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

Siân Berry Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

The new clause sets out a duty to promote bus services, but what if that is at the expense of other transport modes, such as bicycling? In many parts of the country, we have increasing competition for road space, with buses and bicycles fighting it out. We will come later in our consideration to the concerns about floating bus stops, for example, in respect of which the desires of the bicycling community are set against pedestrians, particularly those with sight impairments. Where do the Government place their weight of consideration? Do they prefer buses or bicycles? Who should take that decision? Although I support the thinking behind the new clause, it brings into question that kind of consideration, so I am hesitant on it.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I will certainly benefit from your guidance on the particulars of the proceedings.

In general, I am a big fan of the Bill. I am a bus person at heart. Wherever I go in the country, I make a point of taking the buses—I take notes and sometimes write to local councillors. That is how passionately I feel about this. The good measures in the Bill need to be backed up by clause 1, which was added to the Bill in the other place. The Bill has come from the other place in very good shape, and the clause is part of that.

I worry about what the move from the Government to strike out the clause portends for the rest of the Committee proceedings. Is it the sign of real commitment that the bus services deserve? Is it a sign that we will see high-quality, reliable, frequent, high-performance, accessible bus services for the whole country? The Government should explain more why they want to remove this very good clause.

I support new clause 22, tabled by my Lib Dem colleagues the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk. It would extend a stronger duty, including an accountability, to local transport authorities. Empowering local authorities is great, but those who need buses—those who struggle with car dependency and cannot reach essential services—need the good measures in the Bill to be backed up by both those duties and real funding as soon as possible.

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger.

I rise to endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and to draw further attention to an issue with new clause 22: placing duties on local authorities without money coming in. Central Government are very good, and have been for decades, at requiring things of local government, which naturally leads to increased costs on councils to deliver the relevant duties and comply with the law, but councils do not automatically—in fact, very rarely—get money to go towards complying.

The duties set out in the new clause seem obvious. Subsection (1) says:

“It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.”

Subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (g). I will not read them all out, but paragraph (a) says that authorities may consider

“the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options”.

There is also a requirement to report every two years. That looks laudable. One would hope it would lead to better bus services, but it would place a cost burden on local government without money coming to every local authority. That is my concern: placing duties without accompanying finance in all cases. That is why I have difficulty with new clause 22, although I appreciate the intention and sentiment behind it.

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

Siân Berry Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is no commercial case for large-scale, frequent bus services to every small rural community. I have certainly not come across such a case, even if one does exist. The solution—if there is a solution—will be one of a number of things. Under a franchising scheme, it would be open to a local transport authority to invest in and design a scheme that provides for frequent bus services to every rural community. It would be possible to do that, but it would be phenomenally expensive.

Already, one of the key criticisms of the Bill is that it has no money attached to it, so we are going to spend the next two and a half weeks virtue signalling about how wonderful franchising could be. It is not mandatory, and no one is actually going to do it—outside of the big mayoral authorities that are doing it anyway under the Bus Services Act 2017—because there is no money supporting the Bill. It would be incredibly expensive.

There is an alternative, hybrid solution: a combination of scheduled bus services on the key arterial routes from big villages into their major towns, such as from Norfolk going into Norwich, a rural hub-and-spoke system for the more remote villages, as suggested by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, and demand-responsive public provision.

On Tuesday, I described this as the “Uberfication” of public transport. It still is unlikely to make sense on a purely commercial basis, but it is the kind of focused provision of public sector transport that could work in a highly rural area where the aggregate cost would be less than the blind provision on frequent, full bus services to every community, which would be monumentally expensive.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Amendment 46 would remove the requirement for the service not to have an adverse effect on local services. Bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the impossibility of commercial viability for some rural services or non-radial routes in cities, is it correct that the amendment would allow commercial entities to come in and take away part of the market, even where a local transport authority had built up the potentially profitable part of a wider, well-planned public network? The requirement as it stands is intended to prevent commercial companies from parasitising on a market that has been built up with public money. The Minister is not proposing that it should be easier for commercial entities to come in and develop new markets where there is potentially pent-up demand in rural areas.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady is right that there is a risk of challenges in some areas, but in other areas there is the opportunity to increase provision for new markets. The difficulty is that the clause as drafted says that “any adverse effect” will be sufficient to prevent the application.

Amendment 47 would replace the word “may” with the word “must” in clause 7(2)—in reality, proposed new section 124Q(5A) of the Transport Act 2000—if a local transport authority is satisfied with the conditions of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b). In such circumstances, why should the local transport authority be given discretion to refuse to grant a cross-boundary permit? It will have accepted that there are no adverse effects; nevertheless, it is given discretion. The clause says that it “may” grant the application, but why? If someone wants to provide an additional service and the local transport authority has satisfied itself that there is no adverse impact, why would it say no?

That is the purpose behind amendment 47. If the applicant—it could be the municipal bus company, given that there is nothing to prevent it from doing this—has satisfied the local transport authority that there is no adverse impact, as set out in the conditions of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), why should the provider not, as a right, be able to create the service?

[Siân Berry]

I just want to give an example in which “may” is more appropriate. Proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) talk about a local service that is provided. If a local transport authority is building out a planned network and, in the very near future, a service will be introduced in an area, it may want to prevent disruption of the benefits of an integrated local service there by such an application. I believe it is very appropriate that “may” remains in the clause.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady is bending over backwards to think of hypothetical instances in which it is possible that something like that could exist. The fact remains that we must ask—this comes down to the philosophical difference between us, perhaps—whether we are looking after the passenger or the supplier. From my perspective, the Bill should have services for passengers squarely in its sights. If passengers will benefit from a new service, the local transport authority should allow it. After all, the aim of the Bill is to maximise general utility for the wider bus service. Amendment 47 would therefore prevent local authorities from sitting on their hands, as the hon. Lady suggests they might.

Amendment 48 goes one step further. If the previous two amendments were red meat to some members of this Committee, this one will send them over the top. It would scrap entirely the convoluted assessments about balancing benefits and adverse effects in proposed new subsections (5A)(a) and (b). The authority would simply take a view on the benefits for persons making journeys on the proposed service—what is wrong with that? If the service has benefits for customers, why should we not just go for it? It is a straightforward process where applicants are in the driving seat. The amendment would provide higher certainty for applicants and therefore encourage additional service providers.

I anticipate that hon. Members may say, “What about the web—the franchise service—that the local transport authority may be trying to design?” But I seek to remind them about the incentives of providers. Again, I speak as a former businessman. We sometimes forget something in this place. We make lots of rules and we deal with processes ad infinitum, and we think that everyone will be incredibly logical. We say, “Oh yes, they have to go through this process, then that process and the other one, and then the local authority may decide to help them or not.” That ignores the basic maxim of private enterprise, which is that time kills deals. If a process is convoluted by design, it is also, by design, time consuming, and therefore expensive and uncertain in its outcome.

Let us think of a potential service provider looking through these provisions. They would say, “I’ve jumped through the hoops of proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b), and I’ve demonstrated the evidential basis for this application,” but then there is the discretion at the end where the local authority may, for whatever reason, choose not to award the deal based on some plan for some date in the future that we have not even heard about. Is the provider even going to bother doing it in the first place? This is an important issue of practicality. Commercial organisations respond to incentives, and if we make something long-winded, expensive and complex, they are much less likely to bother doing it. They will employ their capital, their time and their creative energies elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for that thoughtful intervention. In principle, the answer is yes, which is why we legislated in 2017 to allow that in principle and why we supported Greater Manchester through the implementation of the Bee Network. That happened under not Labour, but the Conservatives. However, it comes with financial risk. There needs to be clarity on where the costs are and an absolute, laser focus on minimising them, just like in any other business.

The hon. Member did not say that the forecast in the Bee Network’s business case, which enabled it to get the go-ahead, was for it to make a profit. I accept that there will be periods where it makes a profit and periods where it makes a loss, but it should break even overall. Over the forecast period, however, the plan was for it to make a profit of £94 million—that was how it was sold. For it to make a planned loss in 2025-26 of £226.3 million and change, given the huge cost overruns that I hinted at in Tuesday’s sitting, is a disaster. It makes me wonder where that has come from.

I remember the hon. Member watching with interest on Tuesday as I talked about the more than £17 million overrun on agency bus drivers, because the transport authority had failed to provide enough qualified drivers having misunderstood the nature of the TUPE regulations regarding their transfer from the previous operators to the franchise process. There was also the massive cost overrun on the purchase of bus depots because it was the only buyer in the market. There was an explosion in costs for the purchase orders for new buses, with a surcharge of £40,000 on every bus that Andy Burnham’s Greater Manchester combined authority buys because of the design requirements that he has put in, including bits of leather on the seats—we will not go into the detail of that.

If we are not absolutely laser-focused on the costs, that is what happens. The biggest overrun, which perhaps I should have led with, was the increase in wages. There has been an increase in unionised power—which arguably could be a good or bad thing—and an increase in hourly rates for bus drivers to £16 an hour, which is above the market rate. There are not just bus drivers in a bus company; there are all sorts of other roles as well.

