Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Paul Kohler Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

As other Members have noted, buses are the most used form of public transport, and in much of the country they are the only option available. Outside London, however, bus use is in sharp decline, with more than 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. That is not because of insufficient demand, but because of the Conservative policy of deregulation that put profit before people, allowing private operators to cream off the valuable routes with scant regard for the needs of the wider community, resulting in increased fares and reduced or completely abandoned services for many—unless, of course, the local authority, starved of access to the profitable routes, met the costs of the unprofitable ones.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

That is exactly what has happened in Cornwall. The No. 11 and No. 12 bus served lots of rural towns and villages to Derriford hospital, but it has been salami-sliced—I have just got off the phone to Go Cornwall Bus—after years of underfunding. My constituent Mary in Padstow relies on that service to get her breast cancer treatment at Derriford, and she can no longer afford to get to the hospital, which would involve spending hundreds of pounds on taxis. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural areas like mine, we need ringfenced funding to protect those key healthcare routes?

[Mr Kohler]

Those are exactly the kinds of issues that must be addressed, and this Bill does not do enough to achieve that. I will come back to that in a moment.

In rural areas, the story is often one of total disconnection, with communities cut off and people unable to get to work or hospital appointments, or to visit friends or relations.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural constituencies like mine, bus routes are an absolute lifeline and a route out of poverty? When the 84 and 85 bus route was cut last year, it meant not only that people could not get to medical appointments or to work, but that students had to drop out of the college courses that would have enabled them to escape from poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to make sure that this Bill enables an affordable, joined-up and genuinely useful rural transport network?

[Mr Kohler]

I completely agree. The point is that this is about not only getting people out of poverty but growing the economy. People need access to bus routes; otherwise they are left with expensive and much more environmentally damaging private transport.

Put simply, a poor or non-existent bus service is not just an inconvenience. It is a barrier to opportunity, a brake on economic growth, and an obstacle to achieving net zero. Given the decline in local bus services under the Conservatives, my party and I warmly welcome the Government’s renewed focus on this issue. The Bill includes measures that are long overdue and that my party will support.

[Anna Dixon]

Much has been made about the decline in bus usage. The pattern is similar in West Yorkshire, where between 2011 and 2022 there was a reduction of some 60 million journeys. There has been lots of mention of Greater Manchester, but West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin’s bus service improvement plan has already seen a 4% increase in bus usage. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that approaches that devolve responsibility and make it easier for mayors and local authorities to take over public control through franchising are the route to improved usage and, ultimately, the delivery of better buses?

[Mr Kohler]

I do agree. It is also about funding, which we must explore; but, yes, my party believes in localism—bringing things down to the local level is crucial.

It needs to be stated from the off that the Bill does not go far enough. It falls short of delivering the comprehensive, transformative change that our bus network desperately needs—and thus, I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to be even more ambitious.

I will now outline the measures in the Bill that my party supports. Local government, not Whitehall, know what is best for their area. That is why my party has long championed localism, which is all about providing communities with the necessary tools to realise their potential. The Bill’s provisions to improve, streamline and extend franchising rights to all local transport authorities is consequently long overdue and supported on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the community in north Taunton on getting the first No. 1 bus of the morning—the 6.22 am service—restored? I had the joy of experiencing it this morning, tinged only with the tiredness that results from having got the 6.22. Does he agree that we need specific funding so that bus services can properly connect with hospitals, such as Taunton’s Musgrove Park hospital and many others?

[Mr Kohler]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the community on its success, and I agree that we need funding for these critical services.

The placing of socially necessary services on a statutory footing is a beneficial change to the enhanced partnership model, as it ensures that local authorities assess the impact of service changes and consider alternatives. The Bill also rightly lifts the outdated, ideologically-driven ban on municipally-owned bus companies, empowering local authorities who wish to use it, rather than infantilising them. Taken as a whole, the measures create an improved set of options from which local authorities can choose the approach that works best for them.

As the Secretary of State noted, it is important to realise that this is not, and must not become, a one-size-fits-all approach. Not every local authority will wish to pursue franchising, establish a bus company or abandon the partnership model. What works for Greater Manchester or London may not work for Oxfordshire or Cornwall. It must be up to local leaders and, ultimately, local communities to decide what works best for them. I welcome the fact that the Government are not mandating a certain approach.

Therein lies the challenge: empowering local authorities in law is one thing, but enabling them in practice is quite another. Although the Bill hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank. Franchising is complex, resource-intensive and unfamiliar to the vast majority of local authorities. It requires legal expertise, commercial understanding, operational planning and, above all, funding. The Department for Transport has acknowledged those difficulties, yet this legislation provides little to help overcome them.

The Government’s laudable desire to increase their own capacity to advise councils is welcome, but I am not convinced that they are doing enough. The recently established Bus Centre of Excellence, which we will no doubt hear much about during the passage of the Bill, is a positive development, but does it really have the necessary capacity and resources to provide meaningful support to all those who might need it? If we are to see franchising become a viable option beyond a handful of combined authorities, we must take bolder steps to offer councils without either the expertise or the finances more than just a helpline or homilies on best practice.

Every hon. Member in this House knows how overstretched their local authorities are—with the exception of our colleagues from Reform, of course, who are sadly absent from today’s debate, no doubt too busy frantically searching for the untapped resources and savings they confidently promised they would discover in their new fiefdoms. As for the rest of us, we know that most local authorities lack the finances, expertise and bandwidth to use the tools the Bill provides. As a result, only the local authorities that already have the capacity to do so will use them, which will exacerbate regional disparities, not reduce them.

Even if we overcome such problems, that will not remove the continuing role of central Government in securing access and affordability. That is why the Government’s reckless decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3 casts a dark shadow over the Bill. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs for passengers and helped to bring people back on to the bus network. It was precisely the kind of policy of which we need more, not less. Increasing fares by £1 per trip may not sound prohibitive, but for those on low incomes or families making multiple journeys, the change represents a significant cost increase, adding £20 to the cost of a weekly commute to anyone who has to take two buses to work while only saving the Government £150 million.

Let us be clear: this increase is regressive. It will hit the poorest hardest, particularly at a time of a cost of living crisis. Surely the Government should commit to preserving affordability, not undermining it, as raising fares in the absence of service improvements risks entrenching decline, not reversing it. Even more worryingly, rumours are now doing the rounds that the fare cap may be removed altogether. That would be a catastrophic mistake. We must not allow the progress of recent years to unravel in a Treasury-pleasing piece of virtue signalling that will only save the Exchequer a further £150 million.

A thriving, affordable bus network is not a luxury but an essential public service. This Bill must ensure that that is the case. Nowhere is that more true than in our rural areas. As we have seen for years, the current unregulated bus market is failing small villages and remote hamlets, serving them neither efficiently nor sufficiently.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to protect section 22 community bus services such as West Oxfordshire Community Transport, which are now facing a mountain of bureaucracy to re-tender for routes that it built up from scratch against commercial bus operators that have all the abilities to pitch and win, leaving community bus operators high and dry?

[Mr Kohler]

I do agree. We must do all we can to reduce bureaucracy. The Bill goes some way towards that, but it needs to do more.

The Bill as it stands provides nothing specific for rural areas—no dedicated rural funding stream and no obligation to maintain coverage. It is clear that if we are to be ambitious and achieve the economic growth that rural areas need, we must ensure that local authorities have the ambition and financial means to improve public transport. The Bill is missing an opportunity in failing to do so.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

One of the consequences for my constituents of losing services like the 84/85, the T2 and the 622 is that they are cut off from health services. Does my hon. Friend agree that such access should be a priority for investment, and that a focus on the increase in passenger numbers when judging investment choices disadvantages rural areas?

