Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 3rd July 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 July 2025 - (3 Jul 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 29, in clause 30, page 32, line 9, at end insert—
“including their safety on pavements and crossings on routes to, from and between stopping places in both directions of the routes,
(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,
(ab) providing clear and accessible information, including real-time information, about services calling at stopping places and in the wider area,”.
This amendment would require guidance relating to stopping places issued by the Secretary of State to include consideration of the provision of toilet facilities and travel information, as well as to promote the safety of people using pavements and crossings near the stopping places.
Amendment 41, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, after “comfort” insert
“without having to cross a cycle track to board the bus or continue their journey after alighting”.
This amendment would extend the purpose of the guidance issued by the Government to include enabling disabled people to travel without having to cross a cycle track in order to board a bus, or once they have alighted.
Amendment 42, in clause 30, page 32, line 14, delete “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to include the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places.
Amendment 65, in clause 30, page 32, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.
This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.
Amendment 60, in clause 30, page 32, line 30, leave out “have regard to” and insert
“take reasonable steps to implement.”
This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.
Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if—
(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and
(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.
(6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”
This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.
Amendment 55, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).
(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 30, in clause 30, page 33, line 3, after “place” insert
“from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route”.
Amendment 31, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, after “the” insert “information and”.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 44, in clause 31, page 34, line 17, at end insert—
“(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.”
This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Clause 31 stand part.
Amendment 45, in clause 32, page 34, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.
(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”
This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Clause 32 stand part.
New clause 11—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—
“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.
(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.
New clause 12—Prohibition of new floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.
New clause 13—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops—
“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.
New clause 40—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—
(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;
(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.
(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.
New clause 47—Prohibition on new floating bus stops and proposals to retrofit existing stops—
“(1) No local authority may construct any new floating bus stops after the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review all existing floating bus stops to identify changes that need to be made to adapt such stops in line with fully accessible, inclusive-by-design principles.
(3) Following the review, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement which outlines—
(a) the changes which will need to be made to existing floating bus stops;
(b) the steps the Secretary of State will take to make the required changes; and
(c) the guidance which will be provided to local authorities on how to retrofit existing floating bus stops.”
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, especially as this is my first time speaking in a Bill Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you so much, everyone.
Few issues are more important to people than bus services generally and the accessibility of bus services and buses, which is at the core of clauses 30 and 31. Indeed, few topics come up more often when I talk to residents on the doorstep. It is often residents with the most highest needs who rely on the bus network; that includes our neighbours who are blind, who are partially sighted or who have other sight issues. Ensuring that our buses are accessible and safe for everyone is incredibly important.
I welcome those in the Public Gallery who are here to listen to the debate. I thank them for raising important issues of accessibility, especially as they relate to so-called floating bus stops. As safe cycling infrastructure is rolled out to encourage more people out of cars and on to bikes and scooters for valid environmental, health and fitness reasons, in some places we are essentially fitting a third transport network into the existing two: cycle infrastructure is being added to motor vehicle and pedestrian infrastructure. That is challenging to get right and is relatively new, so it is right that the Government are looking at how it is designed so that it works for everyone.
Some people like floating bus stops; some people hate them. Some floating bus stops work well, while others are poorly designed. Some simply do not work for anyone—not pedestrians, not bus users and not cyclists. As a cyclist myself, I am acutely aware of that. We have a new floating bus stop on Rifford Road in Exeter. Although some residents in the local area have praised the design, others have raised concerns about it to me. I am pleased that the Government have listened carefully to the discussion about floating bus stops, generally and in the other place, and have heard people’s very real concerns.
In accepting Lord Blunkett’s amendment on the matter, the Government committed to issuing guidance on the design of floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent. I welcome that and hope that interested groups will be able to feed into the process.
There is a particular issue with the design of one type of floating bus stop, such that passengers alight or disembark from the bus directly on to the cycle track. I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to a pause on that specific type of infrastructure, which applies to any in England that are currently in the design phase.
I also welcome the fact that the Government are taking cyclists’ behaviour seriously. Although the vast majority of cyclists obey the rules and are respectful of others, the proposed new penalties and offences for dangerous cycling in the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that a signal is sent to all cyclists about safe cycling behaviour. I believe that that will ensure that the tiny minority of cyclists who recklessly disregard others will face the full force of the law.
Overall, I believe that the clauses that we are considering are a welcome compromise. I hope that they will lead to more work to ensure that cyclists and pedestrians, including people who are blind or visually impaired, can avoid designed-in conflict. I do not believe that this issue is fundamentally insoluble. We must be able to find a way to deliver protected cycle lanes where necessary for people, including children, to cycle safely, while also allowing people to embark on and alight from buses very safely and securely.
The Chair
May I apologise to members of the public in the Gallery? When I was chairing on Tuesday, I made the point that I would announce Members and their party, for people in the Gallery who are visually impaired. Our last contributor was Steve Race, the Labour MP for Exeter. I call Siân Berry, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will speak primarily about my amendments 29 to 31, but I will also say a few words about clause 31.
Amendment 29 would amend clause 30(1), which concerns the guidance for stopping places for bus stops. It is a very good clause, but my amendment would ensure that the Bill specifies additional information to be included in the guidance so that it is truly comprehensive as to what bus users need at a bus stop. It includes reference to safe and accessible travel to and from bus stops in the surrounding area, not just accessibility from the bus stop to the bus, as well as reference to toilet facilities for both passengers and drivers. It aims to ensure that clear information is set out, including standards written into the guidance for real-time bus information. If my amendment is not agreed to, I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister that those issues will be considered in the guidance. There is a strong case for ensuring that the guidance covers them. Additionally, I support amendments 40 and 42, which would usefully replace “may” with “must” in respect of the guidance.
In ensuring safe and accessible travel to and from bus stops, it is important that we ensure that people can get to them across things like junctions or main roads that are difficult to cross. People often need to be able to get from the bus stop where they get off to one on the other side of the road to get the bus back. In almost every case, they will need to cross the road that the buses use, so that they can switch directions. An accessible route across the road between two bus stops is an essential component of accessible travel, and it needs looking at in the guidance.
I have a very long history of work on toilets, from my time in the London Assembly. That is primarily down to my former colleague Caroline Russell, who is still in the London Assembly advocating for the issue. The cross-party transport committee in the London Assembly, which at the time was led by a Conservative, published a great report called “Driven to Distraction”, which has been submitted as written evidence. It sets out various issues that bus drivers face—pressure, fatigue and all sorts of things that I will address later. Recommendation 5 in the report makes it very clear that the need to use a toilet is an issue for many drivers. We have many more female drivers with serious pressures on them, particularly if they have their period. We also have some older drivers who may experience difficult issues in trying to access toilets while they work.
Making sure that drivers have access to toilets is very important. I also draw Members’ attention to the written evidence from Lorraine Robertson, a veteran bus driver. She has worked with other bus drivers to put together what she calls the bill of rights for bus drivers, which contains the right to a clean, serviced toilet and rest facilities on all bus routes. That is incredibly important.
Other work done by the London Assembly, including by my former colleague Caroline Russell, includes highlighting the loo deserts that exist on the tube network. It is very easy for an individual London Assembly member to gather information on that; they simply have to ask Transport for London. However, it is much harder to gather such information on bus stops and bus routes, which is one reason why I am trying to put a requirement into the Bill. The fact that someone can travel for half an hour or more on the tube with no toilet services available was instrumental in persuading the Mayor of London to start correcting the situation. He has adopted a goal that sets out a maximum travel time before there is access to a toilet near or inside a tube station.
Ministers should consider having a standard for a maximum travel time on buses before there is access to a loo, for the benefit both of drivers and of passengers. I think that the Mayor of London has adopted a standard of something like 20 minutes. When we think about bus routes in smaller towns and cities, access to a public toilet within 20 minutes of travel time is not an onerous thing to make local transport authorities pay attention to.
On information, I refer hon. Members to the “Better Bus Stops” report by the Campaign for Better Transport, which has done extensive research into what is needed for bus stops. The report talks about having things like toilets at all interchanges. The campaign is very clear that real-time information is incredibly important, but currently there is no national standard. In Brighton and Hove, at Preston Park station, the real-time information for people disembarking from trains, telling them when the next bus is arriving at the nearest bus stop, is out of action because the bus company and the council are switching to a new system. It would be really good for the Government to start laying out standards for a good bus stop and good real-time information, and for local transport authorities to start adopting a common system that can stay in action instead of being switched around when contracts change. Those would all be real improvements to clause 30 that the Minister should consider.
Amendment 30 would amend clause 30(7) by adding to the definition of “facilities” information about access to a bus stop in the nearby area. That would make it a bit clearer that that information is part of the facilities around bus stops, to make them more accessible. I have received some correspondence from campaigners who are in the room today asking that my amendment 30 be withdrawn. I just want to clear up a slight misunderstanding. The amendment does not refer specifically to crossings across cycle lanes or anything to do with floating bus stops. As I have said before, it is primarily about ensuring that bus passengers can reach their return stop accessibly, but also that they can cross nearby junctions. That is what the amendment refers to.
On clause 31, I would like to add some words of support. I am very persuaded by some examples that I have been shown by campaigners, particularly about shared borders, which I understand that Ministers are now reconsidering have any support for at all in the guidance. I have also seen some very bad examples of inadequate traffic islands and crossing facilities for floating bus stops. I have heard very convincing testimony about the guidance on the placing of zebra crossings across cycle lanes. When bus stops are used by multiple routes, buses are often unable to stop at the place where people might expect; the bus will sometimes have to stop much further back, and it really does create confusion, so real thought needs to be put into the guidance. By and large, clause 31 is very good as it stands, but we should feed learning into it on an ongoing basis. That is best done through guidance, not through a moratorium or by putting anything too specific into the Bill. It is important that it can be adjusted when learning arises from practice.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Am I right that the hon. Lady is suggesting that a partially sighted person or a disabled person is somehow lower down the hierarchy than a cyclist, simply because they are on a bus rather than walking or cycling?
Siân Berry
Let me clarify. Absolutely not: the hierarchy starts with people who are on foot or wheeling, and it moves down, via cycling, with motor vehicles at the bottom.
I would like to read out the evidence from the London Cycling Campaign. Its design solutions would ensure that the roads are safe, and many of them involve having extra space. The evidence sets out that
“extra space could also mean wider pavements, better sightlines”,
for cyclists who need to give way and
“less fraught interactions at floating bus stops between different mode users.”
The London Cycling Campaign argues that we should
“ensure bus services, walking, wheeling and cycling all get appropriate priority and capacity in funding, design guidance and on the ground in terms of physical space. And that likely means being more willing to reduce space and priority for private motor vehicles in more locations.”
That hierarchy is what I referred to. Where things are really difficult, it may be the right solution in a lot of cases to keep the bus on the main carriageway and make the other vehicles wait. However, that is for the design guidance. None of us is a traffic engineer—unless a Member wants to interrupt and point out that they are. That guidance must be produced in consultation with disabled people, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted, and it must also have the hierarchy in mind. Those designing the guidance should be much more willing to take space away from vehicles and to keep buses on the carriageway, if that is necessary to provide sufficient space to ensure that the roads are safe and accessible.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I rise to talk briefly about floating bus stops and therefore new clause 47. Floating bus stops exist not least to help with the flow of cyclists, and I support that aim, but they present challenges for the safety of pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities. As ever when it comes to sharing the highway, pavements, and areas in and around bus stops, everything is a balance. It is about satisfactorily mitigating the risk.
The challenge with floating bus stops relates particularly to people with disabilities. Of course, cyclists have a responsibility not to hit people, and the vast majority of cyclists are safe users of roads and cycle lanes. Some people, not everyone, have a slightly old-fashioned—I might say ignorant—assumption that somebody with a disability will be very visible, and that it should be obvious to cyclists that they need to take special care. That is simply not the case. That is an old-fashioned, outdated and, as I say, in some cases ignorant view. Disabilities, including physical disabilities, can be very hard to identify.
I would support the prohibition of new floating bus stops, and I support all the elements of new clause 47, which is about safety and about recognising the challenges, particularly for those with disabilities. We need to get this right. I urge the Government to support the new clause.
The Chair
Perhaps I should declare an interest: tomorrow morning at 10.30 am, I will be having a meeting about floating bus stops with representatives from Transport for London outside Colliers Wood tube station. Should any Member wish to join me, they would be most welcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Given that this is a large group of amendments, and given the legitimate concerns of the Committee, stakeholders and disabled people, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for the length of the remarks that I am about to make. I will deal first with clauses 30 to 32 before moving to the amendments.
Clause 30 will introduce a power for the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance covering the location, design, construction and maintenance of bus stopping places, for the purpose of promoting safety and facilitating the travel of disabled people. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence, and that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and incorporate design features that promote their personal safety.
Relevant local authorities and National Highways will be required to “have regard to” the guidance when commissioning new or when upgrading or maintaining existing infrastructure in England. A duty to “have regard to” guidance has been extensively considered by the courts and is a well understood legal concept. Local transport authorities will know that they must not simply read the guidance and ignore it; otherwise, their decision will be open to legal challenge. Although the duty is to “have regard”, it is expected that guidance will be followed unless there are good reasons not to do so.
The Government intend that the guidance will support authorities to provide infrastructure that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use. That is why the clause requires the Secretary of State to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee when providing new guidance, changing it significantly or revoking it. Engagement with DPTAC and other groups representing disabled people will support the Department to understand the priorities and perspectives of disabled people with a range of impairment when developing the guidance. Members of the Committee may be aware that DPTAC fulfils a function as my Department’s statutory adviser on the needs of disabled transport users.
Clause 31 requires the Secretary of State to publish statutory designed guidance on floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent, to which local authorities will be required to have regard when designing new floating bus stops or altering or removing existing ones. The guidance is already in draft and will reiterate the pause on shared use boarders, as well as providing advice to authorities on how to improve accessibility at other types of floating bus stops. To ensure that the voices of disabled people are heard and understood, the Department will also be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on the guidance before publication. The guidance in clause 31 is separate from the statutory guidance on bus stopping places set out in clause 30, but the two documents will overlap. When that guidance is provided, we will ensure that they align.
Clause 32 sets out requirements on demonstrating how authorities have had regard to the guidance about the safety and accessibility of stopping places in clause 30, and about floating bus stops in clause 31. The clause provides a power for the Secretary of State to request information from local authorities on stopping places provided by them and used by local services, including how they have had regard to the statutory guidance. This will enable the Government to better understand what progress has been made across England to ensure that bus stops and, where relevant, facilities in their vicinity are safe and accessible for all users.
The information received can be published, and if the Secretary of State believes that an authority has not fulfilled its duty, they may publish a statement to that effect. This is intended to allow the Government to promote accountability and encourage compliance where they have been made aware of concerns. Local transport authorities can also be subject to judicial review if they do not have regard to the guidance. We will set out more details on how this process may work in developing the statutory guidance.
Having addressed the three clauses, I want to make some general remarks in response to comments from members of the Committee. We recognise that this is about equality and the ability to make independent journeys confidently. We also recognise that more needs to be done to make these installations accessible to all, which is why the Government accepted amendments tabled in the other place that require us to produce statutory guidance and put in place reporting powers to promote accountability. That is why, alongside these legislative measures, the Government have decided to instigate a pause on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists.