I should also mention the failure to be efficient with the application of capital. In a private organisation, having bus washers is important, because having clean buses is part of the service and it affects the customer experience. Since the Bee Network has been in place, and the local transport authority purchased the depots, there has been a rather unfortunate occurrence whereby the bus cleaning mechanism—the washers—have been out of action for over a year.

The processes and the efficiency within the new structure have to date proved inadequate to get the funding to repair the washers, because that is capex rather than opex. I am assuming that is what the problem is—that it is an unplanned expense, so the authority has to go through the rigmarole of a public sector procurement process. No doubt it will get there in the end, but the consequence is that the bus depot is sending out buses that have not been cleaned for a year. Is that an improvement in service? No, it is not.

I say that not to denigrate franchising. Franchising can be done well—it is not a necessary consequence of bus franchising that there are dirty buses—but the evidence that we have at the moment is that even a really sophisticated operator such as Greater Manchester, with a mayoral combined authority and the financial resources, but without the experience of running buses, suffers very significant bumps along the road. That needs to be addressed. If that is happening in a large local transport authority, what is the likelihood of it happening in a small one—for example, in Norfolk county council in my neck of the woods? That is one of our problems with the Bill.

Going back to amendment 49, proposed new section 123Q(5B) of the Transport Act 2000 deals with intra-boundary services. I am applying the same logic as I did to amendment 47. Why should local transport authorities have the power to refuse to grant a service permit if they are satisfied that there are benefits of the proposed service to the economy of the area, or to persons living in that area, and that those benefits will outweigh any adverse effect on any existing local service?

All the amendment requires is for local authorities to act in the wider interests of consumers—the passengers. The proposed service might have an impact, but if we are satisfied that overall the net benefit is in the positive column and not the negative, why would we not agree to it? Let us think of the passenger—the consumer—rather than the supplier.

The amendment would be a particularly important safeguard if the local transport authority was also the owner of a municipal bus company, which was the supplier of the local services contract. There would then be an added layer of opacity in the process, because the contractor and contracted would be the same organisation. A challenger brand could then come and say that it wanted to provide additional services, and it could be assessed to be net beneficial to the economy or the people living in that area, nevertheless the local authority could refuse to grant a permit, even though it is the operator that would be adversely affected—let us imagine how that would look.

The temptation, of course, would be to say that the award was refused for wholly improper reasons: a circling of the wagons to protect one’s own. I hope that the whole Committee would agree that that would be an improper reason to deny additional access to the people living in the area, and/or to deny a benefit to the economy, yet there would be a strong temptation. If the authority has built its bus service network, and a little so-and-so comes in and demonstrates that it can go one step better, but that would have a negative impact on the authority’s cosy plans, people in the authority are going to think, “I don’t want to be troubled by this.”

[Siân Berry]

The shadow Minister was looking at me while making those points, and I agree that our parties have very different philosophies on this issue. The circumstances that he has just described as “cosy” relationships that are improper, are ones that I characterised earlier as public money being invested in building up a market that should not be parasitised. Those are, very clearly, different points of view, and I want to make sure that is on the record at the right time.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that there is a fundamental difference of philosophy here. She appears to back what I described as the cosy relationship—but let us not use pejorative language; let us call it the mechanism of state supply. She thinks that that is more important than improving the experience of passengers in that location and/or improving the economy, because that is the hurdle that would have to be crossed for the change made by amendment 49 to take effect. I accept, acknowledge and celebrate that difference. As a Conservative, I stand up for the consumer—for the resident—in my constituency, not for the supplier of services, even if it is the state supplier. Those are the people who I represent, those are the services that I am trying to improve, and that is what amendment 49 would do.

The amendment would require the local authority to act in the wider interest of consumers, not that of its own suppliers. That is particularly important where the authority has skin in the game. If I am unsuccessful—as I have a sneaking suspicion that I might be—in persuading the majority of the members of the Committee to support amendment 49, we should at least expect transparency in any decision-making process where the decision taker, the local authority, is taking a decision that affects a municipal bus company owned by that authority. At the very least—as we will discuss in relation to other amendments—we should insist on absolute transparency in those commercial relationships, so that the disinfectant of sunlight can shine on the exact rationale for a commercial opportunity being refused.

Amendment 50, my final one in this group, goes one stage further. It would get rid of the complex “balance of benefits” argument entirely and replace it with a simple assessment of the application: will the proposed service have benefits for the economy of the area or persons living in the area? If yes, the licence would be granted. The impact would be similar to that of amendment 48: it would simplify the process and give agency to the applicant. If they could prove that their service would deliver benefit, the local authority would grant a service permit.

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

Siân Berry Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Lightwood]

I have already explained our position.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Procedure for varying franchising scheme

Amendments made: 7, in the schedule, page 44, line 29, leave out

“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 8 and Amendment 9, ensures that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 applies only where authorities are required to have such policies.

Amendment 8, in the schedule, page 44, line 30, before “those” insert

“by neighbouring local transport authorities of”.

See the statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 9, in the schedule, page 44, line 31, before “other” insert

“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.

See the statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 10, in the schedule, page 45, line 14, at end insert—

“(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.

This amendment requires a franchising authority to consider the policies of a neighbouring Scottish Transport Partnership when assessing a proposed variation of a franchising scheme.

Amendment 11, in the schedule, page 46, line 39, at end insert—

“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.

This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.

Amendment 12, in the schedule, page 47, line 13, at end insert—

“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.

This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.

Amendment 13, in the schedule, page 49, line 22, at end insert—

“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.

This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.

Amendment 14, in the schedule, page 49, line 38, at end insert—

“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.

This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme area where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.

Amendment 15, in the schedule, page 51, line 11, at end insert—

“(ai) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation;”.

This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.

Amendment 16, in the schedule, page 51, line 39, at end insert—

“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13

Direct award of contracts to incumbent operators

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 13, page 8, line 5, after “operators” insert—

“or local government bus companies”.

This amendment, along with Amendments 35, 36 and 37, would mean that franchising authorities may directly award public services contracts to local government bus companies.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 72, in clause 13, page 8, line 7, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

“(a) either the contract is a local service contract in relation to a franchising scheme, or

(b) the contract is awarded to a local authority bus company.”

Amendment 35, in clause 13, page 8, line 12, after “operator” insert—

“who is a local government bus company or”.

Amendment 36, in clause 13, page 8, line 27, after “operator” insert—

“or local government bus company”.

Amendment 37, in clause 13, page 8, line 37, after “regulation,” insert—

“‘local government bus company’ has the meaning given in section 22 of the Bus Services (Amendment 2) Act 2025 and”.

Clause stand part.

[Siân Berry]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond. I am delighted to present a number of amendments to clause 13. The clause should be in the Bill; I can clearly see why we would want to directly award a contract to an incumbent to keep an existing contract going. This seems to me to be the ideal place to insert the opportunity to make a direct award to a local government bus company, the new type of body set out in clause 22—I believe that would be a really good move.

I have tabled several amendments to add the words “or a local government bus company” in order to make the whole thing make sense. Amendment 34 would add “local government bus companies” to the title of the proposed new regulation in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023; amendment 35 would add the choice of a “local government bus company” to the direct award options; amendment 36 would add the name of the local government bus company to the information required; and amendment 37 would add reference to the definition of a local government bus company as set out in clause 22.

We need these changes to help make integrated local transport planning simpler and less bureaucratic. There are many examples of hugely successful publicly owned bus companies across the UK, including Lothian Buses and Reading Buses. The publicly owned Nottingham City Transport bus service is consistently ranked one of the best in the country.

Councils operate very differently from the wider market. They have strict budgetary restrictions and costly rules of commissioning. That means that, without explicitly making it easier for local authorities to take advantage of the new powers in the Bill, we might just be going through the motions. These changes are necessary in order to really incentivise local authorities to get involved in providing transport, not just in planning for it. To have real weight, the Bill must make it easier for local councils to make direct awards. That would mean that they could transform local services more efficiently for the passengers who need them, which would be of real public benefit.

The tools for local authorities to do this actually already exist in secondary legislation. Regulation 13 of the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations states:

“(1) A competent local authority or a group of authorities providing integrated public passenger transport services may—

…(b) award a public service contract directly to an internal operator.”

If we made these amendments to the Bill, I believe that the wording in the regulations would automatically change to include the terminology “a local government bus company”.

I would really like the Government to consider making the amendments, or to take up the point in some other way. In order to plan and deliver local public transport, councils and local transport authorities must be able to act in this way. We should not simply rely on the existing regulations; we should state the powers explicitly in the Bill.

Amendment 72 is not in my name, but I note that it covers much the same ground.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 13 amends the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 to allow franchising authorities to make a direct award for the first local service contract under a franchising scheme to the “incumbent operator”—that is the important phrasing. The intention, as I read it, is to allow for a smooth transfer of operations to the new scheme, where the qualifying conditions are met. Proposed new regulations 16A(1)(a) and (b) specify that the award must be of a local service contract within the franchising scheme and where no local services are currently provided. Proposed new regulation 16A(1)(c) sets out that the operator must have provided the same or similar services for at least three months prior to the new contract.

