the country. That would be very welcome. It would be useful if the Minister could say in his reply what the timetable for that is; how much resource the Government are putting into it; what level of priority they regard it as having; and how they will now work with the multiple LTAs up and down the country, which will be running the buses, to make sure that this is adopted in a coherent way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, has raised some serious concerns and this group of amendments picks up a point raised at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond. She described the ongoing situation with school bus services and pupils with special educational needs in North Yorkshire, and the terrible impact it is having on families and children. It is vital that bus services support children attending school and college, whether within their local authority area or further away, which is often the case with specialist education provision. This is an area of much concern. I hope the Minister is able to provide some assurance in response to this group of amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I heartily endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lord Effingham and the support given by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. To be crystal clear, the fundamental issue is not the increase in national insurance rates as such, but the reduction in the threshold at which national insurance becomes payable.

Many of the people who drive special educational needs buses are part-time semi-volunteers. They may be working a few hours in the morning and a few hours in the afternoon, and their overall salary, as things currently stand, brings them in below the level at which national insurance contributions are payable. That is approximately £10,000 a year; I am using a very rough figure there, as I do not have the actual figures at hand. The Government’s proposal is a reduction to £5,000 a year of the point at which national insurance contributions become payable—again, an approximate figure. It is that reduction which brings these people within scope of national insurance contributions, which is potentially fatal to the operation of many of these services. They will simply not continue. The best that can be hoped for would be a more expensive service, after a lengthy period of retendering and disruption, in which maybe the same or maybe different operators are providing a more expensive service to the local education authority in many cases.

Separately, there is also the question of private schools and putting VAT on the bus services they provide, which would be bizarre because no other form of transport is subject to VAT, as far as I am aware. It is one of the consequences of the Government’s vindictive action against private schools. But the SEND issue is not simply about private schools; it is about the whole range of schools, and it is crucial that it is resolved soon.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Before I address the amendments in this group in turn, I wish to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Harris of Richmond—who raised her concerns at Second Reading—for raising the importance of home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs. Although this is not directly within my department, my officials continue to work with the Department for Education to understand the issues and how they are best addressed. No child should struggle to get to school because of a lack of suitable transport.

Your Lordships may already be aware that the Government are clear that the system for educating children with special educational needs and disability—SEND—requires reform. The Department for Education will work with families, schools, local authorities and other partners to deliver improvements so that children and young people can access the support that they deserve. It acknowledges that challenges in the SEND system extend to the arrangements for home-to-school travel and has committed to ensuring that more children can receive the support they need in a local mainstream school. This will mean fewer children needing to rely on long and complex journeys to access education.

Turning to Amendment 65, home-to-school transport is the responsibility of local authorities with education functions, not local transport authorities. For example, Transport for Greater Manchester is the local transport authority for the Greater Manchester region but responsibility for home-to-school travel rests with the 10 local councils within the region. The Education Act 1996 places a statutory duty on local authorities to arrange free home-to-school travel for eligible children. A child is eligible if they are of compulsory school age, attend their nearest suitable school and would not be able to walk there because of the distance, their special educational needs, a disability, a mobility problem, or because the route is not safe.

It is for local authorities to decide what travel arrangements they make for eligible children. For example, they might provide them with a pass for free travel on public transport or arrange a dedicated bus, minibus or taxi. However, to meet their duty, the travel that they arrange must be suitable for the needs of the child concerned. The Department for Education provides comprehensive statutory guidance to help local authorities meet this duty.

The Government already expect local transport authorities to take account of the needs of all people travelling, including children travelling to school. Effective collaboration between local transport authorities and local authorities delivering home-to-school transport may bring benefits, but it would not be appropriate to place a duty relating to home-to-school transport on local transport authorities when statutory responsibility for that service rests elsewhere. For these reasons, Amendment 65 is unnecessary.

Amendment 66 relates to children travelling outside their local authority boundary to access a suitable school place. The statutory duty that requires local authorities with education functions to arrange free travel for all eligible children applies regardless of whether a child’s school is outside the council’s boundary. Where a child with special educational needs has an education, health and care plan, the school named in that plan will almost always be considered to be their nearest suitable school for the purposes of assessing their eligibility for free travel. It is already commonplace for local authorities to arrange free travel. For this reason, this amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment 67 concerns the application of VAT to transport for pupils with special educational needs who attend private schools. These services may already be exempt from VAT; for example, passenger transport in a vehicle with 10 or more seats does not pay any VAT, and operating a vehicle that has been constructed or modified to cater for the special needs of people with disabilities may also not pay any VAT. The Government’s ambition is a state-funded school place for every child who wants one, whether they have special educational needs or not. The Department for Education’s reforms, which I have already mentioned, will deliver an inclusive mainstream system that meets the needs of as many children and young people as possible in their local community.

I also draw the noble Lord’s attention to the consultation on the national insurance contributions Bill, which says at paragraph 2.13:

“The policy intention is to only capture education services and vocational training supplied by a private school, or a ‘closely connected person’, and closely related boarding services. The government recognises that other goods and services ‘closely related’ to education, such as school meals, transport, and books and stationery, are integral to children accessing education. As a result, other ‘closely related’ goods and services other than boarding (i.e. goods and services that are provided by a private school for the direct use of their pupils and that are necessary for delivering the education to their pupils) will remain exempt from VAT”.


I therefore consider this amendment unnecessary.

Finally, Amendment 68 concerns the impact that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will have on bus services for children with special educational needs. The Government recognise that the increase to employer national insurance contribution will have a varying impact across sectors but had to make difficult decisions to help restore economic stability.

As I have remarked already, local authorities are responsible for arranging home-to-school travel and deliver this through a range of providers. Department for Education officials engage regularly with local authorities to understand the challenges that they face and will continue to monitor this situation. It is expected that private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes to their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations.

My noble friend Lord Livermore, at Second Reading of the NIC Bill on 6 January, said in response to a question about NICs and special educational needs transport:

“The right reverend Prelate also asked about SEN transport. In the Budget, the Government announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26. This includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which covers special educational needs home-to-school transport schemes”.—[Official Report, 6/1/25; col. 601.]

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that that is true for special educational transport needs provided directly by local education authorities using their own employees but not for contracted services, which are very widely used?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I was referring to support to local authorities for home-to-school transport schemes. I will take that away and come back to him with the clarification that he seeks in this respect. I can say that the Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment as the amendment suggests. I do not think that it is required.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

70: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Transfer of functions of Traffic Commissioners to the Department for Transport(1) The functions of the Traffic Commissioners established under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, in so far as they relate to buses, are transferred to the Secretary of State for Transport.(2) The Secretary of State may establish a dedicated division within the Department for Transport to carry out functions previously exercised by the Traffic Commissioners and transferred by subsection (1). (3) All references to the Traffic Commissioners in any relevant legislation, regulations, or guidance, in so far as they relate to buses, are to be construed as references to the Secretary of State or the dedicated division established under subsection (2).(4) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the commencement of this provision, publish a report outlining the structure, roles, and responsibilities of any division established under subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment abolishes the role of Traffic Commissioners in so far as they relate to buses and transfers their functions to the Department for Transport. The Secretary of State will be responsible for implementing these functions through a dedicated division, ensuring streamlined and consistent governance.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose you could say that this is a modestly frivolous proposal because I do not suppose for a moment that the Minister will agree to it, but I thought it would give us an opportunity to take a little excursion into the history and byways of English bus history and to consider how it is that institutions, once established, can take root in a fashion that means they are almost impossible to abolish. Indeed, they can even engender a degree of affection that means they become almost inbred in the national consciousness, not that there are many people outside the transport industry who are conscious of the traffic commissioners. It is worth bearing in mind that they arose in the bad old days of corporate capitalism and monopoly capitalism, which prevailed particularly in the 1920s when what Americans called trusts were thought of as the rational way of delivering goods and services in the private sector. We adopted that idea, creating monopolies wherever we possibly could in the private sector, unregulated monopolies in many cases, and encouraging them.