In the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail confirmed that the Government will set out details of this pause to local authorities. Of course, it is right that both Houses get to debate and scrutinise proposals on floating bus stops before this pause is instigated. My Department will reflect on the points raised during debates in this Committee, and in further debates on the Bill, before confirming its expectations. The Government are in listening mode, and this is the democratic way forward to ensure that different views are taken into account.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I want to put on record our thanks to the Government for heeding the calls of many who have spoken in this Committee and the other place about the knotty issue of floating bus stops. Clearly, lots of things need to be reviewed and lots of situations need to be untangled. Is the Minister personally confident that his approach will lead to a safe, workable future, both with the assets that are currently in place and those that are, or would have been, planned?
Simon Lightwood
I will continue, and if I do not answer the hon. Member’s question fully, he is free to intervene and ask me once again, but I think I will give the reassurance that he requires.
On the question of funding, we are also exploring further support for local authorities to retrofit existing sites, including the launch of the next consolidated active travel fund round, which will happen shortly. Remediation activities will be explicitly included in the scope of the fund for 2025-26. Local authorities are also encouraged to use a wide range of available funding, such as highways maintenance funding and new funding announced at the spending review, for any remediation works necessary to meet the new design guidance, when it is published.
On a wider point, I remind the Committee that the Government are providing £1 billion in 2025-26 to support and improve bus services in England outside of London. That commitment was followed by the recent announcements in the spending review, with which the Government committed £900 million each year to maintain and improve vital bus services.
Simon Lightwood
This is a very long response. I will make a little more progress.
Siân Berry
On the budgets that the Minister just mentioned, was he clear that the money for retrofitting will come out of active travel funding, rather than bus services funding, or is it a bit of both?
Simon Lightwood
A range of funding pots could be used for the remediation work. As I mentioned, the pause will focus on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Research by University College London, commissioned by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, identified such layouts as particularly problematic. The hon. Member for Wimbledon specifically raised the question of auditing existing floating bus stops. Clause 32(1)(b) will place a duty on local authorities to respond to requests from the Secretary of State for information on stopping places. That power is broadly drafted and would allow the Secretary of State to ask for information about the number and location of floating bus stops provided by the authority. Transport for London has also undertaken a form of audit on its floating bus stops.
We expect such audits to naturally form part of developing local funding programmes. However, my Department will ask local authorities to undertake that work, alongside setting out to them its expectation on the pause. We will work together with local authorities in a pragmatic way to collate information on floating bus stops. Much of the information is already held by local authorities, and I recognise that it is important to addressing this issue. Local authorities will be able to use a wide range of existing funding streams to audit floating bus stops in their areas. For example, the consolidated active travel fund includes capital and revenue elements that can be used for audits, early feasibility work and capital remediation schemes.
I have heard the concerns of hon. Members about the behaviour of some cyclists. I am happy to set out my commitment to working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators in this space to support awareness raising through communication on this issue. On Report, I will return with further updates on the Government’s plans. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to enabling more people to walk, wheel and cycle. Good-quality segregated infrastructure is vital to making cycling safer. However, we must ensure that it is delivered in a way that keeps the public realm accessible for everyone. As I outlined, my Department and Active Travel England are focused on helping local authorities to implement change in a way that is more consistent and accessible, through research, awareness raising and good practice.
Moving to the amendments, I will begin by discussing amendments 40 to 43. Amendment 40 would place a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to give guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. Clause 30 as drafted gives the Secretary of State flexibility to issue guidance when it is appropriate and based on proper evidence, engagement and policy development. Replacing “may” with “must” in clause 30(1) would create a statutory obligation, impacting that discretion. Such a duty could risk forcing the premature publication of guidance, before the necessary consultation, or the gathering of evidence or stakeholder input, has been completed. That could lead to guidance that is incomplete, inconsistent and frankly unfit for purpose.
I have already spoken about the requirement to consult DPTAC, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. That will ensure that any guidance developed is effective, proportionate and responsive to the needs of all passengers. I would like to reassure the Committee that this Government are committed to publishing guidance to ensure that stopping place infrastructure around the country is safer and more accessible to all. However, I am concerned that amendment 40 would frustrate, rather than support, our ability to ensure that the drafting works for all passengers.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I challenge the Minister’s rationale on clause 30. I understood him to be saying that making a duty mandatory might force the Government to issue guidance before consultation is undertaken, but there is nothing in the clause that suggests that. If he wishes to propose that as an argument against amendment 40, he needs to set out what it is in said amendment that would require the issuing of guidance prior to any consultation or standard operating procedures. I cannot see anything like that.
Simon Lightwood
We will have to agree to disagree on that, I am afraid.
Amendment 41 seeks to extend the Secretary of State’s power to give guidance, including for the purpose of enabling disabled people to make journeys without the use of a floating bus stop. The intent would be to produce guidance that advises authorities to construct stopping places in a way that would enable people to travel without crossing a cycle track.
Essentially, that means providing guidance to authorities that floating bus stops should not be installed and should, if already installed, be removed, where work in the scope of this guidance is undertaken. Authorities, as listed in clause 36, would then be required to have regard to the guidance. This Government do not believe that a complete ban on floating bus stops is appropriate, given the need to improve safety for cyclists and to enable more people to cycle. The requirement to publish statutory guidance, to which local authorities are required to have regard, will enable the Government to set out clearly what is expected of authorities in terms of making floating bus stops accessible.
Amendment 42 would mandate that the Secretary of State “must” issue guidance, specifically about the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and facilities, and how authorities engage with others in relation to stopping places. The statutory guidance will cover a broad range of considerations in relation to stopping places including, as I said, location, design, construction and, where relevant, maintenance. By amending the clause to say that the Secretary of State must give guidance about certain characteristics of a stopping place, the amendment risks being overly prescriptive and would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to develop guidance informed by stakeholder engagement.
Amendment 43 has two separate purposes. It seeks to ensure that relevant authorities, which have a duty to have regard to the guidance on safety and accessibility of stopping places, always comply with the recommendations of the guidance. The only exception to this would be where there are exceptional local circumstances not to do so, and only if authorities have obtained prior written approval from the Secretary of State.
We expect that all relevant authorities will comply with their duty to have regard to guidance under clause 30. It is crucial, however, that authorities have the flexibility to apply those solutions that work best in each location and in individual circumstances. Without that flexibility, we risk preventing authorities from progressing infra-structure upgrades that might otherwise have been considered, rather than encouraging them to do so. Amendment 43 would also require the Secretary of State to make a judgment on a case-by-case basis as to what constitutes exceptional local circumstances. Given that those will differ in each case, that may be difficult to provide in a consistent manner.
The amendment also seeks to introduce a statutory pause on the construction of floating bus stops and shared bus stop boarders. It would do this by requiring authorities that have a duty to have regard to the guidance under clause 30 not to proceed with construction of such stopping places until guidance on floating bus stops is issued by the Secretary of State under this clause.
It is unclear how this amendment of clause 30 on the stopping place guidance and the floating bus stop guidance in clause 31 would relate to each other. The latter must be published no later than three months after Royal Assent, while the clause 30 guidance has a longer timetable, with no statutory deadline. In practice, that means that guidance on floating bus stops would be available in the short term, but not under clause 30. The practical effect of the amendment would be to negate the guidance under clause 31, because local authorities would not be able to use it. That would delay authorities’ ability to plan and carry out works to make floating bus stops more accessible. The amendment is disproportionate and, along with amendments 40 to 42, unnecessary.
I turn to amendments 29 to 31 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Amendment 29 seeks to expand the purposes for which statutory guidance can be issued to include matters such as safety on pavements along the route, access to toilet facilities and real-time information, some of which are beyond the intended scope of the guidance. Although those are important considerations, many are already covered within the scope of clause 30. The current drafting of the definition of “facilities” provides sufficient flexibility for the guidance to address accessible information and other relevant facilities.
Welfare facilities for drivers are covered in existing bus franchising guidance. In enhanced partnership areas, it is the responsibility of operators to provide adequate welfare facilities for drivers. That can be discussed and agreed with local transport authorities as part of the partnership. I have already spoken about the information provisions in the Bill. Bringing multiple sources of information together in one place will help to improve the situation for passengers and ensure a more consistent approach, as the hon. Lady said.
Issues such as pedestrian safety on pavements and at crossings are addressed through existing statutory duties on local authorities, and do not require repeating here. The consultation requirements that I have set out will ensure that the guidance reflects expert advice on the issues that matter most, including safety and the facilities that are provided at bus stops.
Amendment 30 seeks to narrow the definition of “facilities” in subsection (7) by specifying that such facilities should include those provided to assist people with accessing a stopping place from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route. Amendment 31 seeks to clarify that the definition of “facilities” includes facilities providing information to passengers. The definition of “facilities” in the clause is deliberately broad to ensure that the guidance can cover a full range of accessibility features, such as information facilities or facilities in the surrounding area of stopping places that support access. Highlighting specific types of facility would risk unhelpfully reducing flexibility or, potentially, conferring priority on the provision of one type of facility.
On facilities that provide access to the nearest stopping place on any route, some bus stops, particularly those in rural areas, are located very far apart, on dual carriageways or in places with one-way traffic systems. If the hon. Lady’s intention is to capture all facilities between stops, that is outside the scope of the guidance. The amendments would also pre-empt proper and full consultation with disabled stakeholders to determine what may be most appropriate. For the reasons I have set out, amendments 29 to 31 are unnecessary, and I ask that they not be moved.
I turn to the three amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Amendment 65 deals with service information at stopping places—in particular, real-time arrival information. I have explained that statutory guidance can cover the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and the facilities in the vicinity. I have also covered the broad definition of “facilities”, which will enable guidance to be given on a range of accessibility features and nearby features; facilities providing service and real-time information would fall within the existing definition in subsection (7). I am concerned that the amendment would give the impression that one feature or facility has priority over the others covered in the guidance. The amendment would also pre-empt consultation with stakeholders, including on what disabled passengers themselves consider a priority.
Amendment 60 seeks to strengthen the duty on authorities in subsection (6). It would require them to
“take reasonable steps to implement”
guidance, in place of the current requirement to “have regard to” it. The amendment was also tabled in the other place. Although the Government did not accept it, we listened carefully to the concerns raised and tabled Government amendments to strengthen the package of accessibility measures in the Bill. They include clause 21, which will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan.
However, I reiterate the points made in the other place. The purpose of statutory guidance under clause 30 is to support authorities to provide consistent, safe and accessible road infrastructure suited to the needs of their area. It is not intended to set a single rigid standard for bus stations and stops that is applicable to all circumstances. Allowing authorities to consider the guidance and its application in relation to different stopping places will allow them space to assess other relevant factors in their decision making. A more onerous requirement would not provide that flexibility.
Steff Aquarone
I appreciate the further information that the Minister has provided. I do not want to repeat my previous question, but does he believe, although he may not want to have to specify it to the Committee, that a safe and viable solution exists—I certainly do—and does he believe that these measures will bring about the improvement in safety that is needed?
Simon Lightwood
That is precisely why Active Travel England is doing this work—so that we can identify a design standard in order to ensure that our transport systems are accessible for everybody.
The new clause would also, in effect, ban floating bus stops by requiring all buses to pull into the kerb, regardless of local cycling needs. That would not be appropriate, because we must continue to ensure that cyclists are also able to travel safely. I have spoken at length about the action that my Department is taking, the research of Active Travel England, and the funding available to support local authorities. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat those points, but for those reasons I ask hon. Members not to press the new clause to a Division.
New clause 47 tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham has similarities to new clauses 12 and 40. Beyond the points that I have made about practicality and necessity, the new clause raises various practical issues. For one, local authorities with works under way would be unable to complete them. Unfinished works on pavements and roads may put pedestrians at risk, and unfulfilled contracts may impose costs on local authorities. In addition, the term “inclusive-by-design”, which is used in the new clause, is not a legally recognised term. It is unclear what design principles would apply to that requirement, which may create confusion for local authorities. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for the Minister’s considered response to all the amendments. I spoke in favour of a number of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is not a member of the Committee. The mathematics of the Committee are pretty obvious, so I will treat the majority of them as probing amendments. Some of them have done their work, and I hope that those that the Minister batted away will be quietly reconsidered when he is back in the comfort of his ministerial office. I consider amendment 40 to be one such probing amendment, so I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if—
(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and
(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.
(6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 33, page 35, line 33, at end insert—
“29AA Application of section 29A duty: services in Wales
(1) Section 29A (duty to check barring information) applies in relation to a school service that takes up or sets down passengers at one or more points in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.
(2) But the regulations may not provide for that section to apply in relation to—
(a) a service for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares—
(i) that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(ii) to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) a service that is provided under arrangements made by a body to which the duty in section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 applies (duty of local authorities and governing bodies to have regard to guidance given by Welsh Ministers).”
This amendment provides for the duty to check the criminal record certificates of drivers of school bus services which have stops in Wales not to apply until switched on by regulations, and excludes that duty entirely for services for which the Welsh Ministers, Welsh local authorities or governing bodies of schools in Wales are responsible.
Simon Lightwood
The drafting of the amendment looks complex, but its outcome is quite simple. It removes Welsh services where it is considered that the Welsh Government can achieve a similar outcome to clause 33. The clause closes a loophole whereby some drivers of school services are not required to have a criminal record check, including checking the children’s barred list. Although this matter is reserved, the Welsh Government have agreed to implement measures through the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill currently going through the Senedd that will lead to a similar outcome.
The Welsh Government have agreed that services operating under a local bus service contract or permit, which will be established through the Bus Services (Wales) Bill, will require operators to ensure that the appropriate criminal record checks are done for qualifying drivers of school services. They have also agreed that local authorities and governing bodies of schools in Wales must have regard to the Wales learner travel guidance under section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008, which can include guidance about criminal record checking. The Welsh Government have advised that they will update the guidance so that drivers of services provided by those bodies will be subject to the same checks required by clause 33. Ultimately, even though the amendment removes Wales from the Bill, we are clear that drivers of all closed school services will require a criminal record check.
Clause 33 seeks to mandate bus operators to carry out enhanced criminal record certificate and children’s barred list checks for drivers of closed school services, or to check the update information in relation to a previous enhanced criminal record certificate every three years, where the driver undertakes such services frequently or on more than three days over a 30-day period. When I refer to a “closed school service”, this is a service that is not open to the public. It is not a public service that stops at or near a school; it is used solely to transport schoolchildren to school and home again.
Under current legislation, when a public service vehicle operator is contracted by a school or local authority to provide closed school bus services, there is statutory guidance that advises local authorities and schools to ensure that a safeguarding check has been carried out at an appropriate level for each driver. For these drivers, it is expected that each one will have an enhanced criminal record certificate, which includes a check on whether the driver is on the children’s barred list.
However, the Government have been made aware that other closed school bus services are currently operating independently, not contracted or operated by schools or local authorities. In these cases, there is no explicit requirement for drivers to have an enhanced criminal record certificate, including a children’s barred list check. Clause 33 aims to close that loophole so that contracted school services are not being held to a higher standard than commercial school services, and that children are safe on all closed school bus services, regardless of whether they are contracted or commercial.
By requiring operators to carry out checks of the children’s barred list, the operator will know whether the driver is barred from working with children. The clause will mean that in addition to the driver committing an offence by driving children while being barred, the operator will also commit an offence if they permit the driver to drive on their service. Currently, operators are not mandated to carry out checks on their drivers and so can rely on their having no knowledge that the driver is barred as a defence. The clause changes that.
