Regional Transport Inequality
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I welcome today’s debate on regional transport inequality, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing this time. I have 10 minutes to address the many excellent contributions made this afternoon, so Members must forgive my reluctance to entertain many interventions.
For decades, this country has faced a growing deficit of opportunity fuelled by the poor connectivity that has come to define too many communities. I have experienced at first hand the frustration felt by millions of people every day. Growing up in the north-east, I could wait hours for a bus that would never arrive, so I understand that missed shifts, missed lessons and missed appointments all lead to missed opportunities for hard-working families. Poor transport has deepened divides, isolated communities and eroded quality of life, all while stifling growth, hindering productivity and deterring investment. In my own region, Leeds is one of the largest European cities without a mass transit system. We are shamefully behind the curve, with people and businesses suffering as a result—but it does not have to be that way.
This Government are turning the page on decades of decline, ending short-sighted Whitehall-centric decision making and unlocking talent, ambition and potential right across the country. We are seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way that things are done and building a stronger transport network that works for everyone, whoever they are and wherever they come from.
Later this year, we will set out that vision in our integrated national transport strategy. We will champion transport that is designed, built and run with people in mind, recognising that different places face different challenges and need different ways to solve them. The strategy will aim to make transport safer, more reliable and more accessible, helping everyone to feel more confident and able to use the network. We will encourage housing, healthcare and other services to work with transport, trying to tackle regional inequality in all its forms.
We know, however, that politicians in Westminster cannot fully grasp the reality of life in Warrington, Wolverhampton or Woking. That is why our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill puts power in the hands of local leaders, with the freedom to choose the approach that best serves their community. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all formula just will not work, so we are funding franchising pilots to better understand all the options on the table. The Bill also calls time on the plague of violence against women and girls and antisocial behaviour with training and enforcement measures to help make journeys safer for everyone.
We are backing those steps with landmark levels of investment. This year alone, £1 billion will help improve bus services and keep fares affordable. We will extend the £3 bus fare, which will put more money in passengers’ pockets, making bus travel a viable option for more communities, while improving access to jobs, education and healthcare where it is needed most.
We are also giving city mayors £15.6 billion to support wider local transport projects, including mass transit in Leeds, a metro extension in the north-east and so much more. To ensure that our towns, villages and rural areas, particularly outside London, are no longer left behind, we are not only committing £2 billion to help them tackle their unique challenges, but just last week we confirmed an extra £104 million in resource funding for local authorities, showing that they can better design, decide and deliver ambitious local transport projects.
Martin Wrigley
I am delighted with all the investment in cities with mayors; that is fantastic. However, in Dawlish, in Devon, we are once again left behind. Is that purely because we do not have a city mayor?
Simon Lightwood
As I just mentioned, we have committed £2 billion to helping those outside city areas and last week committed £104 million for resource funding across the country outside city areas.
Although we are eager for local leaders to take the reins, there is still an important part for central Government to play in tackling transport inequality, particularly on our roads and railways. We are investing billions to fix historical gaps in the network, reconnecting long-forgotten areas and tackling regional disparities head on. From major projects such as the TransPennine route upgrade, East West Rail and HS2 to improving motorways in Cumbria, Greater Manchester and the midlands, or funding to maintain and improve the road network, our mission to address inequality sits at the heart of everything we do.
Simon Lightwood
I am going to make progress.
We are also delivering new train stations in the south-west and in Yorkshire, creating brand new rail links across the midlands, and backing road schemes to better connect and grow communities. Not only will those measures improve people’s everyday journeys, they will also create jobs, power growth and unlock new homes for families.
Last week, we announced that we are simplifying fares and expanding digital ticketing trials to make rail more accessible and affordable, with new digital trials now live in the east midlands and launching later this month in Yorkshire. Passengers can sign up to take part and benefit from automatic best-value fares, making rail travel simpler, smarter and more flexible.
Our commitment to investing is clear, but we are also working behind the scenes to ensure that every penny is well spent. We are reviewing the Green Book to give a fair hearing to all parts of the country. We have plans to recruit 300 new planners into the public sector by 2026, supporting local authorities and implementing new planning policies to enhance housing supply, leveraging private investment to bolster public funding and forging a faster and more efficient planning system.
I am pleased to see a strong contingent of Members from the east midlands in this debate, and I am glad that they recognise, like me, the importance of improving transport links to drive growth across the country and tackle regional inequalities. We recognise that transport spending has historically not been evenly distributed across the country. We are taking action to drive up prosperity and living standards across the UK, including addressing any imbalances where appropriate. That is not just the case for the east midlands. We are investing across the whole country, from enabling mass transit in West Yorkshire to reopening the Bristol and Portishead line in the south-west.
We are providing the East Midlands combined county authority with over £2 billion through the transport for city regions fund, with the east midlands receiving over £450 million from the local transport grant and the integrated transport block. I am very pleased to see that Mayor Claire Ward intends to use some of that £2 billion of funding to progress the case for a permanent bridge at Darley Abbey. That means that the east midlands will receive significantly more local transport spending per head than the England average in the coming years— £561 per person against an average of £398. We are investing in the region, including delivering improvements to the east coast main line and progressing the A38 Derby junctions scheme, which will improve safety, reduce delays and support house building. We are also committed to delivering the A46 Newark bypass, subject to planning consent.
I recognise the frustration that hon. Members and their constituents feel about the electrification of the midland main line, but we have had to prioritise our funding on schemes that will make the greatest difference for passengers and economic growth as soon as possible. Further electrification of the midland main line has been paused but will be kept under review as part of our pipeline for future funding. The new trains, however, will increase seat capacity and will mark a step change in passenger experience.
Members have advocated passionately for other schemes in their local areas. While I cannot address every scheme that was raised in this debate, we will always need to prioritise the funding that we have available. My officials will continue to work with their counterparts in local government and with other stakeholders to better understand local needs and potential pipelines.
I will now turn to specific contributions made in the debate.
Simon Lightwood
No—I have a lot to get through.
I welcome the many contributions from across the House on issues with bus services in Members’ constituencies. The Government know how important good, reliable and frequent bus services are to local communities, and that is why we are investing £1 billion this year to support and improve services and giving local leaders more powers to improve services through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.
While I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), he not only seems to have forgotten the 14 years in which his party had the opportunity to improve bus services in regional constituencies but he also forgot to mention that his Government gave £26 million to the Conservative-controlled county councils that cover that constituency.
However, in rural areas and places with poor public transport, driving is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency continues to work hard to combat the unscrupulous practice of reselling tests across the country. In July, we announced over 50 new road and rail schemes, many of which will benefit the constituencies of Members who have spoken in this debate. That includes the midlands rail hub, which we are backing with £123 million and which will create links to more than 50 locations. It also includes the Middlewich Road scheme, the A38 Derby junctions work, transformed rail services across Manchester and new stations in the south-west. We are addressing under-investment in Welsh rail infrastructure with a 10-year funding package of £445 million to meet its long-term connectivity needs and to help kickstart Welsh economic growth.
Turning to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I will admit that the previous Government did allocate £27 billion for the road investment strategy 2, but that was revised down to £23 billion. From my calculations, RIS3 represents a £3 billion increase compared with the funding for RIS2.
Simon Lightwood
I will bring my remarks to a close because Madam Deputy Speaker is growing impatient.
I am here today not just as the Minister for Local Transport, but as someone who knows what it is like to live in an underserved community, who has stood in the rain waiting for buses that never arrived, and who has seen at first hand the impact of poor connections, so I could not be more intent on delivering real change where it is needed most. Our plan for English devolution will shift even more power away from Whitehall. Our industrial strategy will drive investment and growth in all regions, and our infrastructure strategy will boost living standards across the UK.
This issue transcends departmental silos. Since last July, we have worked tirelessly to restore confidence and certainty. We are looking after the pennies and the pounds to improve lives and livelihoods across Britain, and I will continue to tackle the shameful deficit of opportunity that plagues this country. We will continue delivering our plan for change until we get the job done.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
This Government’s landmark Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will deliver a step change in local bus services around the country, putting power over buses back in the hands of local leaders and enabling the delivery of more reliable, safe and inclusive routes. We are also investing £1 billion to support and improve local bus services and keep them affordable; confirming multi-year funding to allow local authorities to plan and invest ahead; and extending the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027.
Tom Collins
Worcester has been let down on transport. Our evening and weekend buses have been decimated, leaving our roads congested, our air polluted and our city centre cut off. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Labour’s early work, which has already restored some of our local services, but Worcester needs more. Our city centre businesses, our night-time economy and our commuters need and deserve a modern system of shuttle buses running all day long and at weekends. We are the Government of partnership, so will the Minister assure me that the Department is ready to do what it takes, working dynamically and creatively with a range of public and private partners to see this vision delivered locally in Worcester?
Simon Lightwood
I commend my hon. Friend for his commitment to improving local bus services in Worcester. We want better buses throughout the country, and I can assure him that the Government will continue to work with local leaders to give them the powers needed to deliver bus services that meet the needs of local communities.
Emma Lewell
My constituents are sick of being ignored when it comes to vital bus routes being withdrawn. More than 600 of them recently signed a petition after the unexpected and rapid withdrawal of the well used No. 17. Giving more powers to local councils does not always equate to communities having more of a say. Can the Minister please explain what checks and balances are in place to ensure that, as we devolve powers, residents really are listened to?
Simon Lightwood
I know the bus services in South Shields very well indeed, having been born there, and I know intimately from conversations with my family the struggles that my hon. Friend’s constituents are having with bus services. Our landmark Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will allow local leaders to take back control of bus services, and I am sure that Kim McGuinness, the Mayor of the North East, will be able to do just that.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Eastbourne district general hospital, where I was born, and the Hastings Conquest hospital are quite far apart. On a good day, it takes 45 minutes to drive from one to the other, and two hours by bus. More and more services are moving to the Hastings hospital, but we need better transport links, such as a shuttle bus, to make things seamless for patients. Can the Minister meet me and local representatives to discuss how we could secure a shuttle bus service to Hastings hospital for our town?
Simon Lightwood
This is why it is so important that the Government are handing local areas the power to design bus services around local needs. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to continue discussions with his local transport authority on doing just that.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The SNP in government has introduced free bus travel for under-22s, and last week, it scrapped peak rail fares. Those measures support access to employment opportunities, put more money in people’s pockets, and support local economies, especially in suburban and rural areas. Will the Minister acknowledge those excellent measures for consumers in Scotland and consider their benefits for the rest of the UK?
Simon Lightwood
We have the £3 bus fare cap in England, and we have committed to continuing that up to March next year. We will continue to keep our support for bus fares under review for the future.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As I am sure the Minister knows and agrees, improving bus services must include making them safer for women and girls. Concerningly, sexual offences on the UK bus network have increased in recent years; for example, they increased by 13% on London buses in the first six months of this year. What is his Department doing to ensure that women and girls feel safe using the bus network, and can he share with the House any more information on the work being led by the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which he alluded to in yesterday’s debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill?
Simon Lightwood
As I intimated in last night’s debate, the Bill requires local transport authorities and bus providers to give training to their staff. They will also have the power to introduce byelaws in order to clamp down on antisocial behaviour, and violence against women and girls in particular. On police officers being able to use buses for free across the country, I share the hon. Gentleman’s ambition. I have already commissioned work with the Confederation of Passenger Transport to explore how we could deliver that.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
This Government recognise the vital role the bus sector plays in keeping communities connected and able to access key services. That is why we are providing significant multiyear funding to local authorities, including more than £1 billion this financial year to support and improve local bus services and keep fares affordable, alongside the £15.6 billion we are providing for transport investment in our city regions across England. This investment will support British manufacturing, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Euan Stainbank
The consultation on 400 jobs at Alexander Dennis closes tomorrow. It has been a time of deep anxiety for the local workers. The SNP’s ScotZEB2 scheme initially sent over three times as many buses to China as to Scotland’s sole manufacturer. Although £40 million has now been made available by Transport Scotland, it must be spent correcting this SNP industrial failure. What engagement have Ministers had with the Scottish Government regarding recently consulted-on procurement reforms and their potential benefit to the Scottish bus manufacturing and operation sectors in the long term?
Simon Lightwood
I convened an extraordinary meeting of the UK bus manufacturing expert panel on 28 July, attended by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, metro mayors and mayoral combined authorities, to accelerate the panel’s key priorities of establishing a bus order pipeline and strengthening local value within public sector procurement. I will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on the issue. I know my hon. Friend has worked absolutely tirelessly for his constituents in this area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill passed yesterday, with many of the good things that we all wish to see happening here in the mainland, especially improving the frequency of bus services and addressing social inclusion for those who cannot get buses. Will the Minister share the good things that the Government are doing here with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, so that we in Northern Ireland can get some of the advantages that people have here?
Simon Lightwood
I will continue to have active engagement through the interministerial group and will be delighted to share the excellent work this Government are doing to re-empower local areas and their bus services.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
We are working hard to ensure that young people can book driving tests so that they can access opportunity in their local areas. We are recruiting and training more driving examiners, doubling examiner training capacity and offering overtime payment incentives. This is producing good results, with over 10,000 more tests a month now available than there would have been without the Secretary of State’s plans. There is more work to do, and we are committed to getting it right.
Lewis Atkinson
Learner drivers in Sunderland are fed up of waits of around 22 weeks for a driving test. In that time, they are often facing higher costs and barriers in accessing job opportunities. Can the Minister tell the House what steps he is taking to reduce driving test waiting times in Sunderland, and when he expects those waits to fall?
Simon Lightwood
Obviously, there were some issues with the close of the South Shields driving test centre, but no capacity was lost as a result of that. We recognise the impact that high waiting times are having on learner drivers across the country, including in the constituency of Sunderland Central, and the importance of helping learner drivers pass quickly. On 8 September, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency launched its latest recruitment campaign, which aims to recruit additional driving examiner resource to provide much-needed test capacity in Sunderland, Gateshead, Gosforth and Blythe.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
One of my constituents wrote to me this week about the difficulties she is facing rebooking her driving test. The nearest slot that she could find was in Swansea, two hours away from Bath. When she tried the 6 am rush, she faced a queue of 22,000, and when she finally reached the front, the site failed. Alongside test availability, will the Government review the quality and reliability of the booking system?
Simon Lightwood
We are absolutely committed to driving down the delays in these bookings. I would be delighted to chat further with the hon. Member to discuss the specific problems within her area.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
When driving tests came up at Transport questions in May, it was revealed that the wait time for a driving test on average was up, from 17 weeks in July 2024 to 22 weeks now. It has since been revealed that many test centres around the country have reached the maximum legal limit of a 24-week wait. Will the Minister acknowledge that for thousands of people up and down the country waiting for a driving test—waiting for that step on the ladder to get their first job or to college through the freedom of driving—it is simply not good enough for the Secretary of State to have pushed back the Government’s new target to fix this to 2026? Real people need real answers now, so will he redouble the efforts to get the wait time at least back down to the point it was at when the last Government left office?
Simon Lightwood
We inherited a broken system in which many learner drivers found themselves stuck in a frustrating limbo, unable to ditch their L-plates. We instructed the DVSA to take further measures this year, and we are beginning to see early signs of improvement. We promised more tests and we have delivered more tests. The DVSA carried out over 20,000 more tests between June and August this year, and the pass rate remains at the highest it has been since May 2021. There is still more to be done and we will do just that.
Greg Smith
The Minister is right that there is still more to be done—there is a lot more to be done. He inherited a broken system from his own predecessor in the Department for Transport, under whom the problem got significantly worse over the last year.