I acknowledge the objectives of the clause, but I am concerned that it raises more issue than it addresses. The approach could look like a cosy agreement, which is a theme that I have addressed a couple of times today. Where we are awarding a further contract to an existing contractor, without going to market or tendering more widely, there is a perception, if not a reality, of a cosy agreement. It cuts out competition and favours one operator over the others, and it is not just for a short period; it is for a period of up to five years, as set out in clause 13(3).

The likelihood of a challenge from other bus operators in the area, who are angry about being excluded, may well be quite high, yet proposed new regulation 16A(2) requires the local transport authority to publish information relating to the contract only within six months of granting the direct award. We therefore have a transfer that may look like a sweetheart deal between the local transport authority and the existing service provider, which may be the municipal bus company but could equally be a private provider, while the judicial review, which is the mechanism by which an external aggrieved party can challenge that decision, has an application deadline of three months—12 weeks. Under the clause, the requirement to publish the information on which that judicial review could be based falls fully three months after the judicial review deadline, so there is a problem with the timings set out in the Bill.

What is the point of publishing the information in subsection (3) six months after the date of the award? Other operators cannot go to judicial review, because the deadline has already passed, so what use is it and to whom? I have a simple question for the Minister. What process should operators follow to challenge a sweetheart deal, as they obviously should be able to do? If the information is six months’ old, it cannot be through judicial review, because they will not have been provided with the information before the three-month deadline.

What process do the Government recommend that operators should follow, and what information will be available to them? What is the reason for such a long delay in providing information? The information is there from day one, because the local authority and the existing provider will have signed a contract, so all that needs to be done is publish it. What governance provisions will be in place to guard against improper preference, because it may well feel like that has been involved to excluded competitors looking in from the outside? They need to have extra special confidence that there is sufficient governance in place to guard against that, especially if the provider is a municipal bus company, for the obvious reason that they have skin in the game—I will not rehearse that argument.

Amendment 72, tabled by the Green party, would have an effect similar to amendments 34 to 37 by removing the ability to grant a contract to a private operator working outside a franchising scheme—for example, in an enhanced partnership.

[Siân Berry]

To clarify, amendment 72 is not my amendment.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am so sorry—it is in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald).

I will therefore address amendments 34 to 37, which would allow for a direct award to local government bus companies. I fully understand the rationale behind the Bill, but looking at clause 13, I do not think that that award is excluded by the current drafting, because the term of art is “operator”, and a public bus company could be an operator.

[Siân Berry]

For clarity, the intention behind my amendments is not to allow for incumbent operators that are local government bus companies to be added to the Bill; it is to ensure, completely separately, that any local bus company at any time, or an incumbent operator, can be given a direct award.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 34 to 37, but the Bill already enables the direct award of franchising contracts to local authority bus companies.

Clause 13 allows for the direct award of franchising contracts to incumbent operators under specific conditions that are set out in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. It would reduce transitional risks for local government authorities and operators when moving to a franchised network. It applies equally to private operators and LABCos. If a LABCo is an incumbent operator, it could absolutely be directly awarded a franchised contract under the clause, as could a private operator, if that was desired by the franchising authority. Clause 13, therefore, already allows franchising authorities to direct awards to LABCos.

Amendment 35 would allow a franchising authority to direct awards to a LABCo that is not an incumbent operator. For good reasons, clause 13 includes a restriction on direct awards to incumbent operators—that is, that any operator providing local services in an area immediately before a franchising scheme is made has been doing so for at least the three months prior. Those reasons include providing a stable and controlled contractual environment for staff and assets during a transition, while providing continuity of services to passengers. It also means that operators are established in, and familiar with, the area. That greater operational knowledge will help to drive more effective long-term procurement of competitive franchise contracts through data collection and sharing.

Those benefits are most likely to be achieved by franchising authorities working in areas with operators that have an established and reliable presence in the network and with whom they have established effective working relationships. I therefore hope the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will withdraw her amendment. Clause 13 already provides most of the powers she seeks, and keeping the incumbent element is an important part of ensuring some of the core benefits of the measure.

[Siân Berry]

I very much appreciate that my amendments would do different things from clause 13, and I also appreciate that the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 provide the ability to make a direct award to an internal operator at other times. However, I worry that if we do not make sure that we have that ability in primary legislation—I cannot find it elsewhere in the Bill—there is a risk that private companies will issue legal challenges against direct awards. That is the key thing that I would like the Government to address, potentially in a different clause.

[Simon Lightwood]

I simply do not feel that that is necessary. The way in which it is set out is clear enough.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East for tabling amendment 72. Clause 13 allows for the direct award of initial franchising contracts to incumbent operators under specific conditions that are set out in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. In doing so, we aim to reduce transitional risks for local transport authorities and operators when moving to a franchised network.

Clause 13 applies equally to private operators and LABCos. If a LABCo is an incumbent operator, it could be directly awarded a franchised contract under the clause. For good reasons, clause 13 includes a restriction on direct awards to incumbent operators only—that is, that any operator providing local services in an area immediately before a franchising scheme is made has been doing so for at least the three months prior. Those reasons include providing a stable, controlled, contractual environment for the transition of staff, as I have mentioned.

Clause 13 enables franchising authorities to directly award the first franchising contracts to incumbent operators. That is not about shutting out competition; it is about providing a stable, controlled environment to manage the transition to a franchising model. Long-term franchise contracts will be competitively tendered in the usual way.

Franchising authorities may wish to use the direct award measure to help to manage the transfer of staff and assets, gather data to inform future franchise contracts, and provide flexibility to stagger the tendering of competitive franchise contracts at different times. It may also help to support small and medium-sized enterprise operators to gain experience in a franchising model.

Direct award can be used only under specific conditions. For example, direct award contracts have a maximum duration of five years and are only for net cost contracts. In many cases, a shorter duration will be appropriate. Further, only the incumbent can receive a direct award contract for the same or substantially similar services.

[The Chair]

Siân Berry, do you wish to press the amendment to a vote?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 6

Ayes: 5

---

Liberal Democrat: 2
Conservative: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 10

---

Labour: 10

[Siân Berry]

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 14, page 9, line 32, after “activities,” insert—

“(iv) health care services, or

(v) schools and other educational institutes,”.

This amendment would include services which enable people to access health or educational services in the definition of ‘socially necessary local services’.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 38, in clause 14, page 9, line 35, after “activities.” insert—

“(16) A service which was abolished in the 15 years before the day on which the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 was passed may also be considered a socially necessary local service for the purposes of this section and section 138C.”

This amendment would mean that previous bus services could be considered as socially necessary local services.

[Siân Berry]

I am pleased to move an amendment that both I and Liberal Democrat colleagues had the idea of. The Liberal Democrats have withdrawn their version of the amendment, but we are essentially aiming at the same thing: to be specific in proposed new section 138A of the 2000 Act by specifically naming healthcare services, schools and other educational institutions as activities that we as a Parliament consider to be essential. I believe that that would really help transport planners to focus their efforts on those particularly essential services. It would strengthen the clause considerably.

In the past, I have worked with many young people who value bus services and feel undervalued when those services are not helping them to get back and forth to school. When they are not able to take part in after-school activities in the same way as their peers at the school whose parents can drive them back and forth, there is a social justice issue that deserves its own bullet point, as part of the clause.

I do not need to tell Members about the importance of public transport access to hospitals and other healthcare services. Later, we will discuss amendments pressing for the timing of older and disabled people’s bus passes to be extended so that they can access healthcare services with their free cards. The actual provision of the services is the absolute bottom line here, and they should be named. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose my amendment.

Amendment 38 was originally proposed by my Green party colleague, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, in the other place. It aims to include clearly in the definition services that have been cancelled. If this aspect of the Bill is to work effectively, it is essential that it works to undo the damage caused by cuts made in bus services, particularly local authority-supported ones since the start of the enormous austerity squeeze on local councils.

The proposed time period of 15 years in amendment 38 is no accident—it goes back to the start of austerity. Many figures show the loss of bus services around the country since the beginning of that period. For example, a Campaign for Better Transport figure shows that from 2012 to the second year of the pandemic, 2021, more than a quarter of all bus services across England, measured in vehicle kilometres, were lost. For the number of regulated services, which is a different measure of service capacity, the loss was 29%.

It will come as no surprise to my colleagues from the east of England that one of the regions with the biggest losses was the eastern region, alongside the north-west of England. The services lost were socially necessary, and they ought to be able to be defined as currently socially necessary, even if they do not exist. I commend both amendments to the Committee.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Amendment 39 would add healthcare services, schools and educational facilities to the list of socially necessary local services. The hon. Lady is, of course, right that those are important destinations for bus services—so important that they would without doubt come under the services side of the definition. Since the clause as drafted refers to enabling

“passengers to access…essential goods and services”,

the amendment is otiose.

I understand the political point that the hon. Lady is seeking to make through amendment 38 but, as drafted, nothing could be done with that information under the clause. In fact, the amendment would have a negative effect, because it would simply muddy the waters with historical data without being helpful in establishing the future direction of travel for local transport authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Siân Berry]

On a point of clarification, clause 14 adds proposed new subsection (15)(b) to section 138A of the Transport Act. The measure is quite specific that a current service is envisaged—it refers to a service “if cancelled”. Amendment 38 would respond to that by making sure that recently cancelled services were covered. Such services might have been taken away because operators anticipated the risk that they would be defined as “socially necessary”. Can the Minister reassure us on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I did not give way, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s additional comments.