Jerome Mayhew
I will not rehearse the rationale behind the need for the proposed new sections in clause 33; the Minister has set that out pretty clearly. However, there is one issue that I seek clarification on from him or his officials.
The clause makes it an offence for an operator to permit a driver to drive a closed school service if the operator either knows or has reason to believe that the driver is barred from undertaking regulated activity relating to children. So far, so good. That is an offence and it comes under the criminal justice system.
The clause also requires the operator to check the enhanced criminal record certificates at least every three years, and it sets out how that can be achieved, but it is silent as to whether the failure to do so is an offence. I have a question for the Minister: if an operator fails to comply with the duty to check every three years, what are the practical consequences? Is that failure an offence? I stand to be corrected on that; I may have misread the clause when I read it some time ago. If it is not an offence, how does he intend proper enforcement to be undertaken, because without robust enforcement and information on the consequences of failure to comply with the clause, the safeguarding duty risks being diminished?
I will not go into the details of Government amendment 76. I fundamentally accept the need for it, because it deals with devolution. It does prompt a question about timescales, however, which the Minister might be able to put my mind at rest about. We want these improvements to be made, because they address the safety of children and the provision of transport for children, which are important. Yet through the devolution process that we all have to respect, we run the risk of a delayed response in devolved areas of the country, because there is currently no guarantee of timescales in the clause.
I understand the constitutional niceties that the Minister has to comply with, but it would be helpful for Committee members, and for Members of the House more widely, to receive some assurance that conversations have at least taken place with the devolved Administrations, so that they are fully aware of the need for this amendment and their own legislative processes are not unduly delayed. If he could reassure me on that point, I would be grateful.
Simon Lightwood
I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him some further details about those points, if that will suffice.
Amendment 76 agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Training about crime and anti-social behaviour
Steff Aquarone
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, after “2003” insert—
“(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).”
This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) The training requirement under this section must not include advice, encouragement, direction or expectation that a person should, at any stage, put themselves in danger.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that any training requirements established under this section do not include guidance that would advise, encourage, direct, or imply that individuals should put themselves in danger at any stage.
Amendment 73, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) Before preparing training under subsection (2), PSV operators must consult trades unions on the proposed content and implementation of the training.”
Government amendment 77.
Steff Aquarone
The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 34 and the introduction of specific training for bus drivers to help them to identify and respond to criminal offences and antisocial behaviour. Everyone should feel safe when travelling by bus. Ensuring that drivers have the confidence and skills to recognise criminal and antisocial behaviour and, where safe, to intervene appropriately, is an important step forward. This is a practical and necessary measure, and we are pleased to see it in the Bill.
Amendment 61 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon seeks to address a worrying gap in the legislation, by ensuring that the training includes identifying the signs of domestic abuse. Local bus drivers often play a central role in their communities. They see the same passengers day in, day out, which puts them in a unique position. They can notice patterns and recognise signs of distress, and they know how to report concerns safely and appropriately.
Domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence. Coercive control, financial abuse and emotional manipulation can be just as damaging. They often go unnoticed, because they do not always meet the threshold of immediate fear for one’s personal safety, but let us make no mistake: those forms of abuse rob victims of their freedom, security and dignity. We must ensure that where there is an opportunity for someone to notice the indications of such abuse, that can be reported swiftly and effectively.
We know, from too many horror stories, that missed opportunities can cost lives. One in five people will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, which is a chilling statistic. We believe it is essential that frontline public service workers, which includes our hard-working bus drivers, receive training to help to spot those signs and act accordingly. This is not about placing undue burdens on drivers; it is about empowering them and all those in public-facing roles, through the proposed training, to be part of a society that recognises abuse and does not turn a blind eye.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 34 concerns crime and antisocial behaviour. It is about improving personal safety and the perception of safety for people, especially women and girls, which was a key component of the Government’s manifesto. The measures aim to train staff in the bus industry to identify and respond to acts of crime, including violence against people, particularly women and girls, and antisocial behaviour. The Minister will deal with the details of the clause in his remarks, so I will reduce my comments as much as I can. Although the principles of clause 34 are, of course, difficult to argue against, I have a number of concerns about the current drafting, similar to the concerns I had with clause 33, that I urge the Minister to address.
Proposed new section 144F(2) of the Transport Act 2000 requires training
“to identify, respond appropriately to and, where safe to do so, prevent”
crime and antisocial behaviour, but it does not set out minimum content standards or accreditation requirements. This is a sensitive issue. We are anticipating drivers putting themselves into certainly confrontational—perhaps even violent—situations, so we have to be very careful what we are asking them to do in the legislation. Will the Minister confirm that it is not the intention of the legislation to require bus drivers to physically intervene in potentially violent situations? That is quite an important point that we need to make clear.
How will we ensure the consistency of training quality across different bus regions? Has any assessment been undertaken of the availability of training professionals across the country? It is not a niche area, but it is certainly a small area of training. If not, how can the Minister impose a requirement without having undertaken an assessment of the ability of the sector to comply with that requirement?
Steff Aquarone
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments on our proposed amendment. Perhaps I can give him some reassurance about my interpretation of the driver’s mandate to intervene in all those situations. Having been on training that sought to raise awareness of a range of issues, including domestic abuse, I know that trainers often say, “No matter what you are taught today, you are not expected to always intervene. If you do not feel safe to do so, do not do so.”
I would apply the same logic, perhaps in a different way, to the amendment: it is not expecting drivers to take on the burden of identifying, let alone resolving, issues of coercive control. However, I think public-spirited drivers—I can think of many such drivers in my constituency, and I am sure the shadow Minister can as well, given that they are often the same people—would want to learn more about how they can spot the signs, and perhaps just report a change in a pattern of behaviour to a local beat manager who may well be entirely familiar with the name of the person concerned.
Jerome Mayhew
I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s greater knowledge of training in this area. I am substantially persuaded by the information that he put forward in his intervention.
Amendment 52, which is in my name, seeks to ensure that any training or requirements established under this clause do not include guidance that would advise, encourage, direct or imply that individuals, in this instance bus drivers, should put themselves in danger at any stage. I am grateful for the Minister’s non-verbal indication during my earlier comments that I was right in assuming that that was not the Government’s intention, but my amendment would make express what the Minister has implied.
Although it is entirely right that drivers and frontline staff receive training to identify, respond to and, where safe, prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour, we must be clear that their personal safety is also essential. The amendment ensures that no training delivered under these provisions would ever advise to the contrary. It preserves the purpose of clause 34 by ensuring staff that are trained to recognise and respond appropriately to crime and antisocial behaviour while guaranteeing that such training will never instruct them to act beyond what is reasonable and safe.
I will leave it the Minister to address amendment 73. Amendment 75, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant senior managers to undertake regular training on disability awareness and accessibility. I appreciate its intention, but I have two concerns. First, it would inevitably place an additional regulatory burden on operators and local transport authorities, where there is currently no clear evidence of an existing gap that needs to be filled.
We have to remind ourselves that we are not running the buses in this Committee; we are creating legislation that requires other people to run the buses in a certain way. As legislators, it is always tempting to think, “Oh, that’s a good idea. Let’s put that in the Bill.” However, we sometimes forget that we are dealing with primary legislation, which requires an Act of Parliament to change. We need to be very careful that we do not create an administrative overload, and this provision would be an additional regulatory burden without clear evidence. We also need to be cognisant of the fact that, although some of the potentially affected organisations will be local transport authorities or large municipal bus companies—at least in the future—many of the affected businesses will be small and medium-sized enterprises, some of which will be very small local bus operators that need to be protected from over-regulation.
Secondly, there is a danger of duplication and confusion when there are other statutory duties and guidance being created in the Bill, particularly those in clause 30 that deal with the safety and accessibility of stopping places. We need to ensure clarity, not an overlapping jurisdiction of training mandates, which may cause regulator confusion. Those are my concerns about amendment 75.
Siân Berry
I am very impressed with the clause; it adds good things to the Bill and it is appropriate that drivers are given good information and training on how to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. Some of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister are covered in proposed new section 144F(2) of the Transport Act 2000, where it says “respond appropriately”. In many cases, the appropriate response may be to call the police, and sometimes it may be to report back to senior people within the organisation or merely to ask that CCTV be reviewed to see whether an offence has been committed. Those are all appropriate actions that do not put people in any danger.
I also want to speak in support of amendment 61, from my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It would be a very good addition to the clause, because many sub-crimes—things that fall below the level of crime—will still raise alarms to do with domestic abuse. A lot of progress has been made in training people who work in pubs and nightlife on the Ask for Angela service. Bus drivers may also be approached and potentially asked for support or help to get away, and they need to be able to respond appropriately. People need training on how to spot others who might be in danger and to act appropriately.
Will the Minister also give us some reassurance? The clause contains the very broad definition of
“criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”.
I want to raise the issue of child criminal exploitation; I tabled related amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill on Report. Issues such as county lines and spotting children in danger could be part of this training. During that debate, I also spoke about the need for people to treat children as children, not criminals, as they might be vulnerable or in danger themselves. There are also issues around unconscious biases and the adultification of black children in particular. Those things might all potentially be within the scope of this training, because it is important that people are given more duties to deal with criminal issues and training to avoid some of the pitfalls.
Finally, I ask the Minister for an update on discussions with trade unions and the potential new duties in amendment 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). Since he is not a member of the Committee, I want to make sure that the Minister responds to his question about involving trade unions to ensure that training is prepared appropriately and in discussion with them.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon and for Didcot and Wantage for tabling amendment 61, which seeks to include domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, as part of the mandatory training for bus staff on crime and antisocial behaviour.
I am glad to confirm to hon. Friends and members of the Committee that clause 34 already captures domestic abuse. That is because domestic abuse is a criminal offence, and the clause outlines that training must cover
“criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”.
Furthermore, under the powers in the clause, the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance that will cover behaviours associated with violence against women and girls. Through that guidance, bus operators will be made aware of the breadth of different types of violence against women and girls, and how to train their staff to identify, respond to, and, where it is safe to do so, prevent incidents of such behaviours occurring on the bus network.
To answer the question from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, guidance on training requirements will be developed in consultation with stakeholders, drawing on existing good practice. The ambition is to empower drivers and other staff to recognise and be able to respond to acts of antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, which may involve passengers, themselves or their colleagues. When determining how drivers and other staff should respond to such incidents, a key consideration will be how to ensure that the personal safety of the employee or employees is not put at risk. I hope I have provided enough assurance for the hon. Member for North Norfolk to feel able to withdraw amendment 61.
Amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, seeks to ensure that guidance issued under the powers in clause 34 does not lead to staff placing themselves in danger at any stage. The Government listened to concerns raised in the other place, including from the hon. Member’s party. We tabled an amendment to clarify that staff will be trained to prevent incidents only where it is “safe to do so”. For the benefit of the Committee, I confirm that staff will not be expected to put themselves at risk or in danger at any stage. Training on crime and antisocial behaviour will help staff to understand ways in which to de-escalate and defuse situations that occur on the bus network. That is a key part of the Government’s vision for making buses safer and more inclusive for all passengers—and, in the case of this clause, particularly for women and girls. I hope the hon. Member is satisfied and will therefore not press his amendment.
Amendment 73 was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). It would require public service vehicle operators to consult trade unions before preparing training for bus drivers and staff who deal with the travelling public, or issues relating to them, on how to identify, respond appropriately to and, where safe, prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour. Specifically, it would mandate that trade unions be consulted on the proposed content and implementation of the training.
Steff Aquarone
I am grateful to the Minister. If he needs to intervene on me, he may, but can he confirm whether the guidance to be issued on training will specifically mention issues around domestic abuse or whether that will be lumped in with general crimes? I know he mentioned that a number of things to do with violence against women and girls will be in the guidance. Can he confirm that specific issues of domestic abuse will be included, rather than lumped in with general crimes?
The Chair
Order. I apologise for interrupting, but at the moment we are summing up this debate rather than coming back to the Minister.
Steff Aquarone
I understand. That was the only thing I wanted to say. Thank you, Dame Siobhain.
Steff Aquarone
Can I just give the Minister the opportunity to provide that clarification? I intended to intervene on him, but he finished speaking sooner than I thought he would, and it would be pertinent to the question you asked, Dame Siobhain.
Simon Lightwood
In the spirit of the Government’s objective to reduce violence against women and girls, I think it would be sensible to make reference to that within the guidance.
Steff Aquarone
I thank the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 77, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert—
“144G Application of training requirement: services in Wales
(1) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 144F apply in relation to a local service which has one or more stopping places in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.
(2) But the regulations may not provide for those subsections to apply in relation to—
(a) a local service that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) a local service to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru.”—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment provides for the training requirement in new section 144F of the Transport Act 2000 not to apply to services that have stops in Wales until switched on by regulations, and excludes that requirement entirely for services for which the Welsh Ministers are responsible or which are provided in Wales under a service permit granted by the Welsh Ministers.
Steff Aquarone
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert—
“144G Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility
(1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility.
(2) The relevant parties are—
(a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence;
(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England
where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services.
(3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding—
(a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services;
(b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and
(c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation.
(5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed—
(a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five year period thereafter;
(b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations.
(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.”
This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regular undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 34, page 37, line 28, leave out from “or” to “the” and insert
“section 144G or of regulations made under those sections,”.
Clause 35 stand part.
Government amendments 20 to 22.
Clause 36 stand part.
Steff Aquarone
I will speak briefly in support of our amendments 75 and 69, which would require relevant senior managers in our bus networks regularly to undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility. Accessibility must be embedded at every level of our public transport system. It should be an intuitive consideration for all staff, from frontline drivers and conductors to the most senior decision makers. Although it is absolutely right that drivers and attendants understand the needs of disabled passengers, that alone is not enough. We must also ensure that those in positions of strategic responsibility—those making decisions about timetables, fleet upgrades, route changes and service delivery—fully understand how their decisions impact on disabled people.
Too often, accessibility is treated as an afterthought rather than a starting point, and that must change. By ensuring that senior managers receive training, amendment 75 would help to create a strong, informed culture of accessibility across the network. It would ensure that inclusion is not just a box to tick but a guiding principle in how our bus services are designed and delivered. After all, improved accessibility and user experience benefits everybody, not just the people for whom it is necessary. This is the right thing to do. It is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone.
I also want to note the recommendations of the recent Transport Committee report into accessibility in the transport system, “Access Denied”. I was proud to be part of the Committee that published the report. The report made recommendations about ensuring that relevant training is suitably co-produced with disabled people, and that the Government ensure an expert unit assesses the quality of available training. In response, the Government told us they were working to create an accessibility charter and that they intend to
“undertake further work to assess how clear and straightforward standards that a charter can help provide could support consistent, high-quality training.”
Will the Minister provide further clarity on what that further work is, and the progress he has made on it? Such an update would be incredibly relevant to the amendments, as it would ensure that the training carried out is of a suitable standard and comes with the needs of disabled passengers and service users at its heart. To conclude, I urge the Government to support amendment 75. It is a simple but powerful step towards better, more inclusive bus services for disabled passengers and for everyone.
Jerome Mayhew
If hon. Members cast their minds back to earlier, they will know my exact views on amendment 75, so I will not repeat them. I will not speak on amendment 69, because my remarks would be similar to those on amendment 75. I will, however, speak briefly on clause 35.
