Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Simon Lightwood ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2025 View all Bus Services Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 July 2025 - (1 Jul 2025)
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to make my first speech in Committee with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, particularly on a matter as important to the residents of towns and villages in Cannock Chase, which I represent, as socially necessary local services.
When I first read the Bill, clause 14 was one of the measures that I was most delighted to see, along with the extension of the option of franchising to non-mayoral areas, such as mine in Staffordshire, and the scrapping of the ideological ban on council-owned bus companies, which could be an important part of the picture when restoring routes in areas like mine. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to attend its first sitting, when rural bus services were discussed.
The reality for many rural communities including some of my villages, which face reductions in services or being completely cut off, is that they mourn the loss of bus routes because they are now unable to take the bus to access vital facilities and services. Residents of the village of Slitting Mill, just outside Rugeley, have no bus service at all. When I go door-knocking there, I always hear from residents about the opportunities and freedoms that they have lost as a result. One resident told me, almost wistfully, as if she were speaking of a bygone age, of when she used to be able to catch a direct bus from her little village to the centre of Wolverhampton, where she worked. She told me that she does not blame young people for moving out of the village because of that lack of connectivity, or for not returning if they want to start a family. If someone in Slitting Mill does not have a car, their prospects for employment and training are very limited.
In my home village of Norton Canes, residents in the most deprived part of our community, on and around the Norton East Road, have been cut off for many years because the No. 3 bus skirts around the bottom of the road, and the No. 60 around the top. Although the walk of 10-ish minutes is no bother for residents without mobility issues, many of the residents who made best use of the services that went down Norton East Road are older. Many have told me that they do not even bother to catch the bus now. That is just one example of how shrinking services are exacerbating the decline of ridership.
Many residents use the bus to get to their GP appointments, and to scans, tests and secondary care services at Cannock Chase hospital. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have heard from constituents who often have to spend huge chunks of their income on taxis—accessible taxis are like hen’s teeth in my neck of the woods—or have to rely on relatives to drive them. Such relatives are hard to come by during working hours, but that is when most health services are open. Had clause 14 been in place when the withdrawal of services from Norton East Road was proposed, we would have had some back-up in opposing that on the grounds of its impact.
I am sure that we have all heard accounts of children and young people not being able to get to school or enjoy social time with their friends because of a lack of bus services, especially in rural and suburban areas. That restricts the horizons of the next generation. Such matters should be, but often are not, taken into account when proposals are made or services are slated for withdrawal.
Those three examples from my constituency show what the Bill means to communities such as mine, which have been let down by the broken bus system for far too long. Buses should work for people and communities, first and foremost. Clause 14 puts that aspiration at the heart of the Bill; I hope it will stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank hon. Members for their further comments on socially necessary local services. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke at the last sitting about devolution and local decision making. Of course I support the principle of good decision making at the local level, and that is what the Bill is seeking to achieve by empowering local leaders.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked how local transport authorities’ decisions on socially necessary local services could be challenged. My Department included clause 14 to deliver greater protection for socially necessary local services and transparency for passengers. Members of the Committee have remarked that the definition given in the clause provides scope to reflect local passenger needs and the specific circumstances of different local areas. It will be for an enhanced partnership to make decisions based on those needs. Mandating an arbitrary level of service takes power away from communities and local leaders and could harm the overall long-term financial sustainability of local bus services.
Local transport authorities will need to vary their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to include a list of socially necessary local services. They must comply with the requirements of their EP schemes to avoid the risk of legal action, such as a judicial review, for not properly implementing the measure. If someone did wish to challenge a decision taken by a local authority, judicial review would be the most appropriate route. Guidance will be published in due course as part of the Government’s enhanced partnership review.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked specifically about proposed new subsection (9A), inserted by the Bill into section 138C of the Transport Act 2000. This is necessary, as it requires an enhanced partnership to set out a process that would be followed if an operator proposed to cancel a socially necessary bus service, or vary one in a way that was likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access the goods, services, opportunities or activities mentioned in the clause.
The hon. Member mentioned the £2 fare cap. The previous Government funded this fare cap until the end of 2024, with some fares likely to revert to more than £10 on the most expensive routes unless a new scheme was introduced to replace it.
Simon Lightwood
I will make some progress, but I can probably paraphrase what the hon. Member was going to say: “It was in the manifesto.” Well, you must excuse me, Dame Siobhain, if I do not take the word of the Conservative manifesto; we heard numerous uncosted spending promises from the previous Government, and now that has all seen the light of day, we can see it was not worth the paper it was written on.
The monitoring and evaluation report for the first 10 months of the £2 national fare cap was published in February 2025, and, as I have mentioned already, it was considered to offer low value for money. Maintaining the cap at £2 for the entirety of 2025 would have cost an estimated £444 million, so the £3 bus fare cap represents a £293 million saving. At the spending review, the Government announced an extension of the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027. The ability of local authorities to influence bus fares is tied to the bus operating model that they choose; in areas with enhanced partnerships, fares are set by the bus operators.
Regarding school services, the Government do not expect the recent national insurance increase to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel.
Jerome Mayhew
It is extraordinary to hear the Minister say that, given the entire sector is shouting from the rooftops that it will be an existential crisis for the provision of SEND travel. I simply do not understand what data the Minister or his officials are relying on to support his bold statement that it will not have an impact. If he is going against the reasoned objections of the sector as a whole, he needs to come forward with the data that he is relying on.
Simon Lightwood
I would simply say that it is expected that the private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes in their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.
New clause 37—Variation of enhanced partnership schemes to improve integration of public transport—
“In section 138K of the Transport Act 2000 (variation), at the end of subsection (5) insert ‘or—
“(c) improve integration across modes of public transport.”’”
This new clause would mean that an enhanced partnership scheme could not be varied unless it would improve integration across different modes of public transport.
New clause 50—Consultation of trade unions—
“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section 138F, at the end of subsection 6 (f) insert—
‘(fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,’”.
Simon Lightwood
I will start by addressing clauses 15 to 17.
Clause 15 will broaden the scope and increase the flexibility of measures that may be included in an enhanced partnership scheme, by amending the Transport Act 2000 to replace references to specific routes with broader wording that covers local services in their entirety, thereby expanding the scope from measures that apply to individual routes to those that can apply across all local services in an enhanced partnership area. It means that local transport authorities and bus operators will be able to include in an enhanced partnership scheme measures that are more general in nature, rather than being limited by route. For instance, an enhanced partnership scheme will be able to introduce consistent fares and consistent reliability or punctuality targets across the entire area.
Clause 16 was developed in response to concerns from local transport authorities about their ability to require financial reinvestment in local services under the current statutory arrangements for an enhanced partnership. It will provide local transport authorities with a power to specify requirements in enhanced partnership schemes to create financial reinvestment schemes, which may require operators to reinvest any additional profit received as a result of interventions from local transport authorities, the Government or others.
The measure is intended to help to increase the level of operator commitment to the schemes and encourage operators to reinvest in the bus market. It will also help to ensure a greater return on central Government investment through the reinvestment of some operational savings back into the local bus market. Following the enhanced partnership review, which is currently under way, the Department will update guidance to assist local transport authorities and operators in understanding how the power can be used.
Most enhanced partnerships have developed a bespoke variation process through which they can make changes to a scheme, rather than relying on the variation process in the 2000 Act. However, there may be circumstances in which the bespoke mechanism does not work for everyone. Clause 17 provides that, in very limited circumstances, local transport authorities can make changes to their scheme by using the statutory variation provisions instead of the bespoke variation mechanism in the enhanced partnership scheme.
The purpose of the measure is to allow the local transport authority to make an application to the Secretary of State if an operator is acting unreasonably and has objected to a proposed variation that would have been made under an existing bespoke variation mechanism in an EP scheme. If, on application by the local transport authority, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the variation cannot be made because of the unreasonable or obstructive behaviour of one or more operators, or that the variation would benefit the people using the services, the Secretary of State can direct the local transport authority to follow the statutory variation process instead.
Additionally, the clause provides that a variation may be made using the statutory process if it is one that the local transport authority is required to make in relation to socially necessary local services. The measure is designed to provide some protection to local transport authorities to deal with deadlocks in partnership negotiations and to enable changes to local services that are in the best interest of the people who use them.
New clause 37, which was tabled by the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Wimbledon, would broaden the reasons for varying enhanced partnership schemes under Section 138K of the Transport Act 2000. However, existing legislation allows for enhanced partnership schemes to be varied if that brings benefits to the people who use local services in the whole or any part of the area to which the scheme relates. The legislation thereby already covers the improved integration of different modes of transport, as this will have benefits for the people who use local services.
Under the 2000 Act there is also an existing duty on local transport authorities to develop and implement policies that promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport in their area. As the Committee may be aware, the Government are developing an integrated national transport strategy to set a long-term vision for transport, which will help to inform how transport is designed, built and operated, with passengers right at the centre. I hope that the reasons I have outlined, alongside the existing duties of local transport authorities, have convinced the hon. Members that the new clause is not necessary. On that basis, I ask that it be withdrawn.
I appreciate why my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) tabled new clause 50, and the potential benefits of union representation and input when an enhanced partnership scheme or plan is introduced. I direct my hon. Friend to section 138F of the 2000 Act, which the new clause would amend: subsection (6)(h) states that the authority or authorities must consult
“such other persons as the authority or authorities think fit.”
It can therefore be considered that trade unions already come under the interpretation if an authority feels that would make sense. I appreciate that this would be down to the interpretation of each authority, but my Department believes that the decision on who to include, beyond the required stakeholders originally set out, should lie with the enhanced partnership itself.
My hon. Friend may be aware that the Department for Transport will update the enhanced partnership guidance later in the year. In the updated guidance the Department will make recommendations for best practice and will recommend that unions are considered as consultees where a plan or scheme is introduced or updated. It will also be recommended that unions are also considered as attendees for EP forums if appropriate. I therefore do not consider the new clause to be necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.
I thank Committee members for their further comments on the partnerships. Clauses 15, 16 and 17 were introduced in the other place as Government new clauses to strengthen enhanced partnership provisions in order to widen the measures that can be taken by local transport authorities under an enhanced partnership scheme, to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers on measures that will reduce operating costs, and to ensure that variation or revocation will benefit service users.
As I have said, clause 15 broadens the scope and increases the flexibility of EPs and broadens the wording to cover local services in their entirety. This is important to passengers because routes will not be viewed in isolation and local transport authorities will not be limited by route. That can help with the consistency and reliability of services.
The Government have listened to concerns from local transport authorities, and clause 16 provides them with a power to specify requirements in enhanced partnership schemes to create financial reinvestment schemes, which may require operators to reinvest any additional profit as a result of interventions. This is important because it encourages a commitment from operators to reinvest into the bus market, which I know has been a concern. I reiterate that the Department will use analysis from the previously mentioned EP review to update guidance to assist local transport authorities and operators in respect of how the power can be used.
Clause 17 was introduced because it was found that there were times when a bespoke variation mechanism was not working for everyone. The clause provides local transport authorities with very limited circumstances in which they can utilise the statutory variation provisions, instead of the bespoke variation, to make changes to the scheme. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
Committee members will be pleased to hear that I will whip through the clauses quite quickly. Clause 15 amends the Transport Act 2000 to widen the measures that can be taken by a local transport authority under an enhanced partnership scheme so that they can relate to any local services in the area concerned. That is very sensible; we need not trouble the Committee any longer with consideration of that clause.
Clause 16, which deals with the passenger benefit requirement, replaces section 138C(9) of the 2000 Act. It sets out requirements in respect of local services to allow an enhanced partnership scheme to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers in return for public expenditure on facilities or measures that will reduce operating costs. It is a simple and practical balancing act between the commercial operations that pay for themselves and the socially necessary additions that a local transport authority may wish to negotiate as part of the enhanced partnership. It is about the quid pro quo of how those can be funded other than by direct subsidy.
Clause 16(9)(a) provides that local transport authorities may include requirements that relate to operators establishing and operating arrangements that facilitate an EP scheme, and subsection (9)(b) may require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers if they benefit from action taken by the LTA or other public authorities, including the Secretary of State. Again, this is a sensible adoption of a quid pro quo process rather than having route extension with direct subsidy. For the Conservatives, the provisions seem to sensibly widen the options for trade-offs, and we are supportive of them.
Clause 17 inserts into the 2000 Act proposed new section 138(KA), so that where an EP scheme can be varied in accordance with the scheme, a variation can be made under section 138(K) only when the Secretary of State is satisfied of two things: first, that operators have behaved unreasonably or obstructively, and secondly, that the variation or revocation will benefit the users of local services. Again, this is a sensible approach for the Secretary of State to take and we will not object to clause 17.
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 37 would deal with the variation of EP schemes to improve the integration of public transport. It would mean that a variation to an EP could take place only if it had the effect of improving integration across different modes of transport. Although I understand and applaud the rationale behind the drafting of the new clause, one has to be careful of the unintended consequences, because it would prohibit any change to an EP that did not also improve integration across different modes of transport. Many variations to an enhanced partnership might have multiple benefits for passengers, but might not have the benefit of improving integration across different modes of transport. Under a strict reading of the new clause, such improvements would be prohibited. I know that is not the Liberal Democrats’ intention, but as the new clause is worded that would unfortunately be the effect.
I will not make any comments on new clause 50, other than that, unusually, I support the words of the Minister in that the trade unions already come under the wording of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
For the reasons I have outlined, I have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause amends various sections of the Transport Act 2000 to help authorities to better reflect the needs of disabled passengers in the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. It provides that an enhanced partnership scheme can specify requirements to enable disabled people to travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort, including—but not limited to—requirements for the provision of a taxi guarantee scheme.
The clause also requires local transport authorities to consider whether any of the requirements proposed to be included in a new enhanced partnership scheme, or when varying an existing one, will enable disabled people to be able to travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort. It requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people or organisations that represent them before making an enhanced partnership scheme, to ensure that it is as informed as possible by an understanding of the priorities and needs of disabled people.
Jerome Mayhew
We are getting to some of the more interesting parts of the Bill now. The clause amends relevant sections of the Transport Act 2000 on enhanced partnerships and plans to help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled users of local bus services and the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. Subsection (2) inserts proposed new section 138CA into the Transport Act 2000, which provides that:
“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify…requirements about enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services”—
and then we get the good phrase—
“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”,
including for taxi guarantee schemes. It also states:
“Before making an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services”,
and it includes definitions for the purpose of the clause.
Subsection (3) pops proposed new paragraph (ba) into section 138F(6), on consultation. It includes disabled users or prospective users of local services, or organisations representing disabled users, among the list of people or entities that authorities must consult before making an enhanced partnership scheme—so, good progress there.
Subsection (4) inserts proposed new subsections (9) and (10) into section 138K of the Transport Act. It states:
“Before varying an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme as varied will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services…to which the scheme as proposed to be varied relates.”
It is important that the schemes are designed to be widely accessible, including to those with disabilities. Consultation with affected groups in the design of services, as anticipated by subsection (3), is the right approach, and the clause makes clear the importance of designing services with the needs of persons with disabilities in mind. I ask the Minister: what consultation with groups representing persons with disabilities was undertaken prior to the drafting of the Bill? Although I welcome the clause, did the consultation include reference to floating bus stops, as anticipated in clause 30? If so, did the Government take account of that input?
Mr Kohler
The clause, added during scrutiny in the Lords, is a welcome and valuable improvement to the Bill, but we would like to know what consultation was held with disabled groups before it was drafted. Although the changes it makes might seem modest on paper, they have the potential to make a significant difference in improving accessibility across our bus network.
Subsection (2) allows enhanced partnership schemes to specify requirements to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely, and in reasonable comfort on local bus services. The inclusion to allow the specification of a taxi guarantee scheme is also welcome. Although we share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for South West Devon, such a scheme may prove to be vital in ensuring that disabled and other vulnerable users feel comfortable and confident in using the bus. Subsection (3) strengthens the consultation process and ensures that disabled users or organisations representing them are consulted before any EP scheme is made. That is not just good practice; it is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone.
Subsection (4) mirrors that requirement when enhanced partnership schemes are varied, and guarantees that the accessibility is not forgotten as schemes evolve. Authorities must once again consider whether changes enable disabled people to travel independently, safely, and in comfort. These are considered but welcome changes. Accessibility cannot be an afterthought; it must be embedded from the outset and considered at every stage of decision making. These welcome measures help to support that.
Simon Lightwood
I thank hon. Members for their thoughts on the clause. I remind the Committee that the clause was inserted into the Bill because the Government listened intently to concerns in the Lords. The clause will help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled passengers in the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. It will enable the specification of requirements of disabled people to travel independently, safely and in reasonable comfort. That extends to when a local transport authority is varying an enhanced partnership scheme. It will help local transport authorities to understand better the impacts on disabled passengers, and fits into how the Government are reforming transport to make it more inclusive, placing the passenger at the heart of everything we do.
The Government are determined to ensure that, as far as possible, local transport authorities take proper account of the needs of disabled people in using local bus services. The clause will support them in that. I have had many meetings with various groups, including disability groups, and I engage widely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DPTAC—to help and guide us on the Bill. As I said, the clause was a reaction, having listened to concerns in the Lords.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Objections by operators
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 19 will introduce a change to the 28-day operator objection mechanism in relation to EP plans and schemes. Under the Transport Act, local transport authorities are required to provide notice and comply with consultation requirements when they create, vary or revoke an EP plan or scheme. Those arrangements allow an operator of a qualifying local service to object to any proposal to create, vary or revoke an EP scheme at several key stages in the process.
The creation, variation or revocation of an EP scheme cannot proceed if a sufficient number of operators object. Where a sufficient number of operators object, the local transport authority has an opportunity to revise its proposals for reconsideration, and then operators have another opportunity to object.
The mechanism for operators to object is critical to enabling bus operators to have a reasonable say about the content and viability of an individual EP plan or scheme. However, in some cases, local transport authorities have been working with operators in advance of issuing notices, so they have an opportunity to work through any potential objections. The current legislation means that local transport authorities are required to wait up to a month for the objection period to lapse in such circumstances.