[Siân Berry]

Oh, apologies.

[Simon Lightwood]

It is fine. I do not believe that the amendments are necessary.

[The Chair]

Does Ms Berry wish to press the amendment to a Division?

[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.

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

Siân Berry Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

May I apologise to members of the public in the Gallery? When I was chairing on Tuesday, I made the point that I would announce Members and their party, for people in the Gallery who are visually impaired. Our last contributor was Steve Race, the Labour MP for Exeter. I call Siân Berry, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will speak primarily about my amendments 29 to 31, but I will also say a few words about clause 31.

Amendment 29 would amend clause 30(1), which concerns the guidance for stopping places for bus stops. It is a very good clause, but my amendment would ensure that the Bill specifies additional information to be included in the guidance so that it is truly comprehensive as to what bus users need at a bus stop. It includes reference to safe and accessible travel to and from bus stops in the surrounding area, not just accessibility from the bus stop to the bus, as well as reference to toilet facilities for both passengers and drivers. It aims to ensure that clear information is set out, including standards written into the guidance for real-time bus information. If my amendment is not agreed to, I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister that those issues will be considered in the guidance. There is a strong case for ensuring that the guidance covers them. Additionally, I support amendments 40 and 42, which would usefully replace “may” with “must” in respect of the guidance.

In ensuring safe and accessible travel to and from bus stops, it is important that we ensure that people can get to them across things like junctions or main roads that are difficult to cross. People often need to be able to get from the bus stop where they get off to one on the other side of the road to get the bus back. In almost every case, they will need to cross the road that the buses use, so that they can switch directions. An accessible route across the road between two bus stops is an essential component of accessible travel, and it needs looking at in the guidance.

I have a very long history of work on toilets, from my time in the London Assembly. That is primarily down to my former colleague Caroline Russell, who is still in the London Assembly advocating for the issue. The cross-party transport committee in the London Assembly, which at the time was led by a Conservative, published a great report called “Driven to Distraction”, which has been submitted as written evidence. It sets out various issues that bus drivers face—pressure, fatigue and all sorts of things that I will address later. Recommendation 5 in the report makes it very clear that the need to use a toilet is an issue for many drivers. We have many more female drivers with serious pressures on them, particularly if they have their period. We also have some older drivers who may experience difficult issues in trying to access toilets while they work.

Making sure that drivers have access to toilets is very important. I also draw Members’ attention to the written evidence from Lorraine Robertson, a veteran bus driver. She has worked with other bus drivers to put together what she calls the bill of rights for bus drivers, which contains the right to a clean, serviced toilet and rest facilities on all bus routes. That is incredibly important.

Other work done by the London Assembly, including by my former colleague Caroline Russell, includes highlighting the loo deserts that exist on the tube network. It is very easy for an individual London Assembly member to gather information on that; they simply have to ask Transport for London. However, it is much harder to gather such information on bus stops and bus routes, which is one reason why I am trying to put a requirement into the Bill. The fact that someone can travel for half an hour or more on the tube with no toilet services available was instrumental in persuading the Mayor of London to start correcting the situation. He has adopted a goal that sets out a maximum travel time before there is access to a toilet near or inside a tube station.

Ministers should consider having a standard for a maximum travel time on buses before there is access to a loo, for the benefit both of drivers and of passengers. I think that the Mayor of London has adopted a standard of something like 20 minutes. When we think about bus routes in smaller towns and cities, access to a public toilet within 20 minutes of travel time is not an onerous thing to make local transport authorities pay attention to.

On information, I refer hon. Members to the “Better Bus Stops” report by the Campaign for Better Transport, which has done extensive research into what is needed for bus stops. The report talks about having things like toilets at all interchanges. The campaign is very clear that real-time information is incredibly important, but currently there is no national standard. In Brighton and Hove, at Preston Park station, the real-time information for people disembarking from trains, telling them when the next bus is arriving at the nearest bus stop, is out of action because the bus company and the council are switching to a new system. It would be really good for the Government to start laying out standards for a good bus stop and good real-time information, and for local transport authorities to start adopting a common system that can stay in action instead of being switched around when contracts change. Those would all be real improvements to clause 30 that the Minister should consider.

Amendment 30 would amend clause 30(7) by adding to the definition of “facilities” information about access to a bus stop in the nearby area. That would make it a bit clearer that that information is part of the facilities around bus stops, to make them more accessible. I have received some correspondence from campaigners who are in the room today asking that my amendment 30 be withdrawn. I just want to clear up a slight misunderstanding. The amendment does not refer specifically to crossings across cycle lanes or anything to do with floating bus stops. As I have said before, it is primarily about ensuring that bus passengers can reach their return stop accessibly, but also that they can cross nearby junctions. That is what the amendment refers to.

On clause 31, I would like to add some words of support. I am very persuaded by some examples that I have been shown by campaigners, particularly about shared borders, which I understand that Ministers are now reconsidering have any support for at all in the guidance. I have also seen some very bad examples of inadequate traffic islands and crossing facilities for floating bus stops. I have heard very convincing testimony about the guidance on the placing of zebra crossings across cycle lanes. When bus stops are used by multiple routes, buses are often unable to stop at the place where people might expect; the bus will sometimes have to stop much further back, and it really does create confusion, so real thought needs to be put into the guidance. By and large, clause 31 is very good as it stands, but we should feed learning into it on an ongoing basis. That is best done through guidance, not through a moratorium or by putting anything too specific into the Bill. It is important that it can be adjusted when learning arises from practice.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Am I right that the hon. Lady is suggesting that a partially sighted person or a disabled person is somehow lower down the hierarchy than a cyclist, simply because they are on a bus rather than walking or cycling?

[Siân Berry]

Let me clarify. Absolutely not: the hierarchy starts with people who are on foot or wheeling, and it moves down, via cycling, with motor vehicles at the bottom.

I would like to read out the evidence from the London Cycling Campaign. Its design solutions would ensure that the roads are safe, and many of them involve having extra space. The evidence sets out that

“extra space could also mean wider pavements, better sightlines”,

for cyclists who need to give way and

“less fraught interactions at floating bus stops between different mode users.”

The London Cycling Campaign argues that we should

“ensure bus services, walking, wheeling and cycling all get appropriate priority and capacity in funding, design guidance and on the ground in terms of physical space. And that likely means being more willing to reduce space and priority for private motor vehicles in more locations.”

That hierarchy is what I referred to. Where things are really difficult, it may be the right solution in a lot of cases to keep the bus on the main carriageway and make the other vehicles wait. However, that is for the design guidance. None of us is a traffic engineer—unless a Member wants to interrupt and point out that they are. That guidance must be produced in consultation with disabled people, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted, and it must also have the hierarchy in mind. Those designing the guidance should be much more willing to take space away from vehicles and to keep buses on the carriageway, if that is necessary to provide sufficient space to ensure that the roads are safe and accessible.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I rise to talk briefly about floating bus stops and therefore new clause 47. Floating bus stops exist not least to help with the flow of cyclists, and I support that aim, but they present challenges for the safety of pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities. As ever when it comes to sharing the highway, pavements, and areas in and around bus stops, everything is a balance. It is about satisfactorily mitigating the risk.

The challenge with floating bus stops relates particularly to people with disabilities. Of course, cyclists have a responsibility not to hit people, and the vast majority of cyclists are safe users of roads and cycle lanes. Some people, not everyone, have a slightly old-fashioned—I might say ignorant—assumption that somebody with a disability will be very visible, and that it should be obvious to cyclists that they need to take special care. That is simply not the case. That is an old-fashioned, outdated and, as I say, in some cases ignorant view. Disabilities, including physical disabilities, can be very hard to identify.

I would support the prohibition of new floating bus stops, and I support all the elements of new clause 47, which is about safety and about recognising the challenges, particularly for those with disabilities. We need to get this right. I urge the Government to support the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

This is a very long response. I will make a little more progress.

[Siân Berry]

It is on a point of clarification.

[Simon Lightwood]

Go ahead.

[Siân Berry]

On the budgets that the Minister just mentioned, was he clear that the money for retrofitting will come out of active travel funding, rather than bus services funding, or is it a bit of both?

[Simon Lightwood]

A range of funding pots could be used for the remediation work. As I mentioned, the pause will focus on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Research by University College London, commissioned by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, identified such layouts as particularly problematic. The hon. Member for Wimbledon specifically raised the question of auditing existing floating bus stops. Clause 32(1)(b) will place a duty on local authorities to respond to requests from the Secretary of State for information on stopping places. That power is broadly drafted and would allow the Secretary of State to ask for information about the number and location of floating bus stops provided by the authority. Transport for London has also undertaken a form of audit on its floating bus stops.

We expect such audits to naturally form part of developing local funding programmes. However, my Department will ask local authorities to undertake that work, alongside setting out to them its expectation on the pause. We will work together with local authorities in a pragmatic way to collate information on floating bus stops. Much of the information is already held by local authorities, and I recognise that it is important to addressing this issue. Local authorities will be able to use a wide range of existing funding streams to audit floating bus stops in their areas. For example, the consolidated active travel fund includes capital and revenue elements that can be used for audits, early feasibility work and capital remediation schemes.