[Mr Kohler]

I agree. We must not focus only on passenger numbers. It is also about connectivity, and about making sure that rural areas thrive.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I would like to concentrate not just on purely rural areas, but on places like Surrey. In my constituency, the 514 bus connects Esher and Molesey, two important centres of our community, but it runs only twice on weekdays and once on a Saturday. On Sundays it is never to be seen. The service was severely cut back in 2016. To travel a distance of a mile and a half, people have to get a bus more than five miles into London and out again, which takes 40 minutes—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I have made this point before, but interventions really must be shorter than that. There are many hon. Members who wish to get in.

[Mr Kohler]

I will simply say that I agree with my hon. Friend.

Hon. Members have spoken about rural areas suffering. From 2015 to 2023, Shropshire lost 63% of its bus miles, the largest decline in any part of England. No doubt that was one reason among many that Shropshire voters decided that they had had enough of the Conservatives. In May, they voted a majority Liberal Democrat administration in for the first time.

Although the bus service in Shropshire is one of the worst in the country, it is by no means an isolated case. I have heard from colleagues and residents across the country, just as the House has heard today, that in rural areas such as Norfolk, Somerset and Hampshire, having no buses—or one bus a day, if residents are lucky—has sadly become the norm for many villages. This is not just inconvenient; it is holding back our rural economies and stifling growth. I fear that the measures in the Bill will not be sufficient to reverse that decline.

Lastly, I want to address accessibility, an issue on which my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place and other noble Lords have made good progress and have secured a number of improvements. As originally drafted, the Bill included positive provision on the mandatory training of staff, both in supporting disabled passengers and in tackling antisocial behaviour on board. We support those measures, but the Liberal Democrats believe that true accessibility means more than awareness training; it means fully accessible vehicles, clear signage and announcements, and accessible journey planning tools. Critically, it means accessible infrastructure, from bus stops to ticket machines.

The excellent amendment to ensure accessibility guidance on the provision of floating bus stops, which if badly designed can prove a real hazard to disabled people, was inserted after representations from the Lib Dem transport lead in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon. The inclusion of bus network accessibility plans, after pressure from Baroness Brinton among others, is an important amendment that will go some way towards helping us to understand the barriers that disabled residents face in accessing a vital lifeline. We must not be complacent, however. I anticipate that more work will need to be done in Committee, as the Secretary of State has intimated, to probe the Bill’s provisions and ensure that they are as effective as they can be.

I will conclude where I began. My party and I welcome many aspects of the Bill. After years of Tory neglect, provisions to give local authorities more control of and input into their local bus networks are long overdue and clearly sensible, but we cannot give local authorities tantalising new powers without a practical means of using them. That will require sustained investment and reform of the funding models. I acknowledge that the Government have promised to include longer-term funding settlements in the spring spending review, but noises off suggest that those are unlikely to address the shortfall in local government funding.

The Bill will provide the necessary tools, but if councils are to build something effective with them, they will need not just legislation, but the finance, expertise and flexibility required to give effect to their vision and address their communities’ needs. I urge the Secretary of State to go back to the Treasury and ask for more, because financing a viable bus network is key to growing our economy.

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

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I am a councillor in Merton.

[The Chair]

We will now begin our consideration of the Bill.

Clause 1

Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

No, not necessarily. A lead amendment will be moved when we come to a group of amendments, as will happen in our fifth debate. Only the lead amendment will be moved, and it may or may not be agreed to. I will then decide, on the basis of the debate on the grouped amendments, whether everything in the clause has been sufficiently debated and we need hear no more about it, thank you very much. If there are things missing, I will say, “Actually, this still warrants a clause stand part debate.” Other Chairmen may take a different view. I have found, generally, that Members like to take a slightly broader view in debates, which is fine, but you cannot do it twice. What we cannot have is repetitive debates.

Because new clause 22 is grouped with clause 1, I call Paul Kohler to speak to his new clause.

[Mr Kohler]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The Lib Dems support the Bill and applaud the Government’s ambitions. This is an excellent move forward, and we support the purpose set out in clause 1. The stated aim to

“improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services”

in the UK is vital. However, buses have for too long been a poor relation in public transport, which is why we are pushing the Government to give local authorities a general duty to promote the use of bus services.

The bus is the most popular form of public transport, but it has long been neglected and, to some extent, looked down on. New clause 22 would ensure that local authorities have a duty to encourage the use of buses and promote their benefits and services, but it is only a general duty. Subsection (2) would not be mandatory; it simply suggests the things that a local authority might consider.

Although the Government’s ambitions are wonderful and to be commended, we want local authorities to start saying to people, “Yes, buses are important, and we have a role in providing them.” That is why we are pushing the Government on that.

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

It is very reassuring to have you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I already feel calmer, and I am sure the Minister does as well.

--- Later in debate ---

Because of that ideological decision, buses are now more expensive than they need to be, because the organisation is choosing to pay more than the going rate—up to £16. There is an impact on taxpayers’ and fare payers’ cost of living, disposable income and ability to take the bus in the first place. That is just a small example. A person pays more for the bus and in tax, and they get less and less because the passenger is no longer in the lead. Who does the Minister support? Does he support efficient driver costs at the going commercial rate, or does he support artificially inflating pay through this process? There is an argument for both, but let us be honest about it. What do this Government say? If it is the latter, who will fund the difference?

[Mr Kohler]

The concern raised by many stakeholders about this Bill is not about its contents. We all agree with its contents, but the money and expertise are lacking. Local councils do not have either. As I said on Second Reading, although this Bill

“hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 97.]

We have great sympathy with Conservative new clauses 14 and 18. It is important that we ask local authorities to list the objectives and evidence. It is also be important to go through the costs. Those constraints and disciplines are crucial and will avoid ideological decisions. We have seen that already with rail nationalisation, where a Transport for London model, which the industry and many Labour Members supported at one point, would have been a better approach than concession contracts. New clauses 14 and 18 are a useful brake on letting ideology, rather than pragmatism, take control. They are not impediments; they are things that surely should be done and are good practice. We will support new clauses 14 and 18.

On new clause 30, we want to make it easier for local transport authorities that do not have the expertise. Having a number of off-the-shelf approaches to franchising is surely a good thing. There are specific issues in rural areas and villages, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk will speak to, but in urban areas we have real issues with bus routes that do not keep to local authority boundaries, but cross them. There are problems of co-ordination when bus routes cross boundaries, and an absence of buses because of those problems. Having a number of off-the-shelf ways to help authorities would surely be a good thing. I will leave it to my hon. Friend to take on that matter.

[Joe Robertson]

All the comments I was going to make have already been made by the shadow Minister. He was so complete and comprehensive that he leaves no space for any additional comment. However, I will briefly give my slant on some of the points. When I rose at the beginning of this sitting, it was to talk about the costs that would be put on to local authorities by the general duties in new clause 22. That has been dealt with. This clause will put much more significant costs on to local authorities that choose to go down the franchising route—after all, franchising is a choice available to a transport authority. Those are costs incurred by transferring a risk from commercial operators to local authorities and the taxpayer if the business does not go in the way of the business plan.

The shadow Minister has already spoken about the huge cost subsidy, effectively, to the services operated in London and Manchester, where there are huge economy of scale advantages. My view is that the franchising model, if it works at all, works for high population densities—cities, large local authorities and those that can swallow bad years—and offers nothing at all for smaller authorities other than the option to take a step into the unknown for no obvious benefit. I think of my local authority on the Isle of Wight—it is fanciful to think that that unitary authority could in any way take a step towards franchising. Even if we end up with a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire county council, which has a big budget deficit, it seems highly unattractive to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight to go down the franchising route and take on all those risks.

I have no direct experience of the Manchester model, but if Manchester really is the shining beacon, it is one that has cost a huge amount of money. However, that is a huge amount of money that the taxpayer in Manchester may be able to swallow. For a transport authority with a significant chunk of rurality—Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is an exception only in that it has an island attached to it, not in terms of how rural it is—I cannot see the figures adding up because no money goes with franchising.

