Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant document: Third Report of the Transport Committee, Buses connecting communities, HC 494]

New Clause 38

Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland

“(1) The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 is amended as follows.

(2) Before the italic heading preceding section 36 insert—

‘Zero-emission vehicles

35B Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services

(1) The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3) to provide the service in Scotland.

(2) A service falls within this subsection if it is a local service which has one or more stopping places in Scotland and which—

(a) is registered under section 6 of the 1985 Act, or

(b) is not required to be registered under that section because of section 13B(1)(a).

(3) A vehicle falls within this subsection if—

(a) it is constructed or adapted to carry both seated and standing passengers, with the number of seated passengers being more than 22 (determined in accordance with regulations made under section 26 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981),

(b) it is first registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 on or after a date specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, and

(c) the tailpipe emissions from it include any of the following—

(i) carbon dioxide,

(ii) carbon monoxide,

(iii) hydrocarbon,

(iv) nitrogen oxide,

(v) particulates.

(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—

(a) specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine for the purposes of this section what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle,

(b) specify descriptions of vehicle in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply, and

(c) specify local services or descriptions of local service in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply.

(5) The date specified under subsection (3)(b) may not be before 1 January 2030.’

(3) In section 39(1) (penalties)—

(a) omit the ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (c), and

(b) after paragraph (c) insert—

‘(ca) operated a local service in contravention of section 35B(1) of this Act, or’.

(4) In section 81(4) (regulations and orders), in paragraph (b), after ‘35A(1)’ insert ‘, 35B(3)(b)’.”—(Simon Lightwood.)

This new clause would require vehicles first registered after a date to be specified in regulations (which will not be before 1 January 2030) that are used to provide local services in Scotland to be zero-emission vehicles, subject to any exceptions made by regulations.

Brought up, and read the First time.

14:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—£2 bus fare scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2.

(2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into a scheme established under this section.

(3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 23 of this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must review the terms of any scheme established under this section every three years.

(5) The Secretary of State may amend a scheme established under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument.

(6) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to cap bus fares at £2.

New clause 2—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—

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

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

New clause 3—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—

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

(2) Any review must assess—

(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 4—Duty to promote bus services—

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

(2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider—

(a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options;

(b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives;

(c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage;

(d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility;

(e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;

(f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion;

(g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services.

(3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including—

(a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable;

(b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage;

(c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and

(d) plans for future improvements in bus services.

(4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.”

This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas.

New clause 5—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—

“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.

(2) In this section, "relevant authority" includes—

(a) a county council in England;

(b) a district council in England;

(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;

(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.

(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

(4) The report must also include—

(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;

(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;

(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;

(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;

(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.

(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.

(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”

This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

New clause 6—Public sector equality duty—

“In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading “Transport” insert—

“A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation.””

This new clause would place bus companies under the public sector equality duty.

New clause 7—Young person’s discount scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a discount on bus fares for people aged between 19 and 25.

(2) Any scheme under this section must provide for a discount amounting to a third of the price of relevant fares.”

This new clause would introduce a discount scheme for young people, providing 19-to 25-year-olds a third off bus fares.

New clause 8—Review of impact of VAT changes on demand-responsive bus services—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of the VAT system on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) whether the current system of granting a zero-rated VAT exemption to public service vehicles with 10 seats or more while subjecting smaller vehicles to VAT on fares—

(i) influences the choice of vehicles used for demand-responsive bus services;

(ii) has any other impact on the provision or operation of demand-responsive bus services,

(b) the potential for VAT exemptions to facilitate the rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives from the intelligent mobility sector, local authorities, bus operators, and public transport users.

(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to support the growth of demand-responsive bus services across the UK.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of current VAT rules on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.

New clause 9—Free bus travel for unpaid carers—

“The Secretary of State must work with local transport authorities and operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which—

(a) provides free bus travel to those in receipt of carers allowance, and

(b) supports local transport authorities to expand provision for other unpaid carers.”

This new clause would require the Government to introduce a scheme to provide free bus travel for those in receipt of carers allowance and improve bus provision for carers.

New clause 10—Review of capacity of Bus Centre of Excellence—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—

(a) the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities in establishing and operating franchising schemes under the Act, and

(b) additional resourcing required for this purpose.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of the current operational capacity, staffing levels, and expertise of the Bus Centre of Excellence;

(b) an evaluation of the effectiveness and reach of current training programmes and support services provided to local transport authorities on franchising, and their suitability for authorities able to franchise services under the Act;

(c) an identification of specific additional financial, human, and technological resources required by the Bus Centre of Excellence to adequately deliver comprehensive training and ongoing support for all local transport authorities considering or implementing franchising schemes under the Act;

(d) an analysis of the impact of current capacity limitations on the pace and quality of franchising scheme development and implementation by local transport authorities.

(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, representatives from the Bus Centre of Excellence, and bus operators.

(4) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any steps to ensure the Bus Centre of Excellence is adequately resourced for its role in supporting bus franchising.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities for bus franchising.

New clause 11—Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—

(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;

(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;

(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;

(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;

(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—

(a) local councils and local transport authorities;

(b) bus service operators;

(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;

(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and

(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.

(4) Any report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.

New clause 12—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme.

(2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in—

(a) rural areas;

(b) coastal communities; and

(c) suburban areas.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes.

New clause 13—Power to convene for bus service coordination—

“(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England may convene other agencies and public bodies that have transport functions and obligations for the purposes of coordinating bus services within, to, or from its area.

(2) The power under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, the power to convene NHS trusts and other health bodies for the purposes of coordinating bus services with non-emergency patient transport services.

(3) The purpose of convening under this section is to promote the efficient, integrated and accessible provision of bus services across different sectors and to ensure that bus services meet the needs of the communities they serve.

(4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the coordination of transport services with other public services.

(5) Local transport authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the exercise of functions under this section.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish—

(a) any guidance issued under subsection (5), and

(b) any variation or revocation of that guidance.”

This new clause would empower local authorities to convene other agencies for the purposes of coordinating bus services.

New clause 14—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) local transport authorities;

(b) bus operators;

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

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

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

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

New clause 15—Rail bus links scheme: proposals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing local rail connections.

(2) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance accompanying the scheme on—

(a) the departmental funding which will be available for the purposes of the scheme;

(b) the qualifying criteria which will be used to assess eligibility for the scheme, which may include, but may not be limited to, insufficiencies in funding, vehicles and equipment, workforce or expertise.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing connections.