I do not think the Minister is listening to the country. I cannot be alone in having an inbox full of emails from constituents complaining about the wait time to get themselves or, indeed, their children a driving test. My constituent Sarah wrote:
“Young people’s work opportunities are significantly reduced by not being able to drive,”
particularly in rural England, in this case Steeple Claydon in my constituency. Sarah sets her alarm for 5.45 every day to try to secure a test, and the best she has managed is next February. Will the Minister apologise to everybody up and down the land who sets their alarm early because the Government are making the situation a lot worse?
Simon Lightwood
I hope the hon. Gentleman explained to his constituent the broken system that his party left for this country. We are absolutely determined to drive down waiting times. Thanks to the proactive measures taken by the Secretary of State we have, as I said, increased tests by 10,000 a month.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The previous Government consulted on pavement parking rules back in 2020 but failed to take any action. We have had to pick up the issue from scratch since we came into office last year. A lot has changed in the UK political landscape in the past five years, and this Government’s genuine commitment to devolution has shaped our thinking on pavement parking. We will be able to say more about that, and finally publish a response to the consultation, soon.
John Milne
Will the Minister assure us that any enforcement powers will be extended to local authorities, not just the police, in order to make any regulations effective? Alongside that, will he reassure us that local authorities will have the power to make exceptions in areas where such restrictions would be impractical, as is the case in many streets in my Horsham constituency?
Simon Lightwood
We of course continue to engage actively with local authorities in the development of this policy. Local authorities already have the power to restrict pavement parking wherever there is a need by introducing traffic regulation orders, and we are exploring additional measures to help them to tackle the issue.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
On Sunnyside Avenue in Tunstall in my Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove constituency, a particular issue with pavement parking occurs outside Mill Hill primary academy, where cars dangerously mount kerbs. Will the Minister please outline what more can be done to keep our kids safe around our schools?
Simon Lightwood
I encourage my hon. Friend to engage with his local authority to explore whether a TRO, as I mentioned in response to the previous question, would be appropriate in that instance.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Shared e-scooter schemes can provide a great way to get around, but the scooters can pose a nuisance for other people, so we need to ensure that their roll-out is both safe and properly regulated. We have extended e-scooter trials until May 2028 to allow local authorities to test how the technology works. We have also committed to pursuing legislation, when parliamentary time allows, for the full regulation of micromobility in order to create a safe shared-use network where they work for all people.
Daniel Francis
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. Does the Minister accept that a wheelchair, whether manual or with power, is a medical device that enables disabled people to maximise their independence and live the life they choose? Does he therefore agree that the terminology of “invalid carriages” in the legislation is discriminatory and outdated and that the regulations on the use of micromobility vehicles require updating urgently?
Simon Lightwood
I share my hon. Friend’s view that the term “invalid carriages” in the existing legislation is outdated and no longer reflects modern attitudes or needs. This Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people have the same freedom to travel as everyone else and we recognise that mobility devices are vital for many. That is why we are reviewing the legal frameworks surrounding mobility devices, including the outdated terminology, and we will consult on that in due course.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I know that my hon. Friend has raised this issue time and again with East Sussex county council. The delay to the Queensway Gateway project has wreaked havoc for her constituents. Given that the project was funded with Government money, serious questions must now be asked of East Sussex county council about these issues and the delays that have come about.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Simon Lightwood
This Government committed in our manifesto to tackle the high cost of motor insurance, and I am pleased to see recent data suggesting that average premiums are falling. The Government’s taskforce, chaired by the Department for Transport and His Majesty’s Treasury, continues to work to identify short and long- term policy actions that may contribute to stabilising or reducing premiums.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
I sympathise with those suffering in congestion at junction 40 of the M6, which I am told is due to various issues. I know my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) have been working hard to resolve those issues for their constituents. I am happy to arrange a meeting to discuss any future short-term interventions that could ease congestion with either me or my team or with National Highways.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Simon Lightwood
As I mentioned earlier, the Government are determined to bring, and have every intention of bringing, about legislation on e-scooters. All that will be taken into account in the development of the policy.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
Responsibility for local transport is devolved to local authorities, which are responsible for the operation of their networks, including the extension of busways. The Government are committed to the Ox-Cam growth corridor. Lord Vallance has been tasked with exploring options on how best to deliver economic growth in that area.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
A workshop taking place in Bath this morning brings together key stakeholders from the rail industry and local authorities. It focuses on the development of rail services in Wiltshire, and will include the case for building a Devizes gateway station and increasing services in Melksham. Following Network Rail’s Wiltshire rail strategic study, will the Secretary of State or Rail Minister meet me and key stakeholders to discuss taking those key projects forward?
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
My constituents who use the A259 coast road are being deprived the choice of safe and sustainable travel to Brighton, as Conservative-run West Sussex county council has dragged its feet for more than three decades on delivering a cycle path. What can the Government do to help me and Shoreham-By-Cycle to push for that much-needed infrastructure, which West Sussex county council has long promised but failed to deliver?
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State might have a word with her friend the Mayor of London about the appalling mismanagement of the Gallows Corner junction, where a flyover is being constructed. The gridlock, chaos and delays are affecting the whole Romford side of Essex, and east London. It really is chaos. Will she get it sorted out?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I, too, look forward to working with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), in his new role. Last week, the Transport Committee heard that car clubs, peer-to-peer ride-sharing and car-sharing schemes align with Government objectives on transport integration, reducing congestion, increasing electric vehicle use and supporting residents in rural areas where public transport is poor. Unlike France and other countries, the sector in the UK operates in a policy vacuum, particularly since the Government withdrew the car clubs toolkit guidance in May. Is the Minister planning to address that policy vacuum?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is completely right, and I thank the Transport Committee for raising that important point. I have commissioned officials to consider how we can support and promote the use of car club and car-sharing schemes, starting with a roundtable of industry stakeholders. I would be delighted if she could attend. I will ensure that that guidance is reinstated.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Hammersmith bridge closed six years, four months and 22 days ago, cutting off the bus routes and causing congestion in Putney. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), holding the first Hammersmith bridge taskforce meeting. When will the next one be held?
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Half the bus sector’s funding now comes from public sources, but during the summer, National Express announced changes to bus services in my constituency with just two weeks’ public notice, which will have a really negative effect on residents in New Frankley, Allens Cross and Bournville Gardens Village retirement home. Does the Minister agree that when regulation is brought in—which is welcome—consultation must be included?
Simon Lightwood
I agree wholeheartedly. It is really important that local people are engaged when designing a network and making changes to it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Liverpool city region Mayor, Steve Rotheram, has submitted a new town bid with Liverpool and Sefton councils, to regenerate the most deprived areas of the country. Does the Minister agree that for new towns to succeed, there needs to be proper funding for integrated transport, and will he commit to working and meeting with the mayor and the politicians to make that happen?
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The A12 is a major transport route into Colchester and a vital part of economic growth in the region. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the urgent need for upgrades to its western end?
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Luton station is the gateway to Luton town centre, and thanks to this Labour Government, it will soon be getting lifts to all its platforms. However, the roof still leaks. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of Luton council to see what can be done with regard to the state of the station?
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Padiham Greenway bridge has been closed since 2021. In December last year, this Government gave £280,000 to Sustrans to get the work finished, but there is a shortfall. The Government have given £19 million to Lancashire county council through the active travel fund and the capability fund to get this project online. Does the Minister agree that Lancashire county council should prioritise this and get it done? I thank him for his extensive correspondence with me on this topic.
Simon Lightwood
I know my hon. Friend is a very active campaigner in this area. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss what further pressure we can apply to ensure this project is delivered.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Simon Lightwood ExcerptsWednesday 10th September 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Report Stage Amendments as at 10 September 2025 - (10 Sep 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—£2 bus fare scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2.
(2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into a scheme established under this section.
(3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 23 of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must review the terms of any scheme established under this section every three years.
(5) The Secretary of State may amend a scheme established under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to cap bus fares at £2.
New clause 2—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—
“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.
New clause 3—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 made publicly available.
(5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, 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 4—Duty to promote bus services—
“(1) It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.
(2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider—
(a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options;
(b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives;
(c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage;
(d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility;
(e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;
(f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion;
(g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services.
(3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including—
(a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable;
(b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage;
(c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and
(d) plans for future improvements in bus services.
(4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.”
This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas.
New clause 5—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—
“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.
(2) In this section, "relevant authority" includes—
(a) a county council in England;
(b) a district council in England;
(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;
(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.
(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
(4) The report must also include—
(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;
(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;
(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;
(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;
(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.
(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
New clause 6—Public sector equality duty—
“In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading “Transport” insert—
“A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation.””
This new clause would place bus companies under the public sector equality duty.
New clause 7—Young person’s discount scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a discount on bus fares for people aged between 19 and 25.
(2) Any scheme under this section must provide for a discount amounting to a third of the price of relevant fares.”
This new clause would introduce a discount scheme for young people, providing 19-to 25-year-olds a third off bus fares.
New clause 8—Review of impact of VAT changes on demand-responsive bus services—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of the VAT system on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) whether the current system of granting a zero-rated VAT exemption to public service vehicles with 10 seats or more while subjecting smaller vehicles to VAT on fares—
(i) influences the choice of vehicles used for demand-responsive bus services;
(ii) has any other impact on the provision or operation of demand-responsive bus services,
(b) the potential for VAT exemptions to facilitate the rollout of demand-responsive bus services.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives from the intelligent mobility sector, local authorities, bus operators, and public transport users.
(4) The report 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 support the growth of demand-responsive bus services across the UK.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of current VAT rules on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.
New clause 9—Free bus travel for unpaid carers—
“The Secretary of State must work with local transport authorities and operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which—
(a) provides free bus travel to those in receipt of carers allowance, and
(b) supports local transport authorities to expand provision for other unpaid carers.”
This new clause would require the Government to introduce a scheme to provide free bus travel for those in receipt of carers allowance and improve bus provision for carers.
New clause 10—Review of capacity of Bus Centre of Excellence—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—
(a) the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities in establishing and operating franchising schemes under the Act, and
(b) additional resourcing required for this purpose.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of the current operational capacity, staffing levels, and expertise of the Bus Centre of Excellence;
(b) an evaluation of the effectiveness and reach of current training programmes and support services provided to local transport authorities on franchising, and their suitability for authorities able to franchise services under the Act;
(c) an identification of specific additional financial, human, and technological resources required by the Bus Centre of Excellence to adequately deliver comprehensive training and ongoing support for all local transport authorities considering or implementing franchising schemes under the Act;
(d) an analysis of the impact of current capacity limitations on the pace and quality of franchising scheme development and implementation by local transport authorities.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, representatives from the Bus Centre of Excellence, and bus operators.
(4) 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 steps to ensure the Bus Centre of Excellence is adequately resourced for its role in supporting bus franchising.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities for bus franchising.
New clause 11—Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;
(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;
(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;
(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;
(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—
(a) local councils and local transport authorities;
(b) bus service operators;
(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;
(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and
(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.
(4) Any report 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 which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
New clause 12—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme.
(2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in—
(a) rural areas;
(b) coastal communities; and
(c) suburban areas.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes.
New clause 13—Power to convene for bus service coordination—
“(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England may convene other agencies and public bodies that have transport functions and obligations for the purposes of coordinating bus services within, to, or from its area.
(2) The power under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, the power to convene NHS trusts and other health bodies for the purposes of coordinating bus services with non-emergency patient transport services.
(3) The purpose of convening under this section is to promote the efficient, integrated and accessible provision of bus services across different sectors and to ensure that bus services meet the needs of the communities they serve.
(4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the coordination of transport services with other public services.
(5) Local transport authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the exercise of functions under this section.
(6) The Secretary of State must publish—
(a) any guidance issued under subsection (5), and
(b) any variation or revocation of that guidance.”
This new clause would empower local authorities to convene other agencies for the purposes of coordinating bus services.
New clause 14—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 15—Rail bus links scheme: proposals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing local rail connections.
(2) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance accompanying the scheme on—
(a) the departmental funding which will be available for the purposes of the scheme;
(b) the qualifying criteria which will be used to assess eligibility for the scheme, which may include, but may not be limited to, insufficiencies in funding, vehicles and equipment, workforce or expertise.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing connections.
New clause 16—Bus pass scheme for persons in post-16 education—
“The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a half-price discount on bus fares for persons in post-16 education.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a discount on bus fares for people in post-16 education.
New clause 17—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—
(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;
(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.
(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.
New clause 21—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.”
New clause 22—Minimum bus service standards: review—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.
(2) The review conducted under this section must—
(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,
(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”
New clause 23—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—
“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.
(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.
New clause 24—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.”
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.
New clause 25—Franchising authorities: joint forum—
“(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions.
(2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.”
This new clause would require all local transport authorities that introduce franchising schemes to establish a joint forum with trade unions and operators.
New clause 26—Consultation of trade unions—
“In section 138F of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (6)(f) insert—
(fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,”.
This new clause of the Transport Act 2000 would require local transport authorities to consult trade unions when proposing to make an enhanced partnership plan.
New clause 27—National Bus Forum—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Bus Forum.
(2) The purpose of the National Bus Forum is to address issues affecting the provision of local bus services at industry-wide and strategic level.
(3) The membership of the National Bus Forum must include—
(a) HM Government,
(b) trades unions,
(c) bus service operators,
(d) local authorities in England, and
(e) any other body or persons as the Secretary of State deems necessary.”
This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Bus Forum whose membership includes unions, operators and local government, in line with a recommendation by the Transport Select Committee.
New clause 28—Review into floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a vote on the proposals.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the safety of existing floating bus stops and publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a vote debate on the proposals.
New clause 29—Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess—
(a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,
(b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services,
(c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and
(d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.”
New clause 30—Consultation: bus funding formula—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula,
(b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and
(c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted.
New clause 31—Poor performance of franchising—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to take over the management of a service where, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there has been a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.
(2) A statement under subsection (1) must set out—
(a) the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service, and how these circumstances are to be identified;
(b) the actions which the Secretary of State may take to redress the failure to deliver the service;
(c) the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement of when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.
New clause 32—Requirement to consult and notify before service review discussions—
“(1) A local transport authority or bus operator must not enter into formal discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service unless—
(a) notice has been given to parish and district councils affected by the change or withdrawal, and
(b) a period of public consultation has been concluded.
(2) The authority or operator must publish, before giving notice and holding the public consultation—
(a) the date on which formal discussions regarding changes to the service are proposed to commence,
(b) a summary of the reasons why alteration or withdrawal is being considered, and
(c) information on participating in the public consultation or submitting representations on or alternatives to the proposed changes.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities and bus operators to notify relevant councils and initiate a public consultation before entering into discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service.
New clause 33—Duty to promote and increase bus usage—
“(1) A local transport authority must include in its local transport plan a strategy to promote and increase bus usage in its area.
(2) The strategy must—
(a) set out specific, measurable objectives for increasing bus ridership,
(b) establish 2015 as the year against which progress will be assessed,
(c) include measures to encourage modal shift from private vehicles to buses, and
(d) explain how the authority will monitor and report progress.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities to include in their transport strategies a specific plan for increasing bus usage, including measurable objectives and assessment against 2015 as a baseline year.
New clause 34—Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services—
“(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility, and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality, and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain.
New clause 35—Enhanced partnerships: stakeholder forum—
“(1) Every local transport authority in England that has formed an enhanced partnership must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a stakeholder forum to monitor the delivery of the enhanced partnership.
(2) The forum established by subsection (1) must meet at least once every three months, and its membership must include trade unions representing bus workers, passenger groups, and local businesses.
(3) Where two or more local transport authorities are working together in an enhanced partnership scheme, a single forum should be established to meet the duty set out in subsection (1).”