Clause 35 will introduce measures on disability training. There is currently a requirement in article 16 of EU regulation 181/2011 for mandatory training on disability awareness and disability assistance to be undertaken by particular categories of staff of carriers and terminal managing bodies, with different categories of staff required to do different elements of the training. The Government are totally right to realise that that is an unnecessary complication, and that there needs to be a tidying up exercise so that all staff dealing with passengers in the transport sector receive similar training.
Clause 35 streamlines the requirement so that all categories of local bus service staff referenced in article 16 of the EU regulation should undertake both disability assistance and disability awareness training, and stay current every five years. It enables bus drivers and staff who deal directly with the travelling public or issues related to them, including those who provide direct assistance to passengers, to be informed of the needs and experiences of disabled people—quite right too. That is a good clarification.
Clause 36 deals with training about disability and contains further provisions. Its intentions are as decent as those of clause 35, and they are undeniably important. Namely, it seeks to ensure the effective implementation of disability awareness training requirements. However, we need to be aware of the potential issues with regulatory overreach and the administration burden.
Measures under subsection (1) of the clause empower the Secretary of State to require operators to keep, publish and provide compliance records. I am repeating myself slightly, but this is an important point: we are dealing with primary legislation that covers the entire sector. It affects not just big organisations but SMEs; we have to remember that not all operators are large organisations. For SMEs with a small workforce or a small fleet, increases to the administrative burden can be disproportionate to the benefit that such requirements to maintain data can bring to others.
I wonder whether that burden is justified in terms of its outcome, and not just theoretical tidiness. Theoretically, I understand the provision and it makes sense. We are saying, “We want operators to do these things, therefore we want records that are updated and published regularly.” In reality, that comes with a time and labour cost. How will services be improved in practical terms as a result of the additional requirement? Has the Minister already conducted an impact assessment of the additional financial and administrative burdens that the measure will place on smaller local authorities and bus operators?
Government amendment 20 ensures that references in the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 to the “enforcement authority” cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A. Again, I will leave it to the Minister to address the amendment. I hope Committee members are applauding my changed approach to the pace at which I am going through some of these provisions—it is against my better judgment. As a former lawyer, I love going into the subsections, but I am trying to canter on.
There is a concern with amendment 20 that we are loading a whole load of additional obligations on to traffic commissioners, these previously unknown—certainly in my case—servants of the state. A question arises about capacity and the funding necessary to increase it. Traffic commissioners already oversee a vast amount of regulatory functions for operating licensing, vehicle standards and general compliance across the bus and coach sectors. The Bill, particularly clause 36, adds significant additional enforcement duties, and that obviously comes at a cost in both manpower and legal fees. If a commissioner takes enforcement action, they have to be prepared to defend their decisions in court, and that is expensive, particularly if they lose.
We can all agree that there are significant costs associated with the clause, should it be enacted, but the Bill is silent on funding for traffic commissioners—there is no mention of it all. What is the assessed cost to traffic commissioners of the proposed changes, in aggregate? What changes will be made to traffic commissioner budgets to allow for this burden? Will the Minister conduct an assessment of the current work of traffic commissioners and whether they have the resources and time to fulfil this additional duty? Those are minor but important points; we have to think about the practicalities of what we are asking. This is not guidance but primary legislation, so we need to be cognisant of its consequences and prepare for them.
Government amendment 21 follows amendment 20, and I have no comment on it. The same goes for Government amendment 22, which is another procedural tidying-up exercise that I have no objection to.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 3rd July 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 July 2025 - (3 Jul 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 34, page 37, line 28, leave out from “or” to “the” and insert
“section 144G or of regulations made under those sections,”.
Clause 35 stand part.
Government amendments 20 to 22.
Clause 36 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
Amendments 75 and 69, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) would require that senior managers in bus operators and local transport authorities undertake disability awareness and accessibility training. The effect of proposed new section 144G of the Transport Act 2000 would be to place an obligation on senior managers in LTAs and operators that organise or provide local or school bus services to undertake training and keep records of having done so.
Through the Bill, we are extending existing training requirements to drivers and customer-facing staff. The measures do not change training requirements themselves. Co-production would be appropriate for those developing training packages. The hon. Member for North Norfolk asked for an update on the accessible transport charter. I can confirm that my Department provides the Transport Committee with regular updates on the progress of the charter and upcoming appearances. He has my commitment that we will do that.
It is certainly important that senior management in bus operating companies and local authorities are aware of disability and accessibly issues, but EU regulation 181/2011, once amended by clauses 35 and 36 of the Bill, will require staff in local services who deal directly with disabled passengers, or with issues relating to the travelling public, to be trained in respect of disability awareness and disability assistance. For staff dealing directly with disabled passengers, that will improve knowledge of their duties and responsibilities, and thus effect change at the direct point of interaction between staff and passengers. That approach aims to strike a balance between improving services while not overly increasing burdens on operators and local authorities.
In addition, clause 21 will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan. We expect that this new requirement would also help to ensure that relevant senior management in LTAs are aware of accessibility issues in their area. I reassure hon. Members that where school transport is provided by local services, that would fall within the scope of new enhanced training requirements, requiring relevant staff to be trained on both disability awareness and assistance, which will help to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills and confidence to support every passenger appropriately.
I am concerned that the new requirement may increase the administrative burden without necessarily leading to positive results in the experience of disabled passengers at the point of contact with staff and services. I therefore cannot support amendments 75 and 69 and I ask that they be withdrawn.
Clause 35 will require bus drivers and staff providing direct assistance to passengers on local services to complete both disability awareness and assistance training at least every five years to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills and confidence to support every passenger appropriately. Despite progress in recent decades, clauses 35 and 36 have been developed in response to the barriers that disabled people still face when attempting to make bus journeys. The clauses recognise the role that bus drivers play in helping to overcome those barriers, ensuring that disabled passengers’ rights are upheld, and that they are provided with timely and appropriate assistance.
Currently, drivers of local services are already required to complete disability awareness training, but mandatory course content does not cover the practical assistance that they should also provide. Likewise, other customer-facing staff of operators are not currently required to completely training on disability at all. Clause 35 corrects that imbalance. It is about ensuring that passengers on local services can travel anywhere in Great Britain, with any operator or driver, with confidence that staff will help them to travel safely and in comfort. The measures should help to ensure that passengers receive the help they need, and that buses continue to provide an inclusive experience for everyone who uses them.
Amendments 20 to 22 have been tabled to clause 36. Amendment 20 will ensure that a traffic commissioner is responsible for taking action against a terminal managing body. For the benefit of Committee members, terminal managing bodies in the context of this measure are those responsible for terminals identified in regulation 6 of the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013, namely Victoria coach station and Birmingham coach station. The amendments will be relevant to breaches of the training and publication requirements in clauses 35 and 36. Amendment 20 ensures that the enforcement powers in those clauses align with traffic commissioners’ powers to enforce the training and publication requirements in clause 34. Amendment 21 is consequential on amendment 20. Amendment 22 is a minor technical change to ensure that consistent language is used in the 2013 regulations.
Clause 36 works with clause 35 to ensure that staff are sufficiently trained to uphold disabled passengers’ rights. To that end, the clause allows the Secretary of State to set expectations for operator record keeping and data publication on completed disability training and enables the traffic commissioner to apply appropriate sanctions if legal requirements are not met. The traffic commissioners are operationally independent, and it would be for them to determine how best to prioritise the use of enforcement powers given to them. My Department has consulted the traffic commissioners throughout the development of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham mentioned the impact of training requirements on small and medium-sized operators. Our proposals do not prescribe how the training must be undertaken. That is for bus operators to decide, and we expect disability-related training to be undertaken as part of established learning and development programmes.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments and reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Training about disability: further provisions
Amendments made: 20, in clause 36, page 39, line 16, at end insert—
“(8A) The Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1865) are amended in accordance with subsections (8B) and (9).
(8B) In regulation 8, after paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) Paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to the enforcement of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of Regulation 181/2011 as they apply to a terminal managing body by virtue of paragraph 1A of that Article, and the designated body responsible for the enforcement of those requirements as they so apply is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.
(1B) The enforcement authority in relation to the requirements of regulations made under section 36 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.’”
This amendment ensures that references in the 2013 Regulations to the enforcement authority cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A.
Amendment 21, in clause 36, page 39, line 17, leave out from “10” to “insert” in line 18.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.
Amendment 22, in clause 36, page 39, line 21, leave out “this regulation” and insert “these regulations”.—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment brings regulation 10A(1) of the 2013 Regulations into line with regulation 10(1) of those regulations.
Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in England
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 37, page 40, line 23, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 24 and insert “1 January 2027,”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 33, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered before 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 37, page 40, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) A vehicle does not fall within subsection (3) if it previously had the tailpipe emissions listed in subsection (3)(c) but has since been converted to a zero-emission drive train.”
This amendment would qualify buses that have repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies to be considered as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of this Bill.
Amendment 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.
Amendment 58, in clause 37, page 40, line 40, at end insert—
“(6) The provisions of this section apply to any mayoral combined authority in England, where ‘mayoral combined authority’ means an authority established under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.”
This amendment would clarify that the provisions of section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities.
Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 40, line 40, at end insert—
“(6) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing how adequately and easily local transport authorities have been, or will be able to, access funding to replace polluting buses with zero-emission buses for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section.
(7) A report under subsection (6) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of current funding mechanisms available for the transition to zero-emission buses, including grants, loans, and other financial incentives;
(b) an evaluation of the sufficiency of available funding to meet the projected costs and timelines for local transport authorities to achieve a zero-emission fleet by 2035;
(c) a review of the barriers and challenges faced by local transport authorities in accessing existing funding, including administrative burdens, eligibility criteria, and capacity constraints;
(d) recommendations for improving the adequacy and accessibility of funding to accelerate the replacement of polluting buses with zero-emission buses.
(8) In conducting the review under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, bus operators and manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles.
(9) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to ensure sufficient and accessible funding for the transition to zero-emission buses.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the adequacy and accessibility of funding available to local transport authorities to transition their bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The report must include an evaluation of current funding mechanisms, barriers to access, and recommendations for improvements.
Clause stand part.
Siân Berry
Clause 37 is a good clause on the mandate for the use of zero emission buses in England. In essence, as it stands, it sets zero emission standards for new buses registered after a certain date. Rather than mandating that that date may not be before 1 January 2030, my amendments 32 and 33 would set it as 1 January 2027. I think that is the appropriate level of ambition for the Bill.
I am very aware that air pollution remains an enormous, preventable public health threat and that road transport plays its part in that. In certain hotspots in every town and city, bus travel is responsible for a significant amount of the pollution that people breathe in. That pollution is disproportionately experienced by the people who use and wait for those buses, and the pedestrians along the routes of those buses. We need to have the highest possible ambition.
Buses under Transport for London have had that mandate in place since 2021, despite any legal requirement. All buses procured in London since that day have been zero emission capable, and have been deployed without any kind of problem. The investment has been put in, and it was done in part because of the imperative to clean up dirty air. Bus availability is now clearly no obstacle to the amendment being accepted. Double-deckers, single-deckers and all kinds of buses are available to provide services. One constraint, though, is the ability to charge those buses at depots.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I seek clarification on the import of the hon. Lady’s amendment. On Transport for London, she said that no newly purchased bus would be outside this consideration. Proposed new section 151A(1), for which she seeks to bring the date forward, states:
“The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3)”.
Her amendment would therefore mean that no existing bus that was not zero emission at the tailpipe could be used from 2027 onwards. Is that really her intention?
Siân Berry
As I understand it—the Minister might want to intervene if I am not correct—proposed new subsection (3)(b) sets the condition that the bus is first registered
“on or after a date”.
The condition is placed on new buses, not on any bus being used. It gives considerable leeway for existing buses to continue to be used. The clause is about procurement, and that is what I understand it to be mandating.
As I say, not every single bus in London has yet converted to zero emissions, but for several years now, new buses being purchased have had zero tailpipe emissions. That is not to say that they do not create any air pollution at all; much air pollution comes from brakes and tyre wear, and dust off the roads—there is a lot more air pollution than what comes out of the tailpipe.
Simon Lightwood
The amendment would prevent new non-ZEBs from being used on English local bus services from 1 January 2027.
Siân Berry
I thought so—I am not as radical as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham thinks. I think that the amendment is entirely reasonable on bus availability and procurement. It does not speed up the rate of procurement, or mandate that at all.
I am aware that there are challenging issues at certain depots. However, having spoken to private bus operators about this, they often do not lack the willingness to invest in charging infrastructure, and I am sure the imperative for a publicly owned bus company would be even higher. Instead, the constraint for some of them is the ability of the local electricity infrastructure to support the load produced by the rapid charging of very large vehicles with very large batteries.
Jerome Mayhew
As has become my custom, I will start with the clause and then look at the amendments. I will be relatively brief, but it is worth highlighting that clause 37 deals with the use of zero emission vehicles for local services in England. It is intended to prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses in local bus services in England, but inevitably there a number of qualifications to the proposed ban.
Under proposed new section 151A(2)(a), the ban will be limited to local bus services or London local services, the rationale behind which is presumably that long-distance buses do not currently have the technology to reliably use electric batteries, as opposed to other forms of lower-carbon technology. That raises questions about rural services that are classified as “local” but are, in fact, long distance. The county of Norfolk is a big old place, and there are long journeys that are classified as “local”.
I raise a flag at the way in which the Government have sought to vary the classification by taking out long-distance journeys, and assuming that bus battery technology is therefore capable of dealing with all other local services. That is not necessarily the case where long rural routes, which are classified as “local”, still face the same disadvantage in battery technology, as it is currently developed. I am raising that issue with the Minister so that he can go away and think about it. The date of registration is 1 January 2030.
The consequence of the clause is that it bans tailpipe emissions, and there is a separate, but slightly more philosophical, point. I have a challenge to the Government’s policy direction: it looks like the Government are picking winners—in fact, they definitely are—in relation to low-carbon technology. The tailpipe emissions include CO2, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide and particulates, which is all set out in subsection (3)(c). Currently, only hydrogen and electric buses would qualify, so there is a huge implication to this clause.
This is a blanket ban for new registrations, which undoubtedly has some positives but also some negatives of which we collectively ought to be aware. The positives of these vehicles are their quietness and, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion pointed out, air quality. That is a significant positive. I was born and went to school in my early years in London, and the difference in air quality in this city between then and now is enormous. It is a totally different experience from back in the 1970s, when vehicle fumes just enveloped us. That has made a huge difference.
If we agree to the amendment, however, we would be legislating enormous cost increases for the creators of fleets. We need to be careful: the cost of a standard Euro VI compliant bus, which has the most efficient engine, is about £180,000. An electric equivalent is about half a million pounds. These are hugely different orders of cost.
Siân Berry
Is the hon. Gentleman taking into account the lifetime of a bus and the changes in running costs?
Jerome Mayhew
I was just coming to that. The hon. Lady is quite right, but I am talking about the up-front capital cost. The lifetime running cost may well be cheaper for an electric bus, but the creator has to finance their capital cost on day one, whereas the lifetime operating costs are spread over the effective lifetime of the asset, which, for an electric bus, is an interesting question, actually. The lifetime of the structure of the bus may be 15 or 20 years, but we are not yet sure what the effective lifetime of the battery component of the bus is, and whether or not it needs to be replaced after about 10 years. The data is not particularly robust on that. If it means that we have to change out enormous battery banks during the operating process, that would be a significant additional secondary capex cost.