So it came to be that the thought that capitalism unbridled would produce reckless and wasteful competition arose in the bus industry nationally—or among those observing the bus industry—that it needed to be properly organised on a rational basis and that the way to do this would be to appoint an authority that would be able to decide who could run a bus, where they could run the bus and what fares they could charge. As this was a gentle form of English socialism, it was not a national authority but rather 12—I think it was 12— regional authorities in the shape of a traffic commissioner, whose job it was to do all this work and decide who could run a bus and where.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I have seen the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is not addressing it; he is giving us a history lesson. We had this in the football debate where we had 25 minutes of someone describing the difference between a badge and a crest. It was an excellent presentation on the fleur-de-lis and the history of football crests, but it served no purpose whatever towards the football Bill and, at the end, the amendment was withdrawn. I think that sometimes Members need to be mindful of the time and effort that other Members put into sitting in these Committees and should perhaps use a bit less frivolous description just to prolong the meeting. It is absolutely contrary to the spirit of how these Committees are supposed to work. To probe the Government is fair, but to go into a history lesson on the role of traffic commissioners is unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Well, that is a very serious rebuke on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I nearly wilted and decided to curtail my speech as a result of that intervention, but I have found the strength to continue. I remind the noble Lord that there is no question of time being spun out here. We are in day three of a four-day Committee, and we are very likely to finish the Committee today. We are going at rapid speed, and any suggestion that any member of this Committee has been using the time to spin out the debate is preposterous and is denied by the facts, so I will return to what I was saying.

This was the purpose of the traffic commissioners; they were set up for that purpose. So we come to 1985. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, considers 1985 an historical date or one that is part of the modern and contemporary world; for me, it is fairly contemporary, but I would not want to comment on the noble Lord’s age or experience of these matters. Of course, in 1985, all those functions in relation to buses were taken away from the traffic commissioners. By then—this is important—they had acquired functions in relation to the freight industry, as well as certain safety functions on top of that, so there was a reason for continuing the traffic commissioners then.

The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, will have noted, in his careful scrutiny of my amendment, as will have other noble Lords, that it refers only to the bus functions of the traffic commissioners. There is nothing here that would abolish them entirely. That is a pity, in my view, but I was advised by the Public Bill Office that an attempt to abolish them entirely would be outside the scope of the Bill.

The commissioners survived 1985, although there was really very little need for them. The Government are returning to a sort of 1920s view of how buses should be run in the Bill before us, but not giving the same functions back to the traffic commissioners. The decisions about where the routes should run, who should have a special licence and what the fares should be will in effect fall to the local transport authority, not the traffic commissioners, but they are to continue. Their functions include enforcement on safety matters, yet their budget for that is derisory and, effectively, there is very little enforcement. A lot of that work is done, in relation to freight at least, by the DVSA and not by the traffic commissioners.

Generally, it would be a good time to have a bit of a clear out of the bureaucracy that encrusts our modern society. I would like to see the traffic commissioners go entirely and what functions they have transferred to the Department for Transport, but the proposal today, for scope reasons, as I said, is slightly more modest. I do not expect the Minister to accept it, but it is a proposal that those of us here in Committee with a slightly more revolutionary spirit—I am sorry that does not include the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, or maybe it does; we shall hear when he comes to speak—should embrace to see some real change, at last, at the seat of government.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might briefly address one of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I was present in the Chamber, as I frequently am, during the Football Governance Bill. I appreciate that he might not be that interested in the difference between the crests and the arms, but the College of Arms is run by my noble kinsman His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, and I can tell him that the argument put forward as between crest and arms is relevant and has implications. It is important to realise that. He may well want to look into it; I am happy to explain to him why it is important, if he is interested.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the imminence of the recess suggests to me that I should not challenge the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his knowledge of the history of the traffic commissioners, but I will do that over a drink some time. I am less interested in the development of the Road Traffic Act 1930, or indeed the Transport Act 1985, than I am in the future of the bus service in the 2020s.

Traffic commissioners play an important and strategic role in the transport sector and, these days—principally but not wholly—in road use safety. I certainly refute completely any suggestion that there is an absence of enforcement; the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency does that. Traffic commissioners are an admirably economic and cost-effective way of dispensing justice to bus operators and bus drivers—those who are licensed to provide these important and, indeed, safe services—in a way that is widely celebrated in the industry and regarded as far more effective than any other solution. Indeed, the independent review of the traffic commissioner function undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, published in May 2023, found that

“the Traffic Commissioner function generally operates effectively”

and noted a strong level of support from the industry for functions continuing to sit with the traffic commissioner. The truth is that for a regulatory arrangement to be so widely celebrated by the industry it regulates is something to be celebrated, rather than abolished.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister not rather concerned that the regulator is so widely celebrated by the industry it regulates?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

One of the reasons why is because it is not in the industry’s interest to have poor-quality operations competing with it; that is true in respect of both the goods sector and the passenger transport sector. When the traffic commissioners take enforcement action, including depriving drivers or operators of their licences or curtailing them, it is widely celebrated by those operators who do take account of the law and operate safely. That is what is important.

On our earlier discussion about the safety of bus operations and bus drivers, finding a mechanism that is effective for disciplining those drivers and operators who transgress the law—sometimes with no intention of complying with it—is very effective. I encourage noble Lords to consider the alternative mechanism of taking taxi drivers in front of magistrates’ courts, which are often found by everybody looking at the actions of the magistrates to be excessively lenient and persuaded by drivers’ explanations of their behaviour that would never pass muster with the traffic commissioner. It is a very important judicial function, and the commissioners need to be supported.

Returning to the Bill, your Lordships will have noticed that some limited changes are proposed to the functions of the commissioners. These include changes to services operating under service permits with enfranchised areas and powers to act against bus operators who breach the mandatory training requirement. The Bill is about empowering local leaders to take decisions on how best to run bus services in their areas. The presence of traffic commissioners across the regions of England—and, for that matter, Scotland and Wales—is complementary to this Bill’s objectives. They are well placed to use local knowledge to take the decisions they do in the execution of their powers, and I certainly do not believe that the noble Lord has made any case for change in the way that this amendment suggests.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

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.

Passenger Standards Authority

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

We will see when the time comes whether the new passenger standards authority is set up in time to deal with that question, but I am glad the noble Lord raised the east coast main line timetable, because it is one of the justifications for having a guiding mind for the railway. Our nation invested over £4 billion in upgrading the east coast main line, and it has taken several years to achieve a situation where a timetable which is remotely acceptable to all the operators and passengers, even though it has detractions in some places, was capable of being put into effect. It is a startling exposition of the fact that there is no controlling mind that the person who in the end took the decision to put that timetable in was me.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister persuaded that when the consultation document on the future of the railways is published, which I hear might even be this week, it will have a convincing explanation of how Great British Railways is going to reconcile the inherent conflict of interest that exists between its role as a passenger service operator on the one hand and its position as a strategic authority, allocating paths and resources to freight, open access operators and others, some of them in direct competition with it, on the other—or is that the issue that has been holding up its publication for so long?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: I promised him it would be ready in December. I was advised by a colleague here that I did not say which December, of course, but, as I said, it is imminent. The question that he asks is germane in a mixed-use railway, and not a question unique to this network at all. It is a question which in various forms has been a question for all railway operators for as long as there has been freight, express passengers and so on. It is clear that a controlling mind will have to have some criteria to allocate access, and those criteria will have to form the basis of decision-making. It is also clear that because there are third parties on the railway, they should have a right of appeal. The document that I am referring to, which will be published imminently, will deliver a proposed solution to those issues.

Airport Expansion

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Heathrow Airport Ltd is a 100% privately-owned company, which is subject to a form of economic regulation with which many noble Lords will be familiar from the water sector. In that light, can the Minister confirm that the long-standing, cross-party policy that any project for a third runway should be paid for wholly by the private sector and not the taxpayer will continue, and in particular, that any proposal as part of that project to relocate, tunnel or bridge over the M25 is also part of the cost that is to be paid for by the private sector and not by the taxpayer?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is completely correct about the ownership of Heathrow Airport Ltd, which of course is likely to be a promoter—but possibly not the only one—of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. It certainly is government policy that a third runway should be paid for by a third party, but the detail of what it is and what other work is necessary to allow it to happen is not clear. The Government have invited proposals to be brought forward by the summer and promoters will hopefully make them, at which point it will then become clear how much they entail, how much other work is needed and how much they are proposing to pay for.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, briefly, in looking at Amendment 1 and hearing the speeches on it, especially from the noble Lord who proposed it, I ask: what is the point of this amendment? It seems to me to be motherhood and apple pie and nothing much else. You can interpret the phrase “performance and quality” however you want—no doubt many noble Lords will link that phrase to some amendments that they will move or speak to later—but I really do not see it. Here is a Bill to improve passenger services and quality, clearly, but the noble Lord wishes to put in an amendment: Amendment 1. We will probably spend half an hour talking about it, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister has an answer as to why he does or does not like it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group after my noble friend Lord Effingham spoke, but I am prompted to do so by an earlier intervention.