New clause 16—Bus pass scheme for persons in post-16 education—

“The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a half-price discount on bus fares for persons in post-16 education.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a discount on bus fares for people in post-16 education.

New clause 17—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—

(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;

(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.

(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.

New clause 21—Fare cap for school-only services—

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

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

New clause 22—Minimum bus service standards: review—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.

(2) The review conducted under this section must—

(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,

(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”

New clause 23—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—

“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.

(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.

New clause 24—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops—

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

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

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

New clause 25—Franchising authorities: joint forum—

“(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions.

(2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.”

This new clause would require all local transport authorities that introduce franchising schemes to establish a joint forum with trade unions and operators.

New clause 26—Consultation of trade unions—

“In section 138F of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (6)(f) insert—

(fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,”.

This new clause of the Transport Act 2000 would require local transport authorities to consult trade unions when proposing to make an enhanced partnership plan.

New clause 27—National Bus Forum—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Bus Forum.

(2) The purpose of the National Bus Forum is to address issues affecting the provision of local bus services at industry-wide and strategic level.

(3) The membership of the National Bus Forum must include—

(a) HM Government,

(b) trades unions,

(c) bus service operators,

(d) local authorities in England, and

(e) any other body or persons as the Secretary of State deems necessary.”

This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Bus Forum whose membership includes unions, operators and local government, in line with a recommendation by the Transport Select Committee.

New clause 28—Review into floating bus stops—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.

(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a vote on the proposals.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the safety of existing floating bus stops and publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a vote debate on the proposals.

New clause 29—Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess—

(a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,

(b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services,

(c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and

(d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.

(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.”

New clause 30—Consultation: bus funding formula—

“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation.

(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula,

(b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and

(c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted.

New clause 31—Poor performance of franchising—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to take over the management of a service where, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there has been a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.

(2) A statement under subsection (1) must set out—

(a) the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service, and how these circumstances are to be identified;

(b) the actions which the Secretary of State may take to redress the failure to deliver the service;

(c) the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement of when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.

New clause 32—Requirement to consult and notify before service review discussions—

“(1) A local transport authority or bus operator must not enter into formal discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service unless—

(a) notice has been given to parish and district councils affected by the change or withdrawal, and

(b) a period of public consultation has been concluded.

(2) The authority or operator must publish, before giving notice and holding the public consultation—

(a) the date on which formal discussions regarding changes to the service are proposed to commence,

(b) a summary of the reasons why alteration or withdrawal is being considered, and

(c) information on participating in the public consultation or submitting representations on or alternatives to the proposed changes.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities and bus operators to notify relevant councils and initiate a public consultation before entering into discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service.

New clause 33—Duty to promote and increase bus usage—

“(1) A local transport authority must include in its local transport plan a strategy to promote and increase bus usage in its area.

(2) The strategy must—

(a) set out specific, measurable objectives for increasing bus ridership,

(b) establish 2015 as the year against which progress will be assessed,

(c) include measures to encourage modal shift from private vehicles to buses, and

(d) explain how the authority will monitor and report progress.”

This new clause would require local transport authorities to include in their transport strategies a specific plan for increasing bus usage, including measurable objectives and assessment against 2015 as a baseline year.

New clause 34—Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services—

“(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility, and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality, and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

New clause 35—Enhanced partnerships: stakeholder forum—

“(1) Every local transport authority in England that has formed an enhanced partnership must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a stakeholder forum to monitor the delivery of the enhanced partnership.

(2) The forum established by subsection (1) must meet at least once every three months, and its membership must include trade unions representing bus workers, passenger groups, and local businesses.

(3) Where two or more local transport authorities are working together in an enhanced partnership scheme, a single forum should be established to meet the duty set out in subsection (1).”

New clause 36—Concessionary travel for 16 and 17 year olds in education or training—

“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 150 insert—

‘150A Free bus travel for 16–17 year olds in education or training

(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons aged 16 or 17 and who are—

(a) in full-time education, or

(b) undertaking training on a course or programme that has been approved by Skills England.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”

New clause 37—Secretary of State duty to ensure services for certain towns—

“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every town in England is served by bus services which—

(a) operate seven days a week, and

(b) serve specified locations.

(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the relevant local authorities for the areas to which the duty applies,

(b) the integrated care boards for the areas to which the duty applies, and

(c) residents, or organisations representing residents, of the areas to which the duty applies for the purposes of determining the specified locations which must be served.”

New clause 39—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Wales)—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—

(a) bus service operators, and

(b) bus passengers,

on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Wales.

(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Wales to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.

(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Welsh Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

New clause 40—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Scotland)—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—

(a) bus service operators, and

(b) bus passengers,

on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Scotland.

(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Scotland to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.

(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

New clause 41—Driver access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 42—Bus safety performance data—

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

‘144F Bus safety performance data

(1) Local transport authorities must—

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

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

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

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

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

“In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).

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

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

New clause 44—Concessionary travel for people under the age of 22—

“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 150 insert—

‘150A Free bus travel for people under the age of 22

(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons under the age of 22.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”

This new clause would require transport authorities to provide free bus travel for children and young people who are under the age of 22.

New clause 45—Minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services—

“(1) It is a requirement for local transport authorities to provide a minimum level of bus services for individuals reliant on off-peak and nighttime transport to local and regional employment centres.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, commission each local authority in England to undertake an audit of the minimum off-peak and nighttime bus services required by those working in key employment centres in their respective areas.

(3) For the purposes of the audit specified in subsection (2), local authorities must consult with bus companies, trade unions, employers and members of the public.

(4) Where more than one local authority is responsible for the delivery, or funding, of local transport services in their respective localities, the audit specified in subsection (2) must be undertaken as a partnership between the relevant local authorities.

(5) Within three months of being commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake the audit under subsection (2), each local authority, or partnership of local authorities, must publish—

(a) the findings of its audit, and

(b) proposals for delivering the off-peak and nighttime services identified by the audit as necessary to fulfil the requirements laid out by subsection (1).

(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) a key employment centre means a city, a town with either a population above 50,000 people or whose economic output represents more than 10 per cent of that local authority’s economic activity.”

This new clause establishes a legal duty for local authorities to ensure a minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services to local employment centres, require the Government to commission local authorities to undertake an audit of local service requirements and produce proposals on providing a minimum level of services.

New clause 46—Duty to consider funding for service enhancements—

“(1) A local transport authority in England must consider whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.

(2) In exercising the duty under this section, the authority must have regard to—

(a) the potential for increased ridership; and

(b) the overall sustainability of the network.