The Government may talk about money being available for bus services and the £3 fare cap. Those are welcome things, but they are not sums of money that naturally flow with an option to go down the franchising route. Although that does not go against having franchising as an option, I feel that it is going to be attractive only to a fairly small proportion of England—areas with high-density populations and those with metropolitan authorities. In this country, franchising is for the few; it is not a mass model that all local authorities will find attractive. It could lead to a more uneven quality of bus services across the country, and to a two-tier system.

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

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“which have one or more stopping places”

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

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. My party has little to say on this group. We are supportive of clauses 5 and 6, although the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made a good point, and we would like to hear the Minister’s views on it.

[Simon Lightwood]

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham spoke about the removal of minimum mobilisation periods. It is consistent with the aims of the Bill to empower local transport authorities to decide how best to design their bus services, and this will be an issue for franchising authorities to determine. A minimum mobilisation period does not need to be mandated by central Government. This is something that franchising authorities will need to consider, and it is in their interests to make sure that there is a smooth transition to a franchising scheme, if that is the pathway they wish to consider.

Franchising authorities will make their determinations about the duration of mobilisation periods based on numerous factors. The clause provides flexibility for mobilisation to occur in a period shorter than six months, where it is in the interests of stakeholders and passengers. As I have explained, the Government intend to update the franchising guidance following Royal Assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Criteria for granting service permits

--- Later in debate ---

Briefly, clause 9 provides for the sensible removal of the need for operators of the services described in proposed new subsection 123J(8) of the Transport Act 2000 to apply for a service permit to be able to operate in a franchise area. That includes temporary rail and tram replacement services. From my perspective, that is eminently sensible. If a short-term bus replacement service is being provided, because there has been a problem with rail or tram provision, it clearly makes sense that those should be exempt from registration under the terms of clause 9. I absolutely understand and support the clause, but I raise the question about the opacity of clause 8(4).

[Mr Kohler]

I will be more brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I have two points to make. I suspect that many of the shadow Minister’s points could be drawn from Hansard 40 years ago when bus deregulation was introduced. The great flaw of bus deregulation was it allowed private providers to cherry-pick profitable routes, leaving local transport authorities no opportunity to cross-subsidise their loss-making routes. That prioritised not passengers, but private providers. I fear that all the amendments would achieve the same end; they would simply allow private providers to cherry-pick profitable routes—often built up by local transport authorities that put effort, time and public money into them—without any provision for the non-profitable routes.

I say to the shadow Minister that equating passengers with consumers oversimplifies the complex issue of rural connectivity, and ends up isolating rural communities. As he admitted, in many rural communities, market mechanisms will not work. These are simply unprofitable routes.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I fear that the hon. Member and I may agree more than he perhaps thinks. As I said, I accept that rural routes are unlikely to be profitable, but that does not mean they should not be provided. That is why I went on to talk about demand-sensitive transport, as well as to mention the suggestion from the hon. Member for North Norfolk about rural transport hubs. Those can be subsidised, either through an enhanced partnership or through a franchise process. I accept that they will not be part of a purely commercial result, but that is not what I was suggesting in the first place.

[Mr Kohler]

I heard the shadow Minister say that, and I understand it. However, there is a contradiction in his analysis. He admits that point, but constantly refers to consumers operating in profit-and-loss markets. He is making a very narrow equation, and I fear that allowing public providers in the way he wants would simply undermine the whole rationale behind what we—or the Government—are trying to do with the franchising process. It is too narrow and simply ends up completely undermining what we are trying to do.

[Luke Myer]

Is it not the case that these are, in fact, not private providers at all? Many are subsidised by other Governments around the world—we see this in our rail and bus networks. Other states are stepping in to make a profit where Conservative Governments have stepped back.

[Mr Kohler]

I fear that is true. I do not think they are subsidising—I think they are coming in and taking a profit, and I absolutely agree.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

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

To refer to the general comments made by the shadow Minister, I am totally up for supporting things that put passengers first and are aligned to that purpose. I was regretful that the Committee disagreed to clause 1, on the inclusion of the overall purpose of the Bill, in our previous sitting.

The shadow Minister gave a long and wide-ranging speech; I was disappointed that it did not extend to his own personal tactics for rope sabotage, given the provenance of his business background—but perhaps that is for a future hearing. I will leave the Minister to respond to the issues of the words “outweigh” and “persons”, because I feel that it is his Bill to defend, but I do not fear the potential to refuse to the same extent as the shadow Minister.

Let us get back to what we are substantially talking about here, which is the cross-border issue. From my perspective—my constituency and that of the shadow Minister share many geographic characteristics—the whole point is that, however it is looked at, bus transport, even in urban areas, does not make a profit. Franchising is a welcome model because it allows the state, which is funding the operations, to contract to the providers who are going to deliver the service most efficiently and effectively. I do not see room for the entrepreneurial business model and profiteering that the shadow Minister refers to.

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

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

As amendments 49 and 50 are almost identical to the previous amendments, my discretion is not to proceed to a vote.

Amendments made: 4, in clause 7, page 4, line 10, leave out “but” and insert “and”.

This amendment and Amendment 5 widen the category of services that are capable of being cross-boundary services.

Amendment 5, in clause 7, page 4, line 11, leave out

“begins or ends, or begins and ends,”

and insert

“has one or more stopping places”.—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment and Amendment 4 widen the category of services that are capable of being cross-boundary services.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Report on assessment of proposed scheme

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 10, page 6, line 6, at end insert—

“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).

(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’;

(A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert—

‘, and

(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.

(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—

(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and

(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’

(A4) After subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’”

This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 59, in clause 10, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000.

(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead.

Clause stand part.

Clause 11 stand part.

Government new clause 4—Miscellaneous amendments.

New clause 15—Franchising scheme: restriction—

“Where a franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, prepare an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme under section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 but fail, for any reason, to make and publish a scheme under section 123H of the Transport Act 2000, they must not initiate another franchising assessment for the same area, or a substantially similar area, for a period of five years from the date on which the assessment was prepared.”

This new clause prevents franchising authorities from repeatedly conducting franchising assessments for the same or substantially similar areas within a five-year period if they do not proceed to make and publish a franchising scheme.

New clause 36—Franchising assessments to consider integration of public transport—

“In section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme), at the end of subsection (3) insert—

‘(g) how the proposed scheme will allow for or facilitate integration across modes of public transport.’”

This new clause would require an assessment of a franchising scheme to include an assessment of the impact on integrated transport.

[Mr Kohler]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. While I am broadly supportive of much of the Bill, we must not lose sight of the fundamental challenge—the lack of sufficient funding and expertise in local authorities to fully take advantage of the powers that it provides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I do not; I just hope that the Government realise what I was trying to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Socially necessary local services

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 14, page 9, line 23, at end insert—

“(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must—

(a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities;

(b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities;

(c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models.

(4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting—

(a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area;

(b) users of local services;

(c) NHS providers;

(d) education providers;

(e) local employers and businesses;

(f) people with disabilities; and

(g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.”

This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 64, in clause 14, page 10, line 34, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—

(a) the number of socially necessary local services in England;

(b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled;

(c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services;

(d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation;

(e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and

(f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.

(9) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues.

[Mr Kohler]

Clause 14 is a vital provision in the Bill that seeks to strengthen the provision and protection of routes that are deemed socially necessary. I will begin by addressing the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, before turning to others.

Although I fully support the principle behind clause 14, there are several areas where it can and must be strengthened to ensure that it functions as a genuinely effective tool for safeguarding essential bus services. Under the clause, the Transport Act is amended to require that local transport authorities maintain a list of socially necessary routes and review it from time to time. Crucially, there is no detail on how that review should be conducted. That lack of clarity risks rendering the duty vague and unenforceable.

Amendment 66 seeks to address that gap. It sets out how the review process should work, requiring that gaps in network coverage be identified and that changes to improve the network are actively considered. Importantly, it would also ensure that reviews and amendments take place in consultation with relevant stakeholders. That would embed transparency and accountability into the process.