It is very important that, when you make a large change, as is proposed here—the Government will claim that this is a significant change, I think, and rightly so—you are clear about what you are trying to achieve. We might assume that everyone wants better buses and so ask why there is a need to say it, but you need to be clear about what you are trying to achieve. Of course everyone wants better buses, but what actually constitutes better buses? When the railways were nationalised, everybody wanted better railways. They did not necessarily imagine that, in the 1960s, that would involve slashing nearly all the branch lines in the country and making a dramatic change to the way in which the railways operated by cutting them back.

I am in some sense trying to help the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, with his question on the purpose of the amendment. There is also a further question: if you have an objective, who is to be held to account for that objective? This seeks to hold the Secretary of State firmly to account and put him at the centre of the chain of being responsible for this Bill.

It seems to me that there is nothing else in the text of the Bill that explicitly puts passengers, passenger needs and the quality of the service they receive at its heart. I think that there would be great benefit in doing so. We know that the Government and local transport authorities are responsible to multiple stakeholders—not only the users of their services but their workers, trade unions, local electors and so on. They have to balance the large number of needs and demands on them. The amendment says that the requirements of passengers come ahead of those others and that the Secretary of State would be held accountable if the Bill did not work out in improving passenger services. I find it difficult to see, first, why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has difficulty understanding that point and, secondly and perhaps more importantly, why the Minister, should he be moved to resist this amendment, would want to do so.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the first group of amendments relates to the Bill’s purpose. At Second Reading, I set out the need for this Bill and explained why the Government are taking action to transform bus services across England. The Bill provides new powers for local leaders, so that local communities in England have greater control over bus routes and schedules. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their amendment and the opportunity to revisit the Government’s objectives.

Amendment 1 would place a direct requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to improving the performance and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain—in fact, it would make this the statutory purpose of the Bill. I absolutely support the reasons why noble Lords have drafted this amendment: they, too, want to achieve a better bus network that is more reliable and performs well. That is a shared goal. The reason we are here debating this important legislation is to reform the industry.

I recognise the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, about the KPMG report, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, about the benefits of buses to individuals and communities, as well as the inadequacies of the current arrangements. However, I am bound to disagree with the assertion that there is no evidence for the Government’s approach. There is plenty of evidence, some of which we have already talked about, such as the improvements in Manchester and elsewhere, including Cornwall, which is not a large conurbation. I also disagree with the assertion that there is public good and private bad in here. This is a very large menu of choices for local transport authorities. It is certainly not one size fits all.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, observed, during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Gascoigne, tabled a very similar amendment. It sought to insert a purpose clause setting out improvement of passenger railway services as the purpose of that Act. At the time, I explained that the Secretary of State’s and the Government’s wider plans and objectives for the rail network included improving performance but noted that this was not the sole purpose. I offer the Committee the same rationale for this Bill. The amendment to the public ownership Bill was not carried.

Of course the objectives of this Bill include improving reliability and performance. They are important aims, but the Bill seeks to do more. It seeks to improve safety and accessibility, to provide local leaders with the powers to make the right decisions for their local areas, to support reaching net zero and to put passengers at the heart of the Government’s reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, was kind enough to suggest that I would not let ideology triumph over the right solutions. In this case, the Government are not doing that, either.

The Bill contains a range of solutions for local bus issues, which allow local choices for the best solutions and would recognise, in appropriate cases, both the adequate provision of bus services by their existing means, with commercial operators, and the range of solutions, including both large and small operators. To single out one objective would undermine the message that the Government are trying to convey to local authorities, passengers, operators and the wider industry. Thus, I do not support the proposal.

Extending this requirement across Great Britain also presents significant difficulties. The Committee will have noted that most of this Bill extends to England and Wales but applies only in England, with a limited number of clauses that extend and apply to Wales and/or Scotland. In tabling Amendment 1, noble Lords appear to be seeking to apply all the Bill’s measures across the whole of Great Britain. That would raise the potential of cutting across the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Governments to decide how to run their own bus networks and what is best for their local communities. That would not be the right approach. It would mean the UK Government interfering in policy areas where the devolved Administrations categorically do not want that. It also potentially undermines their reform agendas; as some noble Lords will be aware, the Welsh Government are due to introduce their own Bill into the Senedd in the coming months, as they seek to introduce bus franchising.

This amendment would also have significant ramifications on time and resources. Local transport is devolved, so legislative consent Motions would be required. That would potentially slow down the passage of the Bill and the pace of the Government’s reforms, which would be a bad outcome for passengers, who desperately need better bus services now, for the reasons set out by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness earlier. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would not want this outcome and therefore hope that this amendment will be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Above all else, it is enabling us to integrate bus services, fares, ticketing and customer information across Metrolink and bus, with London-style tap-and-go contactless bank card payments and daily and weekly caps from March this year. We are now moving to rail integration, but that is for another day and another Bill. I hope the Minister accepts my amendments in the spirit in which they are offered. I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 3, 5, 14, 15 and 16, which are supported by my noble friend Lord Effingham. With your Lordships’ permission, I will deal with them more logically than numerically, because they form a sort of logical suite.

The dramatic thing at the heart of the Bill is the possibility of the extension of franchising to all local transport authorities without any need for permission from the Secretary of State. It is true that other models are available, but enhanced bus partnerships already exist and simply making them a little more enhanced—although that might be valuable or lead to some sort of change—is not a dramatic intervention. As for the creation of municipal bus companies, that would be dramatic, but it is not what we are focusing on today. This group of amendments—mine in particular, but the whole group—is focused particularly on franchising, which occupies a large part of the text of the Bill, and understandably so because of the importance of it.

Yet I come back to this question all the time: why do the Government believe that franchising is a model—admittedly, one they are not imposing on any LTA; of course, I grant that—that they are willing to see any LTA, possibly every LTA in the country, adopt without any supervision, by-your-leave or check on the part of the Secretary of State? It is perfectly possible that as this Bill becomes law every LTA in the country goes for a franchising model. I am not saying that is going to happen, but theoretically it could, and nothing would prevent it.

So, the question we come back to, and this is what Amendment 3 is related to, is: why franchising? At the heart of franchising is the notion that a single controlling brain—yes, we are back to similar language to that which we used in relation to the railways Bill that we had before Christmas, but I do not apologise for that because a similar form of thinking is going on in this case—can produce a better service, a more rational service and a more socially friendly service than competition generated by the private sector in response to demand. There are arguments of course on both sides. This argument has been going on, as I think I mentioned in the railways Bill, since at least the 1920s. Our first attempts, or rather our success, in this country at regulating bus services go back to the 1920s with the establishment of the traffic commissioners. After they were established, their permission was needed, up until the 1980s, for any private company to run a bus service. They had to agree the routes and the fares. So we had a single controlling brain, and we went for a privatisation model from the 1980s, but the Government have simply failed to produce any evidence that this is a model that will work in all these LTAs and at a cost that the LTAs can afford without the subsidies that, notably, the Government are not promising.

When we ask for evidence, we are constantly pointed simply to Manchester and Cornwall. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, has of course given an eloquent explanation of how successful that model has been in Manchester, and I do not deny that success. It is possible that other noble Lords with roots in Cornwall will want to explain why the model has been such a success there—I do not know—but that is a very slender evidence base, if we are talking about all the LTAs in the country.

Amendment 3, therefore, is a probing amendment. It allows any private bus company to operate a service without a permit and it goes to the heart of the notion—it strikes a dagger at the heart of the notion—that a single controlling brain is necessary for good public service. It would wreck the franchising model that the Government propose—I admit that frankly—but its purpose today is to give the Government an opportunity to explain more fully why they think it is a perfectly acceptable outcome that franchising should be potentially adopted by every LTA in the country, without any regard to their experience, the size of the local transport authority or any other factor that might differentiate them significantly from Manchester and Cornwall.