I have heard the concerns of hon. Members about the behaviour of some cyclists. I am happy to set out my commitment to working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators in this space to support awareness raising through communication on this issue. On Report, I will return with further updates on the Government’s plans. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to enabling more people to walk, wheel and cycle. Good-quality segregated infrastructure is vital to making cycling safer. However, we must ensure that it is delivered in a way that keeps the public realm accessible for everyone. As I outlined, my Department and Active Travel England are focused on helping local authorities to implement change in a way that is more consistent and accessible, through research, awareness raising and good practice.

Moving to the amendments, I will begin by discussing amendments 40 to 43. Amendment 40 would place a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to give guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. Clause 30 as drafted gives the Secretary of State flexibility to issue guidance when it is appropriate and based on proper evidence, engagement and policy development. Replacing “may” with “must” in clause 30(1) would create a statutory obligation, impacting that discretion. Such a duty could risk forcing the premature publication of guidance, before the necessary consultation, or the gathering of evidence or stakeholder input, has been completed. That could lead to guidance that is incomplete, inconsistent and frankly unfit for purpose.

I have already spoken about the requirement to consult DPTAC, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. That will ensure that any guidance developed is effective, proportionate and responsive to the needs of all passengers. I would like to reassure the Committee that this Government are committed to publishing guidance to ensure that stopping place infrastructure around the country is safer and more accessible to all. However, I am concerned that amendment 40 would frustrate, rather than support, our ability to ensure that the drafting works for all passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I am very impressed with the clause; it adds good things to the Bill and it is appropriate that drivers are given good information and training on how to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. Some of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister are covered in proposed new section 144F(2) of the Transport Act 2000, where it says “respond appropriately”. In many cases, the appropriate response may be to call the police, and sometimes it may be to report back to senior people within the organisation or merely to ask that CCTV be reviewed to see whether an offence has been committed. Those are all appropriate actions that do not put people in any danger.

I also want to speak in support of amendment 61, from my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It would be a very good addition to the clause, because many sub-crimes—things that fall below the level of crime—will still raise alarms to do with domestic abuse. A lot of progress has been made in training people who work in pubs and nightlife on the Ask for Angela service. Bus drivers may also be approached and potentially asked for support or help to get away, and they need to be able to respond appropriately. People need training on how to spot others who might be in danger and to act appropriately.

Will the Minister also give us some reassurance? The clause contains the very broad definition of

“criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”.

I want to raise the issue of child criminal exploitation; I tabled related amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill on Report. Issues such as county lines and spotting children in danger could be part of this training. During that debate, I also spoke about the need for people to treat children as children, not criminals, as they might be vulnerable or in danger themselves. There are also issues around unconscious biases and the adultification of black children in particular. Those things might all potentially be within the scope of this training, because it is important that people are given more duties to deal with criminal issues and training to avoid some of the pitfalls.

Finally, I ask the Minister for an update on discussions with trade unions and the potential new duties in amendment 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). Since he is not a member of the Committee, I want to make sure that the Minister responds to his question about involving trade unions to ensure that training is prepared appropriately and in discussion with them.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon and for Didcot and Wantage for tabling amendment 61, which seeks to include domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, as part of the mandatory training for bus staff on crime and antisocial behaviour.

I am glad to confirm to hon. Friends and members of the Committee that clause 34 already captures domestic abuse. That is because domestic abuse is a criminal offence, and the clause outlines that training must cover

“criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”.

Furthermore, under the powers in the clause, the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance that will cover behaviours associated with violence against women and girls. Through that guidance, bus operators will be made aware of the breadth of different types of violence against women and girls, and how to train their staff to identify, respond to, and, where it is safe to do so, prevent incidents of such behaviours occurring on the bus network.

To answer the question from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, guidance on training requirements will be developed in consultation with stakeholders, drawing on existing good practice. The ambition is to empower drivers and other staff to recognise and be able to respond to acts of antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, which may involve passengers, themselves or their colleagues. When determining how drivers and other staff should respond to such incidents, a key consideration will be how to ensure that the personal safety of the employee or employees is not put at risk. I hope I have provided enough assurance for the hon. Member for North Norfolk to feel able to withdraw amendment 61.

Amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, seeks to ensure that guidance issued under the powers in clause 34 does not lead to staff placing themselves in danger at any stage. The Government listened to concerns raised in the other place, including from the hon. Member’s party. We tabled an amendment to clarify that staff will be trained to prevent incidents only where it is “safe to do so”. For the benefit of the Committee, I confirm that staff will not be expected to put themselves at risk or in danger at any stage. Training on crime and antisocial behaviour will help staff to understand ways in which to de-escalate and defuse situations that occur on the bus network. That is a key part of the Government’s vision for making buses safer and more inclusive for all passengers—and, in the case of this clause, particularly for women and girls. I hope the hon. Member is satisfied and will therefore not press his amendment.

Amendment 73 was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). It would require public service vehicle operators to consult trade unions before preparing training for bus drivers and staff who deal with the travelling public, or issues relating to them, on how to identify, respond appropriately to and, where safe, prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour. Specifically, it would mandate that trade unions be consulted on the proposed content and implementation of the training.

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

Siân Berry Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments and reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Training about disability: further provisions

Amendments made: 20, in clause 36, page 39, line 16, at end insert—

“(8A) The Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1865) are amended in accordance with subsections (8B) and (9).

(8B) In regulation 8, after paragraph (1) insert—

‘(1A) Paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to the enforcement of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of Regulation 181/2011 as they apply to a terminal managing body by virtue of paragraph 1A of that Article, and the designated body responsible for the enforcement of those requirements as they so apply is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.

(1B) The enforcement authority in relation to the requirements of regulations made under section 36 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.’”

This amendment ensures that references in the 2013 Regulations to the enforcement authority cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A.

Amendment 21, in clause 36, page 39, line 17, leave out from “10” to “insert” in line 18.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.

Amendment 22, in clause 36, page 39, line 21, leave out “this regulation” and insert “these regulations”.—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment brings regulation 10A(1) of the 2013 Regulations into line with regulation 10(1) of those regulations.

Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in England

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 37, page 40, line 23, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 24 and insert “1 January 2027,”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 33, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered before 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 78, in clause 37, page 40, line 30, at end insert—

“(3A) A vehicle does not fall within subsection (3) if it previously had the tailpipe emissions listed in subsection (3)(c) but has since been converted to a zero-emission drive train.”

This amendment would qualify buses that have repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies to be considered as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of this Bill.

Amendment 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.

Amendment 58, in clause 37, page 40, line 40, at end insert—

“(6) The provisions of this section apply to any mayoral combined authority in England, where ‘mayoral combined authority’ means an authority established under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.”

This amendment would clarify that the provisions of section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities.

Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 40, line 40, at end insert—

“(6) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing how adequately and easily local transport authorities have been, or will be able to, access funding to replace polluting buses with zero-emission buses for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section.

(7) A report under subsection (6) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of current funding mechanisms available for the transition to zero-emission buses, including grants, loans, and other financial incentives;

(b) an evaluation of the sufficiency of available funding to meet the projected costs and timelines for local transport authorities to achieve a zero-emission fleet by 2035;

(c) a review of the barriers and challenges faced by local transport authorities in accessing existing funding, including administrative burdens, eligibility criteria, and capacity constraints;

(d) recommendations for improving the adequacy and accessibility of funding to accelerate the replacement of polluting buses with zero-emission buses.

(8) In conducting the review under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, bus operators and manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles.

(9) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to ensure sufficient and accessible funding for the transition to zero-emission buses.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the adequacy and accessibility of funding available to local transport authorities to transition their bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The report must include an evaluation of current funding mechanisms, barriers to access, and recommendations for improvements.

Clause stand part.

[Siân Berry]

Clause 37 is a good clause on the mandate for the use of zero emission buses in England. In essence, as it stands, it sets zero emission standards for new buses registered after a certain date. Rather than mandating that that date may not be before 1 January 2030, my amendments 32 and 33 would set it as 1 January 2027. I think that is the appropriate level of ambition for the Bill.

I am very aware that air pollution remains an enormous, preventable public health threat and that road transport plays its part in that. In certain hotspots in every town and city, bus travel is responsible for a significant amount of the pollution that people breathe in. That pollution is disproportionately experienced by the people who use and wait for those buses, and the pedestrians along the routes of those buses. We need to have the highest possible ambition.

Buses under Transport for London have had that mandate in place since 2021, despite any legal requirement. All buses procured in London since that day have been zero emission capable, and have been deployed without any kind of problem. The investment has been put in, and it was done in part because of the imperative to clean up dirty air. Bus availability is now clearly no obstacle to the amendment being accepted. Double-deckers, single-deckers and all kinds of buses are available to provide services. One constraint, though, is the ability to charge those buses at depots.

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

I seek clarification on the import of the hon. Lady’s amendment. On Transport for London, she said that no newly purchased bus would be outside this consideration. Proposed new section 151A(1), for which she seeks to bring the date forward, states:

“The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3)”.