Jerome Mayhew
This clause is sensible. The Minister is right that it will streamline the objection process, so that instead of having to wait for a month to see whether anyone has objected, the affected parties will be able to notify the local transport authority in writing that they have no intention of objecting. The timetable will be shortened as a result.
The approach is multi-layered. The measure relates to the preparation, notice and consultation stage, which is section 138F of the Transport Act; the making of plans and schemes, section 138G; the preparation, notice and consultation for variations, section 138L; and the making of variations, section 138M. This is a common-sense approach to preventing unrequired notice periods from delaying the ability of LTAs to take action.
Clause 19(6)(a) will have the effect that where an LTA issues a notice of an intention to revoke an enhanced partnership plan or scheme, it is no longer required to state the date on which the revocation takes effect under the notice. That will allow the LTA to proceed with the revocation where the relevant operators have also indicated that they do not intend to object under the new arrangements. Again, that is sensible streamlining. I applaud the Government on a good tidying-up exercise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Advance notice of requirement to provide information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause will amend provisions in the Transport Act relating to powers of local transport authorities to obtain information about local bus services in connection with any relevant function, including preparing or varying an EP scheme or plan. Existing powers are set out under section 143B of the Act. They mean that operators may be required to provide information requested by local transport authorities within a “reasonable” timeframe specified by the local transport authority and in a specified format.
If it appears to a local transport authority that a bus operator has failed to take all reasonable steps to provide the information, it must inform the traffic commissioner. There have been occasions when operators have not met the timeframes set by local transport authorities.
To support the Government’s intention to strengthen EPs between local transport authorities and bus operators, the clause will amend section 143B to require LTAs to provide a 14 day-notice period before issuing an official request for information under that section. It clarifies that
“When imposing the requirement the authority or authorities must have regard to any representations made by the operator in response to the notice”.
The clause creates a mechanism through which operators can work with local transport authorities before a statutory request for information is issued under section 143B.
Jerome Mayhew
I will be brief. I agree with the explanation given by the Minister. This is a sensible clarification and we have no objections.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Bus network accessibility plans
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—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.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 21 requires local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, describing what provision is made in the authority’s area to enable disabled people to use local services. Those plans will also assess how effectively the provision enables disabled people to use local services
“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”
and describe any further action that the authority plans to take to enable disabled people to travel on local services.
The clause specifies that the bus network accessibility plan must be published within one year of the clause coming into force, and subsequently it specifies that it must be reviewed at least every three years, or sooner if substantial changes are made to the local bus network. As it stands, there are no specific obligations for authorities to obtain an understanding of how well local transport networks in their area work for disabled people, or to highlight publicly their approach to network accessibility.
The clause requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people or organisations representing them, as well as operators of local services within their area, when preparing and reviewing bus network accessibility plans. That will help to ensure that authorities review the accessibility of their bus network regularly, including setting out any changes they propose to make, and that disabled people or the organisations representing them will be given a voice when future accessibility interventions are planned.
New clause 23 tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) 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.”
The Government are clear that we need to improve accessibility of our transport network, and I support the spirit of the new clause, which is designed to incentivise local authorities to take responsibility for driving up accessibility standards in their areas. However, clause 21 already places a requirement on local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, which must include details of the accessibility provision that already exists in their area and an assessment of the extent to which the current provision enables disabled people to travel independently, in safety and reasonable comfort, and must set out future plans to improve accessibility. I therefore believe that the proposed measure is unnecessary and urge the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister did a good job of précising the contents of the clause, so I will not repeat that—I know everybody will breathe a big sigh of relief. However, there are some issues; essentially, clause 21 requires a bus network accessibility plan to be created, but it does not then tell us what to do with it. My questions are around the theme of: “So what?” It is all very well to create a plan that just describes the status quo, but there is no requirement to improve. The current effect is to create cost and bureaucratic process with no outcome for passengers.
This is a real problem with both this legislation and legislation more widely: we think process is very important—because we are policy people—so we focus on all the hoops that organisations need to jump through. Too often, however, we forget to take the next step and understand the practical impact of the process on our constituents, in particular those who use buses. There appears to be no positive benefit from the clause as drafted, other than having another document collecting dust on a shelf somewhere.
What is the point of the requirement? It identifies need and describes what the LTA is planning to do about it, but that is it. It feels a bit like virtue signalling without funding, since improvements are expensive, particularly provisions for those with additional needs and disabilities, and do not add significantly to the fare box. What is the practical application of the clause? It applies a significant additional burden on local transport authorities, which have to jump through the hoops that we are creating, but what is the benefit?
New clause 23 in the name of the Liberal Democrats is a different version of the same thing, but I look forward to the explanation and advocacy of it by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The only difference is that the plan would be annual rather than triennial, which would triple the amount of bureaucracy and cost associated with the provision. The new clause would include proposals to improve bus route accessibility but, again, with no requirement actually to change anything. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Member, but both the clause and the new clause are entirely useless without funding attached. Since no reference to such funding appears anywhere in the Bill, that does beg the question, what is the point of the clause and the new clause?
Simon Lightwood
The driving force here is transparency. It is about having the data and about how local areas ensure, for a whole range of reasons—social, economic and moral—that everyone in their community can access our bus services. I remind Members that the clause 21 was inserted following debate in the other place.
The Government believe that all passengers should be able to travel across the country easily, safely and with dignity. We listened carefully to concerns in the other place and brought forward an amendment to support the Government’s ambition for bus services to become more accessible and inclusive for passengers, and particularly for disabled people.
I will address some of the points raised. First, I have already mentioned that clause 21 places consultation requirements on local transport authorities when developing bus network accessibility plans. It also specifies that these plans must be published within one year of the clause coming into force and reviewed following substantial changes to local bus services, or every three years. For example, if a local transport authority decides to adopt a franchising scheme, my Department would expect it to review the plan.
The clause requires a local authority to describe what action it intends to take to enable persons with disabilities to travel on such services independently and in safety and reasonable comfort—not just to identify the issues. Bus network accessibility plans will enable local authorities to be held to account for appropriately understanding the accessibility of networks and for having a plan to resolve and mitigate those issues.
New clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would place requirements on a wider range of authorities, including those not responsible for bus services. It would be burdensome and duplicative, and likely to result in areas being captured in multiple reports. I confirm that my Department will provide guidance to help local transport authorities to produce proportionate and effective bus network accessibility plans for the benefit of the authority and disabled passengers alike.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Local government bus companies
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 22, page 16, line 31, 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.
Jerome Mayhew
I will speak to amendment 51 in my name and set it in the context of clause 22. Subsection (1) repeals section 22 of the Bus Services Act 2017, which stated that the relevant authorities listed in that section could not
“in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service”
in England. Its repeal allows the wide-scale creation of municipal bus companies. That was in the Labour party manifesto, from memory, so I understand why the Government are doing that, and there was also reference in the King’s Speech to encouraging the expansion of the municipal bus company sector. There are currently eight such companies in England and Wales.
It is clearly the Labour party’s ideological position—we should be clear about it—that the state is better placed to run the commercial operations of bus companies than the private sector. That is not about provision, routes, capacity or approach to additional needs; it is the nuts and bolts of how to run a commercial operation—purchasing or leasing, maintaining, training and operating a bus company. Why would a local authority be better at the things that I have just mentioned than a specialist business, the main operation of which is exactly that?
It is a truism that local authorities are not traditionally renowned for their efficiency, and the same could be said of national Government. It is not impossible for them to do a good job—in previous sittings, I have made positive reference to one or two of the existing municipal bus companies that do—and I will not be ideological in the opposite direction, but running commercial operations of this kind is not a natural strength of local authorities. Cost management, customer relations and maintenance and renewal are all natural strengths of the private sector. From my perspective, therefore, this policy change is a very odd decision.
Clause 22 exposes the political approach of Labour, which is more interested in creating the supplier than supporting the passenger. We have seen that theme in clause after clause throughout the Bill. Subsections (2) to (5) create new requirements that mirror existing subsections (1), (2) and (13) of section 74 of the Transport Act 1985, which disqualify directors of existing public transport companies from being members of the local authority that owns the company.
The new requirements will ensure that directors of the new local authority-owned bus companies formed after the repeal of section 22 of the 2017 Act, which I have already referred to, are subject to the same governance requirements. If we are going to do this, that is a sensible safeguard. Subsection (2) provides that a director of a local government bus company who is paid to act in that capacity or is an employee of the company or of a subsidiary is disqualified from being elected or being a member of a relevant authority that controls the company, so there is a degree of separation.
Subsection (6)(b)(ii) disapplies section 73(3)(b) of the 1985 Act, which relates to money borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with a public transport company’s provision of local services. That removes the restriction on existing LABCos in England accessing private borrowing where the money is borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with providing local bus services. I can see why private businesses that have good control of their costs would do that, but allowing additional public sector borrowing by municipal bus companies as well as the very significant commercial risks associated with franchising is another concerning element of the clause.
This is franchising with knobs on. Not only is the local transport authority taking direct commercial responsibility for the provision of services, which has not happened before, it is then, instead of contracting out those services for a fee—which is what franchising is in the majority of cases—going the extra step and being the other side of the charterparty in operating the company to which it is franchising. That is a doubling up of the commercial risk and bets taken by local authorities, and on top of that, they are being allowed to raise debt as part of the operating company. I fear that there may be some trouble ahead as a result of this approach.
What control will be applied to that debt? Who is responsible for the debt on the failure of a LABCo? That is an important question. Does the debt fall with the LABCo or revert to the local authority as the only shareholder? Will it come back to the local transport authority as the ultimate owner? What provisions are in place to protect the public purse? My concern is that this bit has not been properly thought through.
LABCos have an obvious potential conflict of interest. They are owned by the local transport authority, which is the contracting body for the bus services that they supply. Whether true or not, there is a risk of an impression of impropriety if there is not a proper arm’s length approach, so we have to go the extra mile. If we as a Committee decide to support this clause, it is incumbent on us, where we recognise that people will likely think that there is an overly close relationship, to put the safeguards in place now to prevent any indication that that might be the case.
The local authority, as an emanation of the state, should bend over backwards to ensure fair play in the tender process and to ensure that that process is obviously fair—that justice is not just being done, but being seen to be done. It is equally obvious that any contract award process from the local transport authority to a LABCo must be fair.
Coming on to amendment 51, the Procurement Act 2023 sets out a fair process to ensure that no underhand tender activities are being undertaken by a local authority—that is its rationale. Yet although clause 22 takes steps to ensure that directors are at arm’s length from local transport authorities, and cannot be elected members either, it currently does not prevent an exclusion under the Procurement Act for the award of contracts to new—as opposed to existing—LABCo operators. That is a clear lacuna and mistake in the drafting of the clause.
The clause is trying to take account of the transitional processes where there is an existing LABCo—there are eight that we have discussed previously. As it is currently worded, however, it does not prevent local transport authorities from setting up new municipal bus companies. In fact, Labour is encouraging them to do that—or going further than that, as the King’s Speech expressed the desire that there should be many more. Despite that, the clause allows the exclusion of the provisions in the Procurement Act. That cannot be the Government’s intention, or if it is, the Minister needs to tell the Committee that that is the case. That is my first question: is it the Government’s intention to allow the exclusion of the provisions of the Procurement Act in such circumstances—yes or no? If it is, why should those provisions be excluded?
Amendment 51 in my name would fix that oversight. It would ensure that any contract awarded after a franchising scheme by a franchising authority cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a LABCo that meets the specific criteria that it was already providing services on 17 December 2024. In other words, we accept the transitional need for LABCos that have been operating over the last years, or that are currently operating, to be excluded.
However, any new LABCo should be properly compliant with the Procurement Act 2023. That protects the ability to roll over a transitional contract where the previous provider was a legacy LABCo, and stops the creation of a new loophole that would allow a local transport authority to misuse roll-over clauses to bypass the proper tender process and award to its own bus company.
It cannot be the Government’s intention to allow such an abuse of tendering, so if they will not adopt my amendment, what other effective steps will they take? How will they stand up for fair competition, the taxpayer and the passenger—or is their focus, again, on the supplier?
Simon Lightwood
In my time as a Minister, I have visited a number of municipal bus companies and they have all been absolutely outstanding. That is not just my view; look at the awards they have received in competition with private providers. They are deeply embedded in the local community, and indeed they are seen with some civic pride by the people who effectively own the company—the people of the local area. This is far from being an ideological move by the Labour party; we are removing the ideological ban. We are enabling local areas with the tools that they need to deliver better bus services, whether those services are municipal, through franchising or through enhanced partnership schemes. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.
Jerome Mayhew
I asked the Minister a couple of specific questions about debt management, so I would be grateful if he would answer them before moving on. He will, of course, remember that I asked about the provision of debt, the ability of a LABCo to raise debt, and what happens to that debt if the LABCo should fail. Does it return to the local transport authority, as the ultimate owner? Have the Government thought this through?
Simon Lightwood
As I said, any decisions should be underpinned by a rigorous and prudential approach to financing and resources. All local authorities have a duty to manage public money well. Local authorities cannot take on any borrowing unless it is affordable. That is a statutory requirement, and any local authority-owned bus company should be self-financing, as a minimum. Repealing the ban on establishing new local authority bus companies will give local leaders the freedom and flexibility to scale a bus company to match the needs of their passengers, the aims and ambitions they have for the network, and the available funding.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister was looking at his officials. I do not want to put him on the spot—obviously, I do, but not really—if this is a question to which he does not immediately know the answer. If he will write to me, through his officials, with that answer, or clarify it later in the sitting, I would be grateful.
Simon Lightwood
I will absolutely ensure that the hon. Member receives a full response and gets the reassurances that he seeks.
Amendment 51, moved by the hon. Member, seeks to prevent new LABCos from being able to directly award franchising contracts under what is known as the Teckal exemption in the Procurement Act 2023. Clause 22 will help to support public ownership, where desired, by repealing the ban on establishing new LABCos. Local authorities can consider a range of options for structuring a new bus company. One such option could be the establishment of a new LABCo as a Teckal company.
I understand hon. Members’ concerns about Teckal, and it is important to address them, but to do so we must understand what the exemption is and how it is likely to work in practice. Teckel is part of a much wider landscape of public procurement law, and it has been available to local authorities for the provision of services for some time. Use of the Teckal exemption is a complex undertaking that needs to be followed with care, given that it allows contracts outside the usual controls imposed by the public procurement regime.
Specific and rigorous tests are required to use the Teckal exemption. In addition, the development of any franchising scheme, including for a Teckal LABCo, is subject to checks and balances, as set out in legislation. That includes a thorough assessment of the plan, independent assurance and public consultation. Local authorities must be careful to ensure that companies are within the Teckal parameters if they pursue this option. Any local authority looking at Teckal would need to consider very carefully whether it was appropriate for their local context.
Existing precedent for Teckal LABCos in the UK, although limited, suggests that Teckal is largely used in scenarios where private operators are not interested in operating a service, or where they fail—for example, a Teckal award to an operator of last resort. Teckal is open to all public bodies that own any type of commercial company. Removing it as an option only for new LABCos would be an unusual departure from the status quo for existing procurement legislation. As it stands, there does not appear to be any compelling reason to single out new LABCos as the only type of public company that cannot use Teckal. My officials will publish guidance on LABCos once the Bill has come into force, and that will cover use of the Teckal exemption. We will work very closely with stakeholders when developing and drafting the guidance. That will help to ensure that the exemption is used only where the local transport authority believes it will genuinely improve bus services for local passengers in the area.
I turn now to Government amendment 17, which makes changes to clause 22. It will remove Wales from the scope of subsection (6)(b)(i), which inserts new subsection (5)(c) into section 73 of the Transport Act 1985. The amendment has been tabled to ensure that the public transport companies in Cardiff and Newport are not captured by the clause. Subsection (6)(b)(i) clarifies that there are no geographical restrictions on the operations of existing local authority bus companies in England. The amendment ensures that the subsection will only apply in England. It has been agreed with the Welsh Government and is intended to ensure consistency with the Welsh Government’s policy objectives to promote bus franchising. Clause 22 repeals the ban on the creation of new local authority bus companies, formerly referred to as municipals. The clause also clarifies that there are no geographical restrictions, as I mentioned, and I already touched on it being a local decision.
New clause 39, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, to conduct an assessment of the potential and efficacy of LABCo service provision compared to private sector operators. I feel it is necessary to reiterate a key point about many of the measures in the Bill: it gives local authorities the choice to decide how best to operate local bus services for their communities. It does not mandate that they establish a particular bus operating model. The number and type of LABCos set up will therefore depend on local decision making and the available resources in each context. Local authorities already set out their objectives in bus service improvement plans and wider local transport policies in local transport plans. For those considering establishing a LABCo, the enhanced partnership variance process or franchising scheme assessment provides a robust way to assess the evidence for choosing one operating model over another.
Jerome Mayhew
I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments, valiant though they were. I therefore intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Kohler
We welcome the powers in clause 23, which enables local transport authorities to design and deliver grants directly to bus operators in their areas. It is a clear step in the right direction, placing real tools in the hands of local authorities, which know their communities best and are best placed to shape the services that their residents rely on.
Amendment 56 builds on that principle. It would ensure that, when designing grant schemes, local authorities must consider the size of transport operators. Too often, smaller bus companies, many of them deeply embedded in the communities they serve, struggle to compete on an uneven playing field, especially when it comes to accessing capital for improvements or expansion. Our amendment recognises the vital role that those smaller operators play.
By requiring authorities to take those smaller operators’ circumstances into account and, where appropriate, prioritise them in their grant making, we would help to protect local choice, preserve vital routes and foster healthy competition in the sector. In short, this is a modest but meaningful measure to ensure that smaller operators are not squeezed out, and that communities continue to benefit from diverse, responsive and locally rooted bus services. We therefore support amendment 56 and the clause standing part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The Government recognise the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in driving economic growth. The hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon clearly recognise that, too, given the amendment that they have tabled. This Bill aims to support our economic growth mission by giving local transport authorities greater freedom to decide how best to support their local networks.