Amendment 64 would require a biannual review by the Secretary of State of the level and condition of socially necessary services across the country. Given that local authorities will already be maintaining those lists, it is not an unreasonable burden. Rather, it would create national oversight and parliamentary scrutiny—something currently missing from the system. Having consistent data on ridership, frequency and cancellations would greatly improve transparency, inform better decision making, and keep socially necessary services at the forefront of Government planning and funding.

Amendment 39, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on behalf of the Green party—

[The Chair]

Order. We are debating only amendments 66 and 64.

[Mr Kohler]

Okay—sorry.

[Steff Aquarone]

I rise to speak to clause 14 and amendments 66 and 64, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.

I warmly welcome the clause’s protection of socially necessary services. I have spoken before about how important local bus services are for our rural areas, and I want to bring that to life because the term “socially necessary” does not do justice to the significance of those services. For many, a more accurate term would be “lifeline” services. They are absolutely vital for many small villages, and they are often far from profitable. Although they may not bring a grand economic boost to the operator or local authority, they bring a huge social benefit to the communities that they serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for tabling a series of amendments to the clause. Amendment 66 would ensure that local transport authorities review their current local bus network to identify any gaps. I agree with hon. Members that it is important for local transport authorities to understand and know their networks. However, the desired effect of the amendment is already covered by the Transport Act 2000, which places a requirement on an authority to meet the needs of people living or working in their area. The local transport plan, which must be prepared by a local transport authority, is an important document that establishes the transport needs of local communities. Indeed, the existing measures in the Bill go even further than the 2000 Act by ensuring that members of the enhanced partnership work together to identify key socially necessary services, and to develop a robust plan in case any changes are proposed to them.

I turn to amendment 64. The Department already publishes large amounts of bus data through both the Bus Open Data Service and bus statistics on gov.uk. The Bill provides for even more data collection under clause 24, which specifically ensures that data collected by the traffic commissioner is shared with the Secretary of State. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We already deliver a large amount of information to the public that can help them to understand all services operating in their area—not just socially necessary services—and may include many of the details listed in the amendment.

[Mr Kohler]

I would like to press amendment 66.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I was planning to say a few words about amendment 39, but the shadow Minister has really said it: it not necessary to include healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes in the definition. Of course, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that those things are important. I can think of dozens of important and socially necessary places where buses might go, but I would not propose to add them all to clause 14(2)(c), not least because when attempting to make an exhaustive list, it is always possible to leave things out, and there is great scope for argument over issues on the periphery that some people think are important and others do not.

The measure’s wording is broad. A “social necessary local service” is defined as one that allows passengers to access: “essential goods and services”, which is very wide; “economic opportunities (including employment)”, which is very wide; or “social activities”, which is also very wide. Plainly, healthcare services, schools and other educational institutes fall within those definitions, so the amendment is unnecessary. However, I welcome the hon. Lady’s highlighting those things, because healthcare and schools plainly rank very highly.

[Mr Kohler]

The Liberal Democrats strongly support amendment 39, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. As has been said, it is remarkably similar to, if not the same as, an amendment that we tabled in the House of Lords. It rightly proposes to expand the definition of “socially necessary local service” to include routes that serve healthcare facilities. I recognise the argument that the existing definition already covers them, but we think it is important to explicitly include hospitals, GPs and clinics. Accessing healthcare is a social necessity that should be explicitly recognised in law.

The same is true of education. From conversations with my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), to name a few, I know that there are growing concerns about school and college bus routes being cut, leaving students unable to travel independently to their places of learning.

The Government may argue that such services are already included under the definition but, if that is the case, why not make that explicit? Clarifying it in statute would only strengthen the Bill and provide clearer guidance for local authorities.

[Simon Lightwood]

Amendment 39 is not necessary as this issue has already been addressed during debates on the Bill in the other place. At the time, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail made a statement on the Floor of the House to the effect that the definition of a socially necessary local service encapsulates access to healthcare and schools as “essential goods and services”. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the Government’s intention. That being said, the Government will produce official guidance for local authorities on the issue of socially necessary local services. That guidance will refer to healthcare services and educational institutions as constituting “essential goods and services”.

Amendment 38 would expand the definition of socially necessary local services to include services that have been abolished in the past 15 years. In addressing it, we should consider the practical issues. A service that has been cancelled in the past 15 years may no longer meet the current needs of the community, which change over time. Furthermore, it is possible that previous services may have been folded into newer and more relevant bus routes. For those reasons, the amendment might not yield the expected beneficial outcomes.

That is by no means a prohibition or limitation on the powers of local transport authorities, however. As local transport authorities continually evaluate the needs of their communities, they still retain the power to consider implementing services along former routes, if they believe that doing so would address the needs of their communities. The amendment is therefore not necessary, so I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion not to press it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I do not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(4A) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable.

(4B) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to—

(a) the scope and nature of the service;

(b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps;

(c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs;

(d) a timeline for the operation of the service;

(e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall.

(4C) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (4B)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered.

(4D) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (4C).

(4E) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).”

This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 74, in clause 14, page 10, line 34, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where—

(a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and

(b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service.

(8) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme.

(9) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so.

[Mr Kohler]

Amendments 54 and 74 would establish a real safety net for socially necessary routes. Amendment 54 would place a duty on local authorities to step in to deliver a service when no commercial operator will do so, while placing a reciprocal duty on the Government to provide financial support to enable it. Amendment 74 would complement that by requiring the Secretary of State to create a formal funding mechanism for such services. The mechanism would include clear eligibility criteria, ensuring that local authorities could not designate routes as socially necessary arbitrarily, but must demonstrate clear social need. Together, the amendments would ensure that essential routes do not disappear due to market failure. They offer a practical, balanced solution to a growing problem, and I urge the Committee to support them. If we believe that these routes are socially necessary, we must find a mechanism to ensure that they are provided.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 54 would place a duty on local transport authorities to identify and then satisfy the need for all—and I stress “all”—socially necessary services, irrespective of supply, under an enhanced partnership. The amendment does not explain how the services would be supplied by the local authority—presumably, there would be a tender process—but it would require the authority to produce a report within six months. That report would identify the need, estimate the costs of provision and associated funding gaps, estimate the impact of a new service

“on local accessibility and transport needs”,

provide

“a timeline for the operation of the service”,

and specify local funding shortfalls. That measure, if adopted, would be a truly revolutionary departure for the identification of local need and subsequent funding, because it would hand demand assessment to the local authority, but the cost of provision to the Secretary of State. What could possibly go wrong? I genuinely look forward to the Minister supporting the amendment and explaining how he will fund that.

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74 would require the Secretary of State to advance proposals within 12 months to

“guarantee a service for socially necessary services”,

where that service has been absent for six months and

“the local transport authority is unable to run the service.”

That is a second extraordinary proposal, because it would again place identification of need—according to the highly subjective definition of social necessity—in the hands of the local authority, but would give the Secretary of State a legal duty to supply that assessed need. It envisages the Department for Transport directly running individual routes that have escaped the design of the franchise network or the enhanced partnerships. Presumably, since the Department for Transport has to supply for that need, it will be liable for procuring, right across the country, individual routes that are not part of a wider contractual arrangement. There we have it: the Department of Transport directly running individual routes, spread across the country, independent of wider bus provision. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I think it is sad that the hon. Gentleman does not share my confidence in local areas being able to shape their services.

I now turn to amendment 74, which is the final non-Government amendment tabled to clause 14. It seeks to ensure that there is a Government-backed scheme that will guarantee that all socially necessary local services continue to operate. As I am sure I have mentioned before, this Government have reaffirmed our commitment to bus services in the recent spending review by confirming around £900 million each year from 2026-27 to maintain and improve vital bus services. Allocations for that fund will be made through the bus funding formula, which already takes account of local need. The Department is also committed to review the current formula and ensure that it is allocated as fairly as possible. That will take place in due course.