New clause 36—Concessionary travel for 16 and 17 year olds in education or training—
“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 150 insert—
‘150A Free bus travel for 16–17 year olds in education or training
(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons aged 16 or 17 and who are—
(a) in full-time education, or
(b) undertaking training on a course or programme that has been approved by Skills England.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”
New clause 37—Secretary of State duty to ensure services for certain towns—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every town in England is served by bus services which—
(a) operate seven days a week, and
(b) serve specified locations.
(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant local authorities for the areas to which the duty applies,
(b) the integrated care boards for the areas to which the duty applies, and
(c) residents, or organisations representing residents, of the areas to which the duty applies for the purposes of determining the specified locations which must be served.”
New clause 39—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Wales)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—
(a) bus service operators, and
(b) bus passengers,
on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Wales.
(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Wales to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.
(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Welsh Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”
New clause 40—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Scotland)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—
(a) bus service operators, and
(b) bus passengers,
on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Scotland.
(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Scotland to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.
(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”
New clause 41—Driver access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—
In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System for drivers of PSVs
(1) Local transport 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.’”
This new clause would ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).
New clause 42—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.’”
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.
New clause 43—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—
“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.’”
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.
New clause 44—Concessionary travel for people under the age of 22—
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 150 insert—
‘150A Free bus travel for people under the age of 22
(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons under the age of 22.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”
This new clause would require transport authorities to provide free bus travel for children and young people who are under the age of 22.
New clause 45—Minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services—
“(1) It is a requirement for local transport authorities to provide a minimum level of bus services for individuals reliant on off-peak and nighttime transport to local and regional employment centres.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, commission each local authority in England to undertake an audit of the minimum off-peak and nighttime bus services required by those working in key employment centres in their respective areas.
(3) For the purposes of the audit specified in subsection (2), local authorities must consult with bus companies, trade unions, employers and members of the public.
(4) Where more than one local authority is responsible for the delivery, or funding, of local transport services in their respective localities, the audit specified in subsection (2) must be undertaken as a partnership between the relevant local authorities.
(5) Within three months of being commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake the audit under subsection (2), each local authority, or partnership of local authorities, must publish—
(a) the findings of its audit, and
(b) proposals for delivering the off-peak and nighttime services identified by the audit as necessary to fulfil the requirements laid out by subsection (1).
(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) a key employment centre means a city, a town with either a population above 50,000 people or whose economic output represents more than 10 per cent of that local authority’s economic activity.”
This new clause establishes a legal duty for local authorities to ensure a minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services to local employment centres, require the Government to commission local authorities to undertake an audit of local service requirements and produce proposals on providing a minimum level of services.
New clause 46—Duty to consider funding for service enhancements—
“(1) A local transport authority in England must consider whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.
(2) In exercising the duty under this section, the authority must have regard to—
(a) the potential for increased ridership; and
(b) the overall sustainability of the network.
(3) Service improvements under subsection (1) may include—
(a) increasing the frequency of existing services;
(b) extending operating hours;
(c) improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; or
(d) extending the routes of local services.”
This new clause would place a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate public funds to improve existing bus services where this would grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network, and sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions.
New clause 47—English National Concessionary Travel Scheme: Companion Passes—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.
New clause 48—Free travel for uniformed police officers—
“(1) The holder of a PSV operator’s licence must permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local service which has one or more stopping places in England.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, make a statement on options for compensating operators of local services for any costs that arise or revenues lost fulfilling the duty under subsection (1).
(3) In this section—
‘local service’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985;
‘police officer’ means a member of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales or a special constable appointed for such an area; and
‘PSV operator’s licence’ has the same meaning as in section 82 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.”
This new clause would permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local bus service in England.
Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
Government amendment 31.
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert—
“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).
(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’;
(A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert ‘, and
(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.
(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—
(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and
(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’
(A4) After subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’”
This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 6, line 33, at end insert—
“(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000.
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead.
Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 6, line 38, after “2010)” insert “, or with special educational needs (within the meaning given by section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014),”.
This amendment would require local transport authorities wishing to proceed with a franchising scheme to consult bus users with special educational needs, or groups that represent them.
Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, after “fit;” insert—
“(db) relevant train operating companies and other public transport operators, for the purposes of ensuring coordination during peak travel times and tourist seasons;”.
This amendment would add other transport operators to the list of parties who are to be consulted when making or varying a franchising scheme.
Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, leave out line 10.
This amendment would retain the requirement for consultation when varying a franchising scheme.
Government amendments 32 and 33.
Amendment 66, in clause 14, page 10, line 5, after “services” insert “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.
Amendment 5, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, 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.
Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 10, line 20, leave out “and” and insert—
“(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, and
(v) schools and colleges.”
This amendment would ensure that primary health care services, schools and colleges are considered as “socially necessary local services”.
Amendment 60, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, 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.
Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where—
(a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and
(b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service.
(6) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme.
(7) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so.
Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (6)(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.
(8) 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 (7).
(9) 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.
Amendment 8, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—
(a) the number of socially necessary local services in England;
(b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled;
(c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services;
(d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation;
(e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and
(f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.
(7) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues.
Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”
Amendment 27, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, after “comfort” insert “;—
(d) identify what, if any, provision is made to facilitate access to child and adolescent mental health services and other community-based mental health services not attached to hospitals.”
This amendment would require bus network accessibility plans to consider access to CAMHS and other community-based mental health services.
Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 17, line 3, at end insert—
“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.
(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.
(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”
This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.
Amendment 28, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“(6A) Guidance issued under subsection (6) must require local transport authorities, when making grants to operators, to take into account factors relevant to the provision of services in their area, including but not limited to—
(a) the rurality of the area or areas to be served;
(b) the age profile of persons in the area or areas to be served;
(c) measures of deprivation in the area or areas to be served; and
(d) the percentage of persons with disabilities in the area or areas to be served.”
This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the making of grants to bus operators to require authorities to consider factors relating to the demographics of the area or areas to be served when making grants.
Amendment 29, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“(6A) The guidance must include information on when and how local transport authorities and mayors may give grants for the purposes of replacing or otherwise providing for bus services in rural or isolated areas when a socially necessary local bus service has been withdrawn, including details of what Government support or funding will be available for such purposes.”
Amendment 61, in clause 23, page 19, line 3, after “environment,” insert—
“(ba) about the operation of concessionary fare schemes by the local transport authority,”.
This amendment would include information about concessionary fare schemes in the guidance about the making of grants by local transport authorities issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 9, in clause 23, page 19, line 13, at end insert—
“154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation
(1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it.
(2) In particular, local transport authorities may—
(a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services,
(b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and
(c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.
(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider—
(a) the size of the operator’s fleet,
(b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and
(c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.”
This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.
Government amendments 35 to 38.
Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”.
This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.
Amendment 59, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) A local transport authority whose area is in England, or two or more authorities acting jointly, shall have the power to make byelaws prohibiting any person on the bus network from, to the annoyance of any person—
(a) singing; or
(b) using any instrument, article or equipment for the production or reproduction of sound.
(2B) Local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, make byelaws in accordance with the powers provided in subsection (2A).
(2C) Bus service operators, including those delivering services as part of a franchising, concessionary, or other scheme, must work with local police forces to ensure the effective enforcement of byelaws made under subsections (2A) and (2B).”
Government amendments 39 to 42.
Amendment 18, in clause 30, page 32, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places.
Amendment 64, in clause 30, page 32, line 22, at end insert—
“(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,”.
This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section to cover the provision of toilet facilities.
Amendment 11, in clause 30, page 32, line 29, at end insert—
“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.
This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.
Amendment 12, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take reasonable steps to implement”.
This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.
Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—
“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).
(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 19, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—
“(6A) The bodies listed in subsection (6) may depart from such guidance only if—
(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and
(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.
(6B) The bodies listed in subsection (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”
This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.
Amendment 20, in clause 31, page 34, line 32, at end insert—
“(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.”
This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 34, line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.
(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”
This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Amendment 14, in clause 34, page 37, line 18, after “2003” insert—
“(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).”
This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.
Government amendment 43.
Amendment 15, in clause 34, page 38, line 16, at end insert—
“144H Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility
(1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility.
(2) The relevant parties are—
(a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence;
(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England
where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services.
(3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding—
(a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services;
(b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and
(c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation.
(5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed—
(a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five-year period thereafter;
(b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations.
(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.”
This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regularly undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.
Government amendments 44 and 45.
Amendment 62, in clause 37, page 41, line 26, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 27 and insert “1 January 2027,”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 63, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered after 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).
Amendment 1, in clause 37, page 41, line 33, 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 63, in clause 37, page 42, leave out lines 1 and 2.
Amendment 30, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, leave out “2030” and insert—
“2028 in relation to vehicles to be used in areas containing all or part of a National Landscape, or 1 January 2030 in relation to all other vehicles, and the Secretary of State may by regulations provide any—
(a) financial remuneration, or
(b) specific guidance (or both)
that they deem necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the deadlines specified in this section.”
Amendment 16, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, 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 17, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, 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.
Government amendments 46 to 50, 34 and 51 to 57.
Simon Lightwood
I have the pleasure of opening today’s debate on Report. I look forward to a lively discussion on the Bill and thank Members of the House who are here to offer their views and speak to amendments that have been tabled. Before I move to the Government’s amendments, I will briefly recap why the Bill is before the House, speak to the Government’s wider reform of buses and provide an update on progress since Committee.
The Government are seeking to deliver better bus services. That means growing patronage and ensuring that more people can use the bus. It also means leaders having powers to shape the services in their communities and bus services that help to drive opportunities across the country; and safer, reliable, affordable, inclusive and integrated bus services. The measures in the Bill work towards this vision, as do the wider reforms announced by the Government to bus funding, the recent spending review commitments and the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027. Together, these form an ambitious set of interventions designed to reverse long-term trends and improve bus services.
Consistent with this objective, and following engagement with my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the forthcoming update to the statutory franchising guidance will confirm expectations that franchising authorities consult representatives of prospective users and that the statutory guidance on stopping places will set out the Department’s expectations for how safer and more accessible stopping places can encourage an increase in bus ridership by providing facilities that people can and want to use.
In Committee, there was a wide-ranging and detailed debate across the Bill’s measures and bus policy more generally. I committed to provide an update on Report on how my Department is working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators to raise awareness of certain cyclists’ behaviours around floating bus stops. Active Travel England will share materials with councils to promote awareness of the requirement for people cycling to give way to bus passengers at crossing points. This is alongside existing guidance on how to engage communities and design safe and accessible walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure.
Transport for London is carrying out a campaign to raise awareness of the highway code, with a particular focus on the rules designed to protect people walking, cycling and motorcycling. The campaign highlights five key rules that protect at-risk road users and apply where there is poor compliance and understanding of the rules, including some of the rules that were updated in 2022. This includes materials designed to remind road users, particularly cyclists, to give way at crossings at bus stops. Active Travel England and the Department have been involved in this work with the intention of sharing materials with local authorities outside London in due course.
Furthermore, in Committee, I set out that my Department will ask local authorities to undertake an audit of existing sites, alongside setting out to them our expectation on a pause. Active Travel England’s additional research includes a national audit of floating bus stops. I advise authorities to work collaboratively with ATE, so we can gain an accurate picture of where and what type of floating bus stops are in use, and therefore ensure that future guidance is comprehensive.
The Department will publish statutory guidance on the design of floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent. That will be supported by additional research into the design of existing floating bus stops and how they can be improved to ensure they are accessible. Active Travel England has provided funding to councils and encouraged them to review existing designs against the upcoming guidance and, where required, implement remediation works. Both audits of bus stop bypasses and remediation works can be funded using the active travel funding as an essential maintenance activity.
I now move to the Government amendments. New clause 38 has been brought forward at the request of the Scottish Government. It reflects close collaboration between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It will help provide greater certainty of the future demand in Scotland. I am committed to ensuring that the Governments continue to work together as they move towards the full transition to zero emission buses. The measure effectively replicates the provision in clause 37. It will have the effect of restricting the use of new non-zero emission buses on relevant services in Scotland. Powers provided to Scottish Ministers under clause 38 are analogous to those given to the Secretary of State under clause 37. Amendments 45 to 50 are consequential amendments that are minor and technical in nature or related to making transitional or saving provisions. The measure requires legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and, if necessary, the Government will return with an update during ping-pong.
Amendment 53 is a technical amendment that provides a clarification on the franchising variation procedure in the Bill’s schedule. Specifically, it clarifies the variation procedure that applies when a franchising authority wishes to vary two minor aspects of a franchising scheme—namely the additional facilities, such as depots and ticketing facilities, to be provided in the franchising area, and the description of the authority’s plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness. That will help give franchising authorities clarity on the process and ensure that relevant parties are consulted on such changes.
Amendment 57 provides further detail on who should be consulted when a franchising authority varies plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness included in its scheme, including Welsh Ministers, other affected local authorities, relevant organisations and the Passengers’ Council. Amendments 31 to 34, 51, 52 and 54 to 56 are minor and technical amendments to remove unnecessary wording.
The final set of Government amendments are numbered 35 to 45. These are minor and technical amendments that remove data protection overrides previously inserted into the Bill. The overrides are no longer necessary as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, and these matters are now covered automatically by virtue of that legislation.
Simon Lightwood
With the leave of the House, I thank those who have contributed to today’s debate. I have carefully listened to the points raised. The breadth of interest shows that although we may not agree on the approach, we share an ambition to improve buses for all passengers.
As I have mentioned throughout the passage of the Bill, this Government strongly believe that local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their local communities; they know and understand their areas’ specific needs and have a direct relationship with their communities. We do not want to increase the number of burdens on them. We must trust the local areas that we are empowering to take the right decisions for local people.
Even though I recognise the importance of ensuring that there is full accountability, there are a large number of amendments that do not align with that core principle and that would actually increase the burdens on local transport authorities. Amendments have also been proposed today that would take away key funding decisions from local areas, requiring them to fund specific parts of the bus services in their area without considering the possible negative consequences that will undoubtedly arise for others. As I have mentioned, this Government seek to provide greater flexibility in how a local area uses its bus grant. Local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their communities and we must trust them to do that.
I will respond to several points raised by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). On the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, despite what the Conservative party claims, franchising was delivered on time and on budget there, and that is despite the overly complex process that they had to go through because of the previous Government’s Bus Services Act 2017. We are correcting the mistakes of that legislation, cutting red tape and making the process more efficient.
Jerome Mayhew
I hope that the Minister is not misleading the House inadvertently. Although he is right that it was delivered on time and on budget—it was about £156 million—it is argued that the subsequent year of operation had a deficit of about £236 million. Even though it may have been delivered on time and on budget, it has been in a terrible deficit ever since and is on strike now.
Simon Lightwood
I am afraid that we have been around this roundabout quite a few times. I neither recognise nor agree with those figures. We would have thought that the Conservatives, as the party that gave Greater Manchester the power to franchise buses, would be more supportive of one of the few positive things that they did in government. If the Conservative party thought it was so important, why did it not do something about it while in office?
I also remind the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), that he was literally the buses Minister. Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government of the 1980s who deregulated buses outside London, which led to services being cut, fares going up and patronage going down. This Labour Government are reversing decades of decline in bus services.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Minister should see how committed we were in office, because I gave more than a billion pounds to Manchester for that scheme and for setting it up. Indeed, the National Audit Office recently praised our £2 bus fare scheme, saying it
“achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage.”
Simon Lightwood
I would not stand there so proud of overseeing 300,000 miles fewer travelled by buses under the Conservative party.
Moving to the matter of concessionary travel, let me begin by recognising the strength of support for new clause 2 in the party of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). Although the intention of that amendment and others on concessionary travel is understandable, the ENCTS costs around £700 million annually, so any extension of statutory entitlements must be carefully considered to ensure financial sustainability.