With Amendment 15, I come to another point. Let us assume that franchising is okay and the case for it has been made—it has not, but let us assume that and move on, so to speak, logically. The amendment says that, before it embarks on an assessment for introducing franchising, the LTA must set out clear objectives as to what it is trying to achieve. At the moment, the Bill does not require it to do so; it is perfectly possible to embark on a franchising model without setting out for the public or for stakeholders what could be achieved and what is intended to be achieved, as well as what alternative structures and approaches might achieve the same objectives. The amendment would be a genuine improvement to the working of this proposed model because it would bring clarity right at the outset.

To move on in what is, I hope, a fairly logical order, Amendment 5 asks for data on performance and passenger numbers to be collected on a standardised basis across LTAs to tell us what subsidy is being expended per passenger in the operation of the franchising model—should they choose to take it up, of course. They might not do so, I grant you; we have discussed that already. The amendment would also require the setting out of the criteria that the auditors—I am calling them “auditors” while appreciating that the name may change as the pool of resource understandably widens—are to use when assessing the plan put forward by the local transport authority. Again, I think that those two things would be really helpful. We will want that data, and we will want to know that the auditors will be applying clear criteria standardised across the country—not the sole criteria that they will be applying but some criteria that will probably be nationally applicable. Those should be set out by the Government.

That brings us to Amendment 14, which takes us on to the point where the franchising model has been established. The franchise is running, but it is not working. In this Bill, there is no step-in power on the part of the Secretary of State in circumstances where bus services are manifestly deteriorating rather than improving as a result of introducing a franchising model. When this point was tangentially made at Second Reading—I think it was then; it cannot have been anywhere else—the Minister said that, because I had spent a long time in local government, I should somehow stick up for the autonomy of local government. I am perfectly happy to do that up to a point but, at the point at which services are manifestly deteriorating, there should be a power for the Secretary of State to step in. It exists in other respects with local authorities generally. We should have something of that order so that passengers and users of bus services can be protected. I would like to hear why the Minister thinks that that is wholly inappropriate, except on rather histrionic grounds around the autonomy of local government and principles of that character.

Finally, Amendment 16 is intended to provide a degree of stability in the local bus market in the event that a franchising assessment has taken place and been audited but, as a result of the audit, either it has been found wanting or the local transport authority has none the less decided not to proceed for whatever reason. At the moment, there is no limitation on the local transport authority starting the whole process again, if it chooses to do so, almost immediately. If that were the case, why would any private bus company continue to invest in or improve services if the axe, so to speak, could be dropped on it at any moment—that is, with them having gone through a process where they were told that they could carry on but the axe then being dropped again? Amendment 16 would put in a five-year ban on local transport authorities recommencing that assessment process to give some stability to the bus operator or operators in their area.

All these amendments, except for Amendment 3, which I admit is completely probing and would seriously damage the Bill, are good, sensible, practical ways of improving the franchising model that the Government are advancing with such enthusiasm. I very much hope that other Members of the Committee and, indeed, the Minister might want to say that they could support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, just before the Minister responds, several noble Lords have talked about the bus service in Cornwall, saying how wonderful it is. As many noble Lords know, I live there and I often use the buses. There is nothing particularly special about a service that runs on time, publishes timetables and has bus stops that work. They have managed to persuade somebody—I think the Department of Transport—to enable them to finance a group of double-deck buses for the trunk routes. They are very comfortable and even have conference facilities on the top deck, with tables and things. It is still working very well. I think all that was needed was some officials in Cornwall Council who knew what they were doing, led by a good friend of mine, called Nigel Blackler. He managed to persuade the Government and Ministers at the time that it was a good thing—as Cornwall is geographically long and thin with one railway down the middle and a motorway down the middle and lots of others. It is quite possible to do; it has not cost them an arm and a leg and it is very popular. Why not carry on doing it?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

May I ask the noble Lord, briefly, if he believes that the whole success in Cornwall depends on a few people knowing what they are doing and being professional about it—I am sure he is right, he knows his area—would he not want to seek from the Minister the sort of assurances that I am looking for? That is that officers in other local transport authorities that adopt franchising are seen to have similar skills and abilities before they are allowed to do so?

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

If am grateful to the noble Lord. I think it was probably at Second Reading, or sometime, that we discussed the difference in the quality of local authority management between Dorset and Hampshire or somewhere there. It is down to the local authority to make sure that they have the right people. I am sure Ministers will be very keen to ensure that they do have the right people, because otherwise you will get what I found in Dorset. The train goes every hour and stops at a station called Sherborne and, interestingly, the connecting bus departs five minutes before the train arrives. That is just the kind of thing we do not want, but I hope the local authorities will be sensible enough to learn from some of these mistakes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his interjection. In his case, it is true, but there are other cases where the market has shown a considerable inability to respond across the country.

To conclude on Amendment 14, it is for the reasons I gave that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, not to press his amendment.

Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require a local transport authority to carry out a preliminary assessment if it was considering franchising its bus services. Much of what the noble Lord has proposed to be included in the preliminary assessment is already included in the current legislation and must be included in the local transport authority’s franchising assessment. An assessment may or may not conclude that franchising is the best option. The assessment would then be published if an independent assessment had been carried out and the decision was that franchising was the best option. This amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I would welcome the noble Lord not pressing it.

Amendment 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to impose a five-year moratorium on repeating franchising scheme assessments in the same area if the previous attempt was unsuccessful. The aim of the Bill is to simplify the process for authorities wishing to pursue franchising, ensuring that decisions are made at the appropriate level and in a timely manner. This amendment would introduce unnecessary constraints on local transport authorities by adopting an overly rigid approach. There are many factors that might lead an authority to decide against pursuing franchising initially, only to reconsider this later; indeed, the period of time suggested by the noble Lord would in some cases exceed the cycle of local authority elections, in which a different party that chooses to do something different might be elected. Imposing a blanket restriction limits authorities’ ability to respond flexibly to evolving conditions and opportunities. Assessments are costly and time-consuming so will not be undertaken lightly. This amendment is unnecessary; I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, on that point, the Minister has made in his response no reference whatever to the private sector. We are talking about circumstances in which buses are provided by the private sector in a particular area and the local transport authority, using powers to be created under this Bill, enters a franchising assessment model with a view to terminating the business of that bus operator—not terminating its activities but terminating it as a business and turning it into, simply, an agent of the local transport authority operating to instructions for a fee of some sort. That is one of the potential outcomes.

If you face that threat to your business, so to speak, and if the Government are equanimous in thinking that that is an appropriate threat to impose on the private sector, surely, if the decision at the end of that assessment is not to proceed, that private company deserves a degree of stability. Indeed, without that stability it is very unlikely to invest in any of the things we would like to see happen. Those might concern improved buses or better technology, but also better training for staff, proper recruitment, investment in the workforce and so on. An answer entirely focused on how the public sector might behave totally misses the point of what this amendment is trying to achieve.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Of course I respect the noble Lord’s view, but the needs of local communities as expressed through local transport authorities are continuous and there are many examples across the country, unfortunately, of private sector operators choosing, for legitimate commercial reasons, to significantly vary the bus network in their area with the minimum statutory notice. They are quite adept at changing their business in accordance with market circumstances, whereas I think it is quite right to afford local communities the chance—through their elected local transport authorities—to choose to take a view about whether the bus service they are being offered is good enough to continue in its present model, or whether to choose to do something different. If there is a degree of jeopardy attached to this, that jeopardy can be expressed by the continuous need for commercial operators in those circumstances to continue serving the local area well. That would therefore make it unnecessary for the local transport authority to pursue franchising, when there are already remedies in the Bill and a mixture of measures offered to local areas to achieve their aims.

The next four amendments are from my noble friend Lord Woodley, and Amendment 17 is the first of these. He has been joined by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who also spoke about this. It seeks to place a requirement to establish a joint forum between the franchising authority, bus operators and trade union representatives. However, current legislation states that franchised services must be provided under a local service contract between the bus operator and the franchising authority. It is then for an individual bus operator, as an employer, to discuss and determine staffing and employment standards within the bus company, in consultation with staff and their trade union representatives. It is also for the franchising authority to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services.