Her amendment would therefore mean that no existing bus that was not zero emission at the tailpipe could be used from 2027 onwards. Is that really her intention?

[Siân Berry]

As I understand it—the Minister might want to intervene if I am not correct—proposed new subsection (3)(b) sets the condition that the bus is first registered

“on or after a date”.

The condition is placed on new buses, not on any bus being used. It gives considerable leeway for existing buses to continue to be used. The clause is about procurement, and that is what I understand it to be mandating.

As I say, not every single bus in London has yet converted to zero emissions, but for several years now, new buses being purchased have had zero tailpipe emissions. That is not to say that they do not create any air pollution at all; much air pollution comes from brakes and tyre wear, and dust off the roads—there is a lot more air pollution than what comes out of the tailpipe.

[Simon Lightwood]

The amendment would prevent new non-ZEBs from being used on English local bus services from 1 January 2027.

[Siân Berry]

I thought so—I am not as radical as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham thinks. I think that the amendment is entirely reasonable on bus availability and procurement. It does not speed up the rate of procurement, or mandate that at all.

I am aware that there are challenging issues at certain depots. However, having spoken to private bus operators about this, they often do not lack the willingness to invest in charging infrastructure, and I am sure the imperative for a publicly owned bus company would be even higher. Instead, the constraint for some of them is the ability of the local electricity infrastructure to support the load produced by the rapid charging of very large vehicles with very large batteries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

As has become my custom, I will start with the clause and then look at the amendments. I will be relatively brief, but it is worth highlighting that clause 37 deals with the use of zero emission vehicles for local services in England. It is intended to prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses in local bus services in England, but inevitably there a number of qualifications to the proposed ban.

Under proposed new section 151A(2)(a), the ban will be limited to local bus services or London local services, the rationale behind which is presumably that long-distance buses do not currently have the technology to reliably use electric batteries, as opposed to other forms of lower-carbon technology. That raises questions about rural services that are classified as “local” but are, in fact, long distance. The county of Norfolk is a big old place, and there are long journeys that are classified as “local”.

I raise a flag at the way in which the Government have sought to vary the classification by taking out long-distance journeys, and assuming that bus battery technology is therefore capable of dealing with all other local services. That is not necessarily the case where long rural routes, which are classified as “local”, still face the same disadvantage in battery technology, as it is currently developed. I am raising that issue with the Minister so that he can go away and think about it. The date of registration is 1 January 2030.

The consequence of the clause is that it bans tailpipe emissions, and there is a separate, but slightly more philosophical, point. I have a challenge to the Government’s policy direction: it looks like the Government are picking winners—in fact, they definitely are—in relation to low-carbon technology. The tailpipe emissions include CO₂, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide and particulates, which is all set out in subsection (3)(c). Currently, only hydrogen and electric buses would qualify, so there is a huge implication to this clause.

This is a blanket ban for new registrations, which undoubtedly has some positives but also some negatives of which we collectively ought to be aware. The positives of these vehicles are their quietness and, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion pointed out, air quality. That is a significant positive. I was born and went to school in my early years in London, and the difference in air quality in this city between then and now is enormous. It is a totally different experience from back in the 1970s, when vehicle fumes just enveloped us. That has made a huge difference.

If we agree to the amendment, however, we would be legislating enormous cost increases for the creators of fleets. We need to be careful: the cost of a standard Euro VI compliant bus, which has the most efficient engine, is about £180,000. An electric equivalent is about half a million pounds. These are hugely different orders of cost.

[Siân Berry]

Is the hon. Gentleman taking into account the lifetime of a bus and the changes in running costs?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I was just coming to that. The hon. Lady is quite right, but I am talking about the up-front capital cost. The lifetime running cost may well be cheaper for an electric bus, but the creator has to finance their capital cost on day one, whereas the lifetime operating costs are spread over the effective lifetime of the asset, which, for an electric bus, is an interesting question, actually. The lifetime of the structure of the bus may be 15 or 20 years, but we are not yet sure what the effective lifetime of the battery component of the bus is, and whether or not it needs to be replaced after about 10 years. The data is not particularly robust on that. If it means that we have to change out enormous battery banks during the operating process, that would be a significant additional secondary capex cost.

The Department for Transport figures for March 2024 say that there are 29,400 buses used by local bus companies. If we are going to replace all of those, that would be an £8 billion investment. That is very significant, and it is not considered in the impact assessment. There are some long-term savings, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion quite rightly pointed out. It is not just the differential in costs between electric and diesel; there are reduced maintenance costs as well. There are many fewer moving parts with an electric vehicle as well as the lower fuel cost, but the capex costs are front-loaded, and we cannot ignore that. Have the Government considered the financing consequences of imposing large, increased, front-loaded capex costs on bus companies? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

The second issue here is that through the current drafting, the Government are inevitably picking a winner in terms of technology for low-carbon vehicles, because it focuses on tailpipe emissions and ignores whole-life carbon assessments. That is important; again, we must have a balance of approach here. There is a significant benefit in zero tailpipe emissions, which is primarily about air quality as opposed to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.

There are very significant emissions during the construction of large-scale battery-operated buses, and there are alternatives under development. In the life cycle of the vehicle, if we take into account its construction, operation and disassembly, it is likely that new technologies, particularly ones using synthetic fuels, could be lower in carbon terms, albeit emitting Euro VI equivalent particulates at the tailpipe. The Bill denies an opportunity for that market to develop.

There are currently artificially-produced fuels made using renewable energy that have no net CO₂ emissions over their life cycle. If they are interested, I can explain the basic process to Members: it uses carbon capture plus hydrogen from renewable electricity, synthesised via processes such as the Fischer-Tropsch or methanol synthesis, to create e-diesel, e-kerosene, e-methanol or e-gasoline. The key benefit is that it works with existing engines and fuel infrastructure, and avoids the enormous carbon emissions from wasting existing built infrastructure and machinery.

We need to understand that we have “spent” an enormous amount of carbon and greenhouse gases in constructing the 29,400 vehicles—buses—already out there, many of which have a natural life that could be extended significantly. We do not even need to convert them: we could just pour a synthetic fuel into the same bus, saving all the carbon associated with the manufacturing of new, large-scale hydrogen or electricity buses. At the very least, that would be a significant transitional material to extend the use of existing, or pre-manufactured, vehicles.

We try to reduce, reuse and recycle, and that would be an absolutely classic case of a good thing, and yet the clause, I am afraid to say, prohibits the development of that market. I suspect that that is not the intention of the Department or the Minister, but that is what will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

In March, I chaired the inaugural UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which aims to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus building while helping local authorities to deliver their transport ambitions. More than 50% of new buses registered in 2024 were zero emission—a record 1,600, up 33% on the previous year’s record of 1,200. We hope to see the appetite for ZEBs continue to flourish, with private investment and alternative funding models stepping in to ensure that the sector’s journey towards decarbonisation continues. As a result, the Government are already taking forward what is intended by amendment 63 and we have concerns that it would add unnecessary complexity to the process. I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

[Siân Berry]

I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments 32 and 33, but I am quite disappointed. I take his points about potential downsides. I assume that, in outlining them, he took into account all the lovely investment that he was just talking about and assumed that there would be no additional Government investment to enable the target date to be met. I would like the law of the land that we create during this process to retain the hope that there may be increases in investment in public transport and buses in future Labour Budgets.

I will withdraw amendment 32, but I would like to press amendment 33 to a vote. That would remove the stipulation that the date cannot be before 1 January 2030 and give Ministers the opportunity to look again at whether an earlier date is possible. I appreciate that it is too much to expect the Minister to accept the new date proposed in amendment 32 today, but I think it is completely reasonable to expect the Committee to agree to give him an opportunity to look again at the date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.—(Siân Berry.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I support the speeches made by the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for North Norfolk, and I am exasperated that the clause is being rejected. I asked the Secretary of State about incorporating vision zero goals in the road safety strategy, as it is an entirely reasonable aim for there to be no deaths on our roads. To reject such a goal only for buses seems utterly unreasonable, and contrary to what the other place decided.

Every death that is due to a bus is 100% preventable, and we should be setting the goal of eliminating bus-related death. It is already part of the Bill—to take it out is even worse than not including it in the first place. I am very supportive of keeping the clause in the Bill. It does not go into detail about what is required but would merely ensure that the goal is set, which is completely reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 44—Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—

“(1) In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—

‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS) for drivers of PSVs

(1) Local authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).

(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.

(3) Local authorities must consult with trade unions on health and safety matters which arise from reports to CIRAS.’”

This new clause seeks to ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).

[Siân Berry]

I have tabled a number of new clauses relating to safety of working conditions, health and safety, and reporting of bus safety. I want to speak in detail to new clause 5, but I will speak only briefly on the other related new clauses.

We need to see a step change in attitudes and effort on bus safety. Buses are a poor relation compared with other forms of transport in terms of the amount of work and care that goes into the safety of drivers and working conditions, much to the detriment of public safety. I therefore fully support the written evidence from the RMT. I am disappointed that this issue was not voted on in the Lords, because there is a clear case and a high need for it to be looked at.