Having received a good outcome from the bus funding in this spending round, we will shortly make a multi-year allocation to local authorities to support bus services locally. The multi-year nature of these allocations will enable local authorities to plan their bus services with greater certainty and negotiate the best value provision from bus operators. Local authorities already have the power to offer additional concessions beyond the statutory scheme funded locally. For example, in the year ending March 2025, 66% of travel concession authorities offered concessionary travel to companions of disabled people. I would also note that a review of the ENCTS was conducted under the previous Government in 2024, including consideration of travel times, and we are currently reviewing this for next steps.
On the matter of travel for police officers, many operators already offer free travel to police officers. We are discussing with the industry how we can build on that offer and increase awareness, given the importance of safety on buses. This work is being led by the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) to discuss that further.
Sir Julian Lewis
It is good news that 66% of local authorities recognise the importance of companion bus passes for those disabled people who cannot otherwise use a bus, but given the lack of logic of giving somebody a pass that they cannot use, is this not one of those cases that ought to be taken away from discretion and simply added to statute as a matter of common sense?
Simon Lightwood
We believe in passing the power and the funding down to local areas to make these decisions. A multi-year funding settlement has been reached and details of that will be provided to local authorities in due course. They already have the power and they will have the funding and the ability to do just that.
I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling amendment 58. The Bill seeks to remove the existing requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. This is a purely administrative step and has no effect. It occurs before a franchising assessment has been produced, so the Secretary of State has no evidence at all on whether to support or block a move towards franchising. The Bill’s purpose is to help streamline and simplify bus franchising and, in turn, open up the option of bus franchising to all local transport authorities. Clause 1 is consistent with that aim. It puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field and will speed up the process for those authorities pursuing bus franchising. For this reason, I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
I will now address amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and amendment 59 from the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham together. I am aware of the recent campaign by the hon. Member for Wimbledon regarding noise nuisance on the bus network, and I can confirm that the Government are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour on buses, including headphone dodging. In Committee, I outlined the existing regulations in place, which set out the behaviour expected of drivers and passengers travelling on buses, so I will not repeat them here.
Further to those existing powers, clause 28 of the Bill provides scope to tackle a broad range of antisocial behaviours, and that could include making byelaws to tackle disruptive forms of behaviour. Of course, Conservatives Members would know this if they had bothered to read the Bill, but they obviously had not noticed this when they were talking to the press about headphone dodging. As such, these amendments are not necessary and I would ask right hon. and hon. Members not to press them.
I move next to the issue of fare caps. The previous Government left no funding to maintain any form of cap beyond 2024. We stepped in with a £3 cap to avoid a cliff edge and to ensure that fares remained affordable. The fare cap captures around one fifth of bus fares. This reflects passengers’ use of other forms of ticketing, such as a weekly season ticket. As a result of the recent spending review, funding has been secured so that authorities can provide targeted interventions if they so choose. School-only services were fully considered when designing the £3 fare cap scheme, and it was determined that they should not be included.
On amendment 23, the Bill introduces socially necessary local services as a measure. The £2 fare cap ended in December 2024 prior to this measure coming into force. The expectation is that it will take some time for local transport authorities to identify socially necessary local services in their areas. An evaluation of the £2 fare cap has already been published by the Department for Transport. It looked at the first 10 months of the previous fare cap. Evidence suggested that the scheme delivered low value for money.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The national fare cap has been successful. We continued to expand it to ensure that it was affordable across the board. I hear what he says, but I go back to my points: we were giving local areas the power to do exactly what he is talking about.
We are undertaking an evaluation of the £3 bus fare cap. The outcomes will be known in the coming year. I hope hon. Members will withdraw the amendments.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that the £3 fare cap is an essential lifeline for people taking the bus from Burnley to Blackburn hospital, which was a service that I managed to secure through work with local transit companies and Lancashire county council?
Simon Lightwood
I completely agree, and unlike the Conservatives, we actually got it funded.
I thank hon. Members for the new clauses and amendments on the provision of socially necessary services. Clause 14 requires areas with enhanced partnership schemes to specify a process that will apply when a local transport authority wants to change or cancel a socially necessary local service. In franchising areas, existing legislation and measures contained in the Bill set out a detailed procedure governing changes to a franchising scheme. That includes changes to services specified in a scheme. Careful consideration has been given to the Bill’s measures, ensuring that there is an appropriate balance between consultation and burdens being placed on local transport authorities. The consultation requirement proposed by new clause 32 would be duplicative.
On amendment 2, when the Bill was debated in the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail made a statement to the House to officially confirm that medical and educational establishments come within the definition of essential goods and services. My Department is also producing bespoke guidance for LTAs, which will emphasise that point.
The desired effect of amendment 5 is already sufficiently covered by the Transport Act 2000. On amendment 6, following the spending review settlement, LTAs will be allocated a significant amount of support through the bus fund to decide where they can invest in their services. My Department has committed to ensuring that funding is fairly allocated. The amendment runs contrary to the Government’s aims. Amendment 7 is contrary to the Government’s view that local leaders are best placed to make decisions on how they spend their funding. Restricting the range of choices for how a local authority does that would therefore go against the spirit of the Bill.
On amendment 8, the Department already publishes bus data through the bus open data service. That provides timetable, bus location and fares data for local bus services across England. The Department also publishes bus statistics through gov.uk. The majority of the statistics are updated annually, with information on bus fares made available quarterly. Providing further information directly to Parliament is therefore not necessary.
Amendment 60 would create practical challenges and may not provide the benefits the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is seeking. The needs of communities evolve over time. Services that previously ran may have been integrated into other bus networks through changes intended to make the bus route better reflect current needs. I also note that the amendment does not work because an operator cannot amend or cancel an already cancelled service. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask hon. Members to withdraw those amendments.
Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), with the support of the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), would include training on domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, in the mandatory training for bus staff on crime and antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for Wimbledon tabled the same amendment in Committee. In Committee, I said that clause 34 captured domestic abuse because it is already a criminal offence. However, I must clarify that there is no specific criminal offence of “domestic abuse”. Under existing legislation, if someone commits a criminal offence and that behaviour also satisfies the definition of domestic abuse under section 1 of the 2021 Act, it is treated as an aggravating factor in the commission of the underlying offence, and that can also be considered during sentencing.
The definition of “abusive behaviour” in the 2021 Act includes physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, and psychological, emotional and other abuse. The measures in the Bill already account for abusive behaviours that are also criminal offences. However, that is unlikely to be the case for parts of the definition from the 2021 Act—namely economic abuse, or psychological and emotional abuse, which may not be criminal offences. Those abusive behaviours are less likely to be apparent, and I do not consider it reasonable to expect bus staff to be able to identify instances of such behaviour in the course of their duties. Should an incident escalate to a criminal offence that would cause a victim or potential victim to fear for their personal safety, it would be covered under the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw amendment 14.
On minimum service levels, I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) for tabling new clauses 22 and 45 respectively, and those who sponsored the new clauses. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley)—I always look forward to her reminder about Sunday services in Shrewsbury, and hope that those days are numbered given the Bill’s progress. The Bill will empower local areas across the country, including by giving them the tools to decide where to run services and their frequency. The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the transport needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts, as set out in the Transport Act 2000. I clarify for the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire that section 108 of that Act requires an LTA to develop policies that meet the transport needs of persons living, working, visiting or travelling in the authority area.
If an area chooses to franchise its bus services, it must consider lots of factors to determine the right level of service needed to support its communities. That level is likely to be different in different areas. Similarly, when an LTA considers an enhanced partnership, a lot of work is undertaken to understand the service level that the local area requires, and it will then work with operators to investigate how best to proceed. [Interruption.] I believe that I am being hastened on. [Hon. Members: “More!] I have never been so popular.
Finally, let me address the amendments on zero emission buses. In developing the Bill, we have taken into account the need to provide the industry with sufficient notice before the measure comes into effect, and with reassurance that it will not happen suddenly. We have also considered the impact on bus manufacturers. A significantly earlier date could impact on bus operators and passengers. The costs of decarbonising sooner could lead to reduced services, increased fares and an increase in car use. With that, I bring my remarks to an end. I thank Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 38 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes
“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.”—(Tom Gordon.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The result of the Division is as follows: the Ayes were 69, the Noes were 400.
Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have made a note of that particular station and will be speaking to the Rail Minister about it as a priority, as I am sure Members will understand.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate. She is right to raise the important topic of accessibility at stations in her constituency. I assure her and all Members of this House that the Government understand the enormous emotional, social and economic benefits that accessible transport delivers not just for the 16 million disabled people in the UK, but for families, communities and our economy as a whole.
A railway that works for everyone is not a luxury, but a necessity. Whether someone is using a wheelchair or has a visual impairment, or is pushing a pram, carrying heavy luggage or recovering from injury, their needs matter. That is why the Access for All programme is such a vital part of our strategy for improving accessibility. Since its launch in 2006, that programme has made tangible improvements to accessibility at stations across the country, and I am pleased to report that progress continues.
To date, we have delivered step-free access at over 260 stations across Great Britain. That means properly installed lifts, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage and wayfinding changes that make a real difference to the everyday lives of passengers. In addition to those major upgrades, we have completed over 1,500 smaller-scale improvements, which include everything from accessible ticket machines and better lighting to handrails and help points. Those might seem like small things, but for someone with limited mobility or visual impairments, they can make all the difference between a journey that is possible and one that previously has not been.
Although I am pleased with that progress, it is not just about numbers; it is also about impact. Behind every accessible station there is a person who can now get to work, visit friends and family, attend school or simply enjoy a day out without relying on others or facing barriers that others do not even have to think about. However, we know that this work is not finished; we know that we must go further and that the pace of change is not always fast enough.
Earlier this year Network Rail completed feasibility work on 50 stations identified as strong candidates for future Access for All investment. Those stations were chosen carefully, based on criteria that reflect demand, need and opportunity for improvement. My hon. Friend raised the issue of criteria. As she mentioned, stations are nominated by the industry in consultation with local authorities and others, including TFL, to ensure that the funding benefits as many passengers as possible. Stations are then assessed by annual footfall, and weighted by the incidence of disability in the area, using census data. Local factors, including, as she said, whether a station is near a hospital, the availability of third-party funding and the deliverability of the station, are also considered. Additionally, we aim to ensure a fair geographical spread of projects across the country.
I would be happy to facilitate a sit-down meeting with the Rail Minister, so that my hon. Friend can discuss the issues in her constituency, and the opportunities for future rounds of Access for All funding.
Gareth Snell
While the Minister has his diary out, I wonder whether he could facilitate a similar meeting for me with the Rail Minister regarding Longton train station.
Simon Lightwood
I particularly enjoy offering meetings to my colleagues, and I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard that request. We will soon be announcing which of those 50 stations will move into the next design phase. That is a sign of our ongoing commitment to make the railway more accessible, more inclusive and more modern.
Accessibility is, rightly, a “golden thread” embedded in everything the Department does, and that extends to how we design, build and maintain our railways. Every time we install, renew or upgrade station infrastructure, whether that is a new platform, a concourse, a footbridge or a ticketing system, those works must meet modern accessibility standards. Infrastructure managers, station operators and service providers are legally required to ensure that those facilities comply with accessibility requirements, as laid out in the relevant legislation and guidance. Where those obligations are not met, enforcement action can be taken by the Office of Rail and Road, the independent regulator.
That approach is absolutely right, because although progress is encouraging, it must be sustained and consistent. Accessibility standards across the rail network cannot depend on geography or luck. Whether someone lives in a city centre or a rural town, and whether their station is a major interchange or a small local stop, the right to access the railway should be universal. That does not stop at stations, of course; it includes improvements to rolling stock, including audio and visual announcements, priority seating, wheelchair spaces and on-board assistance. It also includes training staff to help change cultures and to provide appropriate support to disabled passengers, and not just in terms of procedures but also with empathy, understanding and respect.
I would like to touch on the Government’s wider commitment to deliver an accessibility charter, recognising the importance of consistency across all modes of transport. The charter will bring together in one place the guiding principles that underpin the rights and responsibilities of disabled passengers, regulators, enforcement bodies and operators. Research suggests that disabled people are less confident travelling across modes than non-disabled people. We are determined, working together with stakeholders, to change that. We want to empower disabled people to travel easily, confidently and with dignity for their entire journey. A truly accessible transport system cannot rely on a single mode being accessible; it must be focused on the entire journey. That is why later this year we will be setting out our plans to improve accessible travel across all modes, as part of our integrated national transport strategy.
Although we have made progress, we know that for too many people travel on our public transport system and our railways is still not as easy or reliable as it should be. A broken lift, an unexpected platform change or a lack of staff support can turn what should be a straightforward journey into an ordeal. For some, the barriers remain so great that they do not even try. I want to make it clear that that is not acceptable. That is why the Department for Transport will continue to seek every opportunity—through targeted investment, improved infrastructure, policy reform, and partnership with industry and communities—to improve access across the network. Whether it is through the Access for All programme, major station redevelopments or ongoing commitments to accessibility compliance, we will not stop pushing for railways that are fully inclusive.
Valerie Vaz
I would be grateful if the Minister could say how disabled people are counted in the footfall count.
Simon Lightwood
Perhaps I could come back to my right hon. Friend on that—I will consult the Rail Minister and ensure that I get her an accurate answer.
Our vision is clear: a railway that works for everyone; a railway where no one is left waiting on the platform; a railway where opportunity, independence and mobility are not privileges, but rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Thames Gateway Bridge: Safeguarding Direction
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Today I am informing the House of my decision to lift the safeguarding direction for the Thames gateway bridge. This reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring that our transport and infra- structure supports housing delivery and drives growth as part of the plan for change.
Safeguarding is an important planning tool used to protect land for future transport schemes from conflicting development. In this case, the safeguarding direction for the Thames gateway bridge dates back to 1940, when the area’s transport needs were very different. It was intended to protect land for a road crossing that has not been delivered. Since then, London’s transport priorities have evolved, and over the decades, we have seen major investments in London’s river crossings—most notably the Dartford crossing and, recently, the Silvertown tunnel. The safeguarding directions therefore no longer align with the direction of transport policy or the evolving needs of this part of London.
The continued safeguarding of this land has been an obstacle to much-needed development, and I am therefore lifting these directions. The Government are keen to deliver new homes and unlock economic opportunity, and we are taking steps to remove unnecessary barriers to progress.
[HCWS836]
Condition of Roads: Cheshire
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this debate on the condition of roads in Cheshire, and on her admirable efforts to highlight her constituents’ concerns. I also thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate.
Like everyone else in the Chamber, I appreciate that this country is suffering from a plague of potholes and poor road conditions. Not only are those a costly nuisance to drivers, but they are a great risk to all road users, including cyclists and motorcyclists, who are more vulnerable. The public are the ones facing the repercussions of our poor roads and the maintenance backlog that has built up everywhere over the past decade, and I believe we are all in complete agreement that this must stop. This Government are up to that challenge, and are determined to improve conditions for all road users.
We are already putting our money where our mouth is by providing £500 million of extra funding for highway maintenance this year, taking overall spending through the highways maintenance block to nearly £1.6 billion this year. That is the largest ever amount of funding for local highway maintenance in England in one year, and means a huge increase in funding for nearly every local highways authority in England, including in Cheshire. In the hon. Member’s area, Cheshire East council will receive up to an additional £5.54 million of highways maintenance funding this year on top of around £15.5 million in baseline funding, while Cheshire West and Chester council will receive an additional £4 million of highways maintenance funding this year on top of around £11.4 million in baseline funding. The Government are determined to transform the condition of the country’s highways.