[Mr Kohler]

Is the Minister confident that that money is sufficient to protect socially necessary services?

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

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Before I came to this place, I sat on the highways and transport scrutiny committee at Leicestershire county council, so I have spent a lot of my professional life talking about buses. As is not out of the ordinary for someone living in a rural or semi-rural constituency, however, I have also spent a lot of my personal life talking about them, as cuts and broader threats to our services are often the subject of conversation around the dinner table.

We all have residents such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke about in our previous sitting. For example, my constituent, Jacky, fought hard to reinstate the bus service in Whitwick in my constituency, and won, ensuring that people can get to the local doctor and pharmacy. That is a socially critical service. A few years ago, the service between Coalville in my constituency and Hinckley in the neighbouring constituency was withdrawn at short notice in the middle of an academic term. North west Leicestershire and Hinckley both have further education colleges, and that essential link between the two was withdrawn in the middle of people’s courses. If the local authority had responded to campaigners then, it would have realised that the bus route between those two urban parts of Leicestershire was a socially necessary service.

In big cities, cutting one service leaves a dent, but in rural areas such as mine, it leaves a crater—and craters have been appearing all over my constituency. Bus services were cut by 62% under the previous Government. What bus providers and councils see as cutting costs, we see as cutting lifelines to education, jobs and healthcare—cutting connections with our communities. Members can imagine my constituents’ frustration when they heard a few weeks ago that notice had been served on a route between Ashby and Loughborough. The local authority has found an alternative to protect the service, but the timings are such that students now have to catch their bus even earlier to get to college.

Bus services are not just about transport; they are about opportunity, inclusion and dignity. When a young person in Measham cannot reach their college in Loughborough, or an elderly resident of Ibstock cannot get to their medical appointment, that is not an inconvenience but an erosion of their independence. We cannot afford to keep asking our communities to do more with less. That is why I welcome the Bill’s ambition. Finally, we have committed the resources that are needed to protect socially necessary services in my community and many others.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Clause 14 is so important, because it is about socially necessary routes—those that are critical to the community. It explicitly includes employment and, as the Minister conceded last week, also catches things such as hospital appointments, GP appointments and education.

Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister has hidden behind localism. Now, I am a Liberal, so subsidiarity is part of my DNA; I believe in devolving power, but national Government must not wash their hands of their responsibilities. It is reminiscent of the old Conservative trick from the Thatcher era, of Government distancing themselves from their responsibilities. Funding is crucial, but as we heard in the debate last week on amendment 54, the Minister says it is not for Government to decide what to do with it. They have given a bit of money, and now it will be up to local authorities.

The Minister even quoted other Tory lines about how there is no “magic money tree”, and I agree—there is not. So we need growth. We do not get growth by wishing on a star, taxing jobs by increasing employer’s national insurance contributions, or tying ourselves in knots with red lines over Europe rather than meaningfully re-engaging with the EU customs union. That is the way to grow the economy; that is the way we pay for these things. The Government cannot talk about growth, do nothing about it, and say to local authorities, “We have given you almost a billion pounds, and you can now go and sort out buses,” because local authorities do not have the finances.

I am straying from the Bill. I have thus far referenced the omissions from the Bill, such as money. By inserting subsections (5) and (6), the House of Lords sought to focus attention on the Government’s commissions—namely, the end of the £2 fare cap, and the disastrous effect of hiking employer’s NI costs on the provision of special educational needs and disabilities bus transport. The Government’s decision to table an amendment removing those subsections is plainly a mistake, one that threatens to undo the constructive and necessary work undertaken in the Lords. The provisions were added to ensure that Ministers are held accountable for the consequences of their decisions—specifically, the rise in national insurance contributions and the short-sighted decision to increase the cap on bus fares.

As the National Audit Office made clear in its report published last Friday, bus services are lifelines, not luxuries. They are essential for the young, for older people, for households without a car, and for those on the lowest incomes. The Government’s decision to scrap the £2 fare cap is not just wrong, but an outrage. It is a direct hit to the most vulnerable. The NAO report revealed that the lowest-income households—those in the bottom 20%—take more bus journeys on average than any other income group, at 42 journeys per household per year. Those are essential journeys to work, school, the shops or the doctor. Removing the fare cap would mean those people—the poorest in our society—paying more to do the basics of daily life. Subsection (5) rightly sought to introduce a review to assess the impact of increasing the fare cap on people’s ability to access socially necessary routes. Scrapping the review removes transparency, accountability and the Government’s responsibility to understand how their decisions impact real lives.

The same principle applies to subsection (6), which calls for an assessment of the impact of changes to national insurance on SEND transport. Transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities is not a side issue; it is central to an inclusive, accessible education system. Without that form of transport, many children cannot get to school. Increasing employer’s NI contributions risks undermining the viability of the services, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made clear last week. The operators who run them are under increasing financial pressure. Without proper assessment and oversight, we risk sleepwalking into a situation where routes are cut, service levels fall, and SEND pupils are left without reliable transport. That would be an unforgivable failure of not just policy, but basic fairness.

Including a requirement to review the impact does not bind the Government’s hands; it simply asks them to look at the evidence, consider the consequences of their actions, and take responsible steps to mitigate harm where needed. We must protect these services for their users and uphold the principle that no one should be left behind due to financial pressures beyond their control. I urge the Government to reconsider and not shy away from scrutiny. They should own their decisions and be prepared to measure their impact. That is what responsible government demands.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to make my first speech in Committee with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, particularly on a matter as important to the residents of towns and villages in Cannock Chase, which I represent, as socially necessary local services.

When I first read the Bill, clause 14 was one of the measures that I was most delighted to see, along with the extension of the option of franchising to non-mayoral areas, such as mine in Staffordshire, and the scrapping of the ideological ban on council-owned bus companies, which could be an important part of the picture when restoring routes in areas like mine. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to attend its first sitting, when rural bus services were discussed.

The reality for many rural communities including some of my villages, which face reductions in services or being completely cut off, is that they mourn the loss of bus routes because they are now unable to take the bus to access vital facilities and services. Residents of the village of Slitting Mill, just outside Rugeley, have no bus service at all. When I go door-knocking there, I always hear from residents about the opportunities and freedoms that they have lost as a result. One resident told me, almost wistfully, as if she were speaking of a bygone age, of when she used to be able to catch a direct bus from her little village to the centre of Wolverhampton, where she worked. She told me that she does not blame young people for moving out of the village because of that lack of connectivity, or for not returning if they want to start a family. If someone in Slitting Mill does not have a car, their prospects for employment and training are very limited.

In my home village of Norton Canes, residents in the most deprived part of our community, on and around the Norton East Road, have been cut off for many years because the No. 3 bus skirts around the bottom of the road, and the No. 60 around the top. Although the walk of 10-ish minutes is no bother for residents without mobility issues, many of the residents who made best use of the services that went down Norton East Road are older. Many have told me that they do not even bother to catch the bus now. That is just one example of how shrinking services are exacerbating the decline of ridership.

Many residents use the bus to get to their GP appointments, and to scans, tests and secondary care services at Cannock Chase hospital. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have heard from constituents who often have to spend huge chunks of their income on taxis—accessible taxis are like hen’s teeth in my neck of the woods—or have to rely on relatives to drive them. Such relatives are hard to come by during working hours, but that is when most health services are open. Had clause 14 been in place when the withdrawal of services from Norton East Road was proposed, we would have had some back-up in opposing that on the grounds of its impact.

I am sure that we have all heard accounts of children and young people not being able to get to school or enjoy social time with their friends because of a lack of bus services, especially in rural and suburban areas. That restricts the horizons of the next generation. Such matters should be, but often are not, taken into account when proposals are made or services are slated for withdrawal.