The Department for Transport figures for March 2024 say that there are 29,400 buses used by local bus companies. If we are going to replace all of those, that would be an £8 billion investment. That is very significant, and it is not considered in the impact assessment. There are some long-term savings, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion quite rightly pointed out. It is not just the differential in costs between electric and diesel; there are reduced maintenance costs as well. There are many fewer moving parts with an electric vehicle as well as the lower fuel cost, but the capex costs are front-loaded, and we cannot ignore that. Have the Government considered the financing consequences of imposing large, increased, front-loaded capex costs on bus companies? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
The second issue here is that through the current drafting, the Government are inevitably picking a winner in terms of technology for low-carbon vehicles, because it focuses on tailpipe emissions and ignores whole-life carbon assessments. That is important; again, we must have a balance of approach here. There is a significant benefit in zero tailpipe emissions, which is primarily about air quality as opposed to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.
There are very significant emissions during the construction of large-scale battery-operated buses, and there are alternatives under development. In the life cycle of the vehicle, if we take into account its construction, operation and disassembly, it is likely that new technologies, particularly ones using synthetic fuels, could be lower in carbon terms, albeit emitting Euro VI equivalent particulates at the tailpipe. The Bill denies an opportunity for that market to develop.
There are currently artificially-produced fuels made using renewable energy that have no net CO2 emissions over their life cycle. If they are interested, I can explain the basic process to Members: it uses carbon capture plus hydrogen from renewable electricity, synthesised via processes such as the Fischer-Tropsch or methanol synthesis, to create e-diesel, e-kerosene, e-methanol or e-gasoline. The key benefit is that it works with existing engines and fuel infrastructure, and avoids the enormous carbon emissions from wasting existing built infrastructure and machinery.
We need to understand that we have “spent” an enormous amount of carbon and greenhouse gases in constructing the 29,400 vehicles—buses—already out there, many of which have a natural life that could be extended significantly. We do not even need to convert them: we could just pour a synthetic fuel into the same bus, saving all the carbon associated with the manufacturing of new, large-scale hydrogen or electricity buses. At the very least, that would be a significant transitional material to extend the use of existing, or pre-manufactured, vehicles.
We try to reduce, reuse and recycle, and that would be an absolutely classic case of a good thing, and yet the clause, I am afraid to say, prohibits the development of that market. I suspect that that is not the intention of the Department or the Minister, but that is what will happen.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I want to expand a little on what my hon. Friend was saying about sustainable fuels that are, literally, drop-in fuel alternatives. Anyone watching the British Grand Prix this weekend knows that motor racing is beginning to use such fuel. There is real appetite for manufacturing it in the UK, but regulations get in the way of that happening at the moment. I have secured a meeting to share that with the Minister’s colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy, because it feels like a significant opportunity that would impact not only public transport but, in due course—I appreciate that this is not within the scope of the Bill—general users of vehicles. Ultimately, I think we all agree that we want to get to net zero from the perspective of emissions from vehicles; potentially, however, we need an alternative third way to ensure that the transition can take place.
Jerome Mayhew
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
I accept that currently synthetic fuels are expensive, because they are at the development stage, but I do not believe that the Government’s intention is for the clause to write them out. I recognise that the Minister is unlikely to tear up his clause on my say-so, but I would be grateful if he discussed the issue further with his Department.
I will leave it to the Minister to consider amendments 32 and 33, and the same can be said for amendments 78 and 58, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Finally, therefore, amendment 63 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to produce a report assessing the adequacy of funding for the replacement of emitting buses with zero emission versions.
The amendment is right to focus once again on the central issue of funding, because that is totally absent from the existing drafting of the clause, but—a fatal “but” from my perspective—the amendment focuses on the LTAs. In fact, however, in the vast majority of cases, the cost lies with private operators and not with the local transport authority. The amendment makes no mention of what should be done for them, and that lets the Government off the hook, frankly, of addressing the real problem, which is the bus companies and the impact on them, as opposed to the local transport authorities. That is probably an inadvertent oversight, but I just point it out.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.
I will speak to the clause and from my experience of representing an area that already benefits from the use of zero emission vehicles. Warrington’s Own Buses, our municipal bus company, set out an ambition to replace its entire diesel fleet with a fleet of all-electric buses with the aim of reducing carbon emissions in the town and transforming bus travel in the borough, and it has delivered on that. The all-electric, bright yellow buses, including new double-decker buses, were introduced in 2024. I was delighted to attend the launch.
The new zero emission fleet has many benefits. Noise operation is much reduced, minimising noise pollution and creating a more pleasant environment for passengers and passers-by along the routes. The buses are compliant with the strictest emissions regulations, contributing to cleaner air. They are powered by renewable energy and designed to be as green and carbon neutral as possible. We have an electrified depot that ensures smooth operation of the fleet, and Warrington’s Own Buses has overhauled fleet management with the introduction of a new digital system.
Steff Aquarone
I support the motivations behind clause 37. Making our public transport greener and cleaner is a positive thing and will make it an even more climate-friendly travel option. I note with excitement that Sanders Coaches, which runs many services across my constituency and that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, recently trialled a fully electric bus on the CH1 Coasthopper route between Cromer and Wells—the first ever fully electric bus used by the operator. We can see that rural transport providers are working hard to embrace the green future.
However, we have to recognise the challenges that rural routes face; I associate myself with the remarks made on that topic by the hon. Member. Long distances, limited charging infrastructure and the slim profit margins are all impediments. I would appreciate it if the Minister undertook today to publish, alongside the regulations set out in the clause, guidance and support for rural bus operators on the definitions of local routes. I hope he shares the work and engagement that his Department have done and will be doing with rural operators to make sure that we get this right for them and for the communities they serve.
Amendment 78 is about technology and is similar to something the hon. Member mentioned. It would qualify buses that have been repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of the Bill. “Repowered” means enabled to become zero emission after the date of registration. It involves replacing diesel engines with new, zero emission electric drivetrains mid-life. It is a proven UK innovation that can provide a more affordable and faster route to decarbonisation of our public transport fleet.
For local transport authorities, especially those facing constrained budgets, repowering could present some advantages. First, it can be quicker: companies can convert diesel buses to zero emission in as little as three weeks in their UK facilities. Buses could therefore be back in service quickly, supporting a seamless transition. Secondly, repowering is more cost-effective. A repowered bus can cost less than half the price of a brand-new zero emission vehicle, which could translate to considerable savings for operators and local authorities and allow them to stretch limited resources further. While this route may not work for all buses or local authorities, it is a simple and flexible option to deploy the most cost-effective and timely solution for their fleets. This practical amendment supports British innovation, stretches public funds and accelerates the path to cleaner air and net zero transport, and I urge Members to support it.
Amendment 58 is a small technical change that would clarify that the provisions of proposed new section 151A of the Transport Act 2000 on zero emission vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities. I would appreciate the Minister providing clarity on that point.
Finally, on amendment 63, while the transition to zero emission buses is right and essential for tacking the climate crisis and reducing air pollution, we must be honest about the pressures that transition will place on local authorities. I take the point that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, is making, but in this regard, given the subject of clause 37, I will persist with this point. The pressures on local authority budgets and local transport authorities are why we need amendment 63. It would introduce a sensible and measured requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing how adequate and accessible the central Government funding for zero emission buses has been. It would simply require the Secretary of State to bring forward recommendations on how to improve the system and accelerate the replacement of polluting buses. It is about identifying what works and what does not, and how we can ensure that local transport authorities are properly supported to deliver on one of the Government’s central missions.
Such a report could be helpful for not just local authorities, but the Secretary of State herself when the Treasury inevitably comes knocking asking Departments to justify their spending. Being able to point to a clear evidence-based publicly available report that sets out the scale of funding required to meet our zero emission bus targets will only strengthen the Department’s hand, so I urge the Government to support the amendment.
Simon Lightwood
I will start my comments on this group by speaking to clause 37 stand part and then move to the amendments. The clause will prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses on local bus services in England. The full transition to zero emission buses is a vital part of the Government’s plan to make buses better for passengers and to realise the benefits of lower running costs, cleaner air and smoother, quieter journeys. Bus operators have begun to invest in new zero emission buses, supported by Government funding initiatives. All stakeholders including bus operators, manufacturers and local transport authorities share the ambition to achieve a zero emission bus fleet more quickly.
However, I recognise that there is a need for Government intervention to accelerate bus decarbonisation by supporting the sector with greater certainty of future demand for zero emission buses. The clause seeks to provide that certainty. However, in recognition of the need to provide time and confidence to manufacturers to shift production, and to operators and local transport authorities to plan their fleet transition, the change to the law will come into effect on a date specified by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation. The clause specifies that the restriction on the use of new non-zero emission buses will not take effect earlier than 2030. It also allows for the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of vehicle or local services from the restriction—for example, to enable the relevant local services reliant on those vehicles to still run.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion raised the issue of charging capacity at depots. The clean power action plan includes a programme of connection reform measures aimed at reducing the delays—and I recognise those she has spoken about. The Government are moving from a first come, first served model to an approach based on readiness and strategic alignment. If approved, connection reform proposals submitted to Ofgem by the National Energy System Operator will release up to 400 GW of capacity from the oversubscribed connections queue, accelerating the connections that the hon. Lady talked about for customers ready to connect by the end of 2025.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Ofgem are also considering what further action could be taken to accelerate connections for strategically important demand customers. The Government are working to ensure that they understand the specific conditions affecting bus operators and continue to communicate directly with bus operators to share best practice. Battery ranges are getting better; independent tests carried out on behalf of the Department on the UK bus test cycle show that ranges for electric vehicles can exceed 500 km, and further for hydrogen. The Government’s independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee, have been clear: buses should transition to zero tailpipe technologies, and biofuels should be focused on sectors harder to decarbonise such as aviation and maritime. The purchase costs of zero emission buses have decreased in real terms, and they have become more efficient to run.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 32 and 33 relating to zero emission buses. I appreciate that their intention is to ensure that the English bus fleet is decarbonised as quickly as possible. I can reassure her that the Government share that intention. However, having considered them carefully, the Government cannot support the amendments, and I am happy to set out the reasons why.
Amendment 32 would prevent new non-ZEBs from being used on English local bus services from 1 January 2027. Amendment 33 would enable that by removing the 1 January 2030 restriction currently in the Bill. That would allow the Secretary of State to end the use of new non-ZEBs at an earlier date.
We have stated in the Bill that the measure will not come into effect before 1 January 2030. The precise date will be set by statutory instrument. That will provide the industry with reassurance that the measure will not come into effect suddenly or without warning, and allow sufficient notice to be provided, enabling the industry to prepare for the change to zero emission buses. I am concerned about the impact that an earlier date could have on bus operators and the potential adverse consequences for passengers, such as the cost of decarbonising leading to reduced services and increased fares.
A reduction in bus services could also lead to more journeys being made by car and therefore greater overall carbon emissions. I am also concerned about the potential for job losses in the UK manufacturing sector if an earlier date led to bus operators running diesel buses for longer on certain routes.
As indicated in the published impact assessment for the Bill, there is a significant risk that setting an implementation date too early, before the total cost of owning electric buses reaches broad parity with diesel buses, could have damaging impacts. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw her amendment.
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk for amendment 78. I appreciate its purpose —to encourage the repowering of existing diesel buses, meaning their conversion into zero emission vehicles. I assure them that we support bus repowering—indeed, I opened a plant myself—as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses in the UK. My Department has introduced the zero emission vehicle repower accreditation scheme to help bus operators to ensure that repowered buses get higher standards of efficiency and emission reduction, invest in their existing fleet and become eligible to claim the zero emission bus incentive in the bus service operators grant.
I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Only new diesel buses will be prevented from being used on English bus services; any existing diesel buses, including those that are repowered, can continue to be used. For any new diesel buses registered after the stated date, regulation 16 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 will require the vehicle keeper to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of any changes to the vehicle that may result in the particulars held on the vehicle record becoming incorrect. That includes changes to the engine or propulsion of the vehicle.
Proposed new section 151A(4)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations…specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine…what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle”.
I can assure the hon. Member for North Norfolk that we would ensure that such documents included those that include up-to-date information about the bus’s powertrain. That would allow such buses to be used on English local bus services. I therefore ask him not to press amendment 78.
Amendment 58 tabled by the hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Wimbledon and for South Devon seeks to clarify that the restrictions on the use of non-zero emission buses from a date no earlier than 2030 apply to mayoral combined authorities. I welcome the intention behind the amendment. The Government agree that the restrictions should apply to local bus services in those areas, creating jobs, supporting local economies and accelerating our journey to a zero emission future. That is why, in response to concerns raised in the other place, the Government expanded the measure to apply to all local services in England, including those in London. If a mayoral combined authority operates a relevant service, they will already be subject to the restriction on using non-ZEBs. That means that the measure as it stands in the Bill already fulfils the intention of the amendment.
I thank the hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Wimbledon, for South Devon and for Didcot and Wantage for tabling amendment 63, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent on the ability of local transport authorities to access funding to decarbonise their fleets. The restriction on the use of new non-ZEBs will not come into effect immediately. That will follow careful consideration of all relevant factors by the Secretary of State, including affordability, and it will be fully debated in Parliament as it will be implemented by affirmative secondary legislation. We state in the Bill that the measure will not come into effect before 1 January 2030. That will give the industry and local transport authorities reassurance that the measure will not come into effect suddenly and without warning, and will allow sufficient notice to be provided, enabling them to prepare for the change to zero emission.
Siân Berry
I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments 32 and 33, but I am quite disappointed. I take his points about potential downsides. I assume that, in outlining them, he took into account all the lovely investment that he was just talking about and assumed that there would be no additional Government investment to enable the target date to be met. I would like the law of the land that we create during this process to retain the hope that there may be increases in investment in public transport and buses in future Labour Budgets.
I will withdraw amendment 32, but I would like to press amendment 33 to a vote. That would remove the stipulation that the date cannot be before 1 January 2030 and give Ministers the opportunity to look again at whether an earlier date is possible. I appreciate that it is too much to expect the Minister to accept the new date proposed in amendment 32 today, but I think it is completely reasonable to expect the Committee to agree to give him an opportunity to look again at the date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.—(Siân Berry.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 53—Minimum bus service standards: review—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.
(2) The review conducted under this section must—
(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,
(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”
Simon Lightwood
Clause 38 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review, within two years of the Bill’s enactment, on the level of bus services being provided to villages in England. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the Lords.
The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts. Although the Bill aims to improve bus services, the review required by the clause would not be practical to deliver. Measures such as franchising and setting up a local authority bus company are significant undertakings that will take time. It is unlikely that a review after two years would allow enough time to capture and assess the impact on rural areas. The full impact of a franchising scheme or a local authority bus company is not expected to be seen until the scheme or company has been operating for some time.
Moreover, although I accept the positive intention behind the measure, it is already addressed by the Bill and wider Government policy. The Government are seeking to reverse the long-term decline in bus services, partly by ensuring that the impact of any changes to bus networks is fully assessed and options are fully explored before a service is changed or cancelled. That will be achieved through measures on socially necessary local services, which will help protect and improve services in rural areas.
Beyond the Bill’s reforms, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, with a dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence conference on quality rural bus services this month, and the first two of our franchising pilots, in York and North Yorkshire and Cheshire West and Chester, announced at the spending review. The Government therefore oppose the clause.