The hon. Member will also note that 25% of this year’s funding uplift is contingent on each local highway authority meeting the requirements announced by the Secretary of State in March this year. We are making sure that road users, such as the people of Cheshire, have full transparency from local authorities over how this investment will be spent in transforming their roads. All 154 highway authorities were required by 30 June to publish clear information about the condition of their networks and their plans for how they will use the additional funding.
I am pleased to confirm that both Cheshire highway authorities have returned their reports. The hon. Member’s constituents will be able to see that last year in Cheshire East, for example, the council estimated that the number of potholes they filled increased by nearly 50% compared with the year before. In Cheshire West and Chester, the council is committed—the hon. Member talked about the issues with continuous patching-up—to delivering 12 major resurfacing schemes during this financial year, including on the A559 Chester Way in Northwich and the B5153 in Kingsley.
Everyone in England should now have access to these reports by logging on to their council’s website. I was reliably informed that Cheshire East council has an interactive map, and I am sure that the hon. Member, as soon as she leaves the Chamber, will be heading straight to a computer to take a look at that. Everyone will be able to log on to their local council’s website to understand more about what their local highway authority is doing to improve their roads and to see at first hand the difference that this Government’s funding is making. Crucially, it will also help people to challenge their local authority if it is not delivering.
However, our funding for local roads does not stop there. The hon. Member should already be aware of the results of the spending review, where it was announced that the Government will provide £24 billion in capital funding between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to maintain and improve motorways and local roads across the country. That funding will allow National Highways and local authorities to invest in significantly improving the long-term condition of England’s road network, delivering faster, safer and more reliable journeys. We will announce allocations for individual authorities in due course.
The capital funding for highways also included a £1 billion investment to enhance the road network and create a new structures fund, which will inject cash into repairing roads and rundown bridges, decaying flyovers and worn-out tunnels across the country. Further funding of more than £6 million has been granted for active travel schemes for Cheshire West and Chester and for Cheshire East, for a total of 13 schemes. I am also delighted that on 8 July the Department confirmed that it will provide £48 million of funding towards Cheshire East council’s important Middlewich eastern bypass scheme, which is intended to help tackle congestion and safety concerns in the town centre.
To conclude, this Government are dedicated to supporting local highway authorities to improve and maintain roads for all users, and we will continue to prove our dedication through funding, transparency and support for local highway authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Disabled Bus Passes
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss disabled bus passes, and I thank other Members for their contributions.
I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has raised. The Government know the value of the English national concessionary travel scheme, or ENCTS. We want everyone to have straightforward access to high-quality public transport and are committed to improving services so that they are more inclusive and enable disabled people to travel safely, confidently and with dignity. I know, however, that disabled people continue to face unacceptable barriers in their everyday use of public transport, and we are determined to address them. I am committed to working with the sector to drive forward these much-needed improvements.
Regarding the specific concerns raised about concessionary bus travel, let me first remind Members of the statutory obligations of the ENCTS. The scheme provides free bus travel to those with eligible disabilities and those of state pension age—currently 66—between 9.30 am and 11 pm on weekdays and all day on weekends and bank holidays. However, local authorities in England have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations—for example, by extending the times of use.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough pre-empted me saying the following: Department statistics report that 77% of travel concession authorities offer extensions to the beginning of the statutory time period, allowing passholders to travel before 9.30 am on weekdays. Local authorities can also offer companion passes to disabled passengers as a discretionary enhancement—a power we have seen taken up by two thirds, or 66%, of authorities, from Durham to Devon. Indeed, York and North Yorkshire combined authority goes above and beyond the ENCTS on times and companion passes.
Sir Julian Lewis
The Minister, I think, has conceded a key point: he has admitted that some duties are discretionary to councils, and some are statutory. The point about companion bus passes for those disabled people who cannot use a bus without a companion is, as early-day motion 1638 makes abundantly clear, that inclusion of the free companion bus pass should be statutory specifically for those disabled people who cannot use their bus pass without a companion. There is nothing discretionary about that; they simply cannot use the bus pass without the companion. Therefore, it should be part of the same statutory element by which they get the free bus pass in the first place.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the right hon. Member for his extensive intervention. Every single local transport authority in the country has the ability to go above and beyond the ENCTS. In fact, every single local transport authority under this Government has received funding to support buses. Unlike the previous Government, who offered a “Hunger Games”-style competition, we have done it by a fair formula.
The Department conducted a review of the ENCTS, in which many of the important issues discussed today concerning scheme eligibility and travel times were considered. I will not prejudge the outcome of the review, but I want to reassure Members that accessibility and affordability remain central in our commitment to improve bus services for those who rely on them most.
As we are all aware, we face a particularly difficult fiscal climate and fiscal inheritance. The ENCTS is vital in supporting local bus travel, assisting with access to essential local services and helping those who use it to stay active and avoid isolation, and we must ensure that it remains financially sustainable. The ENCTS costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations would therefore need to be carefully considered in terms of the impact on financial sustainability.
More widely, this Government are committed to improving bus services across the country. The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which we introduced in December, puts the power over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders right across England and is intended to ensure bus services reflect the needs of the communities that rely on them.
Ellie Chowns
It makes sense for bus services to reflect local needs, but whether someone has a disability and needs to use a bus is not a locally determined thing. There should be fair access to these services wherever someone lives in the country. Currently we have a postcode lottery regarding the ability to use bus passes 24 hours a day. The point of the debate is to ask that it is organised nationally, so that there is fair access and every disabled person’s bus pass can be used at any time of day, and there are not some parts of the country where it works and others where it does not.
Simon Lightwood
I recognise what the hon. Member is saying, and I will go on to outline some of the other areas where the Government are helping. Improving accessibility is central to our mission. The Bill will help us to deliver safer, more reliable and more accessible networks. It includes specific measures to make bus travel more accessible and inclusive, including through more consistent approaches to the inclusive design of bus stations and stops. The Bill will also require local authorities to produce a bus network accessibility plan, assessing the existing accessibility of bus networks in their areas, and identifying actions that they will take to improve them further.
The voice of disabled people will be at the heart of these reforms. We will develop bus stop guidance collaboratively with organisations that represent disabled people, and local authorities will be required to consult disabled people and organisations representing them when making significant changes to their bus networks. In addition, the Government have committed to publishing an integrated national transport strategy this year, which will set the long-term vision for transport in England. A key part of the strategy will be to create the conditions for a transport system that works together to deliver for its users and that makes it easy for people to get around. Everyone should be able to access real-time information, and simplified, integrated ticketing, and we have been exploring those themes as part of our policy development.
Simon Lightwood
I did not hear who called out first, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett).
Alison Bennett
I thank the Minister for giving way, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for letting me take the Floor. I am pleased that the Minister has outlined the forthcoming integrated transport strategy.
Over 18 months ago, Wivelsfield railway station in my constituency was allocated funding to make both platforms step-free. That still has not happened. We are still waiting for an update, and I wonder whether the Minister could ask the Department to provide one.
Simon Lightwood
Under the previous Government, up to 50 stations were funded, with feasibility studies under the Access for All programme. I do not know whether the hon. Member’s station is part of that, but I am happy to take up that subject outside the Chamber.
We also know that these plans will be backed up with funding. That is why the Budget allocated more than £1 billion to local bus services for 2025-26, including £12.5 million for York and North Yorkshire combined authority. Funding allocated to local authorities to improve bus services can be used to fund discretionary enhancements to the ENCTS, and we have reaffirmed our commitment through the funding allocated as part of the spending review.
Vikki Slade
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am incredibly bothered by the issue of consistency. A disabled driver can use their blue badge at any time of the day, but somebody who is not able to drive is restricted to being able to use their bus pass only after 9.30 am. That seems to be a simple unfairness in the system for people who do not have the option to drive. We have an opportunity to make a tiny change that would make a massive difference.
Simon Lightwood
I reiterate that every single local transport authority in the country has the ability to go above and beyond—
Simon Lightwood
I will not give way again to the hon. Lady. Every single local transport authority in the country has the ability to go above and beyond the ENCTS statutory obligations. Every single local transport authority has been given money to improve bus services, and that can be used to top-up the statutory provisions. I reiterate that the Department has conducted a review of the ENCTS, and many of the issues raised today are included in that review. I will not prejudge the outcome, but I say to hon. Members once again that accessibility is central to it.
Tom Gordon
I thank the Minister for giving way. I hope he notes that I was quite measured in my speech, and I genuinely believe that he wants to put disabled people at the heart of the review. When the Department looks at the impact on the financials and on spending, will it look at how if disabled people can get to hospital appointments, opportunities in education and out spending their money in our economy that might feed into funding the system?
Simon Lightwood
As I mentioned earlier, under the bus services Bill, local authorities will be tasked with producing a bus network accessibility plan—assessing bus networks in their area and identifying actions that they will need to take to improve access. Through the bus grant, local transport authorities can put in place mitigations to improve the accessibility, frequency and reliability of buses in their area.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, particularly the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for taking the time to raise this matter. I am sure we will have many more conversations about this and I applaud his persistence on the issue. I hope this response assures hon. Members that this Government are committed to working with local leaders and bus operators to help deliver better, more reliable and affordable bus services for passengers.
Question put and agreed to.
Transport
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
A blind resident in my constituency, Marilyn, relies on her guide dog and the local bus network to live independently. However, changes under the Government’s £1.7 million active travel grant, including floating bus stops on Rifford Road in my constituency, force her to cross fast, bidirectional cycle lanes just to board a bus. That goes against safety advice from the Guide Dogs organisation and the Royal National Institute of Blind People and is causing real distress. Does the Secretary of State agree that Government-funded infrastructure must be safe and accessible for everyone, and will she commit to reviewing active travel guidance to consider the role of floating bus stops that put blind and visually impaired people at risk?
Simon Lightwood
During the passage of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill in the other place, we committed to writing to all local transport authorities asking them to pause the installation of a specific kind of floating bus stop, where passengers get off the bus straight into a cycle lane or an island. That is because they have been identified through research as problematic for people, particularly those with vision issues.
[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1230.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood):
Simon Lightwood
During the passage of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill in the other place, we committed to writing to all local transport authorities asking them to pause the installation of a specific kind of floating bus stop, where passengers get off the bus straight into a cycle lane. That is because they have been identified through research as problematic for people, particularly those with vision issues.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
Simon Lightwood ExcerptsThursday 3rd July 2025
(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 July 2025 - (3 Jul 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 34, page 37, line 28, leave out from “or” to “the” and insert
“section 144G or of regulations made under those sections,”.
Clause 35 stand part.
Government amendments 20 to 22.
Clause 36 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Amendments 75 and 69, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) would require that senior managers in bus operators and local transport authorities undertake disability awareness and accessibility training. The effect of proposed new section 144G of the Transport Act 2000 would be to place an obligation on senior managers in LTAs and operators that organise or provide local or school bus services to undertake training and keep records of having done so.
Through the Bill, we are extending existing training requirements to drivers and customer-facing staff. The measures do not change training requirements themselves. Co-production would be appropriate for those developing training packages. The hon. Member for North Norfolk asked for an update on the accessible transport charter. I can confirm that my Department provides the Transport Committee with regular updates on the progress of the charter and upcoming appearances. He has my commitment that we will do that.
It is certainly important that senior management in bus operating companies and local authorities are aware of disability and accessibly issues, but EU regulation 181/2011, once amended by clauses 35 and 36 of the Bill, will require staff in local services who deal directly with disabled passengers, or with issues relating to the travelling public, to be trained in respect of disability awareness and disability assistance. For staff dealing directly with disabled passengers, that will improve knowledge of their duties and responsibilities, and thus effect change at the direct point of interaction between staff and passengers. That approach aims to strike a balance between improving services while not overly increasing burdens on operators and local authorities.
In addition, clause 21 will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan. We expect that this new requirement would also help to ensure that relevant senior management in LTAs are aware of accessibility issues in their area. I reassure hon. Members that where school transport is provided by local services, that would fall within the scope of new enhanced training requirements, requiring relevant staff to be trained on both disability awareness and assistance, which will help to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills and confidence to support every passenger appropriately.
I am concerned that the new requirement may increase the administrative burden without necessarily leading to positive results in the experience of disabled passengers at the point of contact with staff and services. I therefore cannot support amendments 75 and 69 and I ask that they be withdrawn.
Clause 35 will require bus drivers and staff providing direct assistance to passengers on local services to complete both disability awareness and assistance training at least every five years to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills and confidence to support every passenger appropriately. Despite progress in recent decades, clauses 35 and 36 have been developed in response to the barriers that disabled people still face when attempting to make bus journeys. The clauses recognise the role that bus drivers play in helping to overcome those barriers, ensuring that disabled passengers’ rights are upheld, and that they are provided with timely and appropriate assistance.
Currently, drivers of local services are already required to complete disability awareness training, but mandatory course content does not cover the practical assistance that they should also provide. Likewise, other customer-facing staff of operators are not currently required to completely training on disability at all. Clause 35 corrects that imbalance. It is about ensuring that passengers on local services can travel anywhere in Great Britain, with any operator or driver, with confidence that staff will help them to travel safely and in comfort. The measures should help to ensure that passengers receive the help they need, and that buses continue to provide an inclusive experience for everyone who uses them.
Amendments 20 to 22 have been tabled to clause 36. Amendment 20 will ensure that a traffic commissioner is responsible for taking action against a terminal managing body. For the benefit of Committee members, terminal managing bodies in the context of this measure are those responsible for terminals identified in regulation 6 of the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013, namely Victoria coach station and Birmingham coach station. The amendments will be relevant to breaches of the training and publication requirements in clauses 35 and 36. Amendment 20 ensures that the enforcement powers in those clauses align with traffic commissioners’ powers to enforce the training and publication requirements in clause 34. Amendment 21 is consequential on amendment 20. Amendment 22 is a minor technical change to ensure that consistent language is used in the 2013 regulations.
Clause 36 works with clause 35 to ensure that staff are sufficiently trained to uphold disabled passengers’ rights. To that end, the clause allows the Secretary of State to set expectations for operator record keeping and data publication on completed disability training and enables the traffic commissioner to apply appropriate sanctions if legal requirements are not met. The traffic commissioners are operationally independent, and it would be for them to determine how best to prioritise the use of enforcement powers given to them. My Department has consulted the traffic commissioners throughout the development of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham mentioned the impact of training requirements on small and medium-sized operators. Our proposals do not prescribe how the training must be undertaken. That is for bus operators to decide, and we expect disability-related training to be undertaken as part of established learning and development programmes.
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
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.
Steff Aquarone
I support the motivations behind clause 37. Making our public transport greener and cleaner is a positive thing and will make it an even more climate-friendly travel option. I note with excitement that Sanders Coaches, which runs many services across my constituency and that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, recently trialled a fully electric bus on the CH1 Coasthopper route between Cromer and Wells—the first ever fully electric bus used by the operator. We can see that rural transport providers are working hard to embrace the green future.
However, we have to recognise the challenges that rural routes face; I associate myself with the remarks made on that topic by the hon. Member. Long distances, limited charging infrastructure and the slim profit margins are all impediments. I would appreciate it if the Minister undertook today to publish, alongside the regulations set out in the clause, guidance and support for rural bus operators on the definitions of local routes. I hope he shares the work and engagement that his Department have done and will be doing with rural operators to make sure that we get this right for them and for the communities they serve.
Amendment 78 is about technology and is similar to something the hon. Member mentioned. It would qualify buses that have been repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of the Bill. “Repowered” means enabled to become zero emission after the date of registration. It involves replacing diesel engines with new, zero emission electric drivetrains mid-life. It is a proven UK innovation that can provide a more affordable and faster route to decarbonisation of our public transport fleet.