(3) Service improvements under subsection (1) may include—

(a) increasing the frequency of existing services;

(b) extending operating hours;

(c) improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; or

(d) extending the routes of local services.”

This new clause would place a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate public funds to improve existing bus services where this would grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network, and sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions.

New clause 47—English National Concessionary Travel Scheme: Companion Passes—

“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.

New clause 48—Free travel for uniformed police officers—

“(1) The holder of a PSV operator’s licence must permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local service which has one or more stopping places in England.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, make a statement on options for compensating operators of local services for any costs that arise or revenues lost fulfilling the duty under subsection (1).

(3) In this section—

‘local service’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985;

‘police officer’ means a member of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales or a special constable appointed for such an area; and

‘PSV operator’s licence’ has the same meaning as in section 82 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.”

This new clause would permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local bus service in England.

Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4).

Government amendment 31.

Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).

(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’;

(A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert ‘, and

(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.

(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—

(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and

(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’

(A4) After subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’”

This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.

Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 6, line 33, at end insert—

“(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000.

(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead.

Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 6, line 38, after “2010)” insert “, or with special educational needs (within the meaning given by section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014),”.

This amendment would require local transport authorities wishing to proceed with a franchising scheme to consult bus users with special educational needs, or groups that represent them.

Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, after “fit;” insert—

“(db) relevant train operating companies and other public transport operators, for the purposes of ensuring coordination during peak travel times and tourist seasons;”.

This amendment would add other transport operators to the list of parties who are to be consulted when making or varying a franchising scheme.

Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, leave out line 10.

This amendment would retain the requirement for consultation when varying a franchising scheme.

Government amendments 32 and 33.

Amendment 66, in clause 14, page 10, line 5, after “services” insert “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.

Amendment 5, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert—

“(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must—

(a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities;

(b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities;

(c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models.

(4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting—

(a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area;

(b) users of local services;

(c) NHS providers;

(d) education providers;

(e) local employers and businesses;

(f) people with disabilities; and

(g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.”

This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services.

Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 10, line 20, leave out “and” and insert—

“(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, and

(v) schools and colleges.”

This amendment would ensure that primary health care services, schools and colleges are considered as “socially necessary local services”.

Amendment 60, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, after “activities.” insert—

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

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

Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where—

(a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and

(b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service.

(6) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme.

(7) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so.

Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable.

(6) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to—

(a) the scope and nature of the service;

(b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps;

(c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs;

(d) a timeline for the operation of the service;

(e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall.

(7) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (6)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered.

(8) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (7).

(9) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).”

This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established.

Amendment 8, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—

(a) the number of socially necessary local services in England;

(b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled;

(c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services;

(d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation;

(e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and

(f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.

(7) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues.

Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”

Amendment 27, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, after “comfort” insert “;—

(d) identify what, if any, provision is made to facilitate access to child and adolescent mental health services and other community-based mental health services not attached to hospitals.”

This amendment would require bus network accessibility plans to consider access to CAMHS and other community-based mental health services.

Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 17, line 3, at end insert—

“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.

(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.

(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”

This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.

Amendment 28, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“(6A) Guidance issued under subsection (6) must require local transport authorities, when making grants to operators, to take into account factors relevant to the provision of services in their area, including but not limited to—

(a) the rurality of the area or areas to be served;

(b) the age profile of persons in the area or areas to be served;

(c) measures of deprivation in the area or areas to be served; and

(d) the percentage of persons with disabilities in the area or areas to be served.”

This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the making of grants to bus operators to require authorities to consider factors relating to the demographics of the area or areas to be served when making grants.

Amendment 29, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“(6A) The guidance must include information on when and how local transport authorities and mayors may give grants for the purposes of replacing or otherwise providing for bus services in rural or isolated areas when a socially necessary local bus service has been withdrawn, including details of what Government support or funding will be available for such purposes.”

Amendment 61, in clause 23, page 19, line 3, after “environment,” insert—

“(ba) about the operation of concessionary fare schemes by the local transport authority,”.

This amendment would include information about concessionary fare schemes in the guidance about the making of grants by local transport authorities issued by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 9, in clause 23, page 19, line 13, at end insert—

“154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation

(1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it.

(2) In particular, local transport authorities may—

(a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services,

(b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and

(c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.

(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider—

(a) the size of the operator’s fleet,

(b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and

(c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.”

This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.

Government amendments 35 to 38.

Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”.

This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.

Amendment 59, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, at end insert—

“(2A) A local transport authority whose area is in England, or two or more authorities acting jointly, shall have the power to make byelaws prohibiting any person on the bus network from, to the annoyance of any person—

(a) singing; or

(b) using any instrument, article or equipment for the production or reproduction of sound.

(2B) Local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, make byelaws in accordance with the powers provided in subsection (2A).

(2C) Bus service operators, including those delivering services as part of a franchising, concessionary, or other scheme, must work with local police forces to ensure the effective enforcement of byelaws made under subsections (2A) and (2B).”

Government amendments 39 to 42.

Amendment 18, in clause 30, page 32, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places.

Amendment 64, in clause 30, page 32, line 22, at end insert—

“(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,”.

This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section to cover the provision of toilet facilities.

Amendment 11, in clause 30, page 32, line 29, at end insert—

“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.

This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.

Amendment 12, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take reasonable steps to implement”.

This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.

Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).

(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 19, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—

“(6A) The bodies listed in subsection (6) may depart from such guidance only if—

(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and

(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.

(6B) The bodies listed in subsection (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”

This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.

Amendment 20, in clause 31, page 34, line 32, at end insert—

“(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.”

This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.

Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 34, line 39, at end insert—

“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.

(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”

This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.

Amendment 14, in clause 34, page 37, line 18, after “2003” insert—

“(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).”

This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.

Government amendment 43.

Amendment 15, in clause 34, page 38, line 16, at end insert—

“144H Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility

(1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility.

(2) The relevant parties are—

(a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence;

(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England

where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services.

(3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding—

(a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services;

(b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and

(c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation.

(5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed—

(a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five-year period thereafter;

(b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations.

(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.”

This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regularly undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.

Government amendments 44 and 45.

Amendment 62, in clause 37, page 41, line 26, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 27 and insert “1 January 2027,”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 63, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered after 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).