Steff Aquarone
I support clause 38, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the provision of bus services to villages in England within two years of the Act being passed. Members will have heard many of my points about the clause in previous speeches, including on amendment 71, which I have pressed to a vote already, but the clause as a whole is not only sensible but essential. I am very pleased that those in the other place added it to the Bill and I hope it will be retained today.
In North Norfolk I have more than 100 villages and hamlets. From Alby and Antingham to Wiveton, Wickmere and Worstead, they are all treasured communities but face challenges with rural transport. Too often, rural communities are treated as an afterthought when it comes to public transport planning. I know this at first hand and my constituents experience it day in and day out. I am sorry to say that the last Government did not do enough in the years that they had to tackle the issues that rural communities face. It is time we stepped up to the challenge of rural mobility.
Villages across England have been cut off by decades of under-investment, deregulation and short-term decision making. The clause acknowledges that rural isolation is not a minor inconvenience, but a daily barrier to work and education, healthcare and opportunity more broadly. The clause rightly demands that the Government take stock of the current state of rural bus provision. It requires an assessment of how many villages are being served by regular bus routes, and it asks important questions about who is being affected—which demographics, which regions and which types of communities are being left behind.
As I said when speaking to my amendments and new clauses on rural bus hubs, having a service to every village might not be the right approach for every area. In many places, moving towards a hub-and-spoke model might be the best course of action. This review would help to identify that and allow us to better understand the current state of play and what steps can be taken to improve the situation.
The clause also rightly mandates consultation with key stakeholders—local councils and transport authorities —who are best placed to speak to the lived reality of rural transport as currently delivered. Without proper scrutiny and transparency, bus networks in rural areas will continue to wither. This review clause is a modest but vital safeguard that ensures we do not look the other way while whole communities are cut off.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long championed the rights of rural communities to fair access to transport. From Cumbria to Cornwall and Norfolk to Newton Abbot, we are fighting for cut-off communities to finally have their challenges heard and their needs addressed. Clause 38 speaks directly to that principle and I urge colleagues across the Committee to support its inclusion in the Bill.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I want to speak in support of clause 38. As a representative of a rural constituency, public transport is one of the things mentioned most frequently when I speak to local people on the doorstep or at events. Car and van ownership in North West Leicestershire is higher than the national average, partly due to the lack of public transport options, including bus and rail.
In the light of the support given to expand local services and our ambition in government, Leicestershire has had an additional £8 million and we are starting to see a change, with bus services no longer being reviewed, reconsidered and cut, but being reviewed with a view to expansion. Bus services are important. People talk about services that have been withdrawn; they feel the loss of service.
As transport is so important, one of the first things I did after I was elected was undertake a local transport survey, and 72% of respondents said that the reason they do not use buses is their frequency and the lack of service and choice. I am sure that the challenge is felt in other constituencies, but local people in my constituency said that buses are infrequent, unreliable, poorly timed and often do not connect towns and villages effectively. That was most commonly felt in Moira, Diseworth, Heather, Ibstock, Ravenstone, Castle Donington, Kegworth and Breedon.
People also said that services stop too early, with no evening or Sunday options, impacting leisure and work. One disabled passenger told me that they can catch a bus to work from Monday to Saturday but cannot be available to work on a Sunday owing to the lack of a Sunday service. Public transport rarely facilitates straightforward journeys to colleges, workplaces or local amenities.
People also said that they needed increased frequency, reliability and coverage, especially in our villages but also in new housing areas. A villager in Belton told me that buses can be unreliable. That has put them off using the service, particularly because, the last time they risked it, they ended up stranded and had to get a taxi home. That happens even in our larger conurbations, where just two weeks ago a resident told me they had to wait for more than an hour for the next bus because the one they had planned to catch simply did not turn up.
Clause 38 provides the opportunity to review and assess the challenges to local services, and to make sure that our ambition reaches all parts of communities, including villages.
Jerome Mayhew
It is very hard to add anything to that. I fully support the comments of the hon. Member, and of the hon. Member for North Norfolk. Clause 38 is excellent. It is a great addition—it was introduced by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in the other place—because it requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of, essentially, the impact of the Bill within two years of its passing. The meat of the clause is in subsection (2), which states that the review must assess
“the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,”
and
“the number of villages in England not served by bus services”,
as well as the
“demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of business services available”,
and finally,
“the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.”
It is the review of, “What have we achieved today?” That report will be useful, because it will kick-start discussion of solutions to rural transport.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk has already referred to Sanders, which is a family-owned regional bus company—I think it has grown such that I can properly call it regional. We also have First Bus in Norfolk. We have a radial approach. We know the impact of the £2 bus fare on ridership in our county: it was very useful, including by enabling residents of Fakenham, in my constituency, to get down to Norwich—that is a bus journey of three quarters of an hour for £2. It has been an effective policy to increase ridership. We will see what impact the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will have on ridership and provision in the country as a whole, especially in rural areas. I suspect that the answer is that it will have absolutely no impact.
A review would expose the Bill for what it is: virtue signalling without any funding at all to support the supposed ambitions of local transport authorities. If the Government vote against clause 38 standing part of the Bill, that will clearly demonstrate their concern that the Bill is performative, that it will not actually make services better, and that it has in fact been a monumental waste of time, without funding.
Time and again, throughout consideration of the Bill, I have said that the Conservative party is not against franchising; in fact, it is a Conservative policy development. In the right circumstances, it is a good solution—it is progress—but we have to accept that it is expensive. The Government are pretending that they are facilitating a whole load of local transport authorities to franchise, but are not giving them any money to do it, so we are left with a meaningless shell. The review mandated by clause 38 would hold the Government to account. If I were proven wrong by the report, and it lists a huge number of additional services that have been supplied as a result of the Bill, I would happily come back here and eat my hat.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I will make a point that I have made before, following on from the shadow Minister’s description of clause 38 as revealing, and of the Bill as transparently not providing funding for anyone. The clause would also be helpful to demonstrate to small local authorities and local authorities that provide over large rural areas, such as my own on the Isle of Wight, the gulf between trying to realise the objectives behind franchising and having responsibility for delivering them, as a small local authority taking on all that financial risk. So, like him, I support the clause standing part of the Bill, if only to reveal to local authorities some of the issues behind it, and that it is not the all-singing, all-dancing solution that they might think.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for the intervention. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.
Moving on, new clause 53 would require a review of the minimum level of bus services required for communities, within a quite ambitious six months. I leave it to the Minister to respond to that.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, for what may be the final time on this Committee. I thank you for guiding us—particularly those of us who are new to the world of Bill Committees—through this process.
I would like to speak in favour of the Minister’s approach to clause 38, which, though clearly well intentioned, perhaps would not have achieved what it was aiming to for England’s villages. On Tuesday, hon. Members heard me mention two of the villages I am proud to represent, Slitting Mill and Norton Canes, and what clause 14—regarding socially necessary services—would mean for them. However, not wishing to have favourites, I am grateful to now have the opportunity to talk about what this Bill will also mean for Brereton and Ravenhill, Brindley, Littleworth, Rawnsley, Hazelslade, Prospect Village, Cannock Wood, Bridgtown, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury.
Like so many parts of England, particularly in rural and semi-rural areas such as mine, bus routes in our villages have been shrinking for many years, while fares have risen. However, I would like to highlight a rare piece of good news, which is that, from 20 July—a successful tender permitting—the No. 60 between Cannock and Lichfield, and the No. 74 between Cannock and Stafford, will begin to run on Sundays once again, and hopefully later into the evenings. The No. 60 in particular is the only service for many of my villages, so that extension will be very welcome.
My constituents have sadly become used to bus services stopping at 7 pm and not running at all on Sundays. From listening to the debate, that is a world away from the experiences in the constituencies of some members of this Committee, but it is the reality in much of our country. When growing up in a village, like I did, or living in a village, like I still do, a bus can be a lifeline—something that I am glad to say we on this Committee have discussed extensively—so the withdrawal or reduction of services means more cars on the road, more people isolated within their homes, and, of course, less cash to invest in, or even preserve, routes. That is why I am pleased to hear the Minister’s assurances on this matter.
I do hope that a review of the benefits of this Bill to England’s villages can be carried out in time, but when the time is right, not by an arbitrary timeframe. By that point, the full benefits of things such as franchising and registers of socially necessary services can be properly assessed. For that reason, I urge fellow members of the Committee who represent villages—like I do—to oppose clause 38 standing as part of this Bill, so that the Secretary of State and the Minister can determine the best approach to ensuring that, once again, buses are there for people and communities first and foremost.
Simon Lightwood
On new clause 53, legislation to guarantee minimum levels of services for communities already exists in the Transport Act 2000. The Bill’s socially necessary local services measure will provide greater protection for existing bus services from being arbitrarily cancelled or reduced. The Department for Transport is also currently undertaking a review into enhanced partnerships, which is set to conclude later this year. We are looking into the potential of developing a set of minimum standards for enhanced partnerships.
I thank members of the Committee for their thoughts on seeking to review the provision of bus services to villages in England. The Government recognise the need to serve villages, alongside improving service, reliability and punctuality, across England, and the role that buses play in linking communities together. We are seeking to reverse the long-term decline in bus services, partly by ensuring that the impacts of any changes to bus networks are fully assessed and that options are fully explored before a service is changed or cancelled.
An evaluation of the Bill, including the impact on rural services, will be completed as part of a wider evidence review of bus franchising. The Government do not want to undermine that analysis by presenting findings before franchising and local authority bus companies have been established. That would not reflect the true impact on passengers.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 39 would require the Secretary of State to implement a vision zero programme in the bus sector, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries in the course of bus operations. The clause was inserted as a non-Government new clause in the other place.
The Government support the principle behind vision zero, because we do not want any deaths or serious injury on our transport network, but where vision zero programmes are being taken forward, such as in London and Greater Manchester, the focus of the strategies is wider than just buses; they are multimodal and take a safe-system view across the transport network. A nationwide programme would cut across the Department’s plans for a road safety strategy and promote a one-size-fits-all approach that is unlikely to work in different settings, such as rural areas. Local leaders are best placed to design the programmes that work to eliminate serious injuries in their local areas.
By creating a national programme that would significantly overlap with wider local transport authority management, the clause would undermine the Bill’s intention to empower local areas. It is therefore inconsistent with the Bill’s principles. The Bill aims to empower local leaders to take control of bus services so that they meet the needs of their communities. That includes making the best decisions to encourage safer transport networks in a given area. The Government therefore oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
I rise to strongly support clause 39, which was the inspiration of Lord Hampton, the Cross Bencher who tabled it in the other place. It would require the Secretary of State to collaborate with industry stakeholders to implement a vision zero programme for buses, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries during bus operations and improving overall safety in the sector. It is very hard to argue against that as an objective for the Bill.
The Minister expressed support for the concept and direction of travel. His primary argument against the clause was that it would somehow get in the way of a multimodal approach to the reduction of injuries on transport, but there is no reason why it need do so. It could co-ordinate with a multimodal transport response. Nothing in the clause prevents it from being part of a wider piece of work. I accept that the legislative requirement would be limited to the bus sector, but a non-legislative multimodal approach would be perfectly permissible, and it is a ministerial sleight of hand to suggest otherwise. The Minister is using some other review as an excuse not to keep this very good clause.
The reason why it is a good clause is that personal injury to passengers on buses caused by sharp braking is a significant issue. A 2019 study for Transport for London showed that three quarters of bus passenger injuries in London were due to non-collision incidents, such as sharp braking or harsh manoeuvres. This disproportionately affects older females and standing passengers, whether they are standing for the journey or standing on their approach to a stopping place.
The challenge with the current statistics is that they are binary—they report either collision injuries or non-collision injuries—and are not broken down further into, for example, sharp braking or avoiding manoeuvres. The clause would help to get to the bottom of where risk lies, expose the data and lead to an effective focus on remediation efforts. I strongly support it.
Steff Aquarone
I have very little to add to the speech of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. Any road death involving a bus is one too many; any injury to a bus passenger is one too many. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon shared the London statistics with me: just last year, there were 20 deaths resulting from collisions involving buses: 10 pedestrians, two cyclists and eight passengers. That tragic toll represents a 17% increase in bus-related fatalities on the previous year. Each death is a tragedy—20 families, 20 sets of loved ones and 20 communities who were shaken by those deaths—and we should be taking action to reduce bus-related death and injury. That is why clause 39 must remain part of the Bill.
It is rare that a non-collision leads to a passenger accident in a car; almost all such non-collision passenger accidents happen on buses. We need a different approach, and that is why we need a specific vision zero ambition in the Bill. That would set the standard for safety and send a message that we will not accept fatalities and injury as inevitable by-products of public transport. I hope the clause remains part of the Bill.
Siân Berry
I support the speeches made by the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for North Norfolk, and I am exasperated that the clause is being rejected. I asked the Secretary of State about incorporating vision zero goals in the road safety strategy, as it is an entirely reasonable aim for there to be no deaths on our roads. To reject such a goal only for buses seems utterly unreasonable, and contrary to what the other place decided.
Every death that is due to a bus is 100% preventable, and we should be setting the goal of eliminating bus-related death. It is already part of the Bill—to take it out is even worse than not including it in the first place. I am very supportive of keeping the clause in the Bill. It does not go into detail about what is required but would merely ensure that the goal is set, which is completely reasonable.
Simon Lightwood
I thank Committee members for their thoughts on the vision zero programme. My noble Friend the Minister for Rail noted in the other place that the Government are “sympathetic to the aims” behind vision zero. We all want a completely safe bus sector with no incidents. Safety goes wider than buses: other modes of transport share a vision for that, and that includes the Department’s work on a road safety strategy. It is the first such strategy in over a decade, which raises the question of why the previous Government failed to keep us up to date.
The Government are already taking steps to improve safety in the bus sector, but we recognise that more needs to be done. We want to eliminate serious injuries and deaths on our transport networks, but the clause cuts across the forthcoming work on the new road safety strategy.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause requires bus operators that are contracted to operate a franchising scheme or enhanced partnership to record data about all assaults and violent behaviour that have taken place on their services. The clause requires that data to be shared with the relevant local transport authority. It also requires local transport authorities to consult relevant trade unions about any staff safety issues arising from the data. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the other place, and I do not consider it necessary.
First, the clause duplicates work already done by the Home Office and the police. All incidents reported to the police under the Home Office crime recording rules, whether by victims, witnesses or third parties, and whether crime-related or not, will result—unless immediately recorded as a crime—in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police. That is in line with the vision that all police forces in England and Wales should have the best crime recording system in the world—one that is consistently applied, delivers accurate statistics that are trusted by the public, and puts victims’ needs at its core.
Secondly, the clause may not be compatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, as no limits are placed on what the data to be collected and shared may include. It does not specify what should be collected or how frequently, and no enforcement mechanism is attached. That may result in inconsistent data. As drafted, the clause relates to contracted services, which would exclude all the local transport authorities that have entered into enhanced partnerships with private operators. For such practical reasons, the Government will seek to remove the clause from the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
It is rather unedifying to see the Government hiding behind arguments about article 8. If they seriously thought that article 8 was a practical consideration that prevented the adoption of the clause, why did they not seek to amend the clause? They were perfectly capable of tabling a clarifying amendment to make the clause compliant with article 8, if they really had genuine concerns about such compliance. They could have done it, but they have chosen not to. It does not befit the Minister to hide behind that as a defence for the Government’s inaction.