Amendment 56 is intended to ensure that local transport authorities that choose to use the new powers to design and pay grants to bus operators consider the needs of small operators when designing those grants. The amendment is not needed, however. Clause 23 would do nothing to restrict local transport authorities from choosing to provide greater support to local small bus operators when designing their own grants, provided that those grants comply with competition and subsidy rules. Local transport authorities are already well placed to understand the needs of their small operators, because most are already part of enhanced partnership arrangements with operators in their areas. It will be for local transport authorities to decide the best way to support their local bus networks as a whole.
Finally, local transport authorities, as public authorities disbursing funding, will need to be mindful of the fact that any grants that they design using the powers under the Bill must comply with any relevant legal requirements, such as subsidy controls that ensure they are not distorting the local or national market. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Wimbledon withdraw the amendment.
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 24, page 20, line 41, after “1985” insert
“, in connection with a local service which has one or more stopping places in England,”.
This amendment limits clause [24](4) to local services which have one or more stopping places in England.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 19.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 28, in clause 25, page 21, line 24, after “equipment,” insert
“including accessibility and the provision of wheelchair spaces,”.
This amendment would add accessibility information to the list of information which is to be provided to users of local bus services.
Clauses 25 and 26 stand part.
Simon Lightwood
Government amendments 18 and 19 will have the effect of removing services operating in Wales from the scope of clause 24(4). Amendment 18 will mean that only services that have stopping places in England will be captured. Amendment 19 will mean that, in relation to a cross-border bus service, no information will be captured about any part of that service operating outside England. The changes are necessary because bus registration is a devolved matter.
Clause 24 will give the Secretary of State new powers in respect of the provision of information on the registration, variation and cancellation of bus services from operators and local transport authorities. It will enable information about local bus services to flow to, and be shared between, the traffic commissioner and the Secretary of State. The traffic commissioner will retain overall responsibility for registering local bus services and the Secretary of State will host and administer the new database, which will bring all the information streams together.
Useful information will be available online, including on who operates the route, where services go and any changes or cancellations to services. By bringing that all online, we will modernise the information provision and make it more transparent for passengers. The technical detail will be set out in regulations made under the new powers in the Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendment 28, which would add
“accessibility and the provision of wheelchair spaces”
as a specific category of data that the Secretary of State may require from bus operators. I agree that open, transparent information about the accessibility specifications of buses should be available to the public, which is why I am pleased to confirm that we were already intending to use the powers in the clause to request the very same information.
Clause 25 works with clause 24 to enhance oversight, promote data-driven decision making and ensure greater transparency of local bus services. It paves the way to require franchising authorities, which do not have to register services with the traffic commissioners, to provide data about their services to the Secretary of State in order to enable the functioning of the aforementioned database. The clause also adds new categories of data that the Secretary of State may collect about local services and the vehicles used to operate them, and will assist with the monitoring and performance of local services and operators.
Clause 26 works in tandem with clauses 24 and 25 to support greater public transparency and thus accountability over local bus services. It will enable the Department to publish historical data down to the operator level by removing some of the existing restrictions on doing so. That will provide passengers with a baseline from which they can assess the performance of current bus services.
Although the existing data provides a good overview of bus services on the whole, having visibility of the business and operations of a specific identifiable operator will ensure that passengers have trust in their local service and confidence that, if they choose to take the bus, it will meet their needs. Clause 26 achieves that by amending the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 to enable the publication of existing operator-level bus data. It states that the Secretary of State must give notice to the industry prior to the publication of such data.
Section 9 of the 1947 Act sets out rules governing the disclosure and publication of information collected under the Act. In particular, it requires the consent of individual undertakings before information identifying them can be published. Disapplying the requirements in section 9 will allow the Department to publish operator-level information collected during the qualifying period, even in cases where written consent cannot reasonably be obtained from a large number of the individual operators concerned. These provisions will enable the timely and transparent publication of operator-level bus data, improving access to information while maintaining appropriate safeguards.
Jerome Mayhew
We have struggled with some clauses in the Bill, but clause 24 is perhaps the most opaque of all the clauses we have been asked to consider. It takes quite a while to go through all the references to work out what the clause actually means, but once that is done, it becomes clear that it is in fact a tidy-up exercise of the requirement for the registration of local services to the traffic commissioner. It maintains equivalent obligations in Wales as apply to England and ensures that the Transport Act 1985 is read through the lens of subsequent data protections.
The clause also retains the existing power of a traffic commissioner to refuse registration of a scheme if they believe that the applicant has not given them such information as they may reasonably require in connection with the application. The manner and type of such communication will be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations—okay.
The one area that I have some concerns about is clause 24(4), which deals with powers conferred on the Secretary of State, as it appears to go much further than the reasons given in the explanatory notes for why subsection (4) is necessary. I will read a short paragraph from the explanatory notes:
“Subsection (4) enables Traffic Commissioners to share existing registration information with the Secretary of State. It also ensures Traffic Commissioners can provide information about ongoing applications for the registration, variation or cancellation of services received before this clause comes into force”.
That is the rationale behind subsection (4), but its wording gives unfettered power to the Secretary of State to use any information, provided for any purpose, without restriction. The subsection states:
“in which case the information is provided without restrictions on its disclosure or use”.
Why do I care about this, and why is it potentially important? It is simply because the information about a scheme could be deeply commercially sensitive. Not every bus company is a LABCo; there are private sector operators in competition with one another. The commissioner can reasonably require full details of how an operation will be undertaken, including its financial elements. The current drafting of subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to disclose that deeply commercially sensitive information. Operators are required to give that information to the traffic commissioner—without it, the commissioner could refuse to grant an application—and the Secretary of State then gets their hands on it and can do whatever they want with it, without restriction on its disclosure or use. I highlight that point to Minister and, through him, to officials. Why should the Secretary of State have such a wide-ranging power? It is not necessary for the purposes of the Bill, as set out in the explanatory notes, and it just seems to have slipped through the gap. Can the Minister please explain why?
Government amendment 18 makes a technical correction and I have no objection to it. I will also skip over Government amendment 19, in the interest of speed, for the benefit of the Government Whip.
Clause 25 amends section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that require franchising authorities to provide data about services, akin to registration information, which we have just talked about. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the collection and publication of additional categories of information.
The intention of clause 25 is to obtain a better understanding of the nature of the services that are currently being provided, who is providing them and how they are doing so, including an understanding of the vehicles used, the number of staff engaged and the cost. I am developing a bit of theme here, but so what? What will the Government do with this information? Why is it useful? In itself, it does not change behaviour. I am not against the collation of the information, so long as it used to good effect, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of how he intends to use it.
Clause 26 deals with information obtained under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, which gives powers to competent authorities to require organisations to provide data, for economic forecasting, in essence—the kind of data that is used by the Government Statistical Service. Section 9 of the 1947 Act prevents the disclosure of such information that identifies an individual undertaking without the prior written consent of the provider of the information.
That is obviously very sensible. The Government want to find out what is happening in the economy to inform their policies, so under the 1947 Act they gave themselves power to require businesses to provide interesting information about their operations. As an aside, I used to run a business, which was asked for information by the Bank of England on a quarterly or perhaps six-monthly basis so that it could get a feeling for what was happening in the economy. It did not want the Westminster bubble or the square mile bubble; it looked at the real, lived experience of businesses. Those businesses provide useful data, which informs interest rate decisions and Government policy. But the last thing a businessman wants is for that information to be sent out into the public realm with their name attached to it. If they said, “Oh, isn’t it terrible? Orders have gone through the floor and we’re planning to lay a whole load of people off,” they would not want that information to be in the public domain; they provide it in confidence.
Simon Lightwood
From what I have heard from Committee members, we share the goal of improving bus services for passengers. These clauses are a direct response to a problem with how information on bus services is captured. I believe that solving it is critical to delivering better bus services.
Before I address the shadow Minister’s specific points, let me say that the Government have made transparency and open data a key priority. As I set out in detail in my Department’s transport data strategy, transparency fosters accountability, drives improvements in public services by informing choice, and stimulates innovation and growth. It is simply unacceptable that a passenger is unable to consult a single source of information to get a full picture of the services available in their local area and beyond. That is a result of different ways that service registration has been delegated across the country and the fact that there are multiple bus data streams, including the Bus Open Data Service. In fact, many bus registration processes are still completed using paper applications. That is simply inefficient.
Bringing multiple sources of information together in one place will really help to improve the situation for passengers. The Bill will not change who must register a bus service; it will provide a power to change from paper to electronic the means by which a service must be registered with the traffic commissioner.
The shadow Minister expressed concerns about the implications of the measures for bus operators. My noble Friend the Rail Minister addressed that in the other place, saying that we will be mindful of the commercial sensitivity concerns, and I reiterate that commitment. Having greater visibility of individual bus operators will increase accountability and help to build passengers’ trust, in turn giving them confidence to take the bus.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendment made: 19, in clause 24, page 20, line 43, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a local service is provided both inside and outside England, subsection (4) does not authorise the provision of information which relates to any part of the service which is provided outside England.”—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment provides that a traffic commissioner may not provide to the Secretary of State information about cross-border services which relates to any part of the service provided outside England.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Powers of inspectors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 67, in clause 28, page 24, line 37, 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.
Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.
Simon Lightwood
The clause supports bus franchising authorities and local transport authorities to deal effectively with fare evasion. That is achieved through amendments to the definition of “inspector” in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, to allow local transport authorities and Transport for London to appoint their own transport safety officers, or transport support and enforcement officers, as inspectors, alongside the existing ability for bus operators to do so. That will support the safety of all passengers and enable local authority officers to have the same powers as those who are employed or authorised by a bus operator, ultimately enabling the local transport authority to prevent fare evasion.
On amendment 67 tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for South Devon, I understand what they are seeking to achieve. The Government are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour, including “headphone dodging” on buses. Clause 28 gives local transport authorities powers to make byelaws on their buses, providing them with scope to tackle a broad range of antisocial behaviours. That could include making byelaws to tackle disruptive forms of behaviour.
The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 set out the behaviour expected of drivers and passengers travelling on buses. They provide powers for drivers, inspectors and conductors, or the police, to remove a person from a vehicle if they
“play or operate any musical instrument or sound reproducing equipment to the annoyance of any person on the vehicle or in a manner which is likely to cause annoyance”.
Breach of the rules carries a possible fine of up to £1,000 on conviction. As such, amendment 67 is not necessary, and I ask that the hon. Member for Wimbledon does not press it to a vote.
Clause 28 enables local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to tackle antisocial behaviour on vehicles, as well as within and at bus-related infrastructure, such as bus stations. The clause was developed to address the current situation, in which there are no specific powers available to local transport authorities to make byelaws to deal with antisocial behaviour on their bus networks.
Waterloo-Reading Line: Class 701 Trains
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is of course a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on raising this issue.
The Department is keen to provide the significant improvements to the passenger experience and capacity that travellers on the South Western Railway network deserve, and we are working with SWR to ensure the continued roll-out of the 701 Arterio trains as soon as possible. The Government are determined to turn this situation around, but we inherited, frankly, an abject mess from the previous train operating company, which, over six years, failed to get the new fleet of trains into service.
SWR entered into the class 701 rolling stock lease contracts with Alstom in 2017, and the new class 701 fleet was due to be delivered between 2019 and 2021. The delays were initially caused by manufacturing and software issues, and later by the operator seeking to agree a safe plan for driver training and platform infrastructure readiness. Prior to transfer to public ownership, the Secretary of State invited FirstGroup and MTR, the then owning groups of SWR, to an urgent meeting to discuss the issues affecting the 701’s introduction, their plans to resolve the issues, the robustness of the roll-out plan and the factors that led to such a material delay in the introduction of the fleet. At the time, officials requested an urgent plan for SWR to resolve the issues, and held SWR to account for those plans to introduce further units as soon as possible.
SWR successfully transferred into public ownership on 25 May under the leadership of the new managing director, Lawrence Bowman. This was a watershed moment in our work to return the railways to the service of passengers. Mr Bowman has written to the hon. Member for Wokingham offering a meeting, and would welcome the opportunity to expand on his emerging plans and to hear the hon. Member’s concerns.
Adam Dance
Will the Minister and the Government agree that it is vital to try to get more electric trains across the south-west? After meeting with the railways, I know they are concerned that they will find it hard to replace the diesel stock with electric stock down in Somerset. Can we urge them to push and look at getting more investment into electric trains?
Simon Lightwood
I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard that comment.
The new managing director of the publicly owned SWR has been tasked with producing a plan to introduce the 701 fleet as quickly as possible. The delays to its introduction have happened under what I would say is a flawed franchising system, not under public ownership. While there have been significant delays as a result of manufacturing and software issues, those long-standing issues are not related to public ownership.
Out of a total of 90 units, 11 are now running daily in passenger service, and the 12th service will be introduced in the week commencing 7 July. A total of 181 drivers have also been trained. Positively, since day one of public ownership, four further 701s have been brought into passenger service. That compares to only one additional unit being introduced in the six months prior to the transfer. Passengers on the Waterloo to Reading line should hope to see class 701s gradually entering service shortly.
The 701 fleet will significantly improve performance by reducing cancellations and short formations. Other benefits of the new fleet include a 50% increased capacity compared with the 455 fleet; accessible toilets—the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) quite rightly referenced accessibility—air conditioning, something that we can all appreciate today; charging points at every seat; real-time information screens; onboard wi-fi and walk-through carriages. Customer feedback on the 701s has been positive, with people welcoming improved on-train information screens—a 21% improved score—and a 22% improved score on cleanliness compared with the current 455 fleet in use.
The Government are pushing ahead with an ambitious programme of transfers into public ownership. Three operators’ services will have transferred by the end of 2025, at which point seven of the 14 operators for which the DFT is responsible will be publicly owned, and we expect all currently franchised services to have transferred by the end of 2027.
This Government’s bold vision for railways will see a unified and simplified rail system that relentlessly focuses on improved services for passengers and freight customers, and better value for money for taxpayers, ending years of fragmentation and waste. The Government will put passengers back at the heart of our railways and introduce new measures to protect their interests. That includes paving the way for a powerful new passenger watchdog, which will give passengers an independent voice and hold train operators to account.
The railways Bill will enable the biggest overhaul of the rail sector in a generation. It will streamline the current fragmented system by establishing Great British Railways—GBR—as a new directing mind for the industry, unifying track and train under a single public body to deliver better services for passengers and customers and, crucially, better value for money for taxpayers.
The Bill will also ensure that the benefits of a streamlined, integrated network are felt right across communities at a local level by establishing a new statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network for devolved Governments and mayors. That means that local communities will be at the heart of decision making, ensuring that the railways work to meet their needs, connecting them to jobs and opportunities across the country.
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham once again for securing this debate, and the hon. Member for Yeovil for attending in support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Simon Lightwood ExcerptsThursday 26th June 2025
(8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2025 View all Bus Services Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 June 2025 - (26 Jun 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following:
Amendment 70, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “or places” and insert—
“, places or Rural Bus Hubs”.
This amendment is linked to NC35 and would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification for a franchise scheme.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 71, in clause 38, page 41, line 23, after “England” insert—
“(e) the impact, or potential impact, the establishment of Rural Bus Hubs on services to villages.”
This amendment would require a review of bus service provision for villages to include an assessment of the impact of rural bus hubs, if already established, or the impact which establishing them may have on villages.
New clause 35—Rural Bus Hubs—
“(1) Local transport authorities may consider the construction of Rural Bus Hubs in rural areas which are, in the authority’s assessment, not sufficiently well-served by buses.
(2) Any Rural Bus Hub must—
(a) be a facility where bus users can park vehicles for the purposes of transferring to a bus service for the remainder of their journey;
(b) be constructed outside of town or and village centres, and be easily accessible by road, cycle or walking routes and other modes of transport;
(c) be on newly-developed sites or on sites which have been repurposed;
(d) contain car parking, electric vehicle charging, cycle parking and other amenities as the franchising authority sees fit, at a level of adequacy determined by the franchising authority.”
This new clause would allow local transport authorities to create rural bus hubs in areas to create a hub-and-spoke model of bus service delivery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. At the conclusion of our sitting on Tuesday, I had begun to address the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, on the role of small and medium-sized enterprises in franchising. I will briefly address the outstanding points.
The Department for Transport understands that there are barriers to SMEs accessing franchise networks. That is why we are listening to the sector about how to ensure that disproportionate paperwork requirements do not hinder SME bids for franchising contracts, and that SMEs are provided with the resources to simplify bidding. My Department has also engaged directly with SME representatives through policy development and the passage of the Bill, including on additions to guidance, such as the Department’s role in facilitating pre-tender engagement between SMEs and franchising authorities.
Already, as part of the consultation on a franchising scheme, an authority must make a statement about how it proposes to facilitate the involvement of SME operators when it conducts the procurement process for franchised services. Moreover, the grant-making powers given to local authorities via the Bill will allow grants to be designed to prioritise SME bus operators, subject to other competition and subsidy controls. I hope that that offers reassurance to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Minimum period before provision of services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause is about mobilisation periods for franchising areas. Existing law states that there must be a period of at least six months between the franchising contracts being made and those services first being delivered on the ground. The clause will enable franchising authorities to set shorter mobilisation periods that work for them and their stakeholders, if they wish. That will speed up the franchising process and ensure that bus passengers do not have to wait for an arbitrary period before experiencing the benefits.
Clause 6 amends references to local services by inserting the words
“which have one or more stopping places”
in certain sections of the Transport Act 2000. That is intended to clarify that the relevant reference to local services includes cross-border services where appropriate. These technical changes support the Bill’s focus on giving franchising authorities more scope to facilitate the provision of cross-border services.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Allin-Khan.
Clause 5 deals with the minimum period before provision of services can be changed. It is not a difficult clause, but it is worth going into some of the subsections in a bit more detail. Subsection (1) omits section 123H(4) of the 2000 Act, which set out that a franchising scheme
“may not specify under subsection (2)(d) or (3)(c) a period of less than six months.”
That meant that at least six months had to expire between the authority making a local service contract and the provision of the local service under that contract.