It should not be for the Government to dictate how a local transport authority should run its services. I know that noble Lords are concerned about driver welfare standards, and I am pleased to tell them that this issue is covered in the current franchising guidance. I will consider further what is said in the guidance about consultation with the workforce, and workforce planning, as a consequence of this discussion. For the moment, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary and I ask my noble friend not to press it.

Amendments 18, 19 and 20 were also tabled by my noble friend Lord Woodley. They raise the important issue of ensuring that employee rights are protected when a local authority bus company is established or during the transfer to franchising. This country already has robust legislation in place to safeguard employees. As noble Lords know, the transfer of undertakings regulations apply to employees of businesses in the United Kingdom. Should a local transport authority choose to establish a bus company, it would be necessary for it to consider the application of TUPE regulations, which are supported by additional guidance to help employers and employees understand their respective responsibilities.

Similar principles apply to franchising. Section 123X of the Transport Act 2000 already provides for the TUPE regulations to apply to staff transfers resulting from the introduction or transfer of a bus franchise, meaning that proposed Amendment 20 would add little or no value beyond what is already in place.

Furthermore, the franchising statutory guidance offers detailed advice on how to determine whether a member of staff is “principally connected” with a service. In line with existing regulations, this guidance advises franchising authorities to work collaboratively with local operators and employee representatives to agree on criteria for determining which staff are principally connected with affected services. For example, such criteria could include the amount of time that an employee spends working on franchised services or whether the employee is part of a specific group assigned to those services. TUPE would then apply to employees identified as being principally connected.

It is of course worth emphasising that, like some other public service employers, existing local authority bus companies often go beyond basic statutory requirements to support their employees. This is particularly true for individuals from protected groups, with many local authority bus companies offering attractive terms and conditions, such as higher rates of pay, flexible working arrangements, and generous holiday and maternity and paternity provisions. However, as I said in respect of the previous amendment, I will consider further what is said in guidance in this respect beyond what is already there. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press these amendments.

The final amendment in this group comes from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and I note and welcome his interest in safety on the bus network. He will be aware that some of the most important parts of the Bill for passengers are around disability and addressing crime and safety, which includes provisions on training for front-line and wider bus staff. However, this amendment specifically relates to training for officials from franchising authorities on IOSH, which is about providing managers with the tools to maintain a safe environment, and NEBOSH, which is a qualification in health, safety and environmental management— I refuse to say either of those as an acronym.

The effect of this amendment would be an increase in the cost and time it takes to franchise, if staff had to undertake this specific training before starting the franchising process. We all understand that safety is paramount for bus staff, passengers and the wider public but there are only a small proportion of franchising cases and those involved in franchising where having such qualifications would be relevant. It may also be that some of the training for holders of an operator’s licence, the Driver Certificate of Professional Competence, might be equally appropriate.

Part of the reform is to simplify and speed up franchising and drive down costs. This amendment would disproportionately impact authorities in considering franchising, including those in smaller towns and rural areas. This would disenfranchise local authorities, which goes against some of the core tenets of the Bill. Nevertheless, I will consider further what might be said in guidance about these important qualifications for those involved in this process who should hold them. As a result, I hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I support my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. That is part of what we have done with the Bee Network in Manchester. We now have park-and-rides in parts of the borough where you can park your car all day and the bus comes and takes you straight down the very busy routes. We have increased bus lanes and camera alterations mean that as the bus arrives, traffic lights respond to it. It is that certainty, especially for people going to hospital and other places, that they know they can get there if they leave the car, perhaps a mile or a mile and a half away. It stops congestion at peak times throughout the borough. It is that foresight that local authorities have to embrace.

It is a good idea that if money comes from the Government, it comes with a proviso that you are providing evidence that you can reduce traffic and increase productivity by moving people from A to B without, as my noble friend Lady Pinnock said, waiting hours and hours for a bus that could eventually cost you your job. I fully support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to four amendments in this group, Amendments 30, 31, 32 and 69, although, again, I will speak to them out of numerical order. This week I stand down as chairman of the Built Environment Select Committee, and this morning I chaired my last meeting. It is quite curious that somebody very kindly gave me as a memento and a keepsake an original edition of the government-commissioned report, largely written by Colin Buchanan, Traffic in Towns. It warned that traffic would clog up towns and get in the way and strongly suggested that measures should be introduced. The interesting thing, perhaps, is that the report was published in 1963, 60 years ago. It was a very influential report, but obviously not influential enough if we are still, essentially, making the same claim today. It is possible that there is a political explanation of why the measures that Traffic in Towns proposed have never been implemented as fully as might be wished.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, recognises that it is important that local transport authorities know how much funding from central government is available to them. That is why funding allocations are already a matter of public record, as is the allocation methodology. In fact, the noble Lord asked me a Question in the Chamber, to which I responded, about the allocation methodology of funding awards that had recently been allocated. I have already referred, in responding to Amendment 4, to the intention of the department, subject to the spending review, to look at a longer funding period.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The Minister makes a very important point there. When the last grant was allocated—in round numbers, of £1 billion, £250 million went to bus operators and £750 million went to local authorities—a new methodology was introduced for allocating it. It was based on three factors; I cannot remember what they were but, in a way, that does not matter, because the important point that I raised was that there was no evidence underlying the choice of these three factors. Although it is true that the Minister answered my point in the Chamber, he offered no rationale or evidence for the choice of those three factors; they will come back to me the moment I sit down.

However, that is not my main point. My main point is not to drag over the coals of what was discussed in the debate we had on that Statement but, rather, to point out that the Minister now appears to be saying that the same unevidenced methodology, with no rationale to explain it—a third this, a third that, a third the other—will be applied when the department comes to distribute whatever funding it has available for buses as a result of the upcoming spending review. That is a very important point, if he is making it. Does he want to confirm that that is what he meant? Or did he, perfectly understandably, fall into a momentary lapse that he would want to withdraw? We really need to know.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention; my response to him will probably be very similar to what I said at the time. First, the allocation methodology was far more transparent than the previous Government’s allocation methodology: it allocated money to all local transport authorities in England for bus services when, previously, there had been occasions when money was competed for via a long and tedious process not necessarily winding up in success. I, too, am struggling to recall all three of the criteria, only because my mind is currently full of these amendments, but two of them were population and bus mileage, which are self-evidently the sorts of indexes that you would use for this process.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

One was deprivation.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I thank him for his further intervention; we got there between us, even though neither of us could remember to start with.

Those are pretty central ways of allocating that funding. I will not necessarily commit the department precisely to that methodology in future because, obviously, we have the right to consider the matter further. Equally, we would of course be open to any other proposed indices to consider against population, deprivation and place need, but, in my view, those seem to be pretty good ones; I cannot see that they are obviously wrong. In conclusion to this little excursion into this matter, it is certainly better than partial allocations and competing for money without local transport authorities being certain of success—I am certain of that.

It is important to note that much of the funding to local authorities and local transport authorities is consolidated. That funding is not hypothecated by central government, thus it is for the local transport authority to determine how to apportion its funding. For example, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provides local authorities with funding through the local government funding settlement. Money from that can currently be used to support bus services, for example by tendering. In future, it is possible that a local transport authority could choose to put some of that funding towards a bus grant using the powers proposed by Clause 16. The same is true for funding provided through the Department for Transport’s bus service improvement plans. Local transport authorities can decide how to allocate that funding towards a variety of bus initiatives.

Local authorities also have access to other sources of funding, including council tax money and retained business rates. Some of this money could be used to establish a local bus grant without recourse to funding provided by central government. The Government do not wish to tie the hands of local transport authorities by specifying the total funding to be used to carry out the functions under this section. It is for them to work out how much they wish to spend on such grants from within their wider allocations.

The powers proposed under Clause 16 are optional and would be available to local transport authorities if they chose to use them. It is thus hard to see how the statutory guidance—which may be published but its publication is not mandatory—could contain the information that would be required by the noble Lord’s amendment.

Lastly, I fear that the amendment does not fully recognise that the statutory guidance provided for by Clause 16(6) is intended to set out factors that a local transport authority should consider when choosing to design and pay a grant to bus operators. The local transport authorities will be very aware of their financial situation when doing so. The amendment is therefore not needed and I ask the noble Lord not to press it.