The clause deals with the recording and sharing of data about assaults. It was proposed by the noble Lord Woodley in the other place. The Government should be aware of that, because it was after all drafted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I am sure the Government are good union supporters and, in other situations, I would have expected them to be highly supportive of union recommendations, although I seem to recall—I think I am right—that the RMT is not officially affiliated to the Labour party. Perhaps that explains why the clause is about to be removed from the Bill.
The clause imposes a duty to record all data about assaults and violent behaviour, and a duty to consult any relevant trade unions about issues of staff safety arising from that data, which is eminently sensible. Before I go into more detail, I want to clarify that most bus journeys are in fact very safe. Data from Transport for London for 2024 suggests that only 9.6 crimes are committed per million journeys in London. I do not have the data in front of me, but I think that the equivalent data for rural Norfolk might show it is even safer.
It is an increasing trend in London, however, as 4,167 crimes on London buses were reported as violence against the person in 2018-19, which was an increase of 2.5% on the previous year. In the west midlands, another hotspot, violent crime on buses increased 7% year on year in the latest statistics. Bus driver assaults is an important subsection of such crime, and in London between 2011 and 2013, on average four bus drivers every single day were assaulted or verbally abused. According to a Unite the union survey in 2024, 83% of UK bus drivers experienced abuse, with 79% saying that there had been an increase over the previous year and many reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults.
That is the important bit: if bus drivers are reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults, why is requiring the proper recording of data associated with assaults such a bad thing? Surely the first step to change would be to understand the full nature of the problem. The clause would lead to better data, and therefore better support for bus drivers and passengers faced with violent crime.
Steff Aquarone
I, too, am frustrated that the Government did not see fit to address those concerns by amending the clause.
Let us start by being clear: assaults that take place on bus services are not abstract statistics—they are real events affecting real people. Often, drivers and frontline staff are simply doing their jobs and passengers are just trying to get from A to B. We cannot tackle this problem unless we properly understand it. To do that, we need robust, consistent data.
Here lies the point: at present, too many of those incidents go unrecorded, or are not handled consistently across different operators and regions. Clause 40 would put a stop to that, creating a clear and consistent duty that, if an operator is contracted to run services, it must record this data and share it with the local authority. That is the very least the public expect. Furthermore, the inclusion of a duty on a local transport authority to consult with relevant trade unions regarding issues of staff safety arising from the data collected is a good step. It will ensure that the data is used in practice and could lead to increased safety for staff and passengers.
It is clear that the clause is about more than data collection; it is about creating a feedback loop between those who operate bus services, those who oversee them and those who work on them. That would ensure that when violence occurs, it is recorded, known, and acted on. That is how we start to build a safer system for staff and passengers—for everyone. The Prime Minister recently it made clear that abuse of those working in the rail industry is “utterly unacceptable”; he responded to a question on the abuse of rail staff by saying:
“The abuse and assaults on staff are utterly unacceptable. We are taking measures to make sure they are safer.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 281.]
I am sure the Prime Minister believes the Government should take measures to ensure that bus staff are kept safe, not just rail staff. For that reason, the Minister should push to maintain clause 40 in the Bill. It is not only the right thing to do; it seems that the PM backs it too. I want to protect those who serve our communities, and ensure that public transport is not only affordable and reliable, but safe. Clause 40 helps to deliver that vision, and I implore the Government to keep it in the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
I thank hon. Members for their thoughts on recording and sharing data about assaults. In the other place, we highlighted the fact that the Bill already includes measures to enhance the safety of staff and passengers on bus services. As I set out, many operators—and indeed the police and the Home Office—already collect data on assaults, and it makes sense for them to rationalise how best to manage their operators and staff in that respect. We are not seeking to duplicate the work of the police. Victims may also not want to report incidents without their consent, and we should be cognisant of that.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 44—Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—
“(1) In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS) for drivers of PSVs
(1) Local authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).
(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.
(3) Local authorities must consult with trade unions on health and safety matters which arise from reports to CIRAS.’”
This new clause seeks to ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).
Siân Berry
I have tabled a number of new clauses relating to safety of working conditions, health and safety, and reporting of bus safety. I want to speak in detail to new clause 5, but I will speak only briefly on the other related new clauses.
We need to see a step change in attitudes and effort on bus safety. Buses are a poor relation compared with other forms of transport in terms of the amount of work and care that goes into the safety of drivers and working conditions, much to the detriment of public safety. I therefore fully support the written evidence from the RMT. I am disappointed that this issue was not voted on in the Lords, because there is a clear case and a high need for it to be looked at.
It is a shame that a Bill with such potential to include these kinds of measures does not, hence these new clauses. In its written evidence, the RMT argued that
“decades of fragmentation and deregulation has led to poor working conditions in much of the sector and a stark lack of oversight for health and safety. As a report into the UK’s deregulated bus market by former UN rapporteur Philip Alston states ‘privatisation also appears to have resulted in lower quality jobs in the bus sector and unsafe working conditions’.”
Given that the Bill is intended to undo and help to mend some of the harm of privatisation, and to create better standards, these measures need to be brought in.
Bus workers are subject to many health and safety risks, including fatigue. I have met with bus drivers about the impacts of fatigue and the kinds of shifts they have to carry out. We will discuss new clauses about working times later. When drivers spot issues, they need to have a confidential reporting system such as that in new clause 5. It would be good to include in the Bill a means of reporting confidentially without fear of repercussions, which is a safety measure used in many other industries.
I will speak more on the individual measures in the new clauses to come, but they all need to be looked at. They come as a package to ensure that drivers have better working conditions, that there are better qualifications in management, that things can be reported, and that data on the current situation can be collected and used to focus attention on these issues in future.
Simon Lightwood
New clauses 5 and 44 seek to require local authorities to ensure that local bus operators are providing their drivers with access to CIRAS. The Government are deeply concerned about any safety incidents in the bus sector, but the issue was discussed in the Lords, and the Government cannot support in legislation an amendment that specifies a third-party service.
CIRAS is one of a number of suitable routes through which safety concerns can be raised. For example, anyone may anonymously report a lack of safety or conformation to standards in the bus sector to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency intelligence unit. The DVSA may use that information to investigate the situation, including working with other Government Departments and agencies, as well as the police. The Minister for Rail noted the need to raise awareness of that service, and officials are working with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. I remember discussing this very issue with the RMT.
There are comprehensive standards covering all aspects of bus operation, such as roadworthiness of vehicles, operational services and driver standards. Those are enforced by several organisations including the DVSA. Operators of those vehicles are licensed by the traffic commissioners, who also consider any non-compliance issues and ensure that bus operators are effectively regulated. Those regulatory systems also include provisions on the responsibilities and conduct of drivers. Drivers or any member of the public may at present report any concerns to CIRAS if they would rather use that route. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Department is absolutely committed to ensuring safety in the bus sector, and that the new clause is unnecessary.
Siân Berry
I do not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Bus safety performance data
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Bus safety performance data
(1) Local transport authorities must—
(a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and
(b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy.
(2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 45—Bus safety performance data—
“(1) In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Bus safety performance data
(1) Local authorities must publish bus safety performance data online every quarter at a minimum.
(2) Every calendar year, local authorities must submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor to assess the data’s accuracy.
(3) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (2) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.
(4) Local authorities must consult with trade unions on any safety issues detected by this data.
(5) Local authorities must make the release of bus safety performance data by operators a requirement of any franchise they enter into.’”
This new clause seeks to ensure that local authorities publish bus safety performance data every quarter and that franchises place a requirement on operators to release this data.
New clause 49—Bus accident investigation branch—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Bus Accident Investigation Branch.
(2) The Bus Accident Investigation Branch must have the aims of improving the safety of bus travel and preventing bus accidents and incidents.”
Siân Berry
New clause 6 relates to the same issue of bus safety. It requires local transport authorities to collect and publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and to submit that bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of it assessing the data’s accuracy. That is a very important thing that we should be doing at a national level.
This is another probing new clause, so I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about how that will be done in some other way. It is now routinely done in Transport for London’s reporting, which has been incredibly useful for everyone interested in road danger, such as people interested in pedestrian and cyclist safety. It has been a really good thing, so extending it and making it a duty on every local transport authority should be very basic and not resisted.
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 6, which I will deal with alongside the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), which deal with the same issue. These new clauses seek to require local authorities to publish bus safety performance on a quarterly basis, which must be audited annually.
Road safety is a priority for the Government, which is why we are developing a road safety strategy—the first, as I have said, in over a decade. The Department for Transport already collects data in respect of reported collisions involving personal injury, and publishes that information at a local authority level. Records of individual collisions are also published as open data. That is carried out through the STATS19 framework, which relies on reports from the police.
We recognise concerns about the lack of data collection for areas off the public highway. As a result of those matters being raised in the other place, the Department is engaging with the standing committee on roads injury collision statistics, which reviews the STATS19 framework to understand how those concerns can be addressed. Data is also collected from public service vehicle operators who must report incidents to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, thanks to the PSV operator licensing requirements.
I hope that provides reassurance that the Department is absolutely committed to ensuring that passengers benefit from safe journeys on bus services, and is working to ensure that passengers can access information about those matters easily. As a result, I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
Siân Berry
This is a probing new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service
“(1) In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert—
‘, subject to subsection (1A).
(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 42—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—
“(1) In the Transport Act 1968, in section 96(1), at end insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).
(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service under provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any consecutive weeks.
(1B) In meeting the condition of subsection (1A), drivers cannot be subject to any loss of pay.’”
This new clause seeks to limit the permitted driving time for bus drivers to no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any consecutive weeks.
New clause 43—Permitted time on duty for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—
“(1) In The Driver’s Hours (Passenger and Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1971, Article 4(2) is amended as follows—
‘(1) In the inserted words before paragraph (a), after “Act” insert “, subject to subsection (2A),”’
(2) At the end of the inserted text insert—
‘(2A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service under provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 must not on any working day be on duty to drive a PSV for more than five and a half hours without a break of 45 minutes.’”
Siân Berry
This new clause would set a permitted driving time for bus drivers—drivers of public service vehicles—that matched the permitted driving time for heavy goods vehicle drivers. Currently, the permitted driving time for bus drivers is considerably less stringent than for HGV drivers. Some of the data that we have received from the RMT on this issue shows that bus drivers can drive up to 10 hours a day and they have a 30-minute break as a minimum—I am sure that many operators operate different shift patterns than that, but this is what is permitted—after five hours and 30 minutes of driving. In every two consecutive weeks, there is a requirement for them to have 24 hours off duty. However, there is some flex in the rules, which means that someone can actually drive for 130 hours across two weeks. To me, that is asking for trouble. I feel that drivers are potentially being put under far too much pressure by these rules and that we need to look at having this kind of limit in our law.
Two similar new clauses have been tabled: new clauses 42 and 43. They take the same limits but treat them more in aggregate, which may be an attempt to be more flexible. I would be really interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how bus drivers’ hours will be regulated in a way that ensures greater safety than is currently the case.
Simon Lightwood
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 7, which I will discuss alongside new clauses 42 and 43. The new clauses seek to align the GB drivers’ hourly rules with the maximum permitted weekly and fortnightly driving limits in the assimilated drivers’ hours rules. They also aim to increase the break requirements for drivers of local bus services in the GB rules to something akin to those in the assimilated rules. The maximum permitted daily driving time for a bus driver is 10 hours, where the driver is providing a regular bus service and where the route length does not go beyond 50 km. The maximum permitted driving time for a driver providing a service beyond that, as well as for coach drivers and HGV drivers, is nine hours, which is extendable twice a week to 10 hours.
While I recognise the hon. Member’s intentions, there are a few unintended consequences to the proposed changes. First, they would increase the number of drivers required to undertake the same amount of work. That would likely have a knock-on impact on the considerable progress made in the last couple of years in addressing bus driver shortages.
Secondly, the proposed changes would likely impact how drivers work. When such a change was previously put to bus operators, they advised that it would result in an increase in the number of drivers having to work split shifts. That is likely to be unpopular with bus drivers, because it would likely mean that they would have to wait around at operating bases for a number of hours. Operators have worked hard to avoid drivers working split shifts when organising shift patterns.
Thirdly, such a change would limit a driver’s earning potential, due to a reduction in the maximum number of hours they could work. The result of all these changes could lead to bus drivers leaving the profession, which would impact the progress made in addressing driver shortages.
Siân Berry
Would the Minister not agree that shorter consecutive hours and more flexible shift patterns might attract more people to consider bus driving as a potential career?
Simon Lightwood
I think that the hon. Member is insinuating that there would be a choice there, but her proposal would remove that choice.
As I was saying, the result of the changes could be bus drivers leaving the profession, which would impact on the progress made in addressing driver shortages and could lead to cuts in the frequency of services or even cuts to entire routes, which I am sure we all agree we do not want to see. Should service cuts occur, they would likely have a disproportionate impact on those on the lowest incomes, who rely most on the provision of bus services. On that basis, I suggest that the hon. Member withdraw the new clause.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 123X insert—
‘123Y Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities
Officials from a franchising authority responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme must have certification from—
(a) the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, and
(b) the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require officials from franchising authorities responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme to have IOSH and NEBOSH certifications.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Siân Berry
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Following on from my other new clauses, this new clause would simply mandate that those who work in franchising authorities and who are responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing franchise schemes be qualified through the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. That would, I hope, lead to greater focus on health and safety in the work that they do.
Simon Lightwood
New clause 8 relates to training for officers in franchising authorities. It specifically focuses on officials from franchising authorities holding certification from the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. Under current health and safety legislation, local transport authorities are required to ensure a safe and healthy work environment, which includes risk assessments, proper training and compliance with health and safety regulations. It is therefore right that a local transport authority that has chosen to franchise determines what level of qualifications is required to ensure that it meets those important requirements.
The effect of the new clause would be an increase in the cost and time that it takes to franchise if the Government required all staff to achieve certification before they started the process. Part of the Government’s bus reform is to simplify and speed up franchising and drive down costs. The new clause would disproportionately impact authorities considering franchising, including those in smaller towns and rural areas. We all agree that health and safety is paramount for bus staff, passengers and the wider public. I will therefore ask my officials to consider that this matter be addressed in the updated guidance for franchising authorities.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Review of the use and costs of bus travel for children
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the use of bus services by children.
(2) The review must assess—
(a) the level of use of bus services by children,
(b) the degree to which cost is a limiting factor in children’s use of bus services,
(c) the potential health, social and environmental impacts of children being unable to use bus services as a result of the cost of those services, and
(d) the potential impact of making bus travel free for children.
(3) For the purposes of any review undertaken under this section, ‘child’ means any person under the age of 18.
(4) In conducting a review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and youth organisations.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children and to consider the impact of making bus travel free for children.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 21—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—
“(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services within their areas.
(2) Any review must assess—
(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;
(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures;
(c) changes which may improve accessibility and increase patronage; and
(d) the potential benefits to bus patronage of the simplification of ticketing systems.
(3) A local transport authority must complete its first review under this section no later than six months after the passing of this Act, with subsequent reviews conducted at least once every three years.
(4) The results of any review conducted under this section must be publicly available.
(5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, and community representatives, and any other stakeholders the authority deems relevant.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services in their areas.
New clause 52—Fare cap for school-only services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, extend the £3 bus fare cap to school-only services.