Clause 5(2) sets out that the transition arrangements in subsection (3) apply where, before the clause comes into force, the franchising authority or authorities have published under section 123E(2) of the 2000 Act a consultation document relating to a scheme or variation of a scheme, but have not yet made the scheme or varied it. Clause 5(3) provides that when making or varying the franchising scheme pursuant to the consultation document, the franchising authority or authorities may specify a minimum period, under sections 123H(2)(d) or 123H(3)(c) of the 2000 Act, that is less than six months.
Although I understand that the Minister and his Department want to smooth out some of the hindrances and streamline the system, and in principle I am supportive of that, the question that begs to be asked is: is there no de minimis period? It may be considered that a six-month period is too long, but what about a one-week period? Is that too short? As drafted, the clause does not provide a de minimis period. What would be the impact on franchise operators if there were an instantaneous change? That is a significant issue that needs to be considered, because we are dealing with operators that are commercial beasts. They have infrastructure, and drivers and staff that have to accommodate changes to these schemes, and yet the Government’s proposed changes would in theory allow there to be no notice at all.
I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Department’s, or the Government’s, thinking on this matter. I accept that six months is itself an arbitrary time limit. Why is it not seven, or five? I accept the rationale, which is that we wish to streamline the provisions in order to make it easier for local transport authorities to undertake these changes and take advantage of some of the opportunities that the Bill provides, but it is important for it to be practical and not to have unintended consequences for bus operators and their commercial activities.
Clause 6 amends sections 123E(4)(a), 123N(2)(a), 123Q(5)(a) and 123R(5)(a) of the 2000 Act. Before I go any further, it is worth reflecting that the reason why the clause is so complicated in its nomenclature is that there have been multiple amendments to the Transport Act. Although I have not researched it, some of that presumably came about through the deliberations of this House when the legislation was drafted, but there have subsequently been multiple alterations.
It begs the question of our approach to legislation in this place when an Act is so often amended. It makes it very difficult, one imagines, for people and organisations—local transport authorities, in particular—to understand what their duties and legal responsibilities are. In many instances, these are not recommendations; they are mandatory requirements, with which failure to comply could lead to judicial review and the kind of lawfare that we as a society often rail against, because we feel that the Government—and by that, I also mean local transport authorities in this instance—cannot get anything done because they are being tripped up by incredibly complex legislation with poor drafting that requires multiple amendments. That is how we get to a “section 123Q(5)(a)”—but that was a slight aside.
Clause 6 further amends the Transport Act by adding to all those subsections the words
“which have one or more stopping places”
after the references to “local services”. In itself, it is a wholly good amendment, and I am not seeking to criticise it. It clarifies that the references to “local services” incorporate any service that has a stopping place in the relevant area, including cross-boundary services operating pursuant to a service permit. However, I wonder whether this clarification was necessary in practice. I would be interested to know whether there have been any instances of local transport authorities being misled by the current drafting—I would be surprised if there had been—or any legal challenge to the current definitions that highlighted a need to clarify an ambiguity. Subject to that clarification from the Minister, I accept that there is nothing wrong with the amendment made by the clause. It is a useful clarification of the Transport Act 2000, to avoid doubt in interpretation, if, in fact, such doubt has ever existed.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. My party has little to say on this group. We are supportive of clauses 5 and 6, although the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made a good point, and we would like to hear the Minister’s views on it.
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham spoke about the removal of minimum mobilisation periods. It is consistent with the aims of the Bill to empower local transport authorities to decide how best to design their bus services, and this will be an issue for franchising authorities to determine. A minimum mobilisation period does not need to be mandated by central Government. This is something that franchising authorities will need to consider, and it is in their interests to make sure that there is a smooth transition to a franchising scheme, if that is the pathway they wish to consider.
Franchising authorities will make their determinations about the duration of mobilisation periods based on numerous factors. The clause provides flexibility for mobilisation to occur in a period shorter than six months, where it is in the interests of stakeholders and passengers. As I have explained, the Government intend to update the franchising guidance following Royal Assent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Criteria for granting service permits
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Simon Lightwood ExcerptsThursday 26th June 2025
(8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2025 View all Bus Services Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 June 2025 - (26 Jun 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 7, page 3, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 48, in clause 7, page 3, line 27, leave out from “there” to end of line 34 and insert—
“is a benefit to persons making journeys on the proposed service.”
Amendment 49, in clause 7, page 3, line 36, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 50, in clause 7, page 3, line 37, leave out from “that” to “will” and insert—
“the proposed service has benefits to the economy of the area to which the scheme relates, or to persons living in that area,”.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond.
The Bill recognises that commercial operators can play a key role in providing commercial services that complement franchising schemes and add value to the overall bus offer for local transport users. That includes cross-boundary services, which provide crucial links between communities. That is why we are legislating to introduce new tests that franchising authorities can use in determining whether to grant service permits. The tests allow authorities to consider a much wider range of benefits that services proposed by commercial operators could provide. The new tests will also allow authorities to tolerate some adverse effects to franchised services if they are outweighed by the benefits. Overall, franchising authorities will have greater scope to grant service permits and harness the additionality of the market in delivering great bus networks.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham would, however, undo many of the improvements we are making, and undermine the service permit regime as well as local transport authorities’ ability to franchise. The amendments would largely remove franchising authorities’ ability to even consider whether a commercial service would have an adverse effect on franchised services, while compelling them to grant service permits in the vast majority of cases. In practice, that would mean that commercial services could compete directly with franchised services, undermining the service finances and goals, and ultimately making franchising unworkable.
In direct response to the hon. Member’s comments, the Bill gives greater scope for authorities to grant these additional services. However, as he acknowledged, it cannot be a free-for-all, which is what the amendment would in effect cause. We understand that in Greater Manchester the vast majority of service permits have been granted under the existing test, and the Bill’s measure will allow franchising authorities even more flexibility to grant service permits with applications from operators or in the interest of passengers and local people.
Addressing the claim of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East that franchising is unattractive to smaller rural local transport authorities, the Bill aims to give local leaders greater flexibility to determine how best to plan and deliver bus services to meet the needs of local transport users. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Consideration has been given to rural modes of franchising, and there are plans to pilot models better suited to rural areas, as I have touched on in the past.
While it is for local transport authorities to decide the best option to manage their services, franchising can be an attractive option in a rural setting. It can be used to support a fully integrated network, combining core franchise routes with commercial services operating under a service permit awarded by the authority, ensuring strong branch connections to main corridors.
Simon Lightwood
I am going to try and make some progress. We have spent a significant amount of time on this.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham once again raised Manchester’s experience with bus franchising. He again quoted figures on the cost of franchising in Manchester. On the first day of the Committee I explained that the figures referred to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network. The adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester has resulted in little additional cost, and evidence to date shows that the model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.
Another franchising model in Jersey encourages both operators and local transport authorities to reinvest into the bus network. The operator keeps fare revenue, and profits that go over a certain set limit are shared between the LTA and the operator. Money is then reinvested by the LTA to improve services. The model adds flexibility and actually supports innovation and draws on the experience of the operator. This model has been tested in other areas through our franchising pilot programme.
The Bill makes some limited changes to the role of traffic commissioners in England, including changing the default position for the registration of services operating under the service permits within a franchised area. The traffic commissioner will also have powers to act against operators who breach the Bill’s mandatory training requirements; we will come on to that later in the Committee’s debates.
The presence of traffic commissioners across the regions and countries of Great Britain means that they are well placed to make decisions about the operation of bus services in different places. The responsibility of traffic commissioners extends beyond buses. To mention just a couple, it includes the licensing of operators of heavy goods vehicles and other service vehicles, and the granting of vocational licences. These responsibilities clearly extend beyond the Bill’s purpose; this Bill is not the place for a wider debate on the role of traffic commissioners.
I reiterate that passengers are at the very centre of this Government’s bus reform agenda. This is about delivering better buses, and people taking the bus more because they offer better connections and are reliable, safe, affordable and integrated into the transport network. Given that, I would ask the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham not to press his amendments.
Government amendments 4 and 5, tabled in my name, are intended to provide clarity on the type of services considered “cross-boundary” under clause 7. This means that any service that has at least one stop in an area with a franchising scheme, and at least one stop outside of the franchised area, will be considered a cross-boundary service. This change is logical, simplifies matters for franchising authorities and operators, and will ensure that the benefits of cross-boundary services to multiple communities can be considered, regardless of where the service starts and ends.
Clause 7 gives local authorities greater flexibility in how they access service permit applications from operators. These permits allow bus operators to run services into, or within, a franchised area on a commercial basis, rather than as a franchised service. The Bill introduces new tests that local authorities can use when deciding whether to approve a service permit. These tests allow them to consider a wider range of factors, such as whether the proposed service would benefit passengers outside the franchised area in the case of cross-boundary services.
It is important that franchising authorities are able to benefit from the opportunities that the commercial sector can provide in franchising areas, including for cross-border services, which are those serving a franchising area and nearby areas. These services are important, as the bus journeys that passengers want to make are not necessarily defined by scheme boundaries. This measure aims to give franchising authorities greater flexibility to provide better overall outcomes for passengers.
Clause 8 reapplies the requirement for bus services operating under a service permit in a franchised area to register their routes and timetables with the traffic commissioner. For cross-boundary services, the section of the route outside the franchised area already needs to be registered. The Bill clarifies that the part inside the franchised area also needs to be registered. This keeps the requirements consistent and easier for bus operators to follow.
In addition to the registration requirements, cross-boundary services and any services operated, under permit, wholly within the franchised area, such as sightseeing tours, must also still comply with the conditions of their service permit. This lets franchising authorities maintain control through existing regulations. However, the Bill also gives franchising authorities the power to exempt certain services from registration inside the franchised area if they would prefer to manage them solely through the service permit. Overall, these changes provide clearer rules for operators and authorities, and greater flexibility for authorities, helping to improve service delivery for passengers.
Clause 9 automatically exempts temporary rail and tram replacement services from the requirement to obtain a service permit when operating within a franchised area. As I am sure Members will understand, these services often need to be introduced quickly and to adapt to changing circumstances, so flexibility is essential. By removing the permit requirement, this measure reduces administrative burdens and saves both operators and franchising authorities the time and costs associated with applying for and issuing permits.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is jolly nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. As I spoke to the amendment before lunch, it falls to me now only to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Simon Lightwood
I will start with amendment 57, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk, which would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central Government funding to support the provision of bus services under franchised schemes. Under the Transport Act 2000, franchising authorities are already required to undertake a rigorous assessment to determine whether bus franchising is feasible, affordable, and deliverable in their area. The franchising assessment and the independent assurance report must then be published alongside the franchising consultation, ensuring transparency regarding the local transport authority’s decision. That comprehensive planning and assurance process significantly reduces the likelihood of needing central Government oversight and intervention, making the amendment unnecessary.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked for an update on my Department’s engagement with relevant stakeholders to identify approved persons. Bodies in the accountancy sector could include the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. To identify who else may qualify as an approved person, the Department intends to hold discussions with other stakeholders, including the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and industry bodies such as the Confederation of Passenger Transport.
My Department will also look at whether those with senior and extensive experience in either the bus sector or local government could provide assurance. Guidance will be provided to franchising authorities, setting out considerations to be taken into account when selecting an independent approved person. The reason why the clause is subject to future regulations is that qualifications will change over time, so it is right to have the flexibility to respond to those changes.
The core principle underpinning the Bill is that decisions should be made at the most appropriate level, specifically by devolving to local transport authorities the power to manage bus services within their area. The amendment would undermine the intention of the Bill. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will withdraw it.
Amendment 59, also tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk, is a probing amendment on whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the approved person role within three months of Royal Assent. The Department intends to introduce secondary legislation defining “approved person” alongside updated bus franchising guidance to facilitate implementation of the new measures. That work cannot be completed within three months of Royal Assent, as it requires thorough engagement with the sector and the progression of a statutory instrument. The existing legislation will remain in force until secondary legislation is delivered; I hope that gives some reassurance. The Bill gives franchising authorities significant flexibility to specify services in ways that are tuned to the needs of local bus users. More detail on how franchising authorities can use that flexibility will be set out in guidance.
The purpose of clause 10 is to broaden the pool of persons able to conduct assurance reports of proposed franchising schemes. Under current legislation, authorities that have developed an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme must obtain an independent assurance report that looks at whether the assessment has been developed with robust financial and economic information and whether the analysis is sufficient. However, the requirement that the report be conducted by an “auditor” has meant that very few people are willing and able to carry out that assurance.
The clause seeks to remove the bottleneck and make the franchising process quicker and less costly and, by enabling expertise to be brought in from the wider industry, increase the quality of the independent review. It will also give a franchising authority more flexibility to decide when to appoint an independent assessor, allowing the assessor to provide informal feedback to the authority much earlier in the assessment process, potentially saving both time and money. The Department intends to set out further qualifications and experience in secondary legislation, which will enable a greater number of professionals to undertake assurance and remove the bottleneck that currently exists.
Clause 11 requires franchising authorities to consult disabled bus users, prospective users or representative organisations before making a franchising scheme.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am really heartened by clause 11 and I welcome it. I am sure the Minister agrees that consulting people who live with disabilities is vital for any future public transport service. Even with the best of intent, one cannot plan accessible services without understanding the lived experience of disabled users and the associated infrastructure.
Simon Lightwood
I completely agree.
The clause is intended to ensure that local transport authorities understand the perspective of disabled people and make franchising schemes that are better informed by the priorities of disabled passengers and take account of their needs more effectively. The clause sits alongside the schedule, which will introduce similar consultation requirements when authorities vary existing franchising schemes.
Government new clause 4 first corrects an issue in the Transport Act 2000. The Act currently states that when preparing a franchising assessment, authorities must consider the local transport plans of any neighbouring Scottish councils, which is unnecessary because Scottish councils do not have local transport plans. The new clause addresses the matter, while maintaining a requirement for franchising authorities to consider bus-related policies adopted by councils in Scotland. It will also require franchising authorities to consider whether a proposed franchising scheme would support the implementation of bus-related policies adopted by neighbouring Scottish transport partnerships, and require franchising authorities to consult Welsh Ministers and Scottish transport partnerships, where appropriate, as part of a consultation on establishing a franchising scheme. Finally, the new clause makes a technical change to define the term “council in Scotland” for the purposes of part 2 of the Transport Act 2000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 7 to 16.
The schedule.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 12, alongside the schedule to the Bill, sets out new, bespoke variation procedures for authorities to follow when they wish to make changes to a franchising scheme. The procedures are clear and simple, to address the difficulties that franchising authorities have faced in interpreting existing legislation. They are also streamlined to enable franchising authorities to make minor changes in a more nimble way, balancing appropriate levels of consultation and transparency. This measure will reduce costs and timescales for franchising authorities in meeting the needs of local bus users.
Government amendments 7 to 10 to the schedule relate to the procedure for varying franchising schemes. Amendments 7 to 9 would have the effect of confirming that the requirements to consider the local transport plans of neighbouring authorities apply only where an authority is required to have such a plan. Scottish authorities are not required to have local transport plans. The amendments, however, clarify that a franchising authority must consider whether expanding the area of their franchising scheme would support the implementation of any other bus-related plans and policies adopted by Scottish councils. Amendment 10 will ensure that franchising authorities consider Scottish transport partnerships’ transport policies when assessing a variation to a franchising scheme, where relevant.
Government amendments 11 to 16 also amend the schedule and will require franchising authorities to consult with Welsh Ministers and Scottish transport partnerships before varying a franchising scheme that would affect them. In the case of Wales, that is in addition to the requirement already in the Bill for Welsh local transport authorities to be consulted, where relevant. It is also appropriate to consult Welsh Ministers in the light of the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill, which is before the Senedd. The amendments future-proof the Bill, given the Welsh Government’s ambitions to franchise their entire bus network.
The schedule sets out the detailed procedures for varying an existing franchising scheme. There are separate procedures for variations to extend the geographical area of a scheme, reduce the area of a scheme, and other types of variation. There are three parts to the schedule, setting out the specifics of the different procedures, depending on whether a variation is expanding or reducing a scheme.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 12 amends the Transport Act 2000 to set out the new process for varying a franchise scheme. In particular, subsection (2)(b) removes the minimum notice period of six months before a variation can come into effect. I will not seek to divide the Committee on this, but what assessment has been undertaken of the impact of a reduced notification period on service providers? What confidence can the Minister give current service providers that the impact will be minimised? What was the original rationale for the six-month delay, and what has changed to remove the need?
Government amendments 7 to 10 are sensible clarifications to ensure that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act applies only where such policies are mandatory. I fully agree with them. Government amendments 11 to 16 tidy up the requirement for consultation with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland, where a proposed franchising scheme under amendments 11 and 12, or a variation of an existing scheme under amendments 13 to 16, would affect the devolved area. Again, that is a sensible clarification that needs no further elaboration.
Simon Lightwood
I have already explained our position.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
Procedure for varying franchising scheme
Amendments made: 7, in the schedule, page 44, line 29, leave out
“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 8 and Amendment 9, ensures that the requirement to consider policies under section 108(1)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 applies only where authorities are required to have such policies.
Amendment 8, in the schedule, page 44, line 30, before “those” insert
“by neighbouring local transport authorities of”.
See the statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 9, in the schedule, page 44, line 31, before “other” insert
“by neighbouring relevant local authorities of”.
See the statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 10, in the schedule, page 45, line 14, at end insert—
“(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consider the policies of a neighbouring Scottish Transport Partnership when assessing a proposed variation of a franchising scheme.
Amendment 11, in the schedule, page 46, line 39, at end insert—
“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.
This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.
Amendment 12, in the schedule, page 47, line 13, at end insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.
This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.
Amendment 13, in the schedule, page 49, line 22, at end insert—
“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”.
This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.
Amendment 14, in the schedule, page 49, line 38, at end insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.
This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme area where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.
Amendment 15, in the schedule, page 51, line 11, at end insert—
“(ai) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation;”.
This amendment requires consultation with the Welsh Ministers before an authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of Wales.