Turning to Amendment 32, it is good to see that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, recognises the important role that demand responsive transport can play in contributing to local public transport provision. The amendment takes a belt-and-braces approach—both proposed subsections would have the same effect by ultimately requiring local transport authorities to think about flexible bus services, a form of demand responsive transport, if they chose to use the powers that would be granted by Clause 16 to design and pay grants to bus operators. I contend that neither the belt nor the braces are needed. There is nothing in Clause 16 to prevent a local transport authority choosing to use the powers therein to have regard to, and to support flexible bus services, to the extent that they meet the definition of “service” in Clause 16(2). I am happy to have that on the record, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, requested.

Other types of demand responsive transport—for instance, that provided using private hire vehicles—are not likely to fall within the definition of “service” in this measure. Indeed, in our drafting of Clause 16 we have deliberately made it possible for local transport authorities to support a wider range of bus service types than the Government can through the existing powers available to the Secretary of State under Section 154 of the Transport Act 2000. This is because we want local transport authorities, in line with the devolution agenda, to be able to design grants that best support the outcomes that they see as important. That is key to help ensure that local bus services are able to contribute to economic growth and to breaking down barriers to opportunity.

Noble Lords will also be aware that Clause 16(6) gives the Secretary of State the option to publish the statutory guidance. If we feel that the guidance is needed, we will publish it.

Local transport authorities will be best placed to determine whether demand responsive transport is a viable option for their areas. The Bill and other aspects of our devolution agenda—including building on the devolution deals introduced by the previous Government —are aimed at giving local authorities more freedom and flexibility. However, given that flexible bus services are a key part of the bus offering in some areas, and will continue to be an important option for local authorities when considering the appropriate mix of services, it would seem strange for the statutory guidance, if it were published, not to contain references to flexible bus services. I hope I have demonstrated that the amendment is not needed and I therefore request the noble Lord not to press it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 33. I note with sadness that the late Lady Randerson is not here to be able to debate it herself. It is a terrible shame. As noble Lords will all be aware, economic growth is one of the core missions of this Government, and the amendment rightly highlights the important role small and medium-sized enterprises have to play in delivering growth. The Bill supports the economic growth mission by giving local transport authorities greater freedom in deciding how they support their local bus services to boost economic growth and remove barriers to opportunity.

The amendment is intended to ensure that local transport authorities that choose to use the new powers to design and pay grants to bus operators think about the needs of small bus operators when designing those grants. However, the amendment is not needed because under the grant-making powers given to them by the Bill, there is nothing preventing local transport authorities designing grants that prioritise and support smaller operators of bus services, subject to other competition and subsidy controls. Because most local transport authorities are in enhanced partnerships, they will be best placed to understand the needs of small operators. They will certainly know those in their areas and whether such grants would be appropriate.

As public authorities disbursing funding, local transport authorities will, however, need to ensure that any grants they design, using the powers that would be granted by the Bill, comply with relevant subsidy controls to ensure that they are not distorting their local market or the national market. I hope that assurance allows the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, not to press her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and the clarity of his answers to all our amendments. I remind the Committee that my Amendment 4 seeks to encourage the Government to respond positively to the need for funding, such as TfL has enjoyed. I note that Amendment 30 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is using funding to discourage enfranchising. There is quite a world of difference between us.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

If I may finish my point before the noble Lord can come in, I thank the Minister for his assurance on funding. I am going to wait for the figures to come out of all that, but I am especially disappointed that the ministry has asked him to point towards local government funding as a source, when that funding is under huge stress at the moment. With that, I wish to withdraw Amendment 4 in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I think that the noble Baroness said Amendment 30 when she probably meant Amendment 31, but that is a minor point.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Yes, sorry.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is complete nonsense to misrepresent my point in the way that she has done. I am really beginning to wonder, as I say, if the purpose of the Liberal Democrats is to use this Committee to attack the Conservatives rather than hold the Government to account. It is very odd indeed and might merit some discussion outside the Committee.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

This would provide better value for money for passengers and taxpayers, save local authorities the costs arising from tendering services, stop profit leakage to commercial operators under franchising and deregulation, and enable all surplus revenue to be reinvested in improving services for passengers. Transport for Quality of Life has estimated that it could save £500 million a year, which is not insignificant. Will the Minister therefore commit to reviewing and publishing the potential benefits to the farepayer and taxpayer of allowing local transport authorities to directly award their bus services to the companies they create? I beg to move.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 13 standing in my name. I can see the role of direct awards as a matter of principle in certain cases. They have the effect of removing from the process competition between potential bidders for a contract, but there are benefits to competition. I know the Minister wants me to imbibe and regurgitate great chunks of Lord Ashfield’s writings from the 1920s and 1930s, in which he could barely tolerate the word “competition” without using the adjective “wasteful”, but there are some benefits that might arise from competition that even the Minister might admit to.

I am willing to accept, if the Minister gives this assurance, that taking competition out of the process can be consistent with existing procurement legislation. He started to make that argument at Second Reading. I will not challenge him and say that this is contrary to procurement legislation—possibly it can be made compatible with procurement legislation, but he needs to explain how. However, I am concerned, in cases where there is more than one incumbent operator—which may well be the case, especially where local transport is for more geographically dispersed areas—about how a direct-award process might work in a way that was seen to be fair and did not expose the process to potentially awkward, difficult and unpleasant legal challenge and things of that character.

Essentially, I am trying to get more clarity from the Government about how direct awards will work in the more difficult and complex circumstances. I am seeking explicit assurances about the compatibility with procurement legislation, which I suspect the Minister can explain convincingly, but it needs to be put on the record.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s comments. The difficulty with direct awards is that sometimes they are genuinely necessary. We experienced that on the railways—where circumstances change, a business fails or there is simply a need to take greater control for reasons that come along unexpectedly. The danger is—I go back to what I said earlier about ideology —that the requirement for a direct award caused by circumstance is overtaken by direct award driven by ideology.

I am afraid that that is at the heart of the noble Lord’s amendment. I understand the principle he represents, but it would not be right to have a situation in which a local authority was able, unfettered, to set up its own bus company and make a direct award to it, regardless of whether it was any good or not—there have been many occasions in history where the local municipal bus company has not been good at all.

In the world the Government seek to create, where in my view there is a role for direct award, on occasions, when it is necessary, I too would like to understand how the Minister would ensure that that power is used in a way that is right and proper, and, ultimately, as I said earlier, beneficial to the passenger.

Railway Electrification

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My reference earlier to integrating the electrification programme with rolling stock decisions reflects the fact that many trains on the British railway network are now capable of operating in either electric or diesel mode. That is a consequence of rolling stock purchases over the past 10 years. It enables some more choices to be made about the very expensive infrastructure cost of electrification versus electrification where it makes a real difference in both time and volume of rail traffic, and where trains that will run on electricity—when the electricity is there—will also serve parts of the network where it is not.

Some of the decisions which have been taken in rolling stock will last 35 years, like the rolling stock itself. That is true of the Great Western main line electrification, where those trains happily run on the wires as far as Cardiff and then travel by diesel not only to Swansea but further west to Carmarthen and to the south-west as well. A similar situation is true on the Midland main line, where bi-mode trains will be in operation. There is no point in investing in very expensive infrastructure if we can find another way of creating electrification for the vast majority of the network. The study being done by Network Rail, which will be completed and feed in to the department’s overall review of capital projects, will point out where that valuable public money ought to be best spent.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the electrification of the north Wales main line, that the Conservative party committed itself to in its manifesto, was to be funded from the savings made from HS2 and the Minister should not say that it was an unfunded commitment.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

There is a report out today from Rail Partners which says that the costs of rail freight have been rising three times faster than the costs of carrying freight by road. Part of this is due to the rising cost of electricity. Has the Minister discussed with his colleagues in other departments the effect on the economic case for electrification of their pursuing policies that are giving us the highest cost and the most expensive electricity in Europe?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will continue to claim that the Network North plan was unfunded, because it depended on money that had never been properly allocated in the future to HS2 phase 2. When this Government took office, there was no evidence of any financial plans to deliver virtually any part of that agenda. In respect of the cost of electricity, of course, it is dependent on the relative price of electricity compared with other forms of propulsion for rail, but in terms of electrification of the railway and its use for freight, other considerations are far stronger than the cost of electricity and where it is generated. I shall concentrate in answering this Question on the electrification of the railway, because that is the Question that was asked.