Those three examples from my constituency show what the Bill means to communities such as mine, which have been let down by the broken bus system for far too long. Buses should work for people and communities, first and foremost. Clause 14 puts that aspiration at the heart of the Bill; I hope it will stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Kohler]

New clause 37 is sensible and constructive. It would ensure that when enhanced partnership schemes are amended, improved integration across modes of public transport is explicitly recognised as a legitimate and desirable reason for doing so.

We have seen time and again, both here in the UK and internationally, that when public transport is properly integrated, it works. It becomes more convenient, reliable and attractive to passengers. People choose to use it and when that happens, buses flourish. Whether it is better co-ordination between bus and rail timetables, joined-up ticketing or clear and consistent information across modes, the benefits of integration are obvious. Without a clear statutory basis for prioritising integration, too often such opportunities are missed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is great to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dame Siobhain. I want to follow up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said and ask a few additional questions, particularly about the provision in clause 18 for persons with disabilities.

I obviously welcome the inclusion of this clause in the Bill—we clearly want to ensure that public transport is as accessible for all as possible—but I am slightly concerned that, in a way, it provides false hope. Subsection (2) states:

“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify”,

so it is a “may”, rather than a “must”. It is nice to have that consultation, but there is an opportunity for the local authority or whoever is providing the bus service not to do it. The clause allows for a consultation, but there are no guarantees that what disabled people want will happen.

I am also slightly concerned about the taxi guarantee scheme. I do not know whether hon. Members have experienced the same thing as me, but my constituency of South West Devon is an interesting mix of urban and rural. It might be thought that large chunks of Plymouth are technically easily accessible, but the Access Plymouth minibus system does not even work across the city, let alone go into the rural parts of the constituency. Out in the South Hams and West Devon, which is a different local authority, the bus services are typical rural bus services: they are not very reliable or frequent.

It is also worth saying that taxis are not reliable either. Just this weekend, a local taxi service that runs out of the village put a post on social media saying, “We’re fully booked this evening.” Even able-bodied people, let alone people with disabilities who are trying to benefit from a taxi guarantee scheme, need to book in advance, so I question the feasibility of delivering on this clause.

We are not only saying that bus services will be reliable for persons with disability; we are offering them a taxi guarantee scheme. Yet we do not know—I assume the Minister will be able to explain this—what assessment has been made of the wider public transport picture or whether the taxis exist to provide the scheme, particularly in our rural communities. I know the Bill seeks to address those places. Ultimately, we need to ensure that we manage the expectations of those we are trying to help with the Bill.

I ask the Minister, what consultation has been held on, and what thought has been given to, the provision of rural services for people with disabilities? The taxi guarantee scheme is a great idea, but is it deliverable? What analysis has been made of that? Secondly, what might stop a local authority from delivering on this, and what assessment has been made of potential obstacles? Apart from the supply of buses and taxis, are there other reasons why a local transport authority might not be able to deliver this?

If it is that important to ensure that persons with disability can access public transport, which is something that I think we all agree we want, then the obvious question is: why does the legislation not say that an enhanced partnership scheme “must” do it? Why does the Bill say just that it “may”? It seems that there is a conflicting ambition here. Perhaps I have answered my own question in saying that there might not be the supply, but if we want to ensure a better world for persons with disability, I am intrigued as to why it does not say that a scheme must do this.

[Mr Kohler]

The clause, added during scrutiny in the Lords, is a welcome and valuable improvement to the Bill, but we would like to know what consultation was held with disabled groups before it was drafted. Although the changes it makes might seem modest on paper, they have the potential to make a significant difference in improving accessibility across our bus network.

Subsection (2) allows enhanced partnership schemes to specify requirements to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely, and in reasonable comfort on local bus services. The inclusion to allow the specification of a taxi guarantee scheme is also welcome. Although we share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for South West Devon, such a scheme may prove to be vital in ensuring that disabled and other vulnerable users feel comfortable and confident in using the bus. Subsection (3) strengthens the consultation process and ensures that disabled users or organisations representing them are consulted before any EP scheme is made. That is not just good practice; it is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone.

Subsection (4) mirrors that requirement when enhanced partnership schemes are varied, and guarantees that the accessibility is not forgotten as schemes evolve. Authorities must once again consider whether changes enable disabled people to travel independently, safely, and in comfort. These are considered but welcome changes. Accessibility cannot be an afterthought; it must be embedded from the outset and considered at every stage of decision making. These welcome measures help to support that.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank hon. Members for their thoughts on the clause. I remind the Committee that the clause was inserted into the Bill because the Government listened intently to concerns in the Lords. The clause will help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled passengers in the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. It will enable the specification of requirements of disabled people to travel independently, safely and in reasonable comfort. That extends to when a local transport authority is varying an enhanced partnership scheme. It will help local transport authorities to understand better the impacts on disabled passengers, and fits into how the Government are reforming transport to make it more inclusive, placing the passenger at the heart of everything we do.

The Government are determined to ensure that, as far as possible, local transport authorities take proper account of the needs of disabled people in using local bus services. The clause will support them in that. I have had many meetings with various groups, including disability groups, and I engage widely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DPTAC—to help and guide us on the Bill. As I said, the clause was a reaction, having listened to concerns in the Lords.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Objections by operators

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Kohler]

In answer to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, our new clause 23 addresses the weaknesses in the existing clause 21. According to research by the National Centre for Accessible Transport, 90% of disabled bus users report facing barriers to using the bus network. Those include space constraints, poorly designed bus stops, the lack of step-free access when boarding or alighting, and the continuing absence of induction loops. Buses are not a luxury for many disabled people; they are a vital connection to work, services, friends and family. Putting accessibility front and centre is not optional; it is essential.

The clause is therefore a step in the right direction. It rightly requires authorities to consider how to make bus services more accessible. However, if we are serious about delivering meaningful progress, we must go further. That is why we have tabled new clause 23, to build on the work started in clause 21 by introducing a requirement for annual reporting on accessibility progress.

The existing clause requires the accessibility plan to be reviewed only every three years. We believe that is too long; three years is a long time in which to do nothing. I draw Members’ attention to subsection (4) of our new clause 23, which lists practical things that the report would have to report on to draw attention to the public, the Government and voters exactly where there are shortfalls in, problems with and obstacles to addressing the need.

We need to go further than simply having the requirement. Under the Conservatives, the Access for All programme was left to wither and die on the vine. Unless we actually do something more practical, as we are suggesting, that is what will happen again. I agree that none, or not much, of the Bill will work without adequate funding—that is a given—but we have already made that point, and the new clause would give the oxygen of publicity to what is happening. We think that is important.

We do not think that new clause 23 would impose a significant new burden. It would simply require local transport authorities to produce a short annual update, setting out how they are progressing against the goals in their accessibility plan, to allow for regular scrutiny, course correction where needed and, above all, accountability. If we want a bus system that works for everyone, we must ensure that local authorities do not just create plans, but deliver on them, transparently and consistently. For that reason, we support the clause standing part of the Bill, and we urge the Government to adopt new clause 23.

--- Later in debate ---

Grants

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 23, page 18, line 42, at end insert—

“154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation

(1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it.

(2) In particular, local transport authorities may—

(a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services,

(b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and

(c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.

(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider—

(a) the size of the operator’s fleet,

(b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and

(c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.”

This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Mr Kohler]

We welcome the powers in clause 23, which enables local transport authorities to design and deliver grants directly to bus operators in their areas. It is a clear step in the right direction, placing real tools in the hands of local authorities, which know their communities best and are best placed to shape the services that their residents rely on.

Amendment 56 builds on that principle. It would ensure that, when designing grant schemes, local authorities must consider the size of transport operators. Too often, smaller bus companies, many of them deeply embedded in the communities they serve, struggle to compete on an uneven playing field, especially when it comes to accessing capital for improvements or expansion. Our amendment recognises the vital role that those smaller operators play.