Amendment 1, in clause 37, page 41, line 33, at end insert—

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

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

Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 42, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Amendment 30, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, leave out “2030” and insert—

“2028 in relation to vehicles to be used in areas containing all or part of a National Landscape, or 1 January 2030 in relation to all other vehicles, and the Secretary of State may by regulations provide any—

(a) financial remuneration, or

(b) specific guidance (or both)

that they deem necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the deadlines specified in this section.”

Amendment 16, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

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

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

Amendment 17, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government amendments 46 to 50, 34 and 51 to 57.

[Simon Lightwood]

I have the pleasure of opening today’s debate on Report. I look forward to a lively discussion on the Bill and thank Members of the House who are here to offer their views and speak to amendments that have been tabled. Before I move to the Government’s amendments, I will briefly recap why the Bill is before the House, speak to the Government’s wider reform of buses and provide an update on progress since Committee.

The Government are seeking to deliver better bus services. That means growing patronage and ensuring that more people can use the bus. It also means leaders having powers to shape the services in their communities and bus services that help to drive opportunities across the country; and safer, reliable, affordable, inclusive and integrated bus services. The measures in the Bill work towards this vision, as do the wider reforms announced by the Government to bus funding, the recent spending review commitments and the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027. Together, these form an ambitious set of interventions designed to reverse long-term trends and improve bus services.

Consistent with this objective, and following engagement with my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the forthcoming update to the statutory franchising guidance will confirm expectations that franchising authorities consult representatives of prospective users and that the statutory guidance on stopping places will set out the Department’s expectations for how safer and more accessible stopping places can encourage an increase in bus ridership by providing facilities that people can and want to use.

In Committee, there was a wide-ranging and detailed debate across the Bill’s measures and bus policy more generally. I committed to provide an update on Report on how my Department is working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators to raise awareness of certain cyclists’ behaviours around floating bus stops. Active Travel England will share materials with councils to promote awareness of the requirement for people cycling to give way to bus passengers at crossing points. This is alongside existing guidance on how to engage communities and design safe and accessible walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure.

Transport for London is carrying out a campaign to raise awareness of the highway code, with a particular focus on the rules designed to protect people walking, cycling and motorcycling. The campaign highlights five key rules that protect at-risk road users and apply where there is poor compliance and understanding of the rules, including some of the rules that were updated in 2022. This includes materials designed to remind road users, particularly cyclists, to give way at crossings at bus stops. Active Travel England and the Department have been involved in this work with the intention of sharing materials with local authorities outside London in due course.

Furthermore, in Committee, I set out that my Department will ask local authorities to undertake an audit of existing sites, alongside setting out to them our expectation on a pause. Active Travel England’s additional research includes a national audit of floating bus stops. I advise authorities to work collaboratively with ATE, so we can gain an accurate picture of where and what type of floating bus stops are in use, and therefore ensure that future guidance is comprehensive.

The Department will publish statutory guidance on the design of floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent. That will be supported by additional research into the design of existing floating bus stops and how they can be improved to ensure they are accessible. Active Travel England has provided funding to councils and encouraged them to review existing designs against the upcoming guidance and, where required, implement remediation works. Both audits of bus stop bypasses and remediation works can be funded using the active travel funding as an essential maintenance activity.

I now move to the Government amendments. New clause 38 has been brought forward at the request of the Scottish Government. It reflects close collaboration between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It will help provide greater certainty of the future demand in Scotland. I am committed to ensuring that the Governments continue to work together as they move towards the full transition to zero emission buses. The measure effectively replicates the provision in clause 37. It will have the effect of restricting the use of new non-zero emission buses on relevant services in Scotland. Powers provided to Scottish Ministers under clause 38 are analogous to those given to the Secretary of State under clause 37. Amendments 45 to 50 are consequential amendments that are minor and technical in nature or related to making transitional or saving provisions. The measure requires legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and, if necessary, the Government will return with an update during ping-pong.

Amendment 53 is a technical amendment that provides a clarification on the franchising variation procedure in the Bill’s schedule. Specifically, it clarifies the variation procedure that applies when a franchising authority wishes to vary two minor aspects of a franchising scheme—namely the additional facilities, such as depots and ticketing facilities, to be provided in the franchising area, and the description of the authority’s plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness. That will help give franchising authorities clarity on the process and ensure that relevant parties are consulted on such changes.

Amendment 57 provides further detail on who should be consulted when a franchising authority varies plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness included in its scheme, including Welsh Ministers, other affected local authorities, relevant organisations and the Passengers’ Council. Amendments 31 to 34, 51, 52 and 54 to 56 are minor and technical amendments to remove unnecessary wording.

The final set of Government amendments are numbered 35 to 45. These are minor and technical amendments that remove data protection overrides previously inserted into the Bill. The overrides are no longer necessary as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, and these matters are now covered automatically by virtue of that legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I am slightly surprised to be called so early, but I am delighted to speak in the debate. This will be an interesting debate. I am delighted that there is so much interest from Back Benchers. It is interesting to note that the Bill is primarily focused on process rather than passengers. I tried to work out why that was and came to the conclusion that it is, in fact, steeped in Labour’s political ideology—the ideology that the state is better at running things than private businesses—linked with the separate issue that it has a deep suspicion of the profit motive. In some of its clauses, which we will come on to in a moment, the Bill harks back to the 1960s and to municipal bus companies after the second world war. This feels like the happy place of the Labour party.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the shadow Minister to his place. My question is on his comments on profitability. Part of the challenge we have found in Essex is that routes that were considered not profitable were being cut, which meant that rural communities were feeling isolated. Does he recognise that if bus services are based purely on profitability, they could be lost, and that that is an issue?

11:30

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member is quite right, of course. I am not suggesting that bus services should be only for profit. He will know that Essex county council has an enhanced partnership agreement; it has a relationship with for-profit providers, but has negotiated that it will pay extra for social journeys. He will also note that Essex has had more growth in its passenger numbers than any of the franchise operations. In particular, it has had more passenger growth than the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the organisation that the Bill largely seeks to replicate.

The Bill has a deep suspicion of the profit motive and focuses on process, ignoring what the real purpose of the legislation should be. The House of Lords identified this lacuna in the drafting, and rectified it with a purpose clause, which was clause 1 when the Bill was considered in Committee. It said that the Act should

“improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.”

That is not a particularly high bar, or particularly onerous, because the Secretary of State merely had to have regard to those objectives. I would not have thought that was particularly challenging for the Government. However, it was too much for them, and they removed that purpose clause in Committee. New clause 34, which is in my name and that of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), seeks to reinstate that very reasonable clause. It would ensure that when we discuss the improvement of bus services, at the front and centre of our minds are the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services, so that we put the passenger first.