Driving Tests: Secondary Market

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

One consideration in improving the relationship between driving examiners and the DVSA is to have enough of them to conduct tests on a basis where people do not feel excluded or significantly delayed. It is not the only action the Government are taking: my honourable friend the Future of Roads Minister made a Statement in the other place on 18 December with a seven-point plan, all of which is designed both to help people get tests when they need them and to reduce the amount of time it takes between applying for a test and actually taking one.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend who, after a lifetime of bicycling, offers greater advocacy for learner drivers than the Government appear interested in doing—possibly he is looking for a driving test himself at this late stage. During the previous Government, in the last 18 months, the DVSA issued 283 warnings and 746 suspensions, and closed 689 alleged businesses all over this scam. None of this enforcement activity has been mentioned by the Minister. Has it been dropped? Has the DVSA gone slack under a Labour Administration, while they are focusing on consultations and reworkings of processes?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

As a matter of fact, the statistics I can quote back to him are that 344 warnings and 791 suspensions have been issued, and 811 business accounts have been closed since the new Government took office. I think that comprehensively demonstrates that there has been no such slackening off and that the DVSA is on top of this. The real answer, however, is to reduce the amount of time it takes to get the test in the first place so that people do not feel very early in their learning journey that they have to book a test long in advance of it taking place. The Government’s aim is to get that down to seven weeks by recruiting a large quantity of driving examiners, to whom I previously referred.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Lord Moylan Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is difficult—in fact, impossible, really—for me to add meaningfully at this stage to the many personal and emotional tributes that have been paid by noble Lords to the late Baroness Randerson. I knew her since I entered the House, but only rather distantly as a figure who spoke authoritatively and compellingly from the Liberal Democrat Benches on the subject of transport. But over the last few months, as I have taken on this role, I have had the opportunity of getting to know her better. Indeed, if I may say so, I developed over that period a degree of affection for her rather shrewd sense of humour. Others know her a great deal better than I ever achieved, and I regret that I shall not have the opportunity to develop the growing personal regard that I had for her. We shall miss her very much.

I thank the Minister and his officials for the time that they have given to briefing me on this Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

I turn to the Bill itself. Over Christmas, I had a message from a foreign friend asking me what it was like living in a socialist paradise, which led me to reflect a little on the nature of the Government. What strikes me about the Government, and it is present here again, is not really their socialism, though there is a degree of that; it is the fact that they are a Government who are almost solely and utterly focused on the public sector. The public sector is the solution to everything, and of course the policies of the public sector unions are determinative. So it is that we come to what is, in essence, a public sector Bill that is fundamentally driven by a rather narrow ideological approach. It is statist and anti-enterprise. It is also mildly nostalgic and backward-looking—a sort of return to the Attlee Government is essentially what we are being offered today.

Our first objection to the Bill, therefore, is that it is bureaucratic. It is anti-enterprise and, through franchising, it is likely effectively to snuff out a number of private sector businesses, which will be reduced to becoming not entrepreneurial entities at all but merely agencies of the state, operating to a fee and doing what the state instructs them to do in terms of routes, services and charging the fares that the state, through the local transport authorities, has set for them.

The Minister knows, from his time as the owner of a private bus company, the benefits to passenger service of private businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, and my noble friend Lord McLoughlin drew attention to the decline in passenger numbers, and the implication that certain noble Lords appear to draw is that it is a consequence of private provision. The same noble Lords, however, do not give credit to the private sector for the massive increase in usage of railways under privatisation. In that case they are probably right as well, to some degree. The point is that both bus and rail demand are subject to stronger fundamental forces. That is the fundamental problem that the Government have in trying to revive the sort of 1950s vision of bus services that we see in this Bill.

The fact is that in the case of rail, the Government hope to benefit from a secular rise in demand for rail passenger services. In the case of buses, they can hope only to prop up what is in fact a secular fall, a decline, in demand for bus services. A number of noble Lords have pointed out that that is very expensive to do. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, gave some illustrations of how expensive it might be. It is a random example and many examples were developed, but one of the first examples given in the debate was by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, who referred to North Shropshire and the cuts in services there. Does anyone really imagine that those cuts can be reversed and restored without heavy public expenditure?

The Government’s chosen case studies, of which they are so proud, include London and Manchester. Going back to November 2024, shortly before her political demise, the former Secretary of State, Louise Haigh, wrote in the Sunday Mirror about London:

“This represents record capital investment to the majority of places and a once-in-a-generation reform plan that aims to deliver London-style buses to every corner of the country—including those areas that are usually overlooked”.


The noble Lord, Lord Snape, said it would cost £850 million a year to sustain London buses. The figure I have is £738 million a year in 2024 but we are in, as the Americans say, the same ballpark. If I may be so bold as to disagree with such an experienced transport commentator as my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, there has in fact been a reduction in bus mileage in London of approximately 5% under the current mayor. There was a plan to reduce it by 7%. I do not think the full 7% was delivered, but it was certainly of the order of 5%. This is palpable to those of us who live in or close to central London in particular. In the case of Manchester, the Bee Network celebrated its first year of franchised bus services in September 2024. Passenger journeys in Greater Manchester grew by 5% in the first year of franchising.

By contrast, however, in the year ending March 2024—I agree this is not exactly the same period, but it is the best overlap I can get—national bus passenger numbers grew by 7%, and those figures are taken from the Department for Transport’s official statistics. I might say also in the context of secular decline that that also illustrates how little can be learned from simply looking at one year’s figures. The idea that Manchester demonstrates a huge success—outstanding, apart from the rest of the country—because of franchising needs to be substantiated. It is not necessarily very persuasive on the numbers given. As my noble friend Lord Effingham pointed out, the establishment of the Greater Manchester Bee Network required over £1 billion of central government investment. If you are spending the thick end of £1 billion a year sustaining the London bus network, you might regard a one-off payment of £1 billion to Manchester as mere small change, but replicate that around the country and you will eventually be looking at real numbers. The upshot is that any promise by the Government to give London-style bus services to the whole of the country is essentially a chimera. It is a bogus offer that the Government cannot afford to deliver.

Let us turn briefly to passengers, which is my next topic, if we move away from costs. We argued forcefully when we debated the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill that the focus of the Bill, its overriding purpose, should be to improve passenger services. It was, after all, a Bill—now an Act—about passenger services on the railway. However, the Government resisted that and overturned it in the other place. Similarly, this Bill makes no commitment to an improvement in services for bus passengers. It simply hopes that by making structural and procurement changes it will somehow achieve that. It has no overall duty on the Secretary of State to seek to improve passenger services. It says simply that perhaps the Secretary of State should.

Is the Bill going to work? In its manifesto, the Labour Party committed to reform the system for procuring bus services and to give local leaders new powers. The reality of the Bill is that the Government are not really giving local leaders new powers, but simply removing the Department for Transport’s role in confirming the appropriateness of franchising in other areas. It is our view that the Government’s decision to remove the Secretary of State’s discretionary power to grant franchising powers to local authorities risks too much, and we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to intervene where a local authority’s franchising model is failing, as a safeguard to protect services for local people where local leadership is poor.

It is essential to understand the differences between large concentrations of persons living in an urban area and the structure of a market that exists in rural areas. That was the logic behind the 2017 Act, which gave powers to certain conurbations, in effect, to franchise or take more control of their own buses but to deny them elsewhere. Extending that power throughout the whole country is, I am afraid, to take a chance and offer a bogus prospectus to the public. The vast majority of local transport authorities will not have the skills to plan routes, assess demand, set fares and introduce a ticketing system, No doubt we will be told that the Bus Centre of Excellence will be deployed to help them. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when he responds how many people are employed by the Bus Centre of Excellence. As other noble Lords have said, the consequence is that the Bill has no answer to the needs of rural communities.

We believe that some subsidiary elements of the Bill are welcome—for example, closing the loophole in the safeguarding of children who are being transported to school on independent school bus services—but we have other concerns, which I will briefly run through, because we will have an opportunity to discuss them further in Committee.