Amendment 16, in the schedule, page 51, line 39, at end insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”.—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment requires consultation with a Scottish Transport Partnership before a franchising authority varies a franchising scheme where the variation would affect any part of the Partnership’s area.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13
Direct award of contracts to incumbent operators
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 13, page 8, line 5, after “operators” insert—
“or local government bus companies”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 35, 36 and 37, would mean that franchising authorities may directly award public services contracts to local government bus companies.
Jerome Mayhew
That was absolutely not clear from the drafting, and I do not feel able to support such opaque drafting. It would not be right to slip in five words and change the whole meaning of the clause. Perhaps it would be better to draft a new clause; I suspect the hon. Lady has time to do so before the end of the Bill’s consideration.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 34 to 37, but the Bill already enables the direct award of franchising contracts to local authority bus companies.
Clause 13 allows for the direct award of franchising contracts to incumbent operators under specific conditions that are set out in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. It would reduce transitional risks for local government authorities and operators when moving to a franchised network. It applies equally to private operators and LABCos. If a LABCo is an incumbent operator, it could absolutely be directly awarded a franchised contract under the clause, as could a private operator, if that was desired by the franchising authority. Clause 13, therefore, already allows franchising authorities to direct awards to LABCos.
Amendment 35 would allow a franchising authority to direct awards to a LABCo that is not an incumbent operator. For good reasons, clause 13 includes a restriction on direct awards to incumbent operators—that is, that any operator providing local services in an area immediately before a franchising scheme is made has been doing so for at least the three months prior. Those reasons include providing a stable and controlled contractual environment for staff and assets during a transition, while providing continuity of services to passengers. It also means that operators are established in, and familiar with, the area. That greater operational knowledge will help to drive more effective long-term procurement of competitive franchise contracts through data collection and sharing.
Those benefits are most likely to be achieved by franchising authorities working in areas with operators that have an established and reliable presence in the network and with whom they have established effective working relationships. I therefore hope the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will withdraw her amendment. Clause 13 already provides most of the powers she seeks, and keeping the incumbent element is an important part of ensuring some of the core benefits of the measure.
Siân Berry
I very much appreciate that my amendments would do different things from clause 13, and I also appreciate that the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023 provide the ability to make a direct award to an internal operator at other times. However, I worry that if we do not make sure that we have that ability in primary legislation—I cannot find it elsewhere in the Bill—there is a risk that private companies will issue legal challenges against direct awards. That is the key thing that I would like the Government to address, potentially in a different clause.
Simon Lightwood
I simply do not feel that that is necessary. The way in which it is set out is clear enough.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East for tabling amendment 72. Clause 13 allows for the direct award of initial franchising contracts to incumbent operators under specific conditions that are set out in the Public Service Obligations in Transport Regulations 2023. In doing so, we aim to reduce transitional risks for local transport authorities and operators when moving to a franchised network.
Clause 13 applies equally to private operators and LABCos. If a LABCo is an incumbent operator, it could be directly awarded a franchised contract under the clause. For good reasons, clause 13 includes a restriction on direct awards to incumbent operators only—that is, that any operator providing local services in an area immediately before a franchising scheme is made has been doing so for at least the three months prior. Those reasons include providing a stable, controlled, contractual environment for the transition of staff, as I have mentioned.
Clause 13 enables franchising authorities to directly award the first franchising contracts to incumbent operators. That is not about shutting out competition; it is about providing a stable, controlled environment to manage the transition to a franchising model. Long-term franchise contracts will be competitively tendered in the usual way.
Franchising authorities may wish to use the direct award measure to help to manage the transfer of staff and assets, gather data to inform future franchise contracts, and provide flexibility to stagger the tendering of competitive franchise contracts at different times. It may also help to support small and medium-sized enterprise operators to gain experience in a franchising model.
Direct award can be used only under specific conditions. For example, direct award contracts have a maximum duration of five years and are only for net cost contracts. In many cases, a shorter duration will be appropriate. Further, only the incumbent can receive a direct award contract for the same or substantially similar services.
Jerome Mayhew
I rise to speak briefly in support of Liberal Democrat amendment 66, which inserts a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of the existing network of local services—through proposed new subsection (4B)(a)—and the requirement to identify any gaps in provision, through proposed new subsection (4B)(b). Proposed new subsection (4B)(c) states that what further action the local transport authority intends to take to address the gaps identified must be set out.
Proposed new subsection (4C) would require the authority to publish both the assessment and the resulting plan after the relevant consultation. It is clearly a good idea to identify the scale of opportunity in the local area as well as what is already available. Such good information would inform good future decisions, so I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment.
Amendment 64, which was also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with a statement every six months with information on socially necessary services across a county and the number of whole routes cancelled, as well as frequency and days of the week. I am not supportive of it. Although I understand the rationale behind the amendment, and it would be interesting to have that information on a regular basis, it would be truly onerous to require the Secretary of State to provide that every six months for services right across the country. As with all things, when we are trying to design effective government, we have to balance benefit and cost. In my respectful view, such a requirement tips into being simply too onerous.
Assessments are, by their nature, local or regional, and I do not understand the practical utility of national reporting when the people who really need to know the information are in the local transport authority that would be providing the information in the first place. I therefore confirm my support for amendment 66 and my opposition to amendment 64.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for tabling a series of amendments to the clause. Amendment 66 would ensure that local transport authorities review their current local bus network to identify any gaps. I agree with hon. Members that it is important for local transport authorities to understand and know their networks. However, the desired effect of the amendment is already covered by the Transport Act 2000, which places a requirement on an authority to meet the needs of people living or working in their area. The local transport plan, which must be prepared by a local transport authority, is an important document that establishes the transport needs of local communities. Indeed, the existing measures in the Bill go even further than the 2000 Act by ensuring that members of the enhanced partnership work together to identify key socially necessary services, and to develop a robust plan in case any changes are proposed to them.
I turn to amendment 64. The Department already publishes large amounts of bus data through both the Bus Open Data Service and bus statistics on gov.uk. The Bill provides for even more data collection under clause 24, which specifically ensures that data collected by the traffic commissioner is shared with the Secretary of State. I therefore believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We already deliver a large amount of information to the public that can help them to understand all services operating in their area—not just socially necessary services—and may include many of the details listed in the amendment.
Mr Kohler
The Liberal Democrats strongly support amendment 39, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. As has been said, it is remarkably similar to, if not the same as, an amendment that we tabled in the House of Lords. It rightly proposes to expand the definition of “socially necessary local service” to include routes that serve healthcare facilities. I recognise the argument that the existing definition already covers them, but we think it is important to explicitly include hospitals, GPs and clinics. Accessing healthcare is a social necessity that should be explicitly recognised in law.
The same is true of education. From conversations with my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) and for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer), to name a few, I know that there are growing concerns about school and college bus routes being cut, leaving students unable to travel independently to their places of learning.
The Government may argue that such services are already included under the definition but, if that is the case, why not make that explicit? Clarifying it in statute would only strengthen the Bill and provide clearer guidance for local authorities.
Simon Lightwood
Amendment 39 is not necessary as this issue has already been addressed during debates on the Bill in the other place. At the time, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail made a statement on the Floor of the House to the effect that the definition of a socially necessary local service encapsulates access to healthcare and schools as “essential goods and services”. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the Government’s intention. That being said, the Government will produce official guidance for local authorities on the issue of socially necessary local services. That guidance will refer to healthcare services and educational institutions as constituting “essential goods and services”.
Amendment 38 would expand the definition of socially necessary local services to include services that have been abolished in the past 15 years. In addressing it, we should consider the practical issues. A service that has been cancelled in the past 15 years may no longer meet the current needs of the community, which change over time. Furthermore, it is possible that previous services may have been folded into newer and more relevant bus routes. For those reasons, the amendment might not yield the expected beneficial outcomes.
That is by no means a prohibition or limitation on the powers of local transport authorities, however. As local transport authorities continually evaluate the needs of their communities, they still retain the power to consider implementing services along former routes, if they believe that doing so would address the needs of their communities. The amendment is therefore not necessary, so I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion not to press it.
Siân Berry
On a point of clarification, clause 14 adds proposed new subsection (15)(b) to section 138A of the Transport Act. The measure is quite specific that a current service is envisaged—it refers to a service “if cancelled”. Amendment 38 would respond to that by making sure that recently cancelled services were covered. Such services might have been taken away because operators anticipated the risk that they would be defined as “socially necessary”. Can the Minister reassure us on that point?
Simon Lightwood
I did not give way, but I appreciate the hon. Member’s additional comments.
Steff Aquarone
Amendment 54 is a really important protection for the safe and necessary services that I described. The shadow Minister’s points perhaps highlight the issue of funding more generally in bus franchising and enhanced partnerships.
The amendment would ensure that steps are taken within six months of identifying a route as socially necessary to ensure that the route actually runs. It would also enable the Government to provide them with support and funding to ensure that the route is available, if the financial burden on the local authority is deemed too great. This is another useful protection for the socially necessary services to ensure that they are not another victim of the funding crisis in local government. I have already made clear how important these services are and why we have to ensure that they are protected.
Looking at the perilous financial position of our county council in Norfolk, I fear that there could come a point where that spectacular fiscal mismanagement means that they cannot afford to keep these services going. In that instance, I do not think that my constituents should be the ones who are punished. The Government should step in to protect their access to all the services and opportunities that a socially necessary service provides.
To conclude, I am pleased that the importance of bus services has been truly recognised in law. I am supportive of the sentiment and much of the drafting of the clause. However, if we accept the importance of these routes, we should not make a half-baked attempt to protect them. We should ensure that all important services are considered when deciding on socially necessary routes, and that there are strong protections for both these services and our communities that they serve.
Simon Lightwood
Amendment 54 seeks to establish a process for local transport authorities to implement a socially necessary service where no operator has decided to do so. However, I believe it is unnecessary, because legislation already exists to address that issue. Under section 63(1) of the Transport Act 1985 and section 9A of the Transport Act 1968, local authorities are already under a duty to secure public passenger transport services that they consider appropriate to meet the requirements of the area, and which would not otherwise be met. Clause 14 also sets out that enhanced partnership schemes must include a requirement to investigate alternatives that can be provided if a socially necessary service is cancelled or varied in such a way as to have a materially adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access necessary goods and services.
The amendment also places an obligation on local authorities to fund specific bus services. However, as I set out before, how local authorities choose to spend their funding is a matter for them. I reflect on previous comments from the Liberal Democrats about being all for devolution, but also liking to stipulate exactly how to do it from the national centre. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on how and where to prioritise their local bus grant. Restricting the range of choices for how an LTA does so would go against the spirit of the Bill, and it is our aim to give more control to local leaders. I have outlined why I believe that the amendment is not needed, and I ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk to withdraw it.
Steff Aquarone
I am a little disappointed that the Minister did not address the shadow Minister’s accusation of passing the financial buck directly to Government in his response. The measure is fundamentally about funding to protect services. If the Minister is relying on sections in previous Acts of Parliament, the interpretation of those sections is not a given without specific reference, which the Bill does not make. I do not share the Minister’s confidence that those obligations will be upheld.
Simon Lightwood
I think it is sad that the hon. Gentleman does not share my confidence in local areas being able to shape their services.
I now turn to amendment 74, which is the final non-Government amendment tabled to clause 14. It seeks to ensure that there is a Government-backed scheme that will guarantee that all socially necessary local services continue to operate. As I am sure I have mentioned before, this Government have reaffirmed our commitment to bus services in the recent spending review by confirming around £900 million each year from 2026-27 to maintain and improve vital bus services. Allocations for that fund will be made through the bus funding formula, which already takes account of local need. The Department is also committed to review the current formula and ensure that it is allocated as fairly as possible. That will take place in due course.
Simon Lightwood
Again, it is local areas that are best placed to use the resources given to them. We do not have a magic money tree. I know that the Liberal Democrats have a supply of those, but unfortunately we do not. The Department is also committed to reviewing the formula and ensuring that the money is allocated as fairly as possible. That will take place in due course. Once the allocations are made, it is then for local transport authorities to prioritise their funding according to the needs of their communities. It is right that they make those decisions and Government should not be asked to intervene. I therefore ask the hon. Members to seek to withdraw this amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 14, page 10, line 27, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
This amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap and of the level of employer’s national insurance contributions.
Simon Lightwood
Subsections (5) and (6) of clause 14 were inserted by non-Government amendments in the Lords. This amendment seeks to remove those subsections. Clause 14(5) places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the implications of ending the £2 national fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services, as proposed in the Bill. Assessing the impact of the withdrawal of the previous fare cap on specific routes would be pointless while the current cap is in place. At the spending review, the Government took the decision to extend that cap to March 2027. Moreover, in February 2025, the Department published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 fare cap. That showed that the cap delivered low value for money. Work is already under way to undertake a review of the £3 bus fare cap. Therefore, a legislative requirement for further evaluative work is duplicative and unnecessary. That subsection is also impractical. Socially necessary local services are a new measure introduced by this Bill; they were, therefore, not in place at the time of the £2 bus fare cap and could not, therefore, have any measurable effect on it. It will also take some time for local transport authorities to identify socially necessary local services.
Clause 14(6) places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of how the level of employee’s national insurance contributions may impact on the provision of socially necessary bus services. That includes an assessment of how transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities are affected. That subsection cuts across existing work of the Department for Education, which has committed to reform the special educational needs and disabilities system. It is also impractical because it is seeking to review three months after Royal Assent. Socially necessary local services are likely to take some time to be identified and agreed, making that assessment premature. I have explained why the Government are seeking to remove both subsections. Having explained why the Government are seeking to remove subsections (5) and (6), I turn to the remainder of clause 14.
Clause 14 introduces requirements in relation to socially necessary local services in areas with enhanced partnerships. Enhanced partnerships are statutory partnerships where local transport authorities and bus operators agree on binding goals to improve bus services in their area. This measure will require local transport authorities to identify the services that they consider socially necessary local services as defined in the Bill, and include them as a list in the enhanced partnership plan. Enhanced partnership schemes will need to specify requirements that apply when the operator of a socially necessary local service proposes to cancel or vary the registration of a service in such a way as is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access essential goods and services, economic opportunities or social activities. Schemes must also require local transport authorities to consider whether any alternative arrangements may be made to mitigate the effects of cancellation or variation.
This will not require additional funding. In practical terms, local transport authorities and bus operators will be incorporating the measure into their established processes. Once the legislation has passed, we will be working with stakeholders to implement the measure. Local transport authorities must vary their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to comply with clause 14 within one year of its coming into force. We will be publishing guidance in due course to help local transport authorities and bus operators with the implementation of the measure.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I support clause 14 and the Government’s proposed measures. Good decisions depend on good information, and in the East Cleveland part of my constituency we have seen far too many decisions made in a black hole of information, which has seen many routes disappear over many years. I now have many villages left in isolation.
It has fallen to local campaigners to step up and make the case that such routes are socially necessary, including through protests, rallies and so on, to try to save them. That is exactly what happened in the case of the Stagecoach 1 and 2 in my constituency, which was created as a result of a sustained campaign. However, that route is not sufficient, because it misses out certain villages and does not go down the high street in Brotton, for example. It also misses out several residents, of which one example is a lady called Norma Templeman who I promised I would mention in the House. She lives in North Skelton and is 87 years old. She said a few months ago:
“You have no idea how isolated this makes us golden oldies feel.”
I would never use such language to refer to her, because I think she is full of energy, even if she is 87. It should not fall to an 87-year-old lady to campaign to save and extend routes like the Stagecoach 1 and 2, or the demand-responsive transport service that she benefits from, which, again, runs out of money every few months, and there has to be a sustained campaign to try to save it. The entire model is inefficient.
I hope that the mayor in our region will seek to use the powers in the Bill and introduce a franchising model. So far, he is resistant to do that, so I ask for some clarity from the Minister on devolution—which we covered in the previous debate—with reference to clause 14. The principles set out in the various pieces of legislation on combined authorities, particularly the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, set out that the role of a combined authority is to act as it says on the tin: to be a combination of the local constituent member councils and their leaders. We have an odd situation in Teesside wherein the councils and their leaders want to have a franchising system but the mayor is resistant to doing so.
In the House on 14 May, I asked a Minister from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government whether the Government accept the principle of subsidiarity, wherein power should sit in the lowest possible tier of government and local communities should have the strongest say. The Minister accepted that principle in his response. He said that devolution should not just be
“a shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to a regional or sub-regional body that is far away from communities and the local authority.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 135WH.]
He said the transfer of power is a good, but it is not the “whole job”, and communities should be able to “take control for themselves”. I hope that that is also the case when it comes to these powers. We should not have a mayor sitting above the community—above even the local authorities, which make up the LTA—and not using the powers and the funding that this Government are giving him to act.
For Norma’s sake, and the many Normas in all my communities and communities across the country, I support the clause and the Bill.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The Government are kick-starting a revolution in bus services across the country, delivering the right services in the right places at the right fare levels to serve local communities. Our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will overhaul bus service operations, protecting vital routes, including in rural and deprived areas, and delivering on our commitment to improve living standards across the country. The Government have confirmed over £1 billion of funding for buses to support and improve services in 2025-26, and we are keeping fares low by maintaining the £3 bus fare cap.
David Williams
It is no surprise that Stoke-on-Trent’s bus service improvement plan is among the best in the country. Thanks to funding from this Labour Government, dozens of new services have been delivered, such as the 36, connecting Kidsgrove to Hanley and Meir, and the 501, helping people get to Wolstanton retail park. Will the Minister join me in recognising the progress that Stoke-on-Trent has made with its bus network, and will he meet me to discuss how we can ensure that progress continues when funding ends next year?
Simon Lightwood
I congratulate Stoke-on-Trent on its success. It is great to hear that local ambitions are being realised through new bus services, lower fares and more accessible buses. Funding has been announced for 2025-26: Stoke-on-Trent city council was awarded £9.8 million, and Staffordshire county council was awarded £11 million. Future allocations for individual local authorities will be confirmed in due course.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I am grateful to the more than 300 residents who took part in my bus survey. Many expressed frustration about Arriva’s decision to cut the X5 service, leaving schoolchildren stranded and people unable to get to work. Fortunately, on this occasion, Red Eagle Buses stepped in, but what happened speaks to the wider issue of bus companies not putting residents’ needs first. Will the Minister join me in asking Buckinghamshire council to take up the new franchising powers in the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill to fix exactly that issue?