For local transport authorities, especially those facing constrained budgets, repowering could present some advantages. First, it can be quicker: companies can convert diesel buses to zero emission in as little as three weeks in their UK facilities. Buses could therefore be back in service quickly, supporting a seamless transition. Secondly, repowering is more cost-effective. A repowered bus can cost less than half the price of a brand-new zero emission vehicle, which could translate to considerable savings for operators and local authorities and allow them to stretch limited resources further. While this route may not work for all buses or local authorities, it is a simple and flexible option to deploy the most cost-effective and timely solution for their fleets. This practical amendment supports British innovation, stretches public funds and accelerates the path to cleaner air and net zero transport, and I urge Members to support it.
Amendment 58 is a small technical change that would clarify that the provisions of proposed new section 151A of the Transport Act 2000 on zero emission vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities. I would appreciate the Minister providing clarity on that point.
Finally, on amendment 63, while the transition to zero emission buses is right and essential for tacking the climate crisis and reducing air pollution, we must be honest about the pressures that transition will place on local authorities. I take the point that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, is making, but in this regard, given the subject of clause 37, I will persist with this point. The pressures on local authority budgets and local transport authorities are why we need amendment 63. It would introduce a sensible and measured requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing how adequate and accessible the central Government funding for zero emission buses has been. It would simply require the Secretary of State to bring forward recommendations on how to improve the system and accelerate the replacement of polluting buses. It is about identifying what works and what does not, and how we can ensure that local transport authorities are properly supported to deliver on one of the Government’s central missions.
Such a report could be helpful for not just local authorities, but the Secretary of State herself when the Treasury inevitably comes knocking asking Departments to justify their spending. Being able to point to a clear evidence-based publicly available report that sets out the scale of funding required to meet our zero emission bus targets will only strengthen the Department’s hand, so I urge the Government to support the amendment.
Simon Lightwood
I will start my comments on this group by speaking to clause 37 stand part and then move to the amendments. The clause will prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses on local bus services in England. The full transition to zero emission buses is a vital part of the Government’s plan to make buses better for passengers and to realise the benefits of lower running costs, cleaner air and smoother, quieter journeys. Bus operators have begun to invest in new zero emission buses, supported by Government funding initiatives. All stakeholders including bus operators, manufacturers and local transport authorities share the ambition to achieve a zero emission bus fleet more quickly.
However, I recognise that there is a need for Government intervention to accelerate bus decarbonisation by supporting the sector with greater certainty of future demand for zero emission buses. The clause seeks to provide that certainty. However, in recognition of the need to provide time and confidence to manufacturers to shift production, and to operators and local transport authorities to plan their fleet transition, the change to the law will come into effect on a date specified by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation. The clause specifies that the restriction on the use of new non-zero emission buses will not take effect earlier than 2030. It also allows for the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of vehicle or local services from the restriction—for example, to enable the relevant local services reliant on those vehicles to still run.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion raised the issue of charging capacity at depots. The clean power action plan includes a programme of connection reform measures aimed at reducing the delays—and I recognise those she has spoken about. The Government are moving from a first come, first served model to an approach based on readiness and strategic alignment. If approved, connection reform proposals submitted to Ofgem by the National Energy System Operator will release up to 400 GW of capacity from the oversubscribed connections queue, accelerating the connections that the hon. Lady talked about for customers ready to connect by the end of 2025.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Ofgem are also considering what further action could be taken to accelerate connections for strategically important demand customers. The Government are working to ensure that they understand the specific conditions affecting bus operators and continue to communicate directly with bus operators to share best practice. Battery ranges are getting better; independent tests carried out on behalf of the Department on the UK bus test cycle show that ranges for electric vehicles can exceed 500 km, and further for hydrogen. The Government’s independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee, have been clear: buses should transition to zero tailpipe technologies, and biofuels should be focused on sectors harder to decarbonise such as aviation and maritime. The purchase costs of zero emission buses have decreased in real terms, and they have become more efficient to run.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 32 and 33 relating to zero emission buses. I appreciate that their intention is to ensure that the English bus fleet is decarbonised as quickly as possible. I can reassure her that the Government share that intention. However, having considered them carefully, the Government cannot support the amendments, and I am happy to set out the reasons why.
Amendment 32 would prevent new non-ZEBs from being used on English local bus services from 1 January 2027. Amendment 33 would enable that by removing the 1 January 2030 restriction currently in the Bill. That would allow the Secretary of State to end the use of new non-ZEBs at an earlier date.
We have stated in the Bill that the measure will not come into effect before 1 January 2030. The precise date will be set by statutory instrument. That will provide the industry with reassurance that the measure will not come into effect suddenly or without warning, and allow sufficient notice to be provided, enabling the industry to prepare for the change to zero emission buses. I am concerned about the impact that an earlier date could have on bus operators and the potential adverse consequences for passengers, such as the cost of decarbonising leading to reduced services and increased fares.
A reduction in bus services could also lead to more journeys being made by car and therefore greater overall carbon emissions. I am also concerned about the potential for job losses in the UK manufacturing sector if an earlier date led to bus operators running diesel buses for longer on certain routes.
As indicated in the published impact assessment for the Bill, there is a significant risk that setting an implementation date too early, before the total cost of owning electric buses reaches broad parity with diesel buses, could have damaging impacts. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw her amendment.
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk for amendment 78. I appreciate its purpose —to encourage the repowering of existing diesel buses, meaning their conversion into zero emission vehicles. I assure them that we support bus repowering—indeed, I opened a plant myself—as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses in the UK. My Department has introduced the zero emission vehicle repower accreditation scheme to help bus operators to ensure that repowered buses get higher standards of efficiency and emission reduction, invest in their existing fleet and become eligible to claim the zero emission bus incentive in the bus service operators grant.
I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Only new diesel buses will be prevented from being used on English bus services; any existing diesel buses, including those that are repowered, can continue to be used. For any new diesel buses registered after the stated date, regulation 16 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 will require the vehicle keeper to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of any changes to the vehicle that may result in the particulars held on the vehicle record becoming incorrect. That includes changes to the engine or propulsion of the vehicle.
Proposed new section 151A(4)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations…specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine…what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle”.
I can assure the hon. Member for North Norfolk that we would ensure that such documents included those that include up-to-date information about the bus’s powertrain. That would allow such buses to be used on English local bus services. I therefore ask him not to press amendment 78.
Amendment 58 tabled by the hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Wimbledon and for South Devon seeks to clarify that the restrictions on the use of non-zero emission buses from a date no earlier than 2030 apply to mayoral combined authorities. I welcome the intention behind the amendment. The Government agree that the restrictions should apply to local bus services in those areas, creating jobs, supporting local economies and accelerating our journey to a zero emission future. That is why, in response to concerns raised in the other place, the Government expanded the measure to apply to all local services in England, including those in London. If a mayoral combined authority operates a relevant service, they will already be subject to the restriction on using non-ZEBs. That means that the measure as it stands in the Bill already fulfils the intention of the amendment.
I thank the hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Wimbledon, for South Devon and for Didcot and Wantage for tabling amendment 63, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent on the ability of local transport authorities to access funding to decarbonise their fleets. The restriction on the use of new non-ZEBs will not come into effect immediately. That will follow careful consideration of all relevant factors by the Secretary of State, including affordability, and it will be fully debated in Parliament as it will be implemented by affirmative secondary legislation. We state in the Bill that the measure will not come into effect before 1 January 2030. That will give the industry and local transport authorities reassurance that the measure will not come into effect suddenly and without warning, and will allow sufficient notice to be provided, enabling them to prepare for the change to zero emission.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 53—Minimum bus service standards: review—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.
(2) The review conducted under this section must—
(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,
(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”
Simon Lightwood
Clause 38 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review, within two years of the Bill’s enactment, on the level of bus services being provided to villages in England. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the Lords.
The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts. Although the Bill aims to improve bus services, the review required by the clause would not be practical to deliver. Measures such as franchising and setting up a local authority bus company are significant undertakings that will take time. It is unlikely that a review after two years would allow enough time to capture and assess the impact on rural areas. The full impact of a franchising scheme or a local authority bus company is not expected to be seen until the scheme or company has been operating for some time.
Moreover, although I accept the positive intention behind the measure, it is already addressed by the Bill and wider Government policy. The Government are seeking to reverse the long-term decline in bus services, partly by ensuring that the impact of any changes to bus networks is fully assessed and options are fully explored before a service is changed or cancelled. That will be achieved through measures on socially necessary local services, which will help protect and improve services in rural areas.
Beyond the Bill’s reforms, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, with a dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence conference on quality rural bus services this month, and the first two of our franchising pilots, in York and North Yorkshire and Cheshire West and Chester, announced at the spending review. The Government therefore oppose the clause.
Steff Aquarone
I support clause 38, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the provision of bus services to villages in England within two years of the Act being passed. Members will have heard many of my points about the clause in previous speeches, including on amendment 71, which I have pressed to a vote already, but the clause as a whole is not only sensible but essential. I am very pleased that those in the other place added it to the Bill and I hope it will be retained today.
In North Norfolk I have more than 100 villages and hamlets. From Alby and Antingham to Wiveton, Wickmere and Worstead, they are all treasured communities but face challenges with rural transport. Too often, rural communities are treated as an afterthought when it comes to public transport planning. I know this at first hand and my constituents experience it day in and day out. I am sorry to say that the last Government did not do enough in the years that they had to tackle the issues that rural communities face. It is time we stepped up to the challenge of rural mobility.
Villages across England have been cut off by decades of under-investment, deregulation and short-term decision making. The clause acknowledges that rural isolation is not a minor inconvenience, but a daily barrier to work and education, healthcare and opportunity more broadly. The clause rightly demands that the Government take stock of the current state of rural bus provision. It requires an assessment of how many villages are being served by regular bus routes, and it asks important questions about who is being affected—which demographics, which regions and which types of communities are being left behind.
As I said when speaking to my amendments and new clauses on rural bus hubs, having a service to every village might not be the right approach for every area. In many places, moving towards a hub-and-spoke model might be the best course of action. This review would help to identify that and allow us to better understand the current state of play and what steps can be taken to improve the situation.
The clause also rightly mandates consultation with key stakeholders—local councils and transport authorities —who are best placed to speak to the lived reality of rural transport as currently delivered. Without proper scrutiny and transparency, bus networks in rural areas will continue to wither. This review clause is a modest but vital safeguard that ensures we do not look the other way while whole communities are cut off.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long championed the rights of rural communities to fair access to transport. From Cumbria to Cornwall and Norfolk to Newton Abbot, we are fighting for cut-off communities to finally have their challenges heard and their needs addressed. Clause 38 speaks directly to that principle and I urge colleagues across the Committee to support its inclusion in the Bill.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, for what may be the final time on this Committee. I thank you for guiding us—particularly those of us who are new to the world of Bill Committees—through this process.
I would like to speak in favour of the Minister’s approach to clause 38, which, though clearly well intentioned, perhaps would not have achieved what it was aiming to for England’s villages. On Tuesday, hon. Members heard me mention two of the villages I am proud to represent, Slitting Mill and Norton Canes, and what clause 14—regarding socially necessary services—would mean for them. However, not wishing to have favourites, I am grateful to now have the opportunity to talk about what this Bill will also mean for Brereton and Ravenhill, Brindley, Littleworth, Rawnsley, Hazelslade, Prospect Village, Cannock Wood, Bridgtown, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury.
Like so many parts of England, particularly in rural and semi-rural areas such as mine, bus routes in our villages have been shrinking for many years, while fares have risen. However, I would like to highlight a rare piece of good news, which is that, from 20 July—a successful tender permitting—the No. 60 between Cannock and Lichfield, and the No. 74 between Cannock and Stafford, will begin to run on Sundays once again, and hopefully later into the evenings. The No. 60 in particular is the only service for many of my villages, so that extension will be very welcome.
My constituents have sadly become used to bus services stopping at 7 pm and not running at all on Sundays. From listening to the debate, that is a world away from the experiences in the constituencies of some members of this Committee, but it is the reality in much of our country. When growing up in a village, like I did, or living in a village, like I still do, a bus can be a lifeline—something that I am glad to say we on this Committee have discussed extensively—so the withdrawal or reduction of services means more cars on the road, more people isolated within their homes, and, of course, less cash to invest in, or even preserve, routes. That is why I am pleased to hear the Minister’s assurances on this matter.
I do hope that a review of the benefits of this Bill to England’s villages can be carried out in time, but when the time is right, not by an arbitrary timeframe. By that point, the full benefits of things such as franchising and registers of socially necessary services can be properly assessed. For that reason, I urge fellow members of the Committee who represent villages—like I do—to oppose clause 38 standing as part of this Bill, so that the Secretary of State and the Minister can determine the best approach to ensuring that, once again, buses are there for people and communities first and foremost.
Simon Lightwood
On new clause 53, legislation to guarantee minimum levels of services for communities already exists in the Transport Act 2000. The Bill’s socially necessary local services measure will provide greater protection for existing bus services from being arbitrarily cancelled or reduced. The Department for Transport is also currently undertaking a review into enhanced partnerships, which is set to conclude later this year. We are looking into the potential of developing a set of minimum standards for enhanced partnerships.
I thank members of the Committee for their thoughts on seeking to review the provision of bus services to villages in England. The Government recognise the need to serve villages, alongside improving service, reliability and punctuality, across England, and the role that buses play in linking communities together. We are seeking to reverse the long-term decline in bus services, partly by ensuring that the impacts of any changes to bus networks are fully assessed and that options are fully explored before a service is changed or cancelled.
An evaluation of the Bill, including the impact on rural services, will be completed as part of a wider evidence review of bus franchising. The Government do not want to undermine that analysis by presenting findings before franchising and local authority bus companies have been established. That would not reflect the true impact on passengers.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 39 would require the Secretary of State to implement a vision zero programme in the bus sector, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries in the course of bus operations. The clause was inserted as a non-Government new clause in the other place.
The Government support the principle behind vision zero, because we do not want any deaths or serious injury on our transport network, but where vision zero programmes are being taken forward, such as in London and Greater Manchester, the focus of the strategies is wider than just buses; they are multimodal and take a safe-system view across the transport network. A nationwide programme would cut across the Department’s plans for a road safety strategy and promote a one-size-fits-all approach that is unlikely to work in different settings, such as rural areas. Local leaders are best placed to design the programmes that work to eliminate serious injuries in their local areas.
By creating a national programme that would significantly overlap with wider local transport authority management, the clause would undermine the Bill’s intention to empower local areas. It is therefore inconsistent with the Bill’s principles. The Bill aims to empower local leaders to take control of bus services so that they meet the needs of their communities. That includes making the best decisions to encourage safer transport networks in a given area. The Government therefore oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
I rise to strongly support clause 39, which was the inspiration of Lord Hampton, the Cross Bencher who tabled it in the other place. It would require the Secretary of State to collaborate with industry stakeholders to implement a vision zero programme for buses, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries during bus operations and improving overall safety in the sector. It is very hard to argue against that as an objective for the Bill.
The Minister expressed support for the concept and direction of travel. His primary argument against the clause was that it would somehow get in the way of a multimodal approach to the reduction of injuries on transport, but there is no reason why it need do so. It could co-ordinate with a multimodal transport response. Nothing in the clause prevents it from being part of a wider piece of work. I accept that the legislative requirement would be limited to the bus sector, but a non-legislative multimodal approach would be perfectly permissible, and it is a ministerial sleight of hand to suggest otherwise. The Minister is using some other review as an excuse not to keep this very good clause.
The reason why it is a good clause is that personal injury to passengers on buses caused by sharp braking is a significant issue. A 2019 study for Transport for London showed that three quarters of bus passenger injuries in London were due to non-collision incidents, such as sharp braking or harsh manoeuvres. This disproportionately affects older females and standing passengers, whether they are standing for the journey or standing on their approach to a stopping place.
