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

Debate between Siân Berry and Jerome Mayhew

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- 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.

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

Debate between Siân Berry and Jerome Mayhew

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)

Debate between Siân Berry and Jerome Mayhew

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.