The first is the relative silence of the Bill on ticketing, which is remarkable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is always ahead of the game, said—to the rather older Members of the House, perhaps—Oyster cards are not where it’s at any more. Contactless payment, at the very least, is what one should be looking at, rather than a bespoke Oyster card-type system. But it is remarkable how little the Bill has to say about that and, as she said, about the ability to deploy that payment method outside a particular local transport area. Where is the Bill taking us on that; what do the Government have in mind?

Data collection is very important, but more important is its dissemination. In London, the data collected by Transport for London is available free to all app developers. Do the Government intend the same with the data collected nationally; or is it, heaven forfend, the secret plan of the Department for Transport to develop its own app to disseminate this on an exclusive basis? I think we would like to know.

The training of bus drivers in relation to disability in particular is very important, but as the Minister knows, because I have expressed this to him privately, I am concerned about the implications of the passage in the Bill on drivers being trained to tackle anti-social behaviour and potentially violent activity. It is my very clear view—and I suspect it is, on reflection, his—that it is not right for the public to expect bus drivers to put themselves at risk in order to confront incidents that the police would tackle by deploying two, three or four uniformed officers. We have to be very realistic about this, and we will want to explore the issue when the Bill is in Committee.

Safety is of course terribly important, as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, made clear. It is worth asking to what extent the franchise model contributes to a sort of aggressive bus management that might lead to buses being driven less safely than might otherwise be the case. I said earlier that the Bill has a sort of nostalgic “back to Attlee” flavour to it. One way of illustrating that is that it completely fails to mention anything to do with demand-led transport. The Bill very much envisages a fixed-route, traditional bus service but in fact, in many rural areas demand-led transport might well be and is already proving to be a much more effective way of providing affordable services to communities. The Bill as it stands contains almost no provision for that and makes no reference to it; it will be interesting to see how that fits with the franchising system.

I will conclude. This is an ideologically driven, backward-looking, bureaucratic and expensive Bill. We, for our part on these Benches, shall do our best to improve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It was a long time ago.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It was a long time ago; the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and I completely agree. I wanted only to say that I do not claim particular credit for it; if you lead a team, you should give credit to the team that you lead and not take it all yourself.

The noble Lord’s more important points were about inclusion and accessibility. I absolutely recognise the points he made about the accessibility of the bus service to people with disabilities. I note his contention that Clause 22 does not go far enough, but I promise—and I am sure we will discuss it in Committee—to look at the degree and extent to which this clause can answer his points. He must be able to see that the intention of Clause 22 is to improve bus stopping areas and for the Secretary of State to give some guidance, which ought to be mandatorily taken into regard by local transport and highway authorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised points about community control and who is in control. As I said, the point of this is to return control to local transport authorities. He also raised a question, which he largely answered, about what happens if local transport authorities do not do their job. One would hope that the citizens of the local transport authority would vote them out for not doing their job. That is the remedy. I do not think that the Secretary of State coming down on local transport authorities like a ton of bricks is a satisfactory alternative; we want to return control to the people who should rightly have it.

Incidentally, there have been bus routes down the Embankment since the trains went. I used to travel on route 109, but it does not go there any more.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also raised some important points on the Bill. She raised Clause 9 on approved persons, which we will discuss in Committee. The intention is not to deregulate approved persons but to widen the range of them. I completely agree with her that they should have some qualifications. An unqualified person should not be able to make a judgment about whether a franchising scheme is right.

The noble Baroness asked whether Clause 11 complies with the procurement regulations. I am advised that I am able to tell her that it does.

The noble Baroness welcomed Clause 19 and referred to assistance data. I will take that away and see what can be done. Bringing data on bus service usage into the 21st century is quite important and I am sympathetic to the idea that, as long as it is not a burden to bus operators, or indeed local transport authorities, collecting data is the right thing to do, so that we know what is going on.

I note very clearly the noble Baroness’s comments on Clauses 24 and 25, that diversity training is not the same as the rights for disabled people, and on what we did, with her great assistance, in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, referring to the Equality Act. I will go away and reflect on that.

Lastly, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who has some extraordinary views about socialist paradises and returning to the era of the Attlee Government. I find it particularly extraordinary because I know that the noble Lord has such a strong view about the autonomy of local authorities. The Bill intends to return bus services to the autonomy of local authorities and for the Secretary of State not to intervene so much in the provision of services.

I have to tell the noble Lord that there is currently a huge disparity in the provision of bus services across Britain. I was not only responsible for the bus service in London, as he knows, but, for a measurable length of time, I was responsible for the bus services in what was laughingly called south-east England but apparently included Norfolk, Northampton, Leicester and Southampton. Even within one bus group, 20 years ago, there was an extraordinary variation in the provision of services and the extent to which bus operators sought to maximise the network and the return on it, or cut off individual journeys, to the extent to which some towns and cities in Britain find themselves short of or even without bus services after 7 pm and on Sundays.

I think I know roughly how to run a bus network, and one of the things you should do, which is the feature of the best bus services run by the private companies outside London—I can mention some places, but I will not—is to seek to service the network and to take people to school, hospital, work, leisure and home. It is in those places where those services have drifted away that something else needs to be done.

That is also true of rural services. The noble Lord alleged, quite wrongly, that the Bill does not deal with demand-responsive transport. It very much does—that is one of the remedies open to local transport authorities, as it should be. It is not a particularly cheap methodology but it is there to be used and, in fact, there are some startlingly good examples of it. He refers to it as though it is an urban feature but his own Government instituted an experimental regime in Cornwall, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, knows, has produced rather a good bus service in Cornwall by having features of Cornwall Council’s activities that amount to franchising in the same way that the Bill will allow to happen.

I have come to the end of my allotted time. There is a limit to what I can answer here. As I set out earlier, the Bill is primarily about empowering local leaders wherever they are. It is a privilege to bring this forward to your Lordships’ House for Second Reading. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s debate. I welcome the support of those who have spoken in favour of the Bill’s measures and look forward to continuing the debate on the Bill in Grand Committee.

Old Oak Common: Train Disruption

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to criticise a railway that cannot operate reliably on Sundays and a lot of work is going into making sure that the optional working arrangement for Sundays for drivers and train managers on the Great Western Railway is addressed. But he is conflating two issues. We are mindful of the railway needs of the south-west of England. I think I have met virtually every Member of the other House west of Bristol on the matter of Old Oak Common. Old Oak Common will be an asset to the railway, and the railway to the south-west of England. As always with these things, construction is difficult and takes more time than we would like, but the result will be a better railway network for all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said that a station at Euston is indispensable for the success and effectiveness of HS2. Indeed, the Government made funds available in the Budget to build the tunnels from Old Oak Common through to Euston. How close are the Government to seeing deliverable engineering proposals for the construction of those platforms at Euston that allow passengers to board, alight and make use of these tunnels? How far away are we from actually having a plan?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord knows, but one of the things that I took on in my previous role was chairing the Euston Partnership, which I did for five years. In that time, we saw at least two iterations of a design for the HS2 station. One was eye-wateringly expensive and included air-conditioned platforms, which is not the case even in Saudi Arabia. The alternative looked like an eastern European railway station after the Second World War, with corrugated iron canopies. Neither of those is at all sufficient. I have seen work going on for an integrated station between the Network Rail side and the HS2 side. I am optimistic that it is affordable, and that it can be financed and built. Incidentally, there will be a large amount of office space, creating jobs and housing in that area as well.

Electric Scooters and Electric Bicycles: Pedestrian Safety

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I certainly recognise the passion with which the noble Baroness speaks. Before Christmas, the Government published the English devolution White Paper, which has in it a provision for local transport authorities to be empowered to regulate on street micromobility—that is, e-bikes and e-cycle schemes—so that local areas can shape these schemes and tackle the scourge of badly parked e-cycles and e-scooters.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, as well as being potentially criminally ridden, these vehicles are also being used in the course of committing crime. In 2023-24, there were 11,000 offences recorded involving the use of e-bikes and e-scooters—a huge growth on previous years, and there is no sign of abatement. Do the Minister and his Government have a plan for curbing this epidemic?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

It is easy to recognise the position the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, talked about. Indeed, he talked about it in very similar terms the week before Christmas. It is primarily a matter of enforcement by chief police officers, simply because, as he says, there may or may not be a crime in relation to the use of e-scooters and e-bikes, but crimes are being committed as a consequence of using them. This debate is one of the ways of drawing it to the attention of chief police officers, so that enforcement action is appropriately taken.