By requiring authorities to take those smaller operators’ circumstances into account and, where appropriate, prioritise them in their grant making, we would help to protect local choice, preserve vital routes and foster healthy competition in the sector. In short, this is a modest but meaningful measure to ensure that smaller operators are not squeezed out, and that communities continue to benefit from diverse, responsive and locally rooted bus services. We therefore support amendment 56 and the clause standing part of the Bill.

[Simon Lightwood]

The Government recognise the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in driving economic growth. The hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon clearly recognise that, too, given the amendment that they have tabled. This Bill aims to support our economic growth mission by giving local transport authorities greater freedom to decide how best to support their local networks.

Amendment 56 is intended to ensure that local transport authorities that choose to use the new powers to design and pay grants to bus operators consider the needs of small operators when designing those grants. The amendment is not needed, however. Clause 23 would do nothing to restrict local transport authorities from choosing to provide greater support to local small bus operators when designing their own grants, provided that those grants comply with competition and subsidy rules. Local transport authorities are already well placed to understand the needs of their small operators, because most are already part of enhanced partnership arrangements with operators in their areas. It will be for local transport authorities to decide the best way to support their local bus networks as a whole.

Finally, local transport authorities, as public authorities disbursing funding, will need to be mindful of the fact that any grants that they design using the powers under the Bill must comply with any relevant legal requirements, such as subsidy controls that ensure they are not distorting the local or national market. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Wimbledon withdraw the amendment.

[Mr Kohler]

We remain of the view that without the amendment, the proposals will not give small bus companies the benefits that we are seeking to achieve. We are not convinced that that can be done without the explicit mention of small bus companies, as provided by the amendment.

[The Chair]

Does the Member want to withdraw the amendment or press it to a vote?

[Mr Kohler]

I will press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention; I stand corrected, as I was talking about clause 27. I do not know where clause 23 came from—my subconscious.

Subsection (2) clarifies that regulations can address the powers of an inspector outside of their authority’s area. Subsections (3) and (4) clarify the definition of an inspector. That is all fine.

Clause 28 is the largest clause in the Bill, so although it is not particularly contentious—we are substantially supportive of it—I would not be taking my duty seriously if I totally skipped over it. I will therefore pick and mix and hope that people bear with me while I take a little time to consider how it deals with local transport authority byelaws. It amends the Transport Act 2000, sets out the power of LTAs to make byelaws, and lists the various areas that can be covered.

Proposed new section 144A(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act is relevant to Liberal Democrat amendment 67. The byelaws set out in proposed new subsection (1) relate to travel on services, the maintenance of order and the conduct of persons while using services. Those are the areas of interest about which organisations will have the authority to create byelaws.

Proposed new subsection (2) goes into more detail and states that the byelaws relate to issues including tickets, the evasion of payment of fares, interference with or obstruction of local services, and the prohibition of vaping, smoking and nuisance on local services. I highlight that list, because Liberal Democrat amendment 67 would add “sustained anti-social auditory disturbance” to it.

The two subsections are dealt with differently: proposed new subsection (1) is an exhaustive list setting out the scope for byelaws, but proposed new subsection (2) is a non-exhaustive list of provisions that may be considered. Therefore, proposed new subsection (1) does not allow the consideration of issues relating to noise disturbance and would need to be amended to include that. In my submission, however, proposed new subsection (2) would not need to be amended because it is a non-exhaustive list, so we could go on forever adding things that annoy us on public transport—I would quite like to settle down and consider that. Although I share the Liberal Democrats’ fury and annoyance at antisocial auditory disturbance, I do not think it is necessary to add it to the non-exhaustive list in proposed new subsection (2).

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments on our amendment, but what is the point of including anything in proposed new subsection (2) then? Following his argument, nothing needs to be there.

[Jerome Mayhew]

As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not the Government; it is for them to defend their drafting. If he wants to help to change that, I will happily stand on the Government side and give him the answer he is looking for. The essence of any non-exhaustive list is to give examples. It would not be wrong to give another example, but it is up to the Government whether it is necessary to amend the clause and whether they are prepared to add it to the list. As a matter of law, however, that is the difference between an exhaustive and a non-exhaustive list.

Proposed new section 144B sets out the procedures on byelaws. The Minister spoke about them briefly, and the measure is a reasonable approach to the problem that the Government seek to solve. I will just go back, however, and highlight that the byelaws allow for level 3 fines for these offences. Hon. Members will know that, under the current guidelines, a level 3 fine is £1,000, so the byelaws will allow local transport authorities and Transport for London to impose not inconsiderable fines.

Given that these are substantial powers that can address quite wide-ranging behaviours, and that transport authorities can impose fines of up to £1,000, we collectively need to think about the guidance from the Secretary of State that will accompany this legislation. It is important to get that right, and I invite the Minister to elaborate on the guidance’s likely approach to enforcement. A kind of draconian, one-strike-and-you’re-out enforcement would be deeply unpopular, and it would bring in a whole load of people who were just running for the bus. There are good actors and bad actors: people get caught up in behaviours for all sorts of reasons, and we need sensible guidance about enforcement.

Clause 29, on TfL byelaws, is a similar clause that simply seeks to apply a similar approach to TfL. I will not go through it, but the points that I made about clause 28 apply.

[Mr Kohler]

Clause 28 introduces powers for local authorities to make byelaws for buses. That is welcome, and I agree that the behaviour that the clause already lists should be prohibited. There is, however, a clear omission. With passengers already paying extortionate fares to be packed in like sardines on buses, we should at least ensure that they do not face the added indignity of someone’s blaring TikTok feed. That is why our amendment 67 seeks to add the words

“including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”

The amendment would explicitly allow transport authorities to bring in byelaws that ban persistent antisocial noise, such as music or videos played out loud on personal devices. It is a sensible, proportionate response to a problem that has been left unchecked for far too long. Let us be clear: we are not talking about a small inconvenience. The scale of the problem is significant.

Recent polling has found that almost two in five people say that they have experienced others playing music out loud often or sometimes, while only a quarter report experiencing it rarely. Furthermore, a majority of respondents say that they would not feel comfortable asking someone to turn down their music on public transport. Women feel especially unable to challenge such antisocial behaviour; almost two thirds say that they would not feel comfortable doing so.

Furthermore, playing music and other content loudly on public transport is done not only unthinkingly but, on many occasions, in a deliberately intimidatory manner designed to provoke and unsettle others going about their lawful business. The amendment is a sensible step that would ensure local authorities have the tools that they need to combat a growing menace.

Not everyone agrees. I was deeply disappointed when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who also happens to be a valued constituent of mine, opposed the measure, dismissing fines for such disruptive and selfish behaviour as “silly”, despite the frustration and discontent that it causes for so many. I find her attitude extraordinary; I would be very surprised if she had not, like so many of my other constituents, experienced the phenomenon on buses across Wimbledon—assuming, of course, that she uses buses.

The right hon. Lady is not alone, however, as I will explore in more detail in a moment. Some have accused me of abandoning my liberal sensibilities in seeking to address the issue. All I would say to such critics is that liberalism is as much about responsibilities as about rights. I do not begin to see how my right to play content loudly on my phone or some other device obviates my responsibility not to cause unnecessary disturbance to others. Whether people are heading to work, taking their kids to school or simply trying to enjoy a moment of peace, they deserve to feel safe and respected on public transport.

Time and again I hear people say that they feel too intimidated to speak up when someone is blasting music or videos from a phone or speaker. The Liberal Democrats want to take tough action on headphone dodgers to ensure that every passenger feels safe and respected, and can travel in peace. We urge all parties to support the amendment and finally bring an end to commutes filled with unnecessary noise, disturbance and frustration.

In what has become a running motif of the Committee, the Minister has said that the amendment, like so many that have perished before it, is unnecessary on two broad grounds. First, he argues that the antisocial playing of music and other content already comes within the term “nuisance” under the Government’s proposed new section of the 2000 Act.