The challenge with the current statistics is that they are binary—they report either collision injuries or non-collision injuries—and are not broken down further into, for example, sharp braking or avoiding manoeuvres. The clause would help to get to the bottom of where risk lies, expose the data and lead to an effective focus on remediation efforts. I strongly support it.
Simon Lightwood
I thank Committee members for their thoughts on the vision zero programme. My noble Friend the Minister for Rail noted in the other place that the Government are “sympathetic to the aims” behind vision zero. We all want a completely safe bus sector with no incidents. Safety goes wider than buses: other modes of transport share a vision for that, and that includes the Department’s work on a road safety strategy. It is the first such strategy in over a decade, which raises the question of why the previous Government failed to keep us up to date.
The Government are already taking steps to improve safety in the bus sector, but we recognise that more needs to be done. We want to eliminate serious injuries and deaths on our transport networks, but the clause cuts across the forthcoming work on the new road safety strategy.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause requires bus operators that are contracted to operate a franchising scheme or enhanced partnership to record data about all assaults and violent behaviour that have taken place on their services. The clause requires that data to be shared with the relevant local transport authority. It also requires local transport authorities to consult relevant trade unions about any staff safety issues arising from the data. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the other place, and I do not consider it necessary.
First, the clause duplicates work already done by the Home Office and the police. All incidents reported to the police under the Home Office crime recording rules, whether by victims, witnesses or third parties, and whether crime-related or not, will result—unless immediately recorded as a crime—in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police. That is in line with the vision that all police forces in England and Wales should have the best crime recording system in the world—one that is consistently applied, delivers accurate statistics that are trusted by the public, and puts victims’ needs at its core.
Secondly, the clause may not be compatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, as no limits are placed on what the data to be collected and shared may include. It does not specify what should be collected or how frequently, and no enforcement mechanism is attached. That may result in inconsistent data. As drafted, the clause relates to contracted services, which would exclude all the local transport authorities that have entered into enhanced partnerships with private operators. For such practical reasons, the Government will seek to remove the clause from the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
It is rather unedifying to see the Government hiding behind arguments about article 8. If they seriously thought that article 8 was a practical consideration that prevented the adoption of the clause, why did they not seek to amend the clause? They were perfectly capable of tabling a clarifying amendment to make the clause compliant with article 8, if they really had genuine concerns about such compliance. They could have done it, but they have chosen not to. It does not befit the Minister to hide behind that as a defence for the Government’s inaction.
The clause deals with the recording and sharing of data about assaults. It was proposed by the noble Lord Woodley in the other place. The Government should be aware of that, because it was after all drafted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I am sure the Government are good union supporters and, in other situations, I would have expected them to be highly supportive of union recommendations, although I seem to recall—I think I am right—that the RMT is not officially affiliated to the Labour party. Perhaps that explains why the clause is about to be removed from the Bill.
The clause imposes a duty to record all data about assaults and violent behaviour, and a duty to consult any relevant trade unions about issues of staff safety arising from that data, which is eminently sensible. Before I go into more detail, I want to clarify that most bus journeys are in fact very safe. Data from Transport for London for 2024 suggests that only 9.6 crimes are committed per million journeys in London. I do not have the data in front of me, but I think that the equivalent data for rural Norfolk might show it is even safer.
It is an increasing trend in London, however, as 4,167 crimes on London buses were reported as violence against the person in 2018-19, which was an increase of 2.5% on the previous year. In the west midlands, another hotspot, violent crime on buses increased 7% year on year in the latest statistics. Bus driver assaults is an important subsection of such crime, and in London between 2011 and 2013, on average four bus drivers every single day were assaulted or verbally abused. According to a Unite the union survey in 2024, 83% of UK bus drivers experienced abuse, with 79% saying that there had been an increase over the previous year and many reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults.
That is the important bit: if bus drivers are reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults, why is requiring the proper recording of data associated with assaults such a bad thing? Surely the first step to change would be to understand the full nature of the problem. The clause would lead to better data, and therefore better support for bus drivers and passengers faced with violent crime.
Steff Aquarone
I, too, am frustrated that the Government did not see fit to address those concerns by amending the clause.
Let us start by being clear: assaults that take place on bus services are not abstract statistics—they are real events affecting real people. Often, drivers and frontline staff are simply doing their jobs and passengers are just trying to get from A to B. We cannot tackle this problem unless we properly understand it. To do that, we need robust, consistent data.
Here lies the point: at present, too many of those incidents go unrecorded, or are not handled consistently across different operators and regions. Clause 40 would put a stop to that, creating a clear and consistent duty that, if an operator is contracted to run services, it must record this data and share it with the local authority. That is the very least the public expect. Furthermore, the inclusion of a duty on a local transport authority to consult with relevant trade unions regarding issues of staff safety arising from the data collected is a good step. It will ensure that the data is used in practice and could lead to increased safety for staff and passengers.
It is clear that the clause is about more than data collection; it is about creating a feedback loop between those who operate bus services, those who oversee them and those who work on them. That would ensure that when violence occurs, it is recorded, known, and acted on. That is how we start to build a safer system for staff and passengers—for everyone. The Prime Minister recently it made clear that abuse of those working in the rail industry is “utterly unacceptable”; he responded to a question on the abuse of rail staff by saying:
“The abuse and assaults on staff are utterly unacceptable. We are taking measures to make sure they are safer.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 281.]
I am sure the Prime Minister believes the Government should take measures to ensure that bus staff are kept safe, not just rail staff. For that reason, the Minister should push to maintain clause 40 in the Bill. It is not only the right thing to do; it seems that the PM backs it too. I want to protect those who serve our communities, and ensure that public transport is not only affordable and reliable, but safe. Clause 40 helps to deliver that vision, and I implore the Government to keep it in the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
I thank hon. Members for their thoughts on recording and sharing data about assaults. In the other place, we highlighted the fact that the Bill already includes measures to enhance the safety of staff and passengers on bus services. As I set out, many operators—and indeed the police and the Home Office—already collect data on assaults, and it makes sense for them to rationalise how best to manage their operators and staff in that respect. We are not seeking to duplicate the work of the police. Victims may also not want to report incidents without their consent, and we should be cognisant of that.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Simon Lightwood
To respond to new clause 10, the English national concessionary travel scheme costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations, such as extending the hours in which a pass can be used, would need to be carefully considered. As I said to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion regarding new clause 9, local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations.
A review into the ENCTS was concluded in 2024, which included an assessment of the travel times of the scheme; the Government are considering next steps. On that basis, and as the new clause would cut across the ENCTS review, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw it.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister refers to the cost of concessions. Has he made an assessment, or is he aware of what the assessed cost would be, of removing the time restriction, as proposed in new clause 48?
Simon Lightwood
As I have already explained, local authorities across the country already have powers to use their funding, and they have done so on many occasions.
New clause 32, which is on a similar theme, would require an assessment of the impact of and means to removing restrictions on concessionary travel passes. As all hon. Members know, the Government’s intentions are to give power to local leaders to determine their local priorities. That is why the £900 million of bus funding secured in the spending review will enable local leaders to expand their offer on concessions beyond their statutory obligations, if they so choose. I have said that the Government are considering our next steps on the ENCTS review. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk not to press the new clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29— Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;
(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;
(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;
(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;
(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—
(a) local councils and local transport authorities;
(b) bus service operators;
(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;
(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and
(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.
(4) Any report 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 which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
Simon Lightwood
An excellent settlement was secured for buses in the latest spending review. Although we need to determine how to spend it most efficiently, the Government recognise that ensuring that the funding is distributed fairly is of great importance.
New clause 17 would require us to come forward with a report detailing a proposed revision of the formula that is currently being used. The current formula is based on local need, taking into account factors such as levels of deprivation, population size and bus mileage. The new clause is therefore not needed. The Government have already said that we will review the current formula and engage with stakeholders in doing so.
Jerome Mayhew
The new clause would introduce the simple but crucial requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula within six months of the Bill’s passage, alongside an explanation of its rationale, an assessment of its distributional impacts, and any alternative models considered but not adopted.
We all recognise that bus services are a lifeline for many of our constituents, connecting people to work, education, healthcare and social functions, and yet we come back to Banquo’s ghost: funding. There are cheques being written by local authorities that opt for franchising, but where that funding will come from is absent from the Bill—it is totally opaque. The new clause would resolve that. It would not dictate what the funding formula should be. Instead, it would ensure that when a funding formula is proposed, it is done on an evidence basis, as described in subsection (2)(b), and transparently. Such transparency is essential to maintain trust in the system, especially after the vast overspends in Greater Manchester.
The new clause is proportionate and constructive, and aims to fix the significant concerns around the lack of funding detail in the Bill overall. It would help to ensure that the significant investments we make in bus services deliver the greatest possible benefits, particularly for communities that rely on them most. I will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Steff Aquarone
I imagine that there are many different calculations in different parts of the country; mine is based on casework inquiries. A limited number of fare options are available to people in my constituency, as is the case in many rural areas, and I think that £10 is a reasonable approximation.
New clause 19 would ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of the Bill, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to reintroduce the £2 fare cap. It would restore a measure that was working, that passengers appreciated, and that delivered wide social and economic benefits. I urge Committee members to join me in supporting the new clause, axing the bus tax and putting money back into the pockets of our constituents.
Simon Lightwood
I have already explained the Government’s position on the bus fare cap. It ensures that passengers up and down the country have access to affordable bus fares and, through those, improved opportunities.
New clause 19 would provide that operators taking part in the scheme may be given priority consideration in the awarding of financial grants. That may give rise to unintended consequences; for example, it is likely that larger operators would be more able to cap fares at £2, potentially muscling out smaller and medium-sized operators in allocations for grant funding. Moreover, it also might impact service levels by reducing the funding available to keep services viable. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important new clause that deals with poor performance franchising. Subsection (1) would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement on when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services were persistently failing because of poor operational or financial management. Subsection (2) says that the statement must set out the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service and how those are to be identified, and that it must clarify the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.
As Members will be aware, under the Bill, franchising provides local authorities with significant powers to shape, manage and procure bus services in their areas. With those powers should come an equally important responsibility: the duty to ensure that services are delivered efficiently, sustainably and to the high standards that the public rightly expect. The new clause addresses that important gap in the legislation. It requires the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to lay before Parliament a clear statement outlining their intentions and mechanisms for intervention in circumstances where franchising arrangements persistently fail due to poor operational or financial management.
I will cut to the chase: we have franchising on the railways. The Government are getting themselves into a very odd position. They are saying, “We are all for devolution. We don’t want to get involved. We are removing the requirement to gain the consent of the Secretary of State to enter into franchising agreements and we have no mechanism to intervene if local transport authorities get themselves into a mess and oversee persistent underperformance.” On rail, however, they take the opposite position and their version of franchising is to nationalise. What would the Government do to remedy the situation if the transport network in a local transport authority persistently underperformed? At the moment, they are expressing no opinion at all on that.
The new clause gives them the power to set out their views. It seeks to ensure that where franchising authorities or franchisees fail to deliver contracted services, there is a backstop of national intervention to guarantee continuity and standards. Buses should not be the poor relation of rail. The new clause brings the franchised bus networks in line with the franchised rail network and introduces further certainty and confidence into the franchising system for operators, passengers and local authorities alike. Everyone will know that where persistent failure occurs, there will be a robust safety net to prevent communities being left with persistently poor franchised bus services.
Simon Lightwood
Poor performance by operators delivering franchised services is properly managed through the franchising contracts themselves. The Department’s franchising guidance clearly states that authorities should build mechanisms into their contracts to ensure that better bus service outcomes are delivered and that poor performance from operators can be dealt with. Franchising authorities therefore have the levers to address that without the intervention of the Secretary of State.
On the subject of ensuring that franchising authorities successfully deliver bus services, I highlight that LTAs must produce a robust assessment before developing a franchising scheme. An assessment enables an authority to take an informed decision about whether a proposed scheme would deliver better outcomes for passengers and do so in a way that is financially sustainable. The assessment must, in turn, be independently assured.
Finally and crucially, I stress that franchising authorities should ultimately be accountable to local people for bus provision and service standards delivered by a franchised network. It would be contrary to the wider principles of the Bill for the Secretary of State to break that line of accountability. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will consider withdrawing the new clause.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister’s comments fail to address the need for a final backstop, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Simon Lightwood
If I may, I want to put on record my thanks to you, Dame Siobhain, and the other Chairs of the Committee over the past couple of weeks. I also want to thank the Clerks, who have literally done a marathon today, running backwards and forwards—it is great to see active travel alive and well. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers overseeing proceedings. I also thank the officials who have supported me in bringing this important legislation forward, and for helping me navigate my very first Bill Committee on the Government Front Bench.
Finally, I also thank hon. Members on all sides of the House for their valuable contributions and insights throughout these sittings. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon—please pass on my regards to him. I thank them for the insights that they have brought and the very good-natured way in which they have contributed to the Committee sittings. I know that we all want to deliver the best possible public transport system for our constituents, and I very much look forward to further engagements with hon. Members on the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
I associate myself with all the Minister’s comments, particularly those regarding the officials and everyone who has made this Committee work over the last few weeks. I am very grateful to hear the Minister’s nice words about how he was listening carefully to what we said. If that were the case, I wonder why he did not accept any of our amendments, but it may just be a question of time—he may reflect further on them. It is great that we have managed to finish a day early, at the time that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Halifax, had in her mind. I also thank her for the way in which she has managed the operation of this Committee behind the scenes.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)
Simon Lightwood ExcerptsThursday 3rd July 2025
(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 July 2025 - (3 Jul 2025)
The Chair
Perhaps I should declare an interest: tomorrow morning at 10.30 am, I will be having a meeting about floating bus stops with representatives from Transport for London outside Colliers Wood tube station. Should any Member wish to join me, they would be most welcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Given that this is a large group of amendments, and given the legitimate concerns of the Committee, stakeholders and disabled people, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for the length of the remarks that I am about to make. I will deal first with clauses 30 to 32 before moving to the amendments.
Clause 30 will introduce a power for the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance covering the location, design, construction and maintenance of bus stopping places, for the purpose of promoting safety and facilitating the travel of disabled people. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence, and that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and incorporate design features that promote their personal safety.
Relevant local authorities and National Highways will be required to “have regard to” the guidance when commissioning new or when upgrading or maintaining existing infrastructure in England. A duty to “have regard to” guidance has been extensively considered by the courts and is a well understood legal concept. Local transport authorities will know that they must not simply read the guidance and ignore it; otherwise, their decision will be open to legal challenge. Although the duty is to “have regard”, it is expected that guidance will be followed unless there are good reasons not to do so.
The Government intend that the guidance will support authorities to provide infrastructure that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use. That is why the clause requires the Secretary of State to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee when providing new guidance, changing it significantly or revoking it. Engagement with DPTAC and other groups representing disabled people will support the Department to understand the priorities and perspectives of disabled people with a range of impairment when developing the guidance. Members of the Committee may be aware that DPTAC fulfils a function as my Department’s statutory adviser on the needs of disabled transport users.
Clause 31 requires the Secretary of State to publish statutory designed guidance on floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent, to which local authorities will be required to have regard when designing new floating bus stops or altering or removing existing ones. The guidance is already in draft and will reiterate the pause on shared use boarders, as well as providing advice to authorities on how to improve accessibility at other types of floating bus stops. To ensure that the voices of disabled people are heard and understood, the Department will also be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on the guidance before publication. The guidance in clause 31 is separate from the statutory guidance on bus stopping places set out in clause 30, but the two documents will overlap. When that guidance is provided, we will ensure that they align.