This Bill, despite the explanations given by the Minister a moment ago, remains weak on protections for the disabled, the partially sighted and the blind. That was a huge concern in Committee. There has been a lot of concern about this in the disabled community—concern particularly focused on floating bus stops, and bus stops with shared use borders. I note that the Minister said that he is looking at having guidance notes on design, and that there should be a campaign to remind cyclists in particular of the highway code. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think a design tweak could be made to a floating bus stop that would provide partially sighted and blind users with the security that they richly deserve when using bus services. An educational campaign to remind cyclists of their duties under the highway code would not do any harm, and I suggest that the Government do it, but it would not be the solution in its own right. We have had warm words from the Minister, both in Committee and today, but we need action. New clause 28 would give the Government six months to prepare proposals to prohibit the creation of new floating bus stops. The Government appear to be deaf to the blind, and not prepared to take effective action on this point.

The Government are also being weak on protections for bus passengers more generally. We want legislation that puts bus users first, both as regards accessibility, which I have mentioned, and protection against antisocial behaviour. We are not asking much—we are just asking that the legislation afford bus users the same protections that rail passengers benefit from. The Government have an opportunity to support those objectives, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that that is the direction that they should take.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the need to provide for disabled bus users. My amendment would require local authorities seeking a franchise to take people with special educational needs into account, and to consult them and the groups that represent them. Does he agree with that proposal?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady will know, from reading the Hansard of Committee proceedings, what time and effort the official Opposition put into supporting the aspiration to have increased accessibility across disability and special educational needs, so I am very supportive in principle of her amendment’s aims.

I have addressed accessibility, but what about pricing and increasing bus usage? We know from our experience of operating bus services over the past decade that price is one of the biggest factors affecting patronage. In the previous Administration, the Conservatives put forward a £2 bus fare cap, and it was enormously successful. Apart from anything else, it was hugely popular, but it also aided the recovery from covid, and in getting people back out and about. It was particularly useful for younger passengers; it helped to build their confidence and get them back on the road to recovery. In the run-up to the last election, the continuation of the £2 bus fare cap for the duration of this Parliament was a Conservative manifesto commitment. What was Labour’s response to that? Its first act on coming into power was to put the price up by 50%, from £2 to £3. To accompany that, there was a perverse claim that that was actually a price cut. One does not need to be an economist at the Bank of England, or even from the accounts department, to work that one out. Experience of customer complaints would be enough to enable a person to see that a price rise from £2 to £3 is exactly that: a rise, not a cut.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I’ll tell you what kind of cut is unacceptable—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

[Dr Tidball]

In my constituency—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Please be seated. I should have to say “Order” only once. You just said the word “you”, so let’s restart that intervention, which should be short.

[Dr Tidball]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only unacceptable cuts were those made to buses by the Conservative Government? In my constituency, 53% of buses were cut.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That does not take away from the overarching point that Labour has increased bus fares by 50% and described it as a price cut, which was disingenuous in the extreme.

We need to understand the impact of Labour’s price rise on ridership, and in particular on social accessibility. That understanding will inform behaviour, and should inform good policy for the future, but the Government have their head in the sand. Amendment 23, also in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services. That proposal was initially inserted in the other place, with wide support from a number of parties, but again, the Government decided to remove it in Committee. They need to own the consequences of their decisions. Last year, Transport Ministers needed to find money for an unfunded pay rise of 15% for ASLEF train drivers. Where did they get the money? Their first choice was to go after bus passengers, and their second was to go after pensioners.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister talks a lot about price, but he is defending a system in which my constituents must get three buses or more to get to their destination, and pay individual fares on those buses. Under the integrated system proposed in the Bill, we could have a price cap, like the one here in London. Why does he not support that principle?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am perfectly happy with that principle. In fact, it was a Conservative principle, first introduced in 2016. We do not have to choose between one thing and another; that is a false analysis. The pricing was a political decision by this ministerial team, who chose to increase prices from £2 to £3, and that was voted for by all Government Members; they made that political choice. The choice between a franchise scheme, an enhanced partnership scheme or any other form of scheme has nothing to do with the primary political choice, made by Labour Members, to raise prices for bus passengers to pay for unfunded union pay rises. That is simply the fact.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Political choices are made locally and nationally. Labour Members talk about the past 14 years, but we Conservatives won control of Lancashire county council in 2017, and increased the bus budget by 50%. We put on bus routes that the Labour party in Lancashire had made the political decision to cut, just as it chose to put up the price cap from £2 to £3. These are political choices.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I refer the House to Norfolk county council—another Conservative council, and the one in which my constituency is based—which has an enhanced partnership with bus companies. That partnership has been more effective in driving bus ridership than the franchised process has been in Manchester—at least as enacted by the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham.

I will now deal with franchising more fully. This bizarre draft legislation appears to have taken a good idea in principle and made it worse in practice. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) is quite right that the Conservative Government recognised in 2016 the potential for region-based transport integration. In principle, mayoral combined authorities had the scale, resources and financial sophistication to take on the responsibility of creating a franchised scheme, and would thereby have more control over the design of public transport in their area. That was a Conservative innovation, and I support it.

Under the 2017 legislation, other local transport authorities also had the ability to apply for franchise status, if I may loosely call it that. However, there was concern that smaller local authorities would not have as many resources—be they financial or top-tier management resources—to deal with and design such operations, so a critical safeguard was inserted in that legislation requiring such authorities, should they wish to go down the franchise route, to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for their plans. It is a sense-check—a needed safeguard—because franchising exposes local transport authorities to huge commercial risk. They are not just letting contracts and, as with an enhanced partnership, adding a bit extra on, after negotiation with commercial operators; they also become responsible for the design of the full bus map and timetable, and have the resulting commercial liability of providing all the buses and drivers. Authorities can either pay a bus company to operate for a fee, and so take no commercial risk—the company just turns up and does what it is told—or expose themselves further by creating a municipal bus company and doing everything themselves. If that goes wrong, it can bankrupt a local authority.

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

On the point about financial risk for local authorities, does my hon. Friend agree there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that local authorities such as mine, the Isle of Wight council, would possibly want to touch when it comes to franchising for buses across my constituency? The risk for small unitary authorities is just far too great. If there is any opportunity at all in this Bill—I am not sure that there is—it will apply only to large city councils and metropolitan areas.

15:00

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is quite right.