That is clearly open to challenge, however: I have already quoted the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears not to regard such thoughtless or intimidatory disturbance as a nuisance. Perhaps more significantly, in what has become an increasingly rare experience for the Conservative leader, she appears to still be speaking for most of her parliamentary party—although not, it seems, for the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on this issue at least—given the jeers and heckling directed at me from the Opposition Benches when I raised headphone dodgers at Prime Minister’s questions recently. I humbly suggest to the Minister that it is worth noting the Prime Minister’s answer to my question. Pointing at the jeering Conservative Benches, he said:

“We take this seriously; the Conservatives laugh about it.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2025; Vol. 766, c. 324.]

Here is the Minister’s chance to prove that the PM is a man of his word by accepting our amendment and showing that the Government do take sustained antisocial auditory disturbance seriously in the face of those who would—bizarrely—argue that it is not a nuisance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend is right. I do not want to demonise cyclists. Cyclists are not out there actively trying to mow down pedestrians seeking to cross at floating bus stops; they are doing their best in the vast majority of cases, but we have created, with the best of intentions, a conflict between foot passengers and cyclists. I would submit that we have the balance of convenience wrong, and we should be brave and bold enough to admit where we have made a mistake and should take effective steps to improve the situation.

Floating bus stops are inherently inaccessible and dangerous. They compromise the safety of people with visual impairments, who potentially cannot see or hear cyclists. They confuse wheelchair users and those with mobility impairments, who are put off using public transport. New clause 12 would strengthen democratic oversight by requiring proposals to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

New clause 13 was also tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; in her absence I shall set out what it does. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared use bus boarders to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England. I made clear in my earlier remarks the dangers caused by floating bus stops to the safety of disabled, partially sighted, blind and elderly people, and I support the new clause, as it would add further checks and balances to clause 31 and strengthen the Government’s stance on the issue.

The requirement on the Secretary of State to commission an independent safety and accessibility review and to undertake that review in collaboration with groups representing disabled people would not only help to ensure that the Government’s response to floating bus stops was evidence-based and centred specifically on safety concerns and the lived experience of people trying to use such bus stops, but accommodate consulting the wider disabled community, not just the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

New clause 40 was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon and he will be delighted to hear that he has my support. I will leave it to him to rehearse all the details of the drafting, if he wishes to; suffice it to say that that the new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops—not future ones, but the ones that are already there—and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure that they are fully accessible and safe. I welcome any amendments that add checks and balances to the Bill to help to ensure the safety of passengers and nullify the safety issues with floating bus stops. My new clause 47 accommodates the aims of new clause 40(2), but goes one step further by prohibiting any new floating bus stops after the day on which the Bill becomes an Act. I fully support the Liberal Democrat new clause.

Members will be delighted to hear that my new clause 47 is the last clause in this group, so I will sit down in a moment. Were the new clause to be adopted, it would do three important things. Subsection (1) would establish an immediate prohibition on the construction of new floating bus stops by local authorities—so we would stop digging. That is the first thing: we would stop making new floating bus stops. Subsection (2) would compel the Secretary of State to review existing infra-structure to assess compliance with accessibility and inclusive design principles—that is, to see what we have and to analyse it to see whether it is accessible. Subsection (3) would require a clear and public statement to Parliament setting out what changes would be made, what steps the Secretary of State would take to ensure that they were delivered, and what guidance would be issued to local authorities to support that work.

The new clause is designed to be a pragmatic response to persistent and credible concerns raised by the disabled community, charities representing blind people and elderly bus passengers who have to struggle with the safety challenges that persist with these bus stop designs.

[Mr Kohler]

Is there not a contradiction? Subsection (2) seems to suggest that there are ways of designing out the problem, whereas subsection (1) bans all new floating bus stops. If subsection (1) were offering a moratorium until the design issues had been addressed, we could support it, but subsections (1) and (2) do not sit well with each other.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Given my criticisms of the hon. Gentleman’s drafting of previous amendments, I am sure he is delighted to raise this drafting concern. I respectfully disagree with him, as new clause 47 takes a sequential approach to stop the problem getting worse, then to identify the cause of the problem, and then to require the Government to set out how to fix it. I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman and his conscience to decide whether he feels able to support the new clause, should it come to a Division.

New clause 47 strikes the right balance between a pragmatic approach towards existing floating bus stops, a requirement for the Secretary of State to review all floating bus stops to identify the changes that are needed, and a firm but necessary stance against the construction of any further floating bus stops. The principle of inclusive design must be a main priority when we think about bus stops, and my new clause would achieve that. I urge the Committee to think carefully about it, and to see if they can find it in their hearts to support it.

[Mr Kohler]

There is a lot to cover, but I will not take as long as the shadow Minister. Amendments 40 and 42 are sensible, as making guidance mandatory rather than permissible would keep the right balance. This is clearly an issue for many people, and having clear Government guidance on the accessibility of stopping places would be a positive step. As the shadow Minister said, surely the Minister will want to produce guidance, so making it mandatory would not be an onerous obligation.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not here to press amendment 29, but my party supports it and will press it. This positive amendment would ensure that there is guidance on toilet facilities—which are clearly an issue, particularly for people with a disability or medical condition—and on travel information in relation to floating bus stops.

Liberal Democrat amendment 65 would mean that accessibility guidance includes guidance relating to the provision of information at a stopping place, and amendment 60 would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that the disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented. Although the Bill makes provision for the publication of new statutory guidance to improve the accessibility of bus stops, service information provision is not mentioned. Up-to-date route and timetable information, as well as real-time arrival boards, are crucial for all passengers, especially those without access to digital tools. It also improves passengers’ feeling of control and security. In Wimbledon, many signs have been removed and not replaced, which is a real issue for older people and the digitally excluded. For those who do not have access to an iPhone, this sort of information is critical.

Amendment 65 would address that need by ensuring that legislation covers both infrastructure and information provision, including up-to-date route maps, timetables and real-time arrival information at bus stops, ensuring accessibility and safety for all users. It would help to prevent people becoming disoriented or isolated, ensuring that disability does not stand in the way of navigating a local bus route.

Amendment 60 would ensure that disability provisions are properly actioned. “Reasonable steps” is a legal term of art, and the shadow Minister’s criticism does not hold because the costs would be part of deciding whether it is reasonable. Having regard to guidance on disability could see many transport authorities fail to implement anything substantive, but this amendment would require them to take reasonable steps to deliver the guidance—that is, they must be reasonable steps.

Accessibility is not a nice-to-have; equal access for all passengers is essential. If disabled people are unable to travel to their doctor’s appointments, to see their friends or to access work because of poor accessibility, the impact on their lives is intolerable. For accessibility, legislation needs to talk in terms of duties and steps that must be implemented rather than just a consideration that can be done away with. However, as I said, the amendment emphasises reasonable steps, not unreasonable ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. With the welcome increase in active travel and the number of cyclists, we need to address the conflicts that arise on the road. If one goes to the continent, it is part of their DNA—cyclists, motorists and pedestrians understand their relationship—but the same is not true in this country.

The new clause proposes a review of existing floating bus stops within six months and would require the Secretary of State to come up with a plan. This is a proportionate, evidence-led and pragmatic path forward that puts safety, accessibility and inclusion at its heart. I have been lobbied by eloquent advocates from Guide Dogs and the RNIB, who are concerned that the review of the existing provision that we are proposing will be biased in favour of floating bus stops, so I make it absolutely clear that we would expect the Secretary of State to include representatives of those organisations along with other charities in that review process.

Moving on to new clause 47, I am aware that some think there is no solution to this problem apart from banning floating bus stops. However, from my conversations with visually impaired colleagues, both in Parliament and beyond, I believe that compromise can be achieved. I counsel the Committee to reach a compromise that does not pit the blind and disabled against cyclists.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)