(2) Where the £3 bus fare cap is subsequently increased or decreased, an equivalent change applies to the cap for school-only services.”
Siân Berry
New clause 9 is about looking again at services for children, particularly their uses of them and the cost of them. The new clause defines a child as
“any person under the age of 18”
and I think that is significant. It means that it overlaps, I think, with new clause 25, which we are debating separately and which looks at 16 to 25-year-olds, but anyone under the age of 18 needs access to buses. They are, almost by definition, not drivers and not always going to have access to a car, but they are always going to need access to essential goods and services and things that help them to thrive, particularly education. I have heard evidence too many times from young people who are struggling to access college for training and other opportunities because of a lack of bus services.
The cost of bus services for children varies hugely around the country. We have many different proposals from different Members, including colleagues in the Liberal Democrats, trying to get the Government to look again at the cost of bus travel for young people as part of the Bill. What I would like to hear from the Minister in response to my new clause and other new clauses that hon. Members have tabled is that the Government will look again at the cost of travel for young people. We have the example of Scotland, where young people can now access buses for free up to the age of 21. We have the example of London and other local authorities that are paying their own money out to make it possible for younger people to get free travel.
It really should be Government policy that young people up to the age of 18, or 21, can travel for free, so that they have the maximum opportunities to access training, social occasions and all the ways in which they become fully fledged adults. I think the Government should be making this a priority in the Bill. They have not yet done that, and this new clause helps them to do so.
Steff Aquarone
I will briefly touch on new clause 9, tabled by the Green party, and I will also speak to new clause 21. Buses are often the first form of transport that children use by themselves, without the supervision of parents. They are vital for many children to get to school every day, as well as socialising, and they are an important way to build independence and allow access to people and places outside their immediate vicinity. As a result, this review is welcome and a positive amendment that the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support.
New clause 21, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, would place a duty on local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage within their areas. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and I do not necessarily share the same degree of pessimism about the Bill overall, but we share a belief in measuring the impacts of changes to policy. In his case, it is franchising, but in mine it is the impact of the fare cap.
This is a simple but important proposal. At its heart, there a basic principle: if we want more people to use buses, we have to understand what is stopping them, and fare levels are a crucial part of that picture. The new clause would ensure that local authorities assess how fare structures influence ridership trends, what changes might improve accessibility, and what role simplified ticketing could play in encouraging more people on to buses.
Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture of their wider consequences on social inclusion, economic activity, environmental goals and so on. That is short-sighted policymaking that this new clause seeks to correct.
Siân Berry
On a point of clarification, under subsection (1) of the new clause, could local transport authorities collaborate to conduct this kind of research? I worry that a single local transport authority might struggle to carry out robust research on its limited amount of data, whereas it might work slightly better if they were to team up.
Steff Aquarone
I could not possibly talk about the inquiries that the Transport Committee is considering undertaking, but I would say that we all have an active interest in how to account for policy impacts on integrated travel as a whole. It may be that the Minister can attend a hearing in the forthcoming inquiry to speak to the exact point that the hon. Lady has just made.
Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture on their wider consequences, as I have said. The evidence is compelling; we know from both national and international experience that lower, simpler fares drive higher patronage. We have seen that with the £2 fare cap still inexplicably being phased out by the Government. With successful fare reform in places such as Germany and the Netherlands, affordable and innovative ticketing has increased public transport use. This new clause would bring that learning to a local level. It would empower transport authorities to act and analyse their policy in an informed away, based not on guesswork but on real data, public consultation and a clear understanding of what works.
This is not onerous. Most of our local authorities are already gathering some, if not all, of this data. What this new clause would do is provide consistency, as well as clarity, and a stronger evidence base for future fare and ticketing policy. It puts passengers and communities at the heart of decision making, and gives us the tools to reverse the long-term decline in bus use that has plagued far too many parts of the country for too long. If we are serious about boosting ridership, cutting emissions and making public transport fair and accessible, we need to understand the role of fares properly. This new clause would help us to do just that.
Simon Lightwood
New clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seeks to require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children, or those under 18, to consider the impact of making bus travel free for them. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money to taxpayers, while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people.
Local authorities and bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. For example, in the year ending March 2025, these concessions were offered by 24 out of 85 travel concession authorities in England outside of London, and by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of 85 local authority areas in England outside of London. A good example of that is Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority, which launched the tiger bus pass, offering bus fares of £1 for those under 25.
We want bus fares to be affordable, which is why we are funding the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027, and confirming around £900 million in revenue funding each year from 2026-27 to maintain and improve vital bus services. As I said, local authorities may choose to use this funding to support such initiatives based on their local needs. As such, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw her new clause.
Siân Berry
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Review of the English national concessionary travel scheme
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS).
(2) A review undertaken under this section must assess—
(a) the effectiveness and impact of the ENCTS for eligible persons,
(b) the impact of the timing restrictions of the ENCTS, and
(c) the approximate cost of removing timing restrictions of the ENCTS to allow eligible persons to use the scheme 24 hours a day and seven days a week.
(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and relevant user groups.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS) and explore the consequences of removing timing restrictions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 32—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the impact and feasibility of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes.
(2) A review under this section must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of current usage patterns of concessionary travel passes and the impact of existing time restrictions on passengers, particularly persons with disabilities and older people;
(b) an evaluation of the potential social, economic, and environmental benefits of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, including impacts on access to essential health services, goods and services, and social activities;
(c) an analysis of the financial implications for local transport authorities and bus operators of removing time restrictions, and potential funding mechanisms to mitigate any adverse impacts;
(d) investigation of passenger volume at different times and regional variation;
(e) recommendations for any legislative or policy changes required to implement the removal of time restrictions.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local transport authorities;
(b) bus operators;
(c) bus users and organisations representing people with disabilities and elderly people; and
(d) any other persons or organisations whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the completion of the review.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes (such as “Freedom Passes”).
New clause 48—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.
Siân Berry
I will be as brief as I can. New clause 10 and the other new clauses in the group are all aimed at the same thing. It is an anomaly in this day and age that older people and disabled people have a time restriction on the use of their bus passes. The Government must look at that, particularly in relation to recent changes to welfare policies and the ongoing cost of living crisis that means that more and more people, according to the Government’s own aims, will be going to work. They also may be taking part in valuable volunteering for the community. The Government must look at this again, and I support any provision that will achieve that.
Steff Aquarone
New clause 32 in my name and new clause 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion both call for a review into the impact of the current timing restrictions, whereby those eligible for the ENCTS, whether through age or disability, receive free travel only after 9.30 am. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for tabling new clause 48, and I am happy to speak to it. I wish to press new clauses 48 and 35 to a Division, but I will not press any other remaining Liberal Democrat new clause.
New clause 48 would immediately remove the time limit for those with disabilities. It may surprise the Committee to learn that I am going to praise a transport policy of Norfolk county council, which has used its discretion to remove time limitations and allow disabled people to use their bus passes at all hours. I have heard very positive feedback. Therefore, I think the new clause would be a sensible and useful measure. I urge the Government and the Committee to support it.
Simon Lightwood
To respond to new clause 10, the English national concessionary travel scheme costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations, such as extending the hours in which a pass can be used, would need to be carefully considered. As I said to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion regarding new clause 9, local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations.
A review into the ENCTS was concluded in 2024, which included an assessment of the travel times of the scheme; the Government are considering next steps. On that basis, and as the new clause would cut across the ENCTS review, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw it.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister refers to the cost of concessions. Has he made an assessment, or is he aware of what the assessed cost would be, of removing the time restriction, as proposed in new clause 48?
Simon Lightwood
As I have already explained, local authorities across the country already have powers to use their funding, and they have done so on many occasions.
New clause 32, which is on a similar theme, would require an assessment of the impact of and means to removing restrictions on concessionary travel passes. As all hon. Members know, the Government’s intentions are to give power to local leaders to determine their local priorities. That is why the £900 million of bus funding secured in the spending review will enable local leaders to expand their offer on concessions beyond their statutory obligations, if they so choose. I have said that the Government are considering our next steps on the ENCTS review. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk not to press the new clause.
Siân Berry
I shall do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops
“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29— Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;
(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;
(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;
(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;
(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—
(a) local councils and local transport authorities;
(b) bus service operators;
(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;
(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and
(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.
(4) Any report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
Simon Lightwood
An excellent settlement was secured for buses in the latest spending review. Although we need to determine how to spend it most efficiently, the Government recognise that ensuring that the funding is distributed fairly is of great importance.
New clause 17 would require us to come forward with a report detailing a proposed revision of the formula that is currently being used. The current formula is based on local need, taking into account factors such as levels of deprivation, population size and bus mileage. The new clause is therefore not needed. The Government have already said that we will review the current formula and engage with stakeholders in doing so.
Jerome Mayhew
The new clause would introduce the simple but crucial requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula within six months of the Bill’s passage, alongside an explanation of its rationale, an assessment of its distributional impacts, and any alternative models considered but not adopted.
We all recognise that bus services are a lifeline for many of our constituents, connecting people to work, education, healthcare and social functions, and yet we come back to Banquo’s ghost: funding. There are cheques being written by local authorities that opt for franchising, but where that funding will come from is absent from the Bill—it is totally opaque. The new clause would resolve that. It would not dictate what the funding formula should be. Instead, it would ensure that when a funding formula is proposed, it is done on an evidence basis, as described in subsection (2)(b), and transparently. Such transparency is essential to maintain trust in the system, especially after the vast overspends in Greater Manchester.
The new clause is proportionate and constructive, and aims to fix the significant concerns around the lack of funding detail in the Bill overall. It would help to ensure that the significant investments we make in bus services deliver the greatest possible benefits, particularly for communities that rely on them most. I will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Steff Aquarone
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will actually press both this new clause and new clause 35 to a vote. When discussing the Bill, there is an elephant in the room: the Government’s decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3, which is no less than a bus tax on communities across the country. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs to passengers, supported struggling households and, crucially, helped to bring people back to the bus network after years of decline. It was precisely the kind of bold, inclusive transport policy that we need more of, not less.
Fares that have been raised by £1 per trip might not sound prohibitive to some, but for those on a low income or families making multiple journeys each week, that represents a significant burden. Many people who rely on buses are running a household budget without much wiggle room, and an increase of £10 a week, which adds up to hundreds of pounds a year, is not money that some of my poorest or most vulnerable constituents have to spare.
Josh Newbury
I question the logic of the hon. Member’s statement that the increased cost is £10 per week. He is assuming that somebody travelling two journeys per day buys a single fare each time, but most people who use the bus regularly will invest in day savers, weekly savers, monthly savers or even longer season tickets. Perhaps he would like to revise his estimate.
Steff Aquarone
I imagine that there are many different calculations in different parts of the country; mine is based on casework inquiries. A limited number of fare options are available to people in my constituency, as is the case in many rural areas, and I think that £10 is a reasonable approximation.
New clause 19 would ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of the Bill, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to reintroduce the £2 fare cap. It would restore a measure that was working, that passengers appreciated, and that delivered wide social and economic benefits. I urge Committee members to join me in supporting the new clause, axing the bus tax and putting money back into the pockets of our constituents.
Simon Lightwood
I have already explained the Government’s position on the bus fare cap. It ensures that passengers up and down the country have access to affordable bus fares and, through those, improved opportunities.
New clause 19 would provide that operators taking part in the scheme may be given priority consideration in the awarding of financial grants. That may give rise to unintended consequences; for example, it is likely that larger operators would be more able to cap fares at £2, potentially muscling out smaller and medium-sized operators in allocations for grant funding. Moreover, it also might impact service levels by reducing the funding available to keep services viable. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important new clause that deals with poor performance franchising. Subsection (1) would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement on when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services were persistently failing because of poor operational or financial management. Subsection (2) says that the statement must set out the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service and how those are to be identified, and that it must clarify the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.
As Members will be aware, under the Bill, franchising provides local authorities with significant powers to shape, manage and procure bus services in their areas. With those powers should come an equally important responsibility: the duty to ensure that services are delivered efficiently, sustainably and to the high standards that the public rightly expect. The new clause addresses that important gap in the legislation. It requires the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to lay before Parliament a clear statement outlining their intentions and mechanisms for intervention in circumstances where franchising arrangements persistently fail due to poor operational or financial management.
I will cut to the chase: we have franchising on the railways. The Government are getting themselves into a very odd position. They are saying, “We are all for devolution. We don’t want to get involved. We are removing the requirement to gain the consent of the Secretary of State to enter into franchising agreements and we have no mechanism to intervene if local transport authorities get themselves into a mess and oversee persistent underperformance.” On rail, however, they take the opposite position and their version of franchising is to nationalise. What would the Government do to remedy the situation if the transport network in a local transport authority persistently underperformed? At the moment, they are expressing no opinion at all on that.
The new clause gives them the power to set out their views. It seeks to ensure that where franchising authorities or franchisees fail to deliver contracted services, there is a backstop of national intervention to guarantee continuity and standards. Buses should not be the poor relation of rail. The new clause brings the franchised bus networks in line with the franchised rail network and introduces further certainty and confidence into the franchising system for operators, passengers and local authorities alike. Everyone will know that where persistent failure occurs, there will be a robust safety net to prevent communities being left with persistently poor franchised bus services.
Simon Lightwood
Poor performance by operators delivering franchised services is properly managed through the franchising contracts themselves. The Department’s franchising guidance clearly states that authorities should build mechanisms into their contracts to ensure that better bus service outcomes are delivered and that poor performance from operators can be dealt with. Franchising authorities therefore have the levers to address that without the intervention of the Secretary of State.
On the subject of ensuring that franchising authorities successfully deliver bus services, I highlight that LTAs must produce a robust assessment before developing a franchising scheme. An assessment enables an authority to take an informed decision about whether a proposed scheme would deliver better outcomes for passengers and do so in a way that is financially sustainable. The assessment must, in turn, be independently assured.
Finally and crucially, I stress that franchising authorities should ultimately be accountable to local people for bus provision and service standards delivered by a franchised network. It would be contrary to the wider principles of the Bill for the Secretary of State to break that line of accountability. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will consider withdrawing the new clause.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister’s comments fail to address the need for a final backstop, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Simon Lightwood
If I may, I want to put on record my thanks to you, Dame Siobhain, and the other Chairs of the Committee over the past couple of weeks. I also want to thank the Clerks, who have literally done a marathon today, running backwards and forwards—it is great to see active travel alive and well. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers overseeing proceedings. I also thank the officials who have supported me in bringing this important legislation forward, and for helping me navigate my very first Bill Committee on the Government Front Bench.
Finally, I also thank hon. Members on all sides of the House for their valuable contributions and insights throughout these sittings. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon—please pass on my regards to him. I thank them for the insights that they have brought and the very good-natured way in which they have contributed to the Committee sittings. I know that we all want to deliver the best possible public transport system for our constituents, and I very much look forward to further engagements with hon. Members on the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
I associate myself with all the Minister’s comments, particularly those regarding the officials and everyone who has made this Committee work over the last few weeks. I am very grateful to hear the Minister’s nice words about how he was listening carefully to what we said. If that were the case, I wonder why he did not accept any of our amendments, but it may just be a question of time—he may reflect further on them. It is great that we have managed to finish a day early, at the time that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Halifax, had in her mind. I also thank her for the way in which she has managed the operation of this Committee behind the scenes.
The Chair
I thank all Members for being a very pleasant group, and my failings are my own.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.