There is some good in the amendments. I come to amendment 58, which would reinsert the Secretary of State’s safeguard. That would not prohibit small unitaries from applying or developing a franchise model; it is about the Secretary of State having the ability to sense-check the commercial ability of an organisation to take the very significant commercial risks that franchising brings with it.

There is another massive lacuna in the current drafting of the Bill. Having expanded franchising to any local authority, no matter how small and whether district, county or unitary, the Secretary of State would withdraw from any power to intervene if things go wrong. We recognise that there is increased commercial risk and that we will ask potentially small local authorities to undertake wholly novel activities of which they have no experience at all, but the Secretary of State is saying, “We wash our hands of this. We do not want to have any power to intervene, even when there is a prolonged failure of services to the public.”

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Conservative position is to support combined authorities being able to take on franchising, yet the Conservative Tees Valley Mayor has flat out rejected franchising powers. I am proud that this Government are bringing forward this Bill to make it easier for combined authorities and other authorities to bring in franchising. In Committee, I raised the example of my constituent Norma Templeman, who has had to fight tooth and nail against the mayor and the bus companies to get buses into her village of North Skelton. How can that be right?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I thought the hon. Member was in favour of devolution. Not all mayoral combined authorities are the same; if we have a mayoral combined authority, we want to have the right system for the area that the mayor represents. If the mayor in Teesside thinks that it is not the right thing for him, I back his decision.

Let me move on to new clause 31, which would give the Secretary of State the power to step in where there has been

“a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.”

It seems genuinely extraordinary that the Government are saying no to that added safeguard. No cost is associated with it; the new clause just says that where there is prolonged failure on the ground to deliver the service for whatever reason, the Secretary of State would have the power to step in and take on the management. Why would the Government say that they do not need that backstop power? They voted it down in Committee, and I do not see them accepting it today either.

All the amendments from the loyal Opposition have a common theme: they put passengers first. This Bill is not really about passengers; it is for a bigger state, more unions and more union involvement, and it is primarily against private business involvement. I understand that that is the ideology of Labour Members, but the problem is that their ideology is demonstrably wrong in this instance, and we see that in the Bill. Without amendment, it will damage our bus services and almost certainly damage our local transport authorities, particularly the smaller ones, if they are misguided enough to follow the encouragement of the Government and go down this route. Above all, I am sorry to say that the Bill will damage the chances of our passengers.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Will Members please be seated? Before I go to speeches from Back Benchers, I want to be clear about where we are and what we are debating, because there seems to be some confusion among colleagues. We are debating the remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, and we are on Report. Speeches should relate to the amendments listed on the amendment paper, not the Bill as a whole, so please check the amendment paper; I say that for Back Benchers who hope to contribute.

I know that the next Member knows exactly what they are doing. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, except to say it is no surprise that our first stand-alone inquiry in the Transport Committee was on buses in England outside of London. That issue affects Members in England from across the House and from all sorts of constituencies.

I speak in support of two amendments that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), myself and others: amendment 66 and new clause 46. Since Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the Transport Committee has published its “Buses connecting communities” report, which focuses on potential solutions to the long-term decline in bus ridership in England outside London. If the Government seek the reversal of bus decline in England, I hope the Minister will support our two amendments. They add to the Bill, because they specifically seek to improve bus services in a way that relying on future guidance may not. They provide the context in which local transport authorities can determine their specific bus provision. Merely devolving greater control to local authorities without any kind of overarching values-based vision will not help in areas that have no interest whatsoever in enhancing and extending their services, and could risk simply entrenching inequality and decline.

New clause 46 seeks to ensure that local transport authorities have a duty to consider funding for service enhancements. It is about

“whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.”

The local transport authority must have regard to six principles. These are the potential for increased ridership; the overall sustainability of the network; the service improvements, particularly the frequency of existing services; extending operating hours; improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; and extending the routes of local services.

We know that progressive local authorities are committed to enhancing and expanding the public transport in their areas, and they do that; we have great examples under Labour mayors in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. Having more people on more buses addresses the policy objectives that they and we in Labour seek to achieve, such as addressing congestion, air pollution, carbon emissions, social and economic isolation, and growth. However, I fear that there are—and that there could be more—local authorities that care little for those important objectives, which are central to this Government’s values.

New clause 46 would therefore bake in a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate funds to improve bus services where it would

“grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network”.

It sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. It would also enable bus user groups and others to measure the intentions of their local transport authorities against those basic objectives.

New clause 46 comes from the Transport Committee’s recommendation 117, which says that the Department should

“require local transport authorities to consider using grant or fare box funding to enhance existing local bus services.”

The need to improve local bus services while growing ridership was a focal point of the evidence received by our Committee.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

On that point, does the hon. Lady accept that increasing the fare cap from £2 to £3 is likely to reduce ridership, whatever is contained in the new clause?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I speak in the context of devolution within an overarching set of values. I will not go into the specifics of what level a bus fare should be, but the overall ridership and the sustainability of the bus system are a key objective. I know the Minister will say that with devolution, how that happens is up to the local transport authorities.

Returning to the evidence we heard in Committee, as everybody here knows, buses remain the most used form of public transport, yet the number of bus journeys in England outside London has dropped from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024. Alongside the declining number of journeys, the need to improve services and increase ridership speaks to the evidence received by the Committee about the impact on social isolation of a lack of access to buses. Transport for the North told the Committee that in 2024 some 11.4 million people across England faced transport-related social exclusion, and there was evidence that the problem was worse in towns than in cities.

The Minister told us that the Government intended the Bill to deliver services that were more affordable and reliable, faster and better integrated. However, when pressed on whether people in England would see more buses to more places by the end of this Parliament, he said that that is certainly their intention and they are doing everything possible to make it happen. My contention is that without that being baked into the body of the Bill, there is a risk that in many places there could be a continued decline in bus services over time.

Amendment 66 to clause 14 relates to socially necessary services. It seeks to insert in line 5 of page 10 after the word “services”:

“along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.

It would be for the local transport authority to define that, but in a publicly visible way. The amendment asks that local authorities be required to produce a transparent methodology for how they determine these socially necessary services.