Simon Lightwood
The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill puts the power over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders right across England, enabling them to choose the bus model that works best for their areas. The Government will support local transport authorities that decide that the franchising route is the best option for them, delivering improvements to services in their area. I hope that my hon. Friend’s local council will work with her and her constituents to find the best local solution.
Paul Davies
Reliable and accessible local bus services are vital for our communities, connecting people to work, education, healthcare and each other. Yet too often, services are reduced or withdrawn due to low usage, leaving many isolated. To ensure that those services remain viable, we must not only improve them but encourage more people to use them. What steps are the Government taking not only to improve local bus services but to commit to running national or regional campaigns to boost bus usage and protect those essential routes?
Simon Lightwood
We will encourage operators and local authorities to work together to run their own regional campaigns to help boost bus usage. Funding provided to local authorities through the local authority bus grant to improve services could be used for that kind of campaign, if those authorities feel that will help them to meet their bus service improvement plan objectives.
Chris Vince
After decades of failed bus deregulation under the Tories, I am pleased that this Labour Government truly understand the importance of delivering better bus services for millions of people. How will the Government support local leaders to take back control of their bus services, and how will that benefit my constituency of Harlow? I am thinking particularly of rural areas in my constituency, such as Roydon, Nazeing and Hatfield Broad Oak, where residents often talk about how a lack of connectivity causes issues of isolation and a lack of job prospects.
Simon Lightwood
The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will put power over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders. It is intended to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities that rely on them, including in rural areas. Leaders in places such as Harlow will be empowered to deliver reforms to their bus services. We will also be reforming bus funding, giving local leaders more control and more flexibility to deliver their local transport priorities.
Matt Turmaine
I welcome the extension of the £3 fare cap and the new powers enabling local authorities to deliver bus services that local residents need. In my constituency of Watford, the recruitment of bus engineers to keep services running remains a major problem. What are this Labour Government doing to work coherently with the sector to meet that need?
Simon Lightwood
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns about the recruitment of engineers. Although it is, of course, primarily bus operators’ responsibility to ensure that they meet their staffing needs, the Government will continue to support the bus sector to meet its current and future labour requirements. The greater long-term funding certainty that the Government are providing through the spending review confirms that the bus sector is a great one for engineers to build their careers in. It was great to meet some of the rising stars in the Go-Ahead Group just yesterday.
Liz Twist
My constituents in Blaydon and Consett rely heavily on buses. Thankfully, with the support of the North East combined authority and our Mayor Kim McGuinness, my constituents have benefited from subsidised fares as a result of the Government’s continuation of the bus service improvement plan funding, for which I am very grateful. That funding is due to expire in March ’26, but it is crucial that we are able to plan how bus users across the north-east can continue to benefit from those fares. Will the Minister agree to meet me and members of the combined authority to discuss how we can continue to provide value for money for bus users in the north-east?
Simon Lightwood
I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents are benefiting from reduced fares, below the Government’s national £3 bus fare cap. I was pleased that we were able to allocate £23.8 million to the North East combined authority under the leadership of Mayor Kim McGuinness. I am, of course, more than happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As I mentioned to the Minister when he appeared before the Transport Committee, I sent a transport survey to every household in Weald of Kent and received hundreds of comments about our buses. Many are dismayed that villages such as Smarden, Egerton, Frittenden and Pluckley now have no bus service at all, while others observe that small villages are served by massive buses carrying one or two passengers. What further assessment has the Minister made of the role of demand-responsive services in rural areas such as mine?
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Member will be aware that the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill contains powers to ask local transport authorities to identify specific routes that are of social value and need. That will be particularly important when considering rural areas. She will also be aware that the Department has been supporting a number of design-responsive transport schemes, of which we are undertaking review.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
In my constituency, Hammersmith bridge has been closed to vehicles for over six years. During that time, buses have been unable to cross, emergency vehicles have experienced delays and businesses on both sides of the bridge have lost out. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury was recently unable to confirm on the radio whether the structures fund will be put towards the bridge’s repairs, so will the Minister tell me whether we can expect funding for Hammersmith bridge to reopen?
Simon Lightwood
I entirely appreciate the problems that the hon. Member and her constituents have experienced as a result of Hammersmith bridge. Further information on the structures fund will be announced in due course.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Several of my constituents have written to me, concerned that Arriva, which provides local bus services, has cancelled or reduced some of their local routes, such as the 322 in Maple Cross and the 328 in South Oxhey, leaving them with no other transport options aside from costly taxis. What will the Minister do to ensure that everyone has access to public transport, such as those vital bus services?
Simon Lightwood
I will expect the hon. Gentleman to walk through the Lobby with the Government when our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill comes forward. It is exactly designed to take back control of our bus services, which the Conservative party completely and spectacularly failed to do.
The Bill will empower local leaders to choose a model that works best for their area. It includes, as I mentioned, a socially necessary local services measure. Local transport authorities that operate under an enhanced partnership will be required to identify local services that they consider to be socially necessary and put in place requirements that must be followed before such services can be changed or cancelled. They also need to consider the alternative options available to them.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Bus usage and services in rural and semi-rural areas such as Wokingham were particularly hard hit during the pandemic. Will the Minister confirm that councils such as Wokingham will not see funding for local bus services reduced, and will he recognise that rebuilding bus usage in rural areas is a unique challenge that requires extra resources?
Simon Lightwood
I completely understand the challenges, particularly in rural areas. That is why the package of measures in the Bill to give local areas the powers that they need to take control of those buses is so important. I already mentioned socially necessary bus routes. In the Budget, we confirmed £1 billion in support to improve bus services and keep fares affordable, including in rural areas. That funding has been devolved down to local leaders to decide how to spend that in any way they see fit. That will improve bus services in their area, including in rural areas.
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. We have already done work with Active Travel England and Transport for London to identify a design standard. Fundamentally, this Government believe in accessible transport for everyone, and that is exactly our ambition.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
If we are to deliver local bus services, we must deliver buses that are efficient and technologically modern to ensure we can meet those targets. With that in mind, will the Minister assure the House that any action taken by Government to provide buses and local bus services will support bus manufacturing across all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, in particular, Wrightbus in North Antrim?
Simon Lightwood
Absolutely, and that is why I was so proud to chair the first bus manufacturers expert panel in March. That is a year-long project with bus operators, bus manufacturers and mayors across the country to try to forge a smooth pipeline of orders to support our fantastic UK manufacturers.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Government know that bus franchising is commercially risky and very expensive for any local authority. We know that because Transport for London costs taxpayers £650 million a year in subsidy, and Andy Burnham’s Bee Network in Greater Manchester is currently on course for an annual deficit of £226 million, when its business plan was for a forecast profit. What is the point of giving risky franchising powers to every local authority in the country when the Government do not provide the money to support them?
Simon Lightwood
I will not take any lectures from the Conservatives under whose watch we saw 300 million fewer bus miles. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman in Committee and in various exchanges, the full fat franchising—as it is commonly known—in Greater Manchester is only one kind of franchising available to local authorities. Various other methods are available to different areas, including the model adopted in places such as Jersey, which is a partnership between the private operators and the local transport authority so that they can benefit from its skills and knowledge.
I do not recognise—and I have corrected this in Committee—the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes for Greater Manchester, which is performing fantastically, delivering better, more affordable, greener, smoother and reliable services for the people of Manchester.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that answer, and we have four hours of Bill Committee later today to rehearse the arguments yet again. In an earlier answer, the Minister said that he is providing £1 billion of support for buses in this financial year, but surely he knows that £700 million goes to help local authorities navigate the huge administrative burdens that come with franchising and the other schemes that the Government have in mind. That leaves just £255 million for actual bus services across the whole of England. That is only enough to satisfy Andy Burnham for a year, yet we have full fat being pursued by Liverpool and West Midlands. I ask again: where is the money to support those ambitions?
Simon Lightwood
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, places such as Greater Manchester are part of the group of authorities that have received £15.6 billion to spend in their local areas. It is important to recognise the extraordinary performance of buses in Greater Manchester. Once again, we are not telling local areas which model to adopt for buses: it could be franchising or enhanced partnerships, as well as removing the barrier to municipal bus companies.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I understand that this will be a deeply concerning time for workers at Alexander Dennis and their families. It is important that the Government, at all levels, support British manufacturers, which is why I was proud to chair the launch meeting of this Government’s new UK bus manufacturing expert panel on 13 March. The panel aims to explore ways to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus manufacturing. My officials and I have been in close contact with Alexander Dennis, and I remain committed to working with it and relevant Government Departments to find a way forward.
Brian Leishman
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which details my membership of Unite the union.
Once upon a time, Scotland was an industrial powerhouse—we made things—but last week, Alexander Dennis started a 45-day consultation with employees. As it stands, hundreds of jobs will be lost from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). Unite and the GMB have called for both the Scottish Government and the UK Government, the company and the unions to come together to find a solution to save those jobs and Scottish bus manufacturing. There are changes to policy and legislation that could achieve this. My constituents, the Alexander Dennis workers, want and need to know whether the UK Government are willing to do what it takes.
Simon Lightwood
The £15.6 billion for regional transport projects over five years that we announced earlier this month will help to create a pipeline of investment for the zero emission bus market in the UK, while improving local transport for some of our largest regions. As I said, we are in close contact with all relevant parties to consider how we can support Alexander Dennis.
Euan Stainbank
I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses. As the Minister has outlined, this Labour Government will double real-terms transport spending in city regions by the end of this Parliament. While this should be very good news for bus manufacturing in this country, Alexander Dennis—in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman)—is, in a contradictory move, seeking to end more than a century of bus manufacturing in Scotland and put 400 workers in Falkirk out of their jobs. What actions will the Secretary of State and Ministers, in conjunction with Cabinet colleagues and the Scottish Government, take to maintain strategically necessary bus manufacturing in Falkirk?
Simon Lightwood
Labour mayors across the country are putting in orders for UK-manufactured buses, as we support bus travel in our towns and cities. The Scottish people will be asking questions about why the Mayor of Greater Manchester has managed to buy almost four times as many buses from Scotland as the SNP Scottish Government have. My officials and I are in close contact with Ministers and representatives from the Scottish Government, the Department for Business and Trade, the NFI Group—the owner of Alexander Dennis—and Scottish Enterprise to explore avenues of support.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Rail services in Sutton and Cheam are supported by requirements on train operators to plan services and timetables to meet current and future passenger demand, ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. Govia Thameslink Railway and South Western Railway are required to work collaboratively with the Department for Transport to develop future plans, and our Department holds them accountable for delivering for passengers.
Luke Taylor
Earlier this week I was contacted by a long-suffering commuter using Worcester Park station. She wrote:
“As a teacher my days are already demanding, often filled with pressure, high energy, and very little downtime. Sadly, commuting to and from work now feels just as stressful. Trains during peak hours are frequently so overcrowded that they feel unsafe and extremely uncomfortable. What should be a straightforward journey has become an exhausting and frustrating part of my day.”
Now that South Western Railway is under Government control, will the Minister tell my constituents when we can expect to see the service and timetable finally improve for Worcester Park station?
Simon Lightwood
Services returning to public ownership is a watershed moment for our railways and the beginning of our efforts to build Great British Railways, a new publicly owned organisation that runs our trains. We want passengers to see improvements to their services now and, starting with SWR, each operator will have to meet rigorous bespoke performance standards on things such as punctuality, cancellations and passenger experience, so that we can begin to build a world-class public service.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Worcester Park is a station that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and I know well as it is on the boundary of both our constituencies, and I confirm that my constituents face the same issues of overcrowding. SWR acquired 90 high-capacity Arterio trains to address this issue back in 2019, yet six years later only a handful have entered service. The UK taxpayer is currently spending over £5 million every month on leasing the Arterio fleet, and over £0.5 million additionally every month to store the unused trains. Will the Minister confirm how many Arterio trains are now in use, whether the issues delaying roll-out have now been addressed, and whether he thinks that spending millions of pounds every month on unused trains is a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Simon Lightwood
I am aware that another two of those trains are now in operation. The new managing director is aware that this is a challenge and we are already beginning to see progress.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I am sorry to hear about the impact that that is having on Dorothy. As my hon. Friend will know, bus services are a devolved matter in Scotland. In England, we are taking action to put power over buses into the hands of local leaders through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Simon Lightwood
Participants in the bus fare cap are only able to increase bus fares by inflation, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to speak to me outside the Chamber, I would be happy to take that matter up for him.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Devon and Torbay combined county authority will receive just £40 million between 2026 and 2030 in local transport grant funding—less than half the amount awarded to York and North Yorkshire and a fraction of the billions given to the city regions, despite Devon having the longest road network in the country. A large local operator says that just £1 million a year would make a transformational change in Devon, where rural deprivation is well hidden. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issues facing the bus network in Devon and the Government investment that is needed?
Simon Lightwood
Our long-term bus investment will support rural areas to improve local bus services. That is on top of the £712 million we have allocated to local authorities in 2025-26.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I met taxi drivers in Derby, at a meeting organised by the GMB, who are proud of the work they do. They want high standards across the board; what actions is the Minister taking to review taxi licensing, so that everyone can have confidence that the taxi and private hire industry is reliable, sustainable, and safe for passengers and the drivers themselves?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
A new report from the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking warns of the growing public safety risk posed by the widespread use of unsafe, illegally modified bikes, and the fire risk caused by their cheap but powerful batteries bought from online marketplaces. What assessment has the Minister—along with his colleagues in other Departments—made of the risks posed by those fake e-bikes?
Simon Lightwood
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. I am studying the APPG’s report in detail. Illegal e-bikes are clearly dangerous and have no place on our roads. I would be happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
My constituent Paul cycles more than 1,000 km a month all across the country, but he tells me that Cheshire’s roads are among the worst. Poor roads are dangerous for all road users, so does the Minister agree that national guidance for pothole repair policy must properly reflect the needs of cyclists alongside motorists? We must urgently improve road conditions for everyone.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Simon Lightwood ExcerptsTuesday 24th June 2025
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2025 View all Bus Services Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 June 2025 - (24 Jun 2025)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—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.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I think I speak for the majority of Committee members in saying that, as this is my first Bill Committee, I will be guided by your experience and that of the Clerks.
This clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Bill, namely the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the other place. I will take this opportunity to outline the Government’s objectives for buses, which extend well beyond the Bill and explain why the clause is not necessary.
The Government know that for far too long, buses have not been delivering for passengers. Long-term service decline has undermined confidence and contributed to falling patronage. Efforts to buck that trend have not gone far enough. The Government’s vision is for better bus services across the country. We seek to grow passenger numbers and drive opportunity to underserved regions. That means enabling local areas to shape services that connect people to the places where they need to go; that can be counted on as a reliable, affordable, inclusive and better integrated part of the transport network; and that offer bus passengers, in particular women and girls, safety throughout their journeys. Passengers should also be able to access accurate, accessible and timely information about when and where buses will run.
The Bill is an important part of delivering that vision. Local leaders will be given powers to decide how best to design bus services in their areas, whether that is through bus franchising or strengthened enhanced partnerships. The Government are taking steps to ensure that essential services, including those in rural areas, are protected, that safety is improved, and that services are more accessible.
Legislative change alone, however, is not enough. In addition, the Government have published updated franchising guidance. Reforms to how bus services are funded are also being implemented, with the bus service improvement plan and the bus service operators grant funding being combined into a single bus grant. Furthermore, at the spending review, the Government committed £900 million each year to maintain and improve vital bus services; extended the £3 fare cap until March 2027; and announced franchising pilots in York and North Yorkshire, and Cheshire West and Chester.
The clause, therefore, does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. It cannot do so, because our ambitious reform package extends beyond the structural changes that the Bill makes. The clause would also amend the Bill to limit its outcomes to specific aims, which would not take into account the other outcomes that the Government seek to achieve, such as improved safety. I hope that my comments demonstrate to Members the Government’s objectives for buses. For those reasons, the Government will oppose the clause remaining part of the Bill.
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk for tabling new clause 22. I have explained that the Bill is about empowering local leaders across the country to shape better bus services for their communities. Beyond the Bill, the Department for Transport allocated more than £700 million of bus grant funding to local transport authorities in 2025-26. That included additional funding for local transport authorities to boost their capability, so that they can make the most of the opportunities that the Bill gives them. I have already spoken about the announcements at the recent spending review, including the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March ’27. Work is already under way to ensure that the Government provide active support to local transport authorities, such as those interested in franchising.
The Bill is about giving local areas choice, and with that comes trust. That is consistent with what the Government seek to achieve through devolution. My view is that authorities and operators want to promote bus services in their local areas, which will help their communities to thrive and create growth. New clause 22, however, would place additional requirements and reporting burdens on local authorities and local transport authorities. That would lead to additional pressures on authorities already under resource constraints. That is not the Government’s intention. We want authorities to be focused on delivering better buses and, as I said, we want to give them the tools to get on and do precisely that. The new clause has the potential to compel authorities to divert funding from essential services to other activities. For those reasons, the Government cannot support it and I ask that the new clause not be moved.
The Chair
I will give another word of explanation at this point. Ordinarily, I would call the shadow Minister first and then other Members, but because Mr Kohler tabled the new clause, I shall call him first and then the shadow Minister. The first four debates on the selection and grouping list are on clause stand part, which means, literally, that the clause being considered shall stand—remain—part of the Bill. If the clause is amended, the Question will be whether the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
When we come to a group with a lead amendment, as we will in our fifth debate, I have the authority to decide whether to subsequently permit a clause stand part debate. We will debate the amendments in the group, and then I will put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill—but that can be debated. Different Chairmen take different views. My view is that you can have your cake, but you cannot eat it twice. You can have a big debate, which sometimes facilitates a general discussion—that is fine by me—but it almost invariably means that you then do not get a second bite of the cherry with a stand part debate at the end.