Clause 32 sets out requirements on demonstrating how authorities have had regard to the guidance about the safety and accessibility of stopping places in clause 30, and about floating bus stops in clause 31. The clause provides a power for the Secretary of State to request information from local authorities on stopping places provided by them and used by local services, including how they have had regard to the statutory guidance. This will enable the Government to better understand what progress has been made across England to ensure that bus stops and, where relevant, facilities in their vicinity are safe and accessible for all users.
The information received can be published, and if the Secretary of State believes that an authority has not fulfilled its duty, they may publish a statement to that effect. This is intended to allow the Government to promote accountability and encourage compliance where they have been made aware of concerns. Local transport authorities can also be subject to judicial review if they do not have regard to the guidance. We will set out more details on how this process may work in developing the statutory guidance.
Having addressed the three clauses, I want to make some general remarks in response to comments from members of the Committee. We recognise that this is about equality and the ability to make independent journeys confidently. We also recognise that more needs to be done to make these installations accessible to all, which is why the Government accepted amendments tabled in the other place that require us to produce statutory guidance and put in place reporting powers to promote accountability. That is why, alongside these legislative measures, the Government have decided to instigate a pause on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists.
In the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail confirmed that the Government will set out details of this pause to local authorities. Of course, it is right that both Houses get to debate and scrutinise proposals on floating bus stops before this pause is instigated. My Department will reflect on the points raised during debates in this Committee, and in further debates on the Bill, before confirming its expectations. The Government are in listening mode, and this is the democratic way forward to ensure that different views are taken into account.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I want to put on record our thanks to the Government for heeding the calls of many who have spoken in this Committee and the other place about the knotty issue of floating bus stops. Clearly, lots of things need to be reviewed and lots of situations need to be untangled. Is the Minister personally confident that his approach will lead to a safe, workable future, both with the assets that are currently in place and those that are, or would have been, planned?
Simon Lightwood
I will continue, and if I do not answer the hon. Member’s question fully, he is free to intervene and ask me once again, but I think I will give the reassurance that he requires.
On the question of funding, we are also exploring further support for local authorities to retrofit existing sites, including the launch of the next consolidated active travel fund round, which will happen shortly. Remediation activities will be explicitly included in the scope of the fund for 2025-26. Local authorities are also encouraged to use a wide range of available funding, such as highways maintenance funding and new funding announced at the spending review, for any remediation works necessary to meet the new design guidance, when it is published.
On a wider point, I remind the Committee that the Government are providing £1 billion in 2025-26 to support and improve bus services in England outside of London. That commitment was followed by the recent announcements in the spending review, with which the Government committed £900 million each year to maintain and improve vital bus services.
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.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I challenge the Minister’s rationale on clause 30. I understood him to be saying that making a duty mandatory might force the Government to issue guidance before consultation is undertaken, but there is nothing in the clause that suggests that. If he wishes to propose that as an argument against amendment 40, he needs to set out what it is in said amendment that would require the issuing of guidance prior to any consultation or standard operating procedures. I cannot see anything like that.
Simon Lightwood
We will have to agree to disagree on that, I am afraid.
Amendment 41 seeks to extend the Secretary of State’s power to give guidance, including for the purpose of enabling disabled people to make journeys without the use of a floating bus stop. The intent would be to produce guidance that advises authorities to construct stopping places in a way that would enable people to travel without crossing a cycle track.
Essentially, that means providing guidance to authorities that floating bus stops should not be installed and should, if already installed, be removed, where work in the scope of this guidance is undertaken. Authorities, as listed in clause 36, would then be required to have regard to the guidance. This Government do not believe that a complete ban on floating bus stops is appropriate, given the need to improve safety for cyclists and to enable more people to cycle. The requirement to publish statutory guidance, to which local authorities are required to have regard, will enable the Government to set out clearly what is expected of authorities in terms of making floating bus stops accessible.
Amendment 42 would mandate that the Secretary of State “must” issue guidance, specifically about the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and facilities, and how authorities engage with others in relation to stopping places. The statutory guidance will cover a broad range of considerations in relation to stopping places including, as I said, location, design, construction and, where relevant, maintenance. By amending the clause to say that the Secretary of State must give guidance about certain characteristics of a stopping place, the amendment risks being overly prescriptive and would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to develop guidance informed by stakeholder engagement.
Amendment 43 has two separate purposes. It seeks to ensure that relevant authorities, which have a duty to have regard to the guidance on safety and accessibility of stopping places, always comply with the recommendations of the guidance. The only exception to this would be where there are exceptional local circumstances not to do so, and only if authorities have obtained prior written approval from the Secretary of State.
We expect that all relevant authorities will comply with their duty to have regard to guidance under clause 30. It is crucial, however, that authorities have the flexibility to apply those solutions that work best in each location and in individual circumstances. Without that flexibility, we risk preventing authorities from progressing infra-structure upgrades that might otherwise have been considered, rather than encouraging them to do so. Amendment 43 would also require the Secretary of State to make a judgment on a case-by-case basis as to what constitutes exceptional local circumstances. Given that those will differ in each case, that may be difficult to provide in a consistent manner.
The amendment also seeks to introduce a statutory pause on the construction of floating bus stops and shared bus stop boarders. It would do this by requiring authorities that have a duty to have regard to the guidance under clause 30 not to proceed with construction of such stopping places until guidance on floating bus stops is issued by the Secretary of State under this clause.
It is unclear how this amendment of clause 30 on the stopping place guidance and the floating bus stop guidance in clause 31 would relate to each other. The latter must be published no later than three months after Royal Assent, while the clause 30 guidance has a longer timetable, with no statutory deadline. In practice, that means that guidance on floating bus stops would be available in the short term, but not under clause 30. The practical effect of the amendment would be to negate the guidance under clause 31, because local authorities would not be able to use it. That would delay authorities’ ability to plan and carry out works to make floating bus stops more accessible. The amendment is disproportionate and, along with amendments 40 to 42, unnecessary.
I turn to amendments 29 to 31 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Amendment 29 seeks to expand the purposes for which statutory guidance can be issued to include matters such as safety on pavements along the route, access to toilet facilities and real-time information, some of which are beyond the intended scope of the guidance. Although those are important considerations, many are already covered within the scope of clause 30. The current drafting of the definition of “facilities” provides sufficient flexibility for the guidance to address accessible information and other relevant facilities.
Welfare facilities for drivers are covered in existing bus franchising guidance. In enhanced partnership areas, it is the responsibility of operators to provide adequate welfare facilities for drivers. That can be discussed and agreed with local transport authorities as part of the partnership. I have already spoken about the information provisions in the Bill. Bringing multiple sources of information together in one place will help to improve the situation for passengers and ensure a more consistent approach, as the hon. Lady said.
Issues such as pedestrian safety on pavements and at crossings are addressed through existing statutory duties on local authorities, and do not require repeating here. The consultation requirements that I have set out will ensure that the guidance reflects expert advice on the issues that matter most, including safety and the facilities that are provided at bus stops.
Amendment 30 seeks to narrow the definition of “facilities” in subsection (7) by specifying that such facilities should include those provided to assist people with accessing a stopping place from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route. Amendment 31 seeks to clarify that the definition of “facilities” includes facilities providing information to passengers. The definition of “facilities” in the clause is deliberately broad to ensure that the guidance can cover a full range of accessibility features, such as information facilities or facilities in the surrounding area of stopping places that support access. Highlighting specific types of facility would risk unhelpfully reducing flexibility or, potentially, conferring priority on the provision of one type of facility.
On facilities that provide access to the nearest stopping place on any route, some bus stops, particularly those in rural areas, are located very far apart, on dual carriageways or in places with one-way traffic systems. If the hon. Lady’s intention is to capture all facilities between stops, that is outside the scope of the guidance. The amendments would also pre-empt proper and full consultation with disabled stakeholders to determine what may be most appropriate. For the reasons I have set out, amendments 29 to 31 are unnecessary, and I ask that they not be moved.
I turn to the three amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Amendment 65 deals with service information at stopping places—in particular, real-time arrival information. I have explained that statutory guidance can cover the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and the facilities in the vicinity. I have also covered the broad definition of “facilities”, which will enable guidance to be given on a range of accessibility features and nearby features; facilities providing service and real-time information would fall within the existing definition in subsection (7). I am concerned that the amendment would give the impression that one feature or facility has priority over the others covered in the guidance. The amendment would also pre-empt consultation with stakeholders, including on what disabled passengers themselves consider a priority.
Amendment 60 seeks to strengthen the duty on authorities in subsection (6). It would require them to
“take reasonable steps to implement”
guidance, in place of the current requirement to “have regard to” it. The amendment was also tabled in the other place. Although the Government did not accept it, we listened carefully to the concerns raised and tabled Government amendments to strengthen the package of accessibility measures in the Bill. They include clause 21, which will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan.
However, I reiterate the points made in the other place. The purpose of statutory guidance under clause 30 is to support authorities to provide consistent, safe and accessible road infrastructure suited to the needs of their area. It is not intended to set a single rigid standard for bus stations and stops that is applicable to all circumstances. Allowing authorities to consider the guidance and its application in relation to different stopping places will allow them space to assess other relevant factors in their decision making. A more onerous requirement would not provide that flexibility.
Simon Lightwood
That is precisely why Active Travel England is doing this work—so that we can identify a design standard in order to ensure that our transport systems are accessible for everybody.
The new clause would also, in effect, ban floating bus stops by requiring all buses to pull into the kerb, regardless of local cycling needs. That would not be appropriate, because we must continue to ensure that cyclists are also able to travel safely. I have spoken at length about the action that my Department is taking, the research of Active Travel England, and the funding available to support local authorities. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat those points, but for those reasons I ask hon. Members not to press the new clause to a Division.
New clause 47 tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham has similarities to new clauses 12 and 40. Beyond the points that I have made about practicality and necessity, the new clause raises various practical issues. For one, local authorities with works under way would be unable to complete them. Unfinished works on pavements and roads may put pedestrians at risk, and unfulfilled contracts may impose costs on local authorities. In addition, the term “inclusive-by-design”, which is used in the new clause, is not a legally recognised term. It is unclear what design principles would apply to that requirement, which may create confusion for local authorities. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for the Minister’s considered response to all the amendments. I spoke in favour of a number of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is not a member of the Committee. The mathematics of the Committee are pretty obvious, so I will treat the majority of them as probing amendments. Some of them have done their work, and I hope that those that the Minister batted away will be quietly reconsidered when he is back in the comfort of his ministerial office. I consider amendment 40 to be one such probing amendment, so I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if—
(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and
(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.
(6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 33, page 35, line 33, at end insert—
“29AA Application of section 29A duty: services in Wales
(1) Section 29A (duty to check barring information) applies in relation to a school service that takes up or sets down passengers at one or more points in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.
(2) But the regulations may not provide for that section to apply in relation to—
(a) a service for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares—
(i) that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(ii) to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) a service that is provided under arrangements made by a body to which the duty in section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 applies (duty of local authorities and governing bodies to have regard to guidance given by Welsh Ministers).”
This amendment provides for the duty to check the criminal record certificates of drivers of school bus services which have stops in Wales not to apply until switched on by regulations, and excludes that duty entirely for services for which the Welsh Ministers, Welsh local authorities or governing bodies of schools in Wales are responsible.
Simon Lightwood
The drafting of the amendment looks complex, but its outcome is quite simple. It removes Welsh services where it is considered that the Welsh Government can achieve a similar outcome to clause 33. The clause closes a loophole whereby some drivers of school services are not required to have a criminal record check, including checking the children’s barred list. Although this matter is reserved, the Welsh Government have agreed to implement measures through the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill currently going through the Senedd that will lead to a similar outcome.
The Welsh Government have agreed that services operating under a local bus service contract or permit, which will be established through the Bus Services (Wales) Bill, will require operators to ensure that the appropriate criminal record checks are done for qualifying drivers of school services. They have also agreed that local authorities and governing bodies of schools in Wales must have regard to the Wales learner travel guidance under section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008, which can include guidance about criminal record checking. The Welsh Government have advised that they will update the guidance so that drivers of services provided by those bodies will be subject to the same checks required by clause 33. Ultimately, even though the amendment removes Wales from the Bill, we are clear that drivers of all closed school services will require a criminal record check.
Clause 33 seeks to mandate bus operators to carry out enhanced criminal record certificate and children’s barred list checks for drivers of closed school services, or to check the update information in relation to a previous enhanced criminal record certificate every three years, where the driver undertakes such services frequently or on more than three days over a 30-day period. When I refer to a “closed school service”, this is a service that is not open to the public. It is not a public service that stops at or near a school; it is used solely to transport schoolchildren to school and home again.
Under current legislation, when a public service vehicle operator is contracted by a school or local authority to provide closed school bus services, there is statutory guidance that advises local authorities and schools to ensure that a safeguarding check has been carried out at an appropriate level for each driver. For these drivers, it is expected that each one will have an enhanced criminal record certificate, which includes a check on whether the driver is on the children’s barred list.
However, the Government have been made aware that other closed school bus services are currently operating independently, not contracted or operated by schools or local authorities. In these cases, there is no explicit requirement for drivers to have an enhanced criminal record certificate, including a children’s barred list check. Clause 33 aims to close that loophole so that contracted school services are not being held to a higher standard than commercial school services, and that children are safe on all closed school bus services, regardless of whether they are contracted or commercial.
By requiring operators to carry out checks of the children’s barred list, the operator will know whether the driver is barred from working with children. The clause will mean that in addition to the driver committing an offence by driving children while being barred, the operator will also commit an offence if they permit the driver to drive on their service. Currently, operators are not mandated to carry out checks on their drivers and so can rely on their having no knowledge that the driver is barred as a defence. The clause changes that.
Jerome Mayhew
I will not rehearse the rationale behind the need for the proposed new sections in clause 33; the Minister has set that out pretty clearly. However, there is one issue that I seek clarification on from him or his officials.
The clause makes it an offence for an operator to permit a driver to drive a closed school service if the operator either knows or has reason to believe that the driver is barred from undertaking regulated activity relating to children. So far, so good. That is an offence and it comes under the criminal justice system.
The clause also requires the operator to check the enhanced criminal record certificates at least every three years, and it sets out how that can be achieved, but it is silent as to whether the failure to do so is an offence. I have a question for the Minister: if an operator fails to comply with the duty to check every three years, what are the practical consequences? Is that failure an offence? I stand to be corrected on that; I may have misread the clause when I read it some time ago. If it is not an offence, how does he intend proper enforcement to be undertaken, because without robust enforcement and information on the consequences of failure to comply with the clause, the safeguarding duty risks being diminished?
I will not go into the details of Government amendment 76. I fundamentally accept the need for it, because it deals with devolution. It does prompt a question about timescales, however, which the Minister might be able to put my mind at rest about. We want these improvements to be made, because they address the safety of children and the provision of transport for children, which are important. Yet through the devolution process that we all have to respect, we run the risk of a delayed response in devolved areas of the country, because there is currently no guarantee of timescales in the clause.
I understand the constitutional niceties that the Minister has to comply with, but it would be helpful for Committee members, and for Members of the House more widely, to receive some assurance that conversations have at least taken place with the devolved Administrations, so that they are fully aware of the need for this amendment and their own legislative processes are not unduly delayed. If he could reassure me on that point, I would be grateful.
Simon Lightwood
I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him some further details about those points, if that will suffice.
Amendment 76 agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Training about crime and anti-social behaviour
Steff Aquarone
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, after “2003” insert—
“(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).”
This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.
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.
Simon Lightwood
In the spirit of the Government’s objective to reduce violence against women and girls, I think it would be sensible to make reference to that within the guidance.