The North West Surrey Bus Users Group made the argument to the Committee that a clear and consistently applied definition was essential for holding local authorities accountable for maintaining basic service levels on loss-making routes. It warned that in the absence of sufficient guidance to date, some authorities had, to a greater or lesser extent, abdicated their responsibilities. As a result of such evidence, the Committee’s report recommended that the Department should mandate local transport authorities to publish their own transparent methodology for how they determine which bus services qualify as socially necessary to ensure public accountability—hence the reason for this amendment.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

North East Surrey College of Technology in my constituency is not accessible by bus, leaving students having to travel even further for their education because local bus services are simply not serving young people. Does the hon. Member agree that the Bill must expand the definition of socially necessary local services to explicitly include schools and colleges?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which goes to the heart of what I am saying: it is not for this Bill and this Government to define whether or not colleges, schools and so forth should be included—one would hope they would be—but it is for the local authority to define their socially necessary services according to the needs in their area. They should publish it, and a requirement to do so should be in the Bill.

I am pretty sure that the Minister will say, “Don’t worry, Chair of the Select Committee, it’ll be in the guidance.” My concern is that guidance is to some extent discretionary and can be changed over time. I, Alex Mayer and others would like to see the need to have a definition and methodology for socially necessary services stated in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I talked so highly of the Select Committee Chair and said that she does everything right, but I think she mentioned a colleague by their name, not by their constituency. Can we try and stick to the etiquette?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I have only been here 10 and a bit years; I will get used to it. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill as currently drafted suggests that local transport authorities merely define their socially necessary services. That could mean services as they are now; it does not take into account changes in need. New housing developments might mean that a loss-making route becomes commercially viable. The closure of a major employer might mean that nearby housing loses a viable bus service. The Bill allows for change, but it should require local authorities to have a publicly available methodology, on which user groups, communities and residents can hold their local transport authority to account.

15:15

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

In addition to the point about socially necessary routes, companies such as Stagecoach cut the frequency of essential buses—such as the No. 2 from Exeter through to Dawlish in my constituency and on down towards Paignton. That drives people away from the buses; when the frequency goes down from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes, it makes the service unusable and takes away the social value of the route.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Member is entirely correct.

Our amendments would support local transport authorities to grow their local bus networks actively in response to demographic and economic changes, not just to manage the decline. Without the amendments, particularly amendment 66, the only requirement is for authorities to list their current services. While acknowledging the Government’s rightful drive on devolution, our Committee would not want any local transport authority to walk away from the Bill’s important objectives to promote growth, particularly in towns across England; to promote reliability and integration; and to address social isolation, inequality, traffic congestion and pollution.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister and commend him for his constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill on the Floor of the House, in Committee and via the usual channels.

Let me make it clear from the outset that my party supports the basic tenets of this Bill. The Tories’ ideologically driven decision to deregulate the bus network in the ’80s and allow private operators to cream off the profitable routes paid scant regard for many unprofitable, mainly rural, routes serving small communities, which unless subsidised by an increasingly hard-pressed local government were simply abandoned. Since 1985, as a direct consequence of their meddling, the number of bus journeys taken in this country has fallen by over 2 billion—a decline of almost 40%—and more than 8,000 services have been cut or withdrawn entirely. In counties such as Shropshire and Devon, and across the country from Cornwall to Caithness, entire villages lost daily services, and some areas were reduced to one bus per week or none.

The Bill represents a bold attempt to reverse that decline. If implemented properly, which will require more funding than currently on offer, it could be transformational, returning control over local bus networks to local communities. It would remove bureaucratic barriers to franchising, enabling local authorities to design routes, timetables, fares and branding that meet the needs of communities, while allowing profitable routes to cross-subsidise the unprofitable ones, rather than lining the pockets of big business, opening up the possibility of a more reliable, integrated and affordable network, which is so crucial for rural and deprived areas that are currently facing steep service declines.

Liberal Democrats want to ensure that this legislation fulfils its potential by empowering local communities, protecting vital routes and driving the shift to greener, fairer transport. We know how important buses are to people’s daily lives. If this Bill is to succeed, it must put passengers first. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled so many amendments. I acknowledge that many of them will not be selected for a vote, but even at this late hour, I ask the Minister, please, to cast his eye over them to see which ones he might still accept.

It is worth highlighting that no fewer than 42 amendments were accepted on Report in the Lords, 30 of them from the Government and a further six from Lord Blunkett which the Government chose to support, after some intensive behind-the-scenes lobbying by my Lib-Dem colleagues. I thank them for amendments that we re-tabled in this place to address bus fare affordability, disabled passenger access, decarbonisation of the bus fleet and the protection of socially necessary routes.

[Helen Maguire]

The E5 bus service for Langley Vale in my constituency has a woefully inadequate timetable and a route that does not stop at the local hospital. Local bus routes are simply not servicing my residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill must tackle poor services and restore the £2 fare cap, reversing the devastating effect of route cuts administered under the Conservatives?

[Mr Kohler]

Those are exactly the issues that the Bill should and could address if the Minister took the bold steps we are asking of him today. In its passage through the other place, the Bill was clearly strengthened through constructive engagement across the political divide. The Government have been willing to accept sensible proposals from their lordships, so surely there can be no good reason why equally sensible amendments tabled here in the Commons could not be adopted.

One such sensible proposal concerns floating bus stops. Badly designed floating bus stops are a menace to the disabled, old and infirm, and in particular to the visually impaired, which is why my party tabled new clause 17, requiring the Secretary of State not only to conduct a review, but to retrofit all existing floating bus stops where necessary. We support amendments 18 to 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and welcome the Minister’s concessions on the issue.

I will address the three amendments that we continue to press with most conviction before turning to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). Our amendment 10 addresses the scourge of headphone dodgers, which is not a trivial matter. Many passengers feel unsafe or uncomfortable when others play loud content on their devices without headphones, oblivious of those around them. That is not simply an irritation; it causes genuine distress to many trying to travel in relative peace and quiet. More than 75% of those who use public transport stated that it disturbs them, according to a recent Savanta poll. More than 80% of people in a separate YouGov poll agreed that it is unacceptable.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that the provisions apply to people who travel on trains but not on buses? Does he understand why the Government made that distinction?

[Mr Kohler]

I agree entirely. We need a simple rule across all public transport. I also think it is odd that the hon. Gentleman makes that point after his colleagues jeered me when I first raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions a few months ago—but I thank him for his support now. Our amendment 10 would allow local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to prohibit such disruptive antisocial noise. It would be a simple, practical measure that would make bus travel better for everyone. Some have argued that such measures are illiberal, but liberalism—unlike libertarianism—is as concerned with responsibilities as with rights. My right to play loud content on my phone does not preclude my responsibility not to cause someone else unnecessary disturbance by failing to plug in my headphones—after all, that is why they were invented.