If you have any questions, ask. It is a slightly complex and arcane process, but we will get there in the end.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger.
I rise to endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and to draw further attention to an issue with new clause 22: placing duties on local authorities without money coming in. Central Government are very good, and have been for decades, at requiring things of local government, which naturally leads to increased costs on councils to deliver the relevant duties and comply with the law, but councils do not automatically—in fact, very rarely—get money to go towards complying.
The duties set out in the new clause seem obvious. Subsection (1) says:
“It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.”
Subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (g). I will not read them all out, but paragraph (a) says that authorities may consider
“the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options”.
There is also a requirement to report every two years. That looks laudable. One would hope it would lead to better bus services, but it would place a cost burden on local government without money coming to every local authority. That is my concern: placing duties without accompanying finance in all cases. That is why I have difficulty with new clause 22, although I appreciate the intention and sentiment behind it.
Simon Lightwood
As I said in my opening remarks, clause 1 does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. The shadow Minister talked about incentives; I think the incentives for local authorities are really clear, if not the clearest. They know what is best for their local areas. They are driven by the desire to tackle the social and economic challenges within their areas, and I do not agree that the clause would add anything to that.
The shadow Minister’s reading of “quality” to include safety is subjective. I do not think it is as clear as he made out. The franchising guidance states that an LTA must
“explain how far it will deliver improvements”
if it franchises. The guidance also has a chapter to ensure that an LTA articulates how it is putting people at the heart of franchising assessments. Although it is not in the legislation, the guidance is clear about driving improvements.
New clause 22 would create an additional reporting burden on local authorities and local transport authorities, which are already operating under resource constraints, while potentially undermining their devolved powers to determine transport priorities in line with their local transport plans. I am not able to support it.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 14—Franchising statement—
“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 123A, after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) The power in subsection (1) cannot be exercised until the franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, has published a statement, subject to the requirement in subsection (1B), stating—
(a) their objectives in making the franchising scheme, and
(b) their reasons and evidence for believing that the making of such a scheme is the best option for achieving those objectives.
(1B) It is a requirement that a statement in subsection (1A) must be published before the franchising authority complies with the requirements in sections 123B to 123G.’”
This new clause seeks to ensure that before initiating the formal franchising process undersections 123B to 123G of the Transport Act 2000, franchising authorities must first publish a statement outlining their objectives, reasons, and supporting evidence for believing that franchising is the best option to achieve their aims.
New clause 18—Cost of franchising schemes—
“(1) Where a local authority owned bus company is providing franchised bus services, the authority or authorities must publish annually—
(a) The anticipated cost of the franchise for that year
(b) The actual cost of the franchise for that year.
(2) Where an authority (or authorities) have transferred the franchise from a privately owned bus company to a local authority owned bus company, the authority (or authorities) must publish—
(a) the costs incurred by the franchising authority in transferring the service, including the transfer of undertakings (protection of employment costs); and
(b) a breakdown of how those costs are being incurred.
(3) The reports required by subsections (1) and (2) must be published in a format that is easily accessible on the website of the relevant authority or authorities.
(4) Each local authority which runs a bus company delivering franchised bus services must ensure that time is made available for the reports required by subsections (1) and (2) to be debated at a public meeting of the full council.”
This new clause would require transparency about the costs of franchising local authority owned bus services.
New clause 30—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 38—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.”
Simon Lightwood
Clause 2 removes the 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. The measure puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field. It also removes from the process an administrative step that does not provide an effective check on local transport authorities’ plans, given that it occurs before a franchising assessment is produced. I am confident that the measure will make franchising more attractive to local transport authorities by speeding up the overall process.
New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, would require authorities to publish a statement that outlines their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence for deciding whether franchising is the best option to achieve their aims, before they initiate the formal process. The Department for Transport has established franchising guidance; to require local authorities to provide an up-front statement during an exploratory stage would be premature. The franchising scheme assessment also provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise.
Although local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to investigate the right bus model for their area, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The new clause would also make the franchising process slower and undermine the Government’s ambition to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective.
New clause 18 would require local authorities to publish the costs associated with franchised bus services operated by local authority-owned bus companies. Authorities are already subject to statutory requirements to publish detailed information on their spending and financial performance. Under the 2015 local government transparency code, they must regularly publish data on all expenditure over £500, and are required to produce and make publicly available their annual statements of accounts, which are subject to external audit and public scrutiny. The framework ensures a high level of financial transparency and public accountability, making such an additional burden on authorities unnecessary.
New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes that includes specific information on rural and suburban areas and coastal communities. The Department for Transport has published franchising guidance, including on the consideration of neighbouring authorities and on the requirement to consult affected areas. The Department continuously refines the franchising guidance, and plans to undertake comprehensive updates after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The introduction of piecemeal additions without considering the guidance in its entirety would risk reducing its effectiveness.
In addition to the guidance, the Department supports LTAs through the franchising and bus reform pilot. The ambition is to explore alternative models that may suit a local area and help to provide evidence for the decision. Lessons learned, tools, templates and best practice will be shared throughout the pilot programme.
New clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require franchising authorities to establish a forum of stakeholders to address staffing and employment issues in the franchising area. It seeks to increase accountability in areas that choose to adopt franchising. I am sympathetic to the new clause’s aims, but it is not the role of central Government to prescribe how local transport authorities run their services. Franchising guidance that covers driver welfare already exists, giving the franchising authority scope to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services. The new clause is therefore unnecessary and I hope it will be withdrawn.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 2 amends the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the availability of franchising schemes. It is essentially a facilitating clause to allow for one of the really important changes in the Bill, which is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to any local authority other than mayoral combined authorities when deciding whether to embark on a franchising scheme.
Steff Aquarone
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will speak to the clause and to new clause 30 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. We have this Bill Committee, Department for Transport estimates day and the forthcoming Transport Committee report on connecting rural communities—we wait for years for the opportunity to talk about buses, and three come along at once.
I strongly welcome the widening of bus franchising opportunities. Rural transport, in particular, needs a proper rethink, and the greater powers that transport authorities can get hold of as a result of the Bill will, I believe, allow local leaders to do just that. People are already welcome the idea of bus franchising. When we visit London, we do not quibble about whether our red bus is run by Transport UK, Arriva, Stagecoach or another franchise holder; we care that it comes at the time we want and takes us where we want to go.
What is lacking in the Bill, however, is leadership relating to how the powers can be used to make a much needed difference to people in rural areas. We have models of urban bus franchising to follow—London has taken the lead and now Manchester is following—but it has never been attempted in a truly rural area. It would be quite reckless of the Government to leave authorities completely rudderless, because some would be guaranteed to go off the rails, and we all know that residents would pay the price in their passenger experience and council tax bills. I gently say to the Minister that this is not about whether guidance is in the pipeline; it is about how far it goes and how robust it is.
Our new clause 30 is the first of our many new clauses and amendments that seek to provide guardrails, guidance and models for those adopting franchising for the first time, in a situation where there may be little evidence to go on. Given the concerns of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about how franchising might work in rural areas, there could be some good news for him in our new clause, but we need to adjust our thinking about what good bus services look like in such areas. While we do not want a top-down imposition of things on rural, coastal and suburban areas, I and other hon. Members believe it would be good for those areas to be given a greater degree of support from the Government than there currently is in the Bill. I also think that specifically outlining such areas in the Bill will help to ensure greater consideration of the unique characteristics of those parts of the country.
Even if the Department pledges to produce guidance, it could fail to address the challenges faced in rural communities in particular. Coming from a rural area, I know how much Government policy feels like it was written by someone who has rarely stepped foot outside the SW1 postcode. Our coastal communities remain without a top-table representative in Government, and I struggle to see how residents of rural communities can trust that such guidance will be forthcoming unless it is in the Bill, or that it will represent the challenges and needs of their areas.
I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to what we are trying to achieve with new clause 30. I do not expect him to accept it, although he is welcome to do so, but I hope that he outlines the steps that his Department will take to provide comprehensive and structured support to those authorities embarking into uncharted territory with their franchise schemes, beyond what we have heard already.
Simon Lightwood
I will try not to repeat the comments that I have made already, but I will say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, that yes, the Conservative Government did put franchising in place. They also ensured that it was near impossible to achieve, as there were so many barriers. Instead of playing party politics about Manchester, what the Conservatives should be saying to Andy Burnham is, “Thank you for your vision. Despite all the barriers that we placed before you, you still managed to achieve franchising and improve bus services throughout Greater Manchester.” The shadow Minister also talked about the primacy of passengers—but excuse me if I judge the previous Government on their actions, not just their words, because from 2010 to 2024, 300 million fewer miles were travelled on buses.
Jerome Mayhew
There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about which system passengers prefer. The way to really judge that is through ridership—how many people take the buses. It is absolutely right that in Greater Manchester, under the Bee Network, there has been a post-pandemic increase in ridership of about 34%, from memory. However, does the Minister not accept that in Norfolk, where there is an enhanced partnership, ridership has increased by more than 40%, and in Essex, another enhanced partnership area, ridership has increased by more than 50%? The point is that it is not the scheme design that is fundamentally important, but the way in which it is approached. Does the Minister accept that we can have outcomes that are just as good—better outcomes, in fact—through enhanced partnerships as we can through franchising?
Simon Lightwood
What the shadow Minister failed to hear in my previous remarks is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to buses. This could be done through franchising; it could be done through municipal bus companies or local authority-operated bus companies; or it could be done through strengthened enhanced partnerships.
Let me touch on franchising, because the shadow Minister talks about Manchester as the full-fat model. A huge number of alternative franchising arrangements are available, including the Jersey model, which I will go into in a moment. Within franchising assessments, there will be a detailed investigation that is then checked robustly for assurance purposes. Obviously, the process as it stands does not provide an effective check on local transport authority plans, because it happens before a franchising assessment is produced.
On the Secretary of State’s consent, as I have said, it is not effective because it is at the beginning of the franchising process. The assessment must look at the finances of the proposed scheme and then be independently assured. Different areas will also have different circumstances when pursuing franchising; the Secretary of State is not in a position to scrutinise them all.
On funding and LTA support, £1 billion of funding was announced for 2025-26, £700 million of which was for local authorities to improve bus services. That is not for franchising per se; as I said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The Government are opening up options to local transport authorities. No LTA is being forced to franchise. No LTA has been forced to franchise through the Greater Manchester model, in fact. The Government are looking at how best to support LTAs, including through franchising pilots, which will include elements of rural communities as well. Funding is provided through the bus allocations for LTAs to decide how to spend. The franchising pilots will look at alternative models, one of which could be a joint venture model like the one in Jersey.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister is right, of course, that all sorts of different franchising schemes and mechanisms are available, and I am looking forward to his description of the Jersey model. However, does he not recognise and accept that, of the authorities that have expressed a direction of travel so far, both Liverpool and West Midlands have also decided to go down what I have described as the full-fat model? It is not just Manchester being an outlier. It is likely that the Bill will ensure—in fact, it is happening already—that full fat is seen as the direction of travel. Does the Minister not think that that is correct?
Simon Lightwood
I concede that, at the moment, it tends to be city regions that are looking at franchising, which is why we are doing the pilots to ensure that we have the template approach. We will learn the lessons from the various different franchising models that could be used. As we announced at the spending review, York and North Yorkshire is one of the areas that would be ideally suited to demonstrate the effectiveness of franchising in a rural setting. There was a comment about coastal communities, so let me just put this on the record: this South Shields-born, not SW1-postcoded MP knows full well the importance of buses to coastal and rural communities. In fact, I am the son of a bus driver as well. [Interruption.] I have ticked all the boxes—he was not a toolmaker, though.
Let me touch on Manchester. The figures quoted on franchising costs in Manchester refer to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network, supporting economic growth, greater productivity, access to homes and so on. In 2024-25, the cost of operating the franchised bus network was about £151 million, but it would be misleading to compare that with the £226 million in an attempt to argue that costs have inflated year on year. Greater Manchester was only partway through the three-phase transition to franchising during ’24-25, so the cost was accordingly lower. Transport for Greater Manchester was operating only half of the full network for the majority—nine months—of ’24-25. There is very little additional cost resulting from the adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester, and evidence to date shows that this model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.
Bus depots in Greater Manchester were required to ensure a level playing field when procuring franchised operators; otherwise, there would be an inherent advantage, of course, to incumbent operators. Depot acquisition also recognises the importance of investing to bring infrastructure up to modern standards to deliver a quality service and electrification of the fleet.
Turning to local authority bus companies—LABCos or municipal bus companies—there is a level playing field for arm’s length LABCos, which the existing ones in England are, and for private operators. There is existing legislation and regulations around local authority bus companies.
There will be different ways that LTAs can franchise. Rural areas, for example, could look to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network. It is right to recognise the successes that there have been in Jersey. When I visited in April, I saw at first hand the benefits of franchising and what it has delivered for passengers. A small team have successfully introduced franchising in rural areas. Although that offers useful lessons for rural and suburban communities in England, Jersey offers just one model, and there will be particular local transport challenges and opportunities in other places. Far from stipulating the one-size-fits-all Greater Manchester model, we are exploring and working with local transport authorities throughout the country to demonstrate different forms of franchising to make that a success.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Specification of areas
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 70, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “or places” and insert
“, places or Rural Bus Hubs”.
This amendment is linked to NC35 and would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification for a franchise scheme.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 71, in clause 38, page 41, line 23, after “England” insert—
“(e) the impact, or potential impact, the establishment of Rural Bus Hubs on services to villages.”
This amendment would require a review of bus service provision for villages to include an assessment of the impact of rural bus hubs, if already established, or the impact which establishing them may have on villages.
New clause 35—Rural Bus Hubs—
“(1) Local transport authorities may consider the construction of Rural Bus Hubs in rural areas which are, in the authority’s assessment, not sufficiently well-served by buses.
(2) Any Rural Bus Hub must—
(a) be a facility where bus users can park vehicles for the purposes of transferring to a bus service for the remainder of their journey;
(b) be constructed outside of town or and village centres, and be easily accessible by road, cycle or walking routes and other modes of transport;
(c) be on newly-developed sites or on sites which have been repurposed;
(d) contain car parking, electric vehicle charging, cycle parking and other amenities as the franchising authority sees fit, at a level of adequacy determined by the franchising authority.”
This new clause would allow local transport authorities to create rural bus hubs in areas to create a hub-and-spoke model of bus service delivery.
Simon Lightwood
The clause enhances the flexibility of franchising in terms of the areas that can be brought into such a scheme. The Government understand that there is a lack of clarity about whether a franchising scheme may specify more than one non-contiguous area. The clause therefore clarifies that that is permissible, meaning that franchising authorities may be flexible in the areas that they can bring into a franchising scheme. For example, it will allow rural authorities to focus on franchising in individual towns and villages if they so wish.
I thank the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Wimbledon for tabling amendment 70 that would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification of a franchising scheme. The franchised services that a franchising scheme will provide must be specified or formally set out and published. This ensures that the scheme will deliver in a transparent way. The amendment would make it explicit that franchised services could be specified by reference to the rural bus hubs that they might serve. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill already allows franchising authorities to specify places that franchised services will serve. Places can include rural bus hubs.
Alongside clause 3, clause 4 also enhances flexibility for franchising authorities by clarifying how franchised services may be specified in the scheme. This ensures that franchising authorities can more easily make minor changes to franchised services. For example, the clause will give a franchising authority scope to specify services by listing specific places to be served, or by specifying places by the purpose they serve. Purposes could include connecting students to school or employees to work.
The clause allows franchising authorities to combine approaches to specifying services. This will allow adaptability and ensure that franchising authorities can develop franchising schemes that meet the needs of different communities, such as those in urban and rural areas. The clause also has transitional provisions for authorities that have started the process of franchising prior to the Bill becoming law.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I am conscious that we are finishing in three minutes, so I will limit my comments to give the Minister some time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I query the premise that public is better than private. The hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned the ability to provide a better service than existing franchise services, but I want to put on record that we can still get £2 fares in South West Devon. There is not necessarily a concrete need for a franchise; it is not necessarily a magic wand. I will fit my other comments in somewhere else, because I am conscious of time.
Simon Lightwood
I thought the Liberal Democrats were the party of devolution, but they have a strange habit of wanting to tell local areas what to do and how to do it. Rural bus hubs are not yet widespread and the available data on their impact is limited. I have already outlined that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to improving buses. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, so it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their areas.
I have already spoken about the different models for bus franchising, such as the Jersey model. The pilots will explore the models that may suit rural areas over metropolitan areas. In a rural setting, bus franchising could provide the opportunity to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network, ensuring that it links rural areas to key locations and access to onward travel options.
The Government are also supporting local transport authorities to improve the viability and sustainability of demand-responsive transport. That may be the most viable option in rural areas. The Government are gathering insights from the rural mobility fund pilots and are developing best practice guidance—a comprehensive resource for setting up and managing DRT schemes.
Beyond that, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, such as the dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence’s conference on quality bus services in July and our plans for franchising pilots. The Department understands that there are barriers to SMEs accessing franchise networks. That is why we are listening to the sector about ways to ensure that disproportionate paperwork requirements do not hinder SMEs bidding for franchising contracts.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Simon Lightwood ExcerptsMonday 2nd June 2025
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bus Services Act 2025 View all Bus Services Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (1 Apr 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I thank all Members for their participation in today’s lively debate, spanning across the House. I do not intend to take interventions due to time, and out of courtesy to Members who have spoken already, I intend to respond as best as I can. I would like, first of all, to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) a very happy birthday. This Bill was indeed a birthday surprise just for her!
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out why the Government have introduced this important Bill. Buses are the country’s most popular form of public transport, making up to 58% of all public transport trips in England in 2023. They connect people to opportunities and to jobs they would not otherwise be able to take, and they give freedom to those otherwise facing isolation. Yet despite all this, many communities have experienced the familiar pattern of bus services being cut and fares going up, with the deregulation of buses in the 1980s leaving local areas with few options. We understand that local leaders are best placed to make decisions about how to improve bus services in their areas, and through this Bill we are giving them the tools to do so. We have engaged with stakeholders in developing these measures, and implementation will give us a further opportunity to engage on the detail of implementation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) and the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) spoke about franchising. To make decisions effectively, local leaders need all possible options on the table, and that includes bus franchising. Franchising allows local transport authorities to take control of bus services by determining the routes, service specification and performance targets for operators.