It is a shame that a Bill with such potential to include these kinds of measures does not, hence these new clauses. In its written evidence, the RMT argued that

“decades of fragmentation and deregulation has led to poor working conditions in much of the sector and a stark lack of oversight for health and safety. As a report into the UK’s deregulated bus market by former UN rapporteur Philip Alston states ‘privatisation also appears to have resulted in lower quality jobs in the bus sector and unsafe working conditions’.”

Given that the Bill is intended to undo and help to mend some of the harm of privatisation, and to create better standards, these measures need to be brought in.

Bus workers are subject to many health and safety risks, including fatigue. I have met with bus drivers about the impacts of fatigue and the kinds of shifts they have to carry out. We will discuss new clauses about working times later. When drivers spot issues, they need to have a confidential reporting system such as that in new clause 5. It would be good to include in the Bill a means of reporting confidentially without fear of repercussions, which is a safety measure used in many other industries.

I will speak more on the individual measures in the new clauses to come, but they all need to be looked at. They come as a package to ensure that drivers have better working conditions, that there are better qualifications in management, that things can be reported, and that data on the current situation can be collected and used to focus attention on these issues in future.

[Simon Lightwood]

New clauses 5 and 44 seek to require local authorities to ensure that local bus operators are providing their drivers with access to CIRAS. The Government are deeply concerned about any safety incidents in the bus sector, but the issue was discussed in the Lords, and the Government cannot support in legislation an amendment that specifies a third-party service.

CIRAS is one of a number of suitable routes through which safety concerns can be raised. For example, anyone may anonymously report a lack of safety or conformation to standards in the bus sector to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency intelligence unit. The DVSA may use that information to investigate the situation, including working with other Government Departments and agencies, as well as the police. The Minister for Rail noted the need to raise awareness of that service, and officials are working with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. I remember discussing this very issue with the RMT.

There are comprehensive standards covering all aspects of bus operation, such as roadworthiness of vehicles, operational services and driver standards. Those are enforced by several organisations including the DVSA. Operators of those vehicles are licensed by the traffic commissioners, who also consider any non-compliance issues and ensure that bus operators are effectively regulated. Those regulatory systems also include provisions on the responsibilities and conduct of drivers. Drivers or any member of the public may at present report any concerns to CIRAS if they would rather use that route. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Department is absolutely committed to ensuring safety in the bus sector, and that the new clause is unnecessary.

[The Chair]

Does the Member want to pursue this new clause?

[Siân Berry]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Bus safety performance data

“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—

‘144F Bus safety performance data

(1) Local transport authorities must—

(a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and

(b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy.

(2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 45—Bus safety performance data—

“(1) In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—

‘144F Bus safety performance data

(1) Local authorities must publish bus safety performance data online every quarter at a minimum.

(2) Every calendar year, local authorities must submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor to assess the data’s accuracy.

(3) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (2) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.

(4) Local authorities must consult with trade unions on any safety issues detected by this data.

(5) Local authorities must make the release of bus safety performance data by operators a requirement of any franchise they enter into.’”

This new clause seeks to ensure that local authorities publish bus safety performance data every quarter and that franchises place a requirement on operators to release this data.

New clause 49—Bus accident investigation branch—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Bus Accident Investigation Branch.

(2) The Bus Accident Investigation Branch must have the aims of improving the safety of bus travel and preventing bus accidents and incidents.”

[Siân Berry]

New clause 6 relates to the same issue of bus safety. It requires local transport authorities to collect and publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and to submit that bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of it assessing the data’s accuracy. That is a very important thing that we should be doing at a national level.

This is another probing new clause, so I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about how that will be done in some other way. It is now routinely done in Transport for London’s reporting, which has been incredibly useful for everyone interested in road danger, such as people interested in pedestrian and cyclist safety. It has been a really good thing, so extending it and making it a duty on every local transport authority should be very basic and not resisted.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 6, which I will deal with alongside the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), which deal with the same issue. These new clauses seek to require local authorities to publish bus safety performance on a quarterly basis, which must be audited annually.

Road safety is a priority for the Government, which is why we are developing a road safety strategy—the first, as I have said, in over a decade. The Department for Transport already collects data in respect of reported collisions involving personal injury, and publishes that information at a local authority level. Records of individual collisions are also published as open data. That is carried out through the STATS19 framework, which relies on reports from the police.

We recognise concerns about the lack of data collection for areas off the public highway. As a result of those matters being raised in the other place, the Department is engaging with the standing committee on roads injury collision statistics, which reviews the STATS19 framework to understand how those concerns can be addressed. Data is also collected from public service vehicle operators who must report incidents to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, thanks to the PSV operator licensing requirements.

I hope that provides reassurance that the Department is absolutely committed to ensuring that passengers benefit from safe journeys on bus services, and is working to ensure that passengers can access information about those matters easily. As a result, I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

[Siân Berry]

This is a probing new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7

Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service

“(1) In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert—

‘, subject to subsection (1A).

(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 42—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—

“(1) In the Transport Act 1968, in section 96(1), at end insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).

(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service under provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any consecutive weeks.

(1B) In meeting the condition of subsection (1A), drivers cannot be subject to any loss of pay.’”

This new clause seeks to limit the permitted driving time for bus drivers to no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any consecutive weeks.

New clause 43—Permitted time on duty for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—

“(1) In The Driver’s Hours (Passenger and Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1971, Article 4(2) is amended as follows—

‘(1) In the inserted words before paragraph (a), after “Act” insert “, subject to subsection (2A),”’

(2) At the end of the inserted text insert—

‘(2A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service under provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 must not on any working day be on duty to drive a PSV for more than five and a half hours without a break of 45 minutes.’”

[Siân Berry]

This new clause would set a permitted driving time for bus drivers—drivers of public service vehicles—that matched the permitted driving time for heavy goods vehicle drivers. Currently, the permitted driving time for bus drivers is considerably less stringent than for HGV drivers. Some of the data that we have received from the RMT on this issue shows that bus drivers can drive up to 10 hours a day and they have a 30-minute break as a minimum—I am sure that many operators operate different shift patterns than that, but this is what is permitted—after five hours and 30 minutes of driving. In every two consecutive weeks, there is a requirement for them to have 24 hours off duty. However, there is some flex in the rules, which means that someone can actually drive for 130 hours across two weeks. To me, that is asking for trouble. I feel that drivers are potentially being put under far too much pressure by these rules and that we need to look at having this kind of limit in our law.

Two similar new clauses have been tabled: new clauses 42 and 43. They take the same limits but treat them more in aggregate, which may be an attempt to be more flexible. I would be really interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how bus drivers’ hours will be regulated in a way that ensures greater safety than is currently the case.

[Simon Lightwood]

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 7, which I will discuss alongside new clauses 42 and 43. The new clauses seek to align the GB drivers’ hourly rules with the maximum permitted weekly and fortnightly driving limits in the assimilated drivers’ hours rules. They also aim to increase the break requirements for drivers of local bus services in the GB rules to something akin to those in the assimilated rules. The maximum permitted daily driving time for a bus driver is 10 hours, where the driver is providing a regular bus service and where the route length does not go beyond 50 km. The maximum permitted driving time for a driver providing a service beyond that, as well as for coach drivers and HGV drivers, is nine hours, which is extendable twice a week to 10 hours.

While I recognise the hon. Member’s intentions, there are a few unintended consequences to the proposed changes. First, they would increase the number of drivers required to undertake the same amount of work. That would likely have a knock-on impact on the considerable progress made in the last couple of years in addressing bus driver shortages.

Secondly, the proposed changes would likely impact how drivers work. When such a change was previously put to bus operators, they advised that it would result in an increase in the number of drivers having to work split shifts. That is likely to be unpopular with bus drivers, because it would likely mean that they would have to wait around at operating bases for a number of hours. Operators have worked hard to avoid drivers working split shifts when organising shift patterns.

Thirdly, such a change would limit a driver’s earning potential, due to a reduction in the maximum number of hours they could work. The result of all these changes could lead to bus drivers leaving the profession, which would impact the progress made in addressing driver shortages.

[Siân Berry]

Would the Minister not agree that shorter consecutive hours and more flexible shift patterns might attract more people to consider bus driving as a potential career?

[Simon Lightwood]

I think that the hon. Member is insinuating that there would be a choice there, but her proposal would remove that choice.

As I was saying, the result of the changes could be bus drivers leaving the profession, which would impact on the progress made in addressing driver shortages and could lead to cuts in the frequency of services or even cuts to entire routes, which I am sure we all agree we do not want to see. Should service cuts occur, they would likely have a disproportionate impact on those on the lowest incomes, who rely most on the provision of bus services. On that basis, I suggest that the hon. Member withdraw the new clause.

[Siân Berry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities

“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 123X insert—

‘123Y Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities

Officials from a franchising authority responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme must have certification from—

(a) the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, and

(b) the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health.’”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause would require officials from franchising authorities responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme to have IOSH and NEBOSH certifications.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

Following on from my other new clauses, this new clause would simply mandate that those who work in franchising authorities and who are responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing franchise schemes be qualified through the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. That would, I hope, lead to greater focus on health and safety in the work that they do.