Greater Manchester, the first area in England outside of London to franchise, has seen notable successes so far with punctuality and patronage up across the network, but I recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to franchising. Different models, such as the Jersey model, may suit rural areas better. The Government are determined to put power over local services back in the hands of local leaders across England. That is why the Department recently allocated over £700 million of bus grants to local transport authorities in 2025-26.
I want to address the comments made about the cost of franchising for Greater Manchester. According to data from Transport for Greater Manchester, franchising was delivered on time and to the agreed budget of £134.5 million. That included the whole process, including the acquisition of assets like bus depots. Let us be clear: without the changes made in Greater Manchester under franchising, the bus network would be smaller, less attractive to passengers and more expensive to run and use.
A number of hon. Members referred to socially necessary local services and rural services. Transport authorities that provide their services under an enhanced partnership agreement will need to identify socially necessary local services in their area and include them in their enhanced partnership. Local transport authorities will need to consider the alternative options that are available to mitigate the negative impact on bus users, including demand responsive bus services and community transport, which may work better for rural areas. By increasing the level of transparency around decision making on route changes and requiring consideration of alternative arrangements, the impact of any changes to bus networks will be fully assessed.
The issue of rural services is an important one. As I mentioned before, no one-size-fits-all solution exists. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, and it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their area.
The hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Orpington and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) referred to the fare cap. The Secretary of State set out that the Government have confirmed over £1 billion of funding to support and improve bus services in England and to keep fares affordable. We also took the first step towards consolidating bus funding by bringing together funding for bus service improvements and supporting services under one authority bus grant for the first time. My officials will work with stakeholders to develop and implement a new bus grant allocation for future funding. I ultimately want to create a fairer and simpler formula for bus funding that takes into account local needs.
A number of hon. Members raised important points about accessibility and floating bus stops. The Government are committed to safe and accessible bus transport. The matter was debated in great detail in the other place, and the Government fully appreciate the concerns raised about the accessibility of floating bus stops. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and that design features will be incorporated that promote their personal safety. We know more needs to be done to make these installations accessible for all. The Department is working with Active Travel England and Transport for London to provide further guidance and undertake research to address gaps in the evidence base.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) mentioned the innovative zero emission buses being produced here in the UK. This Government are supportive of the efforts and innovation of UK manufacturers, from which about 60% of zero emission bus regional area—ZEBRA—funded buses are typically procured.
In March, I chaired the first UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which brings together industry experts and local leaders to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus manufacturing. Moreover, the Government are supportive of bus repowering as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses. I commit to write to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock on the eligibility of those buses for the MHCLG funding that he mentioned.
This Bill is about choice—choice for local leaders to decide how their bus networks can best serve local people. It is a passenger-first approach. I think a picture paints 1,000 words, and the picture of the Conservatives tells me that they do not really care about buses. The Bill is a critical part of the Government’s bus reform agenda. I thank all those who contributed to today’s debate, which has been wide-ranging and a useful opportunity to discuss the important issues. I look forward to continuing the discussion in Committee—perhaps with a few more Opposition Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 8 July 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to aconclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—( Vicky Foxcroft.)
Question agreed to.
Stockport Railway Station
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(9 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 my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss Stockport railway station. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) for their interventions.
Let me start by talking a little bit about this important train station. Stockport station is a vital transport interchange in south Greater Manchester. Sitting on the west coast main line approach to Manchester Piccadilly, it provides access and connectivity across the country to commuters, leisure travel and freight. On average, 501 passenger and freight trains pass through the station per day. That is 10,000 paying passengers a day, with 5,000 to 6,000 passing through the station.
The industry is working collaboratively to engage with local stakeholders who have concerns and a vision for the station. Network Rail’s engagement with local stakeholders is fundamental to shaping plans for the future of the station, and it will continue to welcome input and to be transparent about timescales and issues as they arise.
The Stockport corridor is critical for a range of express, regional and local passenger services and freight. It supports some very important flows nationally as well as offering a key destination in the interchange hub at Stockport station itself. The route from Stockport into Manchester is very constrained, which means that it is extremely difficult to plan any additional services through it reliably. While other interfacing schemes might increase capacity and capability elsewhere on the network, the constraints at Stockport act as a bottleneck when trying to uplift service frequencies overall. Network Rail and the industry are working through the options to address capability and capacity, working with mayors and transport authorities on what future plans there could be for the Stockport corridor.
Lisa Smart
The Minister is talking about the assessment of various options. We know that the Treasury is looking at reviewing the contents of the Green Book that measures the benefits and disbenefits of any capital spending. Can he say a few words on how we can ensure that the north, particularly the Stockport area, gets its fair share of capital spending in the future to ensure that existing inequality is not baked into the calculations that the Treasury makes?
Simon Lightwood
We obviously want to see growth in every corner of the country, and we are awaiting the spending review outcomes, as is everybody else.
We are aware that our partners will have their own priorities for the future of railways in their areas, and we are open to engaging with them directly on their plans. The core aim of the Stockport station redevelopment scheme is to support future increases in rail patronage and green travel and to drive clean and sustainable economic growth. It will improve the accessibility, attractiveness and useability of Stockport station and reduce town centre severance.
There is an opportunity to leverage a package of works through the Greater Manchester authority’s sustainable transport settlement funding for delivery by March 2027, which would include a refurbishment of platform buildings, with a focus on platforms 1 and 2. Stockport council, Network Rail and Avanti are meeting today to further scope out that work. Avanti West Coast has funds available for the current financial year to undertake works at the station, which will focus on staff facilities that need upgrading and some accessibility enhancements. We will share further information as those plans are developed.
I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for her intervention, and I will touch on Passenger Assist. Avanti has seen a significant increase in passenger assistance over the last 12 months, and it is now reviewing its Passenger Assist process so that it can meet the needs of passengers on that service.
Navendu Mishra
I thank the Minister for making that point. I had a conversation with Avanti recently about the Passenger Assist scheme. The west coast main line network that Avanti services is a major network in this country, and Avanti should welcome the fact that more disabled people want to use its services. I am told by members of staff at the station, which has 3.8 million entries and exits per year, that one member of staff on a part-time basis supports Passenger Assist. I am sure the Minister will agree that that is simply not good enough and that Avanti needs to do a lot better.
Simon Lightwood
I want to see a railway and a transport system across the country that are accessible to everybody. I will take away my hon. Friend’s comments on this individual case and discuss it further with the Rail Minister.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. I am happy to meet with her to discuss the accessibility challenges that she has raised. I also look forward to meeting with Nathaniel Yates, who my hon. Friend quite rightly highlighted for his work on accessibility.
I will talk a little about some of the other major works carried out by Network Rail in and around Stockport. Network Rail is delivering a £20 million project to rebuild the Greek Street bridge, which carries a major road junction over the Manchester spur of the west coast main line in Stockport. Throughout the work, Network Rail has kept the local community informed with regular drop-in events, which have been well attended, and has received no complaints about the work since the closure of the road. The project team has an excellent presence on site, regularly checking in with neighbours, local businesses, schools and colleges in the area to reduce the impact of the works as much as possible.
Navendu Mishra
The Minister is being extremely generous. As I mentioned in my speech, I welcome the £20 million investment in the Greek Street bridge and the £1.1 million investment to clean the viaduct and repair the brickwork. But if we are being honest, the Greek Street bridge and the viaduct are not part of Stockport station. They are of course an essential part of our railway network, but I want to see real investment in Stockport station for passengers and staff members, so I hope Network Rail is watching and takes note of that.
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is quite right, and I hear what he says, but it is important that we point out the wider investment in the rail system there, including the £1.1 million to refurnish the iconic Stockport viaduct, which was built back in 1840.
Let me move on to the issue of step-free access at Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South stations, which I know my hon. Friend is interested in. Since its launch in 2006, the Access for All programme has delivered step-free access at more than 260 stations across Great Britain. Only about half of the stations in Great Britain have step-free access to and between all platforms. However, around 75% of journeys on the GB rail network are through step-free stations, compared with 50% in 2005. I recommend that my hon. Friend and his constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, engage with the local authority and Northern Trains to propose that Brinnington, Heaton Chapel and Reddish South are a priority in any future funding rounds, as none of those stations were nominated for the last round. In the meantime, the Department will continue to seek further opportunities to improve rail accessibility, and if the industry installs, replaces or renews infrastructure at the stations, that will need to comply with current accessibility standards.
On the services provided at Reddish South station, the Department expects operators to match the capacity and frequency of their services to demand, although they must also be operationally sustainable and deliver value for taxpayers. The Rail North partnership, through which the Department and Transport for the North jointly manage the contract with Northern Trains, which serves Reddish South, will assess any business case that is put forward. The analysis must balance the economic and social benefits of any enhancement with the performance of existing services and the financial impact of a taxpayer subsidy.
I turn to the direct service from Stockport to Manchester airport—an issue I know my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport is keen on. The Sheffield-Manchester airport service, which offered direct services between Stockport and the airport, was withdrawn in December 2022 as part of the timetable developed by the Manchester taskforce, which includes the DFT, the train operators, Network Rail, Transport for Greater Manchester and Transport for the North. We see improved connectivity as an important factor in growing the northern and national economies and would hope that new infrastructure would allow direct services from Stockport to the airport, although I must stress that other towns and cities could make a case for their pre-2022 direct connections to be restored as well.
I thank my hon. Friend again for the debate, at which we have discussed a number of important issues affecting rail services in his constituency. He rightly pointed out that I have visited his constituency not once but twice. I hope he does not take it personally that on each occasion it was a sitting day. I will do my utmost to return to Stockport—as long as he can guarantee that the sun is shining.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Subject to final industry planning, East Midlands Railway plans to introduce an all-day direct Nottingham-Cleethorpes service in December, improving connections at Lincoln for journeys to London. The Rail Minister has been looking closely into possible direct trains between London and Cleethorpes, and looks forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend at their upcoming meeting.
Melanie Onn
Local analysis shows that a direct service from Cleethorpes to London could deliver growth of over £30 million a year to our region. As well as LNER, Grand Central has launched an application to operate that service. The project is backed by local businesses, industry and constituents. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that this train definitely leaves the station?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is a huge advocate for her constituency. Any additional services will be dependent on funding from the spending review. The Rail Minister will meet my hon. Friend to discuss the proposals further, following the conclusion of the spending review. The Department continues to review the application from Grand Central to introduce open-access services between London and Cleethorpes, and will provide its views to the regulator in due course. Access to the rail network, however, is ultimately a decision for the regulator.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
As the House will know, I have been raising the prospect of a direct service from Cleethorpes and Grimsby to King’s Cross since 2011. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that he and the Rail Minister will seriously consider the importance of that and actually deliver a service? We do not mind whether it is run by LNER or Grand Central; we just want a direct service to boost the local economy.
Simon Lightwood
As I said, a decision is ultimately a matter for the regulator. Open access can provide benefits such as improved connectivity and choice for passengers, but it can also increase costs to taxpayers and create additional performance pressures on an already constrained network. The Department will always look at applications on a case-by-case basis and feed into the regulator’s decision.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Improving bus connectivity in rural areas is vital for kick-starting growth. Our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill will give local leaders the powers they need for their communities, including in Northumberland, which as part of the North East combined authority was allocated £23 million in 2025-26 to improve services.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
I hope the Tees Valley Mayor is looking at the great work that Labour mayors are already doing across the country to transform public transport in their regions.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
In the ’60s, North West Leicestershire lost its only passenger rail service, the Ivanhoe line. In 2025, my constituents still have no direct access to the rail line. Increasing connectivity of railways is crucial to securing economic growth. Will the Minister share the Department’s plans to improve access to passenger rail for communities with no current access?
Simon Lightwood
I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Airports across the country are participating in the airspace modernisation review. However, there is a clear conflict of interest between environmental imperatives and profit motives. Will the Secretary of State undertake to introduce an independent member on each airspace review panel?
Simon Lightwood
Chiltern Railways faces challenges with ageing trains and is engaged in commercial negotiations to replace its oldest Mark 3 carriages. The Department is collaborating with Chiltern to ensure that the procurement delivers long-term passenger benefits. Separately, the Chiltern Class 168 fleet is undergoing significant refurbishment, including to its interiors, and improvements to reliability.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The 7.58 am train from Sunbury to Shepperton is used by a lot of schoolchildren in my constituency to get to school, but it was cancelled for four days during a recent six-day period, which meant that children were late for school. That appears on their attendance register, which follows them throughout life. The Secretary of State will own South Western Railway by the end of the month. Will she commit to improving the reliability and punctuality of that section of the line?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
At yesterday’s Transport Committee hearing, the Minister for Local Transport outlined the measures that the Government are taking to reverse the 15-year decline in bus services. The measures will protect many at-risk bus routes and may deliver a few more, but as they deliver growth and reduce congestion, do the Government have a wider ambition to ensure that all rural and non-city areas in England have at least a basic level of bus service so that everyone can get to school, work and the shops, and use public services without needing to drive a car?
Simon Lightwood
I have to say, I really enjoyed my appearance at the Select Committee yesterday. Ultimately, we want people to choose to take the bus because it provides better connections in every part of the country to get people where they need be. It is a more reliable, more affordable, faster and more integrated form of transport, and I hope to see that in debates with Members across the House as the buses Bill proceeds.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Farnborough airport’s noise and emission pollution affects a significant part of my constituency. The airport has announced that it will be launching its consultation to expand in August. This has obviously brought a lot of concern from residents groups and campaigners, who are worried that people will be away at this time. What can the Minister do to ensure that there is maximum engagement with the public and therefore a proper consultation?
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
In 2022, the previous Government cut a significant number of Southeastern services that my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford rely on. My constituents continue to raise concerns that direct services from London Charing Cross to Barnehurst and Bexleyheath should be reinstated during the evenings and weekends. Could the Minister provide an update on progress to reinstate those services?
Simon Lightwood
Southeastern plans services to meet passenger demand while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. Timetables are kept under review and can be adjusted to reflect fluctuations in demand. I am pleased to say that four additional weekday evening services will be introduced on the route in December.
Cullompton and Wellington Stations
Simon Lightwood Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. First, I reassure the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) that the potential merits of the Cullompton and Wellington rail stations are still firmly under consideration. The Chancellor announced the closure of the restoring your railway programme in her statement to the House last July. Despite the closure of the programme, the Department for Transport continues to consider the project as part of its spending review.
The stations project has already received £6.15 million to complete the full business case and most of the design work. It is estimated that an investment of about £45 million of additional funding is needed to complete delivery of the stations. However, due to the difficult financial situation inherited from the previous Government, it will not be possible for all transport projects to continue, particularly those not yet in delivery, where spades are not in the ground.
Clearly, the Cullompton and Wellington project is not solely about the restoration of historical infrastructure, but about the important benefits that the stations can bring to their local communities and the broader region in future. The two towns share several characteristics and challenges. Cullompton and Wellington are both characterised by low-density residential neighbourhoods surrounding modest town centres, yet despite their rural charm, there is evidence of serious local challenges that affect the towns’ ability to fulfil their economic, social and environmental capacity.
In 2019, for example, indices of multiple deprivation showed that five areas of Cullompton were considerably deprived compared with national averages, reflecting issues such as educational attainment and skills gaps, income deprivation affecting children and young people, barriers to housing and adverse living environments. Despite these challenges, however, Cullompton is projected to have substantial material growth. With development plans in place, the town’s population is projected to nearly double from 8,807 in 2021 to 17,994 by 2033. Further growth, including the second phase of the garden village, could increase the population to approximately 25,000 by 2040.
In short, Cullompton is already nearly three times the size it was when its railway station was closed in the 1960s. It is likely to grow to more than seven times the size it was over the couple of decades to follow. That expansion underscores the urgent need for enhanced public transport to support the growing community. A new railway station in Cullompton would naturally meet that need.
Similarly, Wellington’s population is set to increase significantly due to ongoing and planned developments, including 2,580 additional dwellings. But Wellington is still heavily car-dependent at present, with many residents commuting regionally for employment, education and leisure. The reliance on private vehicles worsens social inequality, particularly for those without access to a car. The result is high levels of deprivation and inequality among parts of the community, with parts of the town having among the highest levels of deprivation in Somerset and falling within the most deprived 20% of wards in England. In turn, those impacts are likely to worsen further with the predicted population increases in Wellington over the coming years.
Car dependency, especially with Wellington’s links to Taunton, the nearest employment hub, has also created environmental challenges due to the impact of commuting on the road network. For example, air quality management areas that cover parts of Taunton and eastern approaches to Exeter have been designated. Somerset and Devon county councils made climate declarations in 2019 and 2020 respectively, featuring reduced transport emissions as a key pillar, and a need to improve air quality in urban areas.
Reopening Wellington station presents the potential for a significant mode shift from car to rail, particularly for journeys between Wellington and Taunton, Exeter, Bristol and Bridgwater. In addition, improved rail connectivity would reduce travel times and enhance journey reliability, while also promoting sustainable transport options.
The strategic objectives for building both stations are clear. As well as benefiting the immediate areas in Cullompton and Wellington, enhancing public transport connectivity will also support economic growth and productivity in Exeter, Taunton and Bridgwater, reducing road congestion, car dependency and associated carbon emissions. The stations would contribute to sustainable development, connecting new residential areas with regional employment, education and healthcare opportunities. With the provision of station calls at both towns, the case for taking a combined approach presents significantly higher value for money, compared with a stand-alone project in either area.
In conclusion, the Department recognises that the reopening of Cullompton and Wellington rail stations would be a strategic investment in the future of those communities. Enhanced public transport connectivity also aligns with the Government’s goals to drive economic growth, reduce environmental impact and improve social mobility, creating a more equitable and prosperous region.
Question put and agreed to.