[Simon Lightwood]

New clause 8 relates to training for officers in franchising authorities. It specifically focuses on officials from franchising authorities holding certification from the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. Under current health and safety legislation, local transport authorities are required to ensure a safe and healthy work environment, which includes risk assessments, proper training and compliance with health and safety regulations. It is therefore right that a local transport authority that has chosen to franchise determines what level of qualifications is required to ensure that it meets those important requirements.

The effect of the new clause would be an increase in the cost and time that it takes to franchise if the Government required all staff to achieve certification before they started the process. Part of the Government’s bus reform is to simplify and speed up franchising and drive down costs. The new clause would disproportionately impact authorities considering franchising, including those in smaller towns and rural areas. We all agree that health and safety is paramount for bus staff, passengers and the wider public. I will therefore ask my officials to consider that this matter be addressed in the updated guidance for franchising authorities.

[Siân Berry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Review of the use and costs of bus travel for children

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the use of bus services by children.

(2) The review must assess—

(a) the level of use of bus services by children,

(b) the degree to which cost is a limiting factor in children’s use of bus services,

(c) the potential health, social and environmental impacts of children being unable to use bus services as a result of the cost of those services, and

(d) the potential impact of making bus travel free for children.

(3) For the purposes of any review undertaken under this section, ‘child’ means any person under the age of 18.

(4) In conducting a review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and youth organisations.”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children and to consider the impact of making bus travel free for children.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 21—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—

“(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services within their areas.

(2) Any review must assess—

(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;

(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures;

(c) changes which may improve accessibility and increase patronage; and

(d) the potential benefits to bus patronage of the simplification of ticketing systems.

(3) A local transport authority must complete its first review under this section no later than six months after the passing of this Act, with subsequent reviews conducted at least once every three years.

(4) The results of any review conducted under this section must be publicly available.

(5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, and community representatives, and any other stakeholders the authority deems relevant.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services in their areas.

New clause 52—Fare cap for school-only services—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, extend the £3 bus fare cap to school-only services.

(2) Where the £3 bus fare cap is subsequently increased or decreased, an equivalent change applies to the cap for school-only services.”

[Siân Berry]

New clause 9 is about looking again at services for children, particularly their uses of them and the cost of them. The new clause defines a child as

“any person under the age of 18”

and I think that is significant. It means that it overlaps, I think, with new clause 25, which we are debating separately and which looks at 16 to 25-year-olds, but anyone under the age of 18 needs access to buses. They are, almost by definition, not drivers and not always going to have access to a car, but they are always going to need access to essential goods and services and things that help them to thrive, particularly education. I have heard evidence too many times from young people who are struggling to access college for training and other opportunities because of a lack of bus services.

The cost of bus services for children varies hugely around the country. We have many different proposals from different Members, including colleagues in the Liberal Democrats, trying to get the Government to look again at the cost of bus travel for young people as part of the Bill. What I would like to hear from the Minister in response to my new clause and other new clauses that hon. Members have tabled is that the Government will look again at the cost of travel for young people. We have the example of Scotland, where young people can now access buses for free up to the age of 21. We have the example of London and other local authorities that are paying their own money out to make it possible for younger people to get free travel.

It really should be Government policy that young people up to the age of 18, or 21, can travel for free, so that they have the maximum opportunities to access training, social occasions and all the ways in which they become fully fledged adults. I think the Government should be making this a priority in the Bill. They have not yet done that, and this new clause helps them to do so.

[Steff Aquarone]

I will briefly touch on new clause 9, tabled by the Green party, and I will also speak to new clause 21. Buses are often the first form of transport that children use by themselves, without the supervision of parents. They are vital for many children to get to school every day, as well as socialising, and they are an important way to build independence and allow access to people and places outside their immediate vicinity. As a result, this review is welcome and a positive amendment that the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support.

New clause 21, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, would place a duty on local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage within their areas. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and I do not necessarily share the same degree of pessimism about the Bill overall, but we share a belief in measuring the impacts of changes to policy. In his case, it is franchising, but in mine it is the impact of the fare cap.

This is a simple but important proposal. At its heart, there a basic principle: if we want more people to use buses, we have to understand what is stopping them, and fare levels are a crucial part of that picture. The new clause would ensure that local authorities assess how fare structures influence ridership trends, what changes might improve accessibility, and what role simplified ticketing could play in encouraging more people on to buses.

Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture of their wider consequences on social inclusion, economic activity, environmental goals and so on. That is short-sighted policymaking that this new clause seeks to correct.

[Siân Berry]

On a point of clarification, under subsection (1) of the new clause, could local transport authorities collaborate to conduct this kind of research? I worry that a single local transport authority might struggle to carry out robust research on its limited amount of data, whereas it might work slightly better if they were to team up.

[Steff Aquarone]

I could not possibly talk about the inquiries that the Transport Committee is considering undertaking, but I would say that we all have an active interest in how to account for policy impacts on integrated travel as a whole. It may be that the Minister can attend a hearing in the forthcoming inquiry to speak to the exact point that the hon. Lady has just made.

Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture on their wider consequences, as I have said. The evidence is compelling; we know from both national and international experience that lower, simpler fares drive higher patronage. We have seen that with the £2 fare cap still inexplicably being phased out by the Government. With successful fare reform in places such as Germany and the Netherlands, affordable and innovative ticketing has increased public transport use. This new clause would bring that learning to a local level. It would empower transport authorities to act and analyse their policy in an informed away, based not on guesswork but on real data, public consultation and a clear understanding of what works.

This is not onerous. Most of our local authorities are already gathering some, if not all, of this data. What this new clause would do is provide consistency, as well as clarity, and a stronger evidence base for future fare and ticketing policy. It puts passengers and communities at the heart of decision making, and gives us the tools to reverse the long-term decline in bus use that has plagued far too many parts of the country for too long. If we are serious about boosting ridership, cutting emissions and making public transport fair and accessible, we need to understand the role of fares properly. This new clause would help us to do just that.

[Simon Lightwood]

New clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seeks to require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children, or those under 18, to consider the impact of making bus travel free for them. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money to taxpayers, while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people.

Local authorities and bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. For example, in the year ending March 2025, these concessions were offered by 24 out of 85 travel concession authorities in England outside of London, and by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of 85 local authority areas in England outside of London. A good example of that is Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority, which launched the tiger bus pass, offering bus fares of £1 for those under 25.

We want bus fares to be affordable, which is why we are funding the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027, and confirming around £900 million in revenue funding each year from 2026-27 to maintain and improve vital bus services. As I said, local authorities may choose to use this funding to support such initiatives based on their local needs. As such, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw her new clause.

[Siân Berry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Review of the English national concessionary travel scheme

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS).

(2) A review undertaken under this section must assess—

(a) the effectiveness and impact of the ENCTS for eligible persons,

(b) the impact of the timing restrictions of the ENCTS, and

(c) the approximate cost of removing timing restrictions of the ENCTS to allow eligible persons to use the scheme 24 hours a day and seven days a week.

(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and relevant user groups.”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS) and explore the consequences of removing timing restrictions.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 32—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the impact and feasibility of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes.

(2) A review under this section must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of current usage patterns of concessionary travel passes and the impact of existing time restrictions on passengers, particularly persons with disabilities and older people;

(b) an evaluation of the potential social, economic, and environmental benefits of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, including impacts on access to essential health services, goods and services, and social activities;

(c) an analysis of the financial implications for local transport authorities and bus operators of removing time restrictions, and potential funding mechanisms to mitigate any adverse impacts;

(d) investigation of passenger volume at different times and regional variation;

(e) recommendations for any legislative or policy changes required to implement the removal of time restrictions.

(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) local transport authorities;

(b) bus operators;

(c) bus users and organisations representing people with disabilities and elderly people; and

(d) any other persons or organisations whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the completion of the review.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes (such as “Freedom Passes”).

New clause 48—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.

[Siân Berry]

I will be as brief as I can. New clause 10 and the other new clauses in the group are all aimed at the same thing. It is an anomaly in this day and age that older people and disabled people have a time restriction on the use of their bus passes. The Government must look at that, particularly in relation to recent changes to welfare policies and the ongoing cost of living crisis that means that more and more people, according to the Government’s own aims, will be going to work. They also may be taking part in valuable volunteering for the community. The Government must look at this again, and I support any provision that will achieve that.

[Steff Aquarone]

New clause 32 in my name and new clause 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion both call for a review into the impact of the current timing restrictions, whereby those eligible for the ENCTS, whether through age or disability, receive free travel only after 9.30 am. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for tabling new clause 48, and I am happy to speak to it. I wish to press new clauses 48 and 35 to a Division, but I will not press any other remaining Liberal Democrat new clause.

New clause 48 would immediately remove the time limit for those with disabilities. It may surprise the Committee to learn that I am going to praise a transport policy of Norfolk county council, which has used its discretion to remove time limitations and allow disabled people to use their bus passes at all hours. I have heard very positive feedback. Therefore, I think the new clause would be a sensible and useful measure. I urge the Government and the Committee to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw new clause 10?

[Siân Berry]

I shall do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops

“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.

(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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