When I first raised this issue at PMQs, as I mentioned, the Conservatives and Reform—who are not here, of course—jeered at the suggestion. I cannot say whether the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) or other members of the shadow Transport Front-Bench team joined in that chorus. Although the Prime Minister, in his extremely constructive answer, agreed that it was a serious issue, his Labour colleagues in Committee voted down the amendment, which the Tories also refused to support, consistent with their previous hostility.

In a bizarre volte face, the Conservatives have now tabled an amendment that mirrors our own, and the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, has taken to the airwaves in recent weeks to demand action on headphone dodgers, having miraculously seen the light—or at least heard the noise. Whether that was because of headphone dodgers or Conservative headquarters focus groups, I will leave others to judge. People say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and, despite the Conservatives’ previous mocking and blocking, I am delighted to welcome our Conservative friends to the cause. I ask the Minister to listen again—which would be a damned sight easier to do were amendment 10 accepted and the headphone dodgers were consigned to history.

Without doubt, the Minister will say as he did in Committee, that the Bill already gives local transport authorities the ability to address antisocial behaviour. However, it does not explicitly reference the scourge of auditory disturbance, which is so serious a problem as surely to merit the individual attention that our amendment 10 would provide, empowering local transport authorities to create a bus environment that is safe, civil and comfortable for everyone. If the Government are serious about improving the passenger experience, they, like the late-arriving Conservatives, must surely come around to supporting this sensible Liberal Democratic policy, which according to Savanta is supported by a vast majority of the public; only 13% are opposed.

New clause 1 would reinstate the £2 bus cap. The Government’s recent decision to hike the cap to £3 represents a 50% increase that will drive people off buses and hit the most vulnerable in our society.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I absolutely support the reduction of the price cap to £2. However, in my constituency, where the Conservatives cut bus routes by more than 50% over the past decade, people often have to get several buses, so for a couple of constituents I have, going to the Jobcentre costs them £12, even though a price cap is in place. Do we not need a simpler structure and proper investment so that buses do not cost so much?

[Mr Kohler]

Those are indeed the issues that we need to address and that are not addressed at the moment—my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The poorest, who use buses the most, are already struggling with the cost of living crisis. No amount of spin can hide the fact that the Government’s decisions represents a huge fare increase, despite the Prime Minister taking to social media last month to proclaim that he was putting working people first, and that this fare rise would “cut costs” for working families. No, it will not.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

In Torbay, which is sadly one of the most deprived constituencies in the south-west of England, bus travel is the primary form of public transport. The £2 price cap was valued by young people and by those of working age in navigating Torbay. Does my hon. Friend agree that its reinstatement would help oil the wheels of our communities, such as Torbay?

[Mr Kohler]

That is hugely important. If we want to get people back on the buses and help the most deprived in our society, we need to reinstate the £2 bus cap.

Fares have risen to the point where many households simply cannot afford to use the bus regularly. A £2 fare cap would make a tangible difference to low-income families, students and modest earners, while also helping to reduce congestion and cut emissions by getting more people out of their cars. Sadly, new clause 1 has not been scheduled for a vote, so we will support the Conservatives’ more modest proposal, amendment 23, requiring the Secretary of State to conduct an impact assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap.

Another clause that will not be pressed to a vote is our new clause 48, which would have provided free travel for uniformed police officers in order to provide greater reassurance to the travelling public. Antisocial behaviour—and not just headphone dodging—is on the increase across the bus network, and the sight of more police officers on buses would only help to reduce that menace. Currently, there is a patchwork of different schemes covering some, but not all, bus operators, and requiring officers to produce a variety documentation to access free travel, which is not infrequently denied. Our new clause would have provided a simple baseline requiring no bureaucracy, allowing every officer in uniform to travel freely on any bus. I again ask the Minister to consider accepting that costless improvement to the safety of the bus network.

I now turn to a hugely consequential cross-party amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), whose work on the Bill has been thoughtful and persistent. His new clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes. It is supported not just by Liberal Democrats but by Members across the House, including on the Government Benches. Disabled passengers, forced to travel at restricted times under current rules, face unnecessary barriers to jobs, appointments and social inclusion. Removing time restrictions would allow them to use the bus network when they need it. It is right that the House should support this new clause, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it forward.

Rigid time slots reflect outdated thinking. Disabled people deserve travel choices that reflect real-life needs. If, as they claimed during their ill-fated attempt to reduce personal independence payments before the recess, the Government really want to help more disabled people back into work, removing such restrictions would be a wonderful place to start. I am delighted that Mr Speaker has selected new clause 2 for a vote, and I ask Members across the House to bear witness to the cross-party support that it has already received by voting together in support of it.

In conclusion, my party welcomes the Bill, which will make a real difference to our bus network, but I call on the Government and the Minister to not allow petty party rivalry and tribalism to stand in the way of making this legislation even more effective by voting against the sensible amendments and new clauses that we have proposed.

11:30

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the RMT and Unite parliamentary groups, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the RMT for its support in scrutinising the Bill. With thousands of members working in the bus sector across England, it is uniquely placed to contribute its expertise.

The context is stark. In 2024 there were 76 million fewer bus journeys in the north-east compared with 2010—a fall of more than a third. That decline is not just a statistic; it represents missed shifts, social isolation and communities cut off from opportunity. I place on record that I support the Bill, but I will speak to the four amendments that stand in my name—new clauses 25, 26, 27 and 35—and voice my support for new clause 45.

New clause 27 would create a national bus forum with representatives from the Government, local transport authorities, operators and trade unions. Deregulation has left the sector fragmented, making it hard to tackle challenges, such as recruitment, retention, skills and safety, in a coherent way. The Transport Committee’s 2018 inquiry into the health of the bus market, undertaken when I was a member of the Committee, recommended that the Government’s strategy be

“underpinned by a national forum”

to share information on service improvement, workforce issues and safety. The National Audit Office echoed that, urging the Department for Transport to use the bus centre of excellence to collate and share best practice. A national forum would provide that structure and oversight.

However, national oversight alone is not enough. New clause 25 would require all local transport authorities introducing franchising to establish a joint forum with unions and operators. The Government said that they expect LTAs to engage with unions, although expectation is not a guarantee. However, leaving this as an “expectation” will not guarantee meaningful engagement everywhere. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), there are inconsistencies, including in the Tees Valley. Some LTAs are experienced in working constructively with unions, but others are not. A statutory requirement would ensure consistent and meaningful engagement everywhere.

New clauses 26 and 35 address enhanced partnerships. Many local transport authorities will opt for enhanced partnerships instead of franchising, and that is a matter for them. At present, stakeholder forums must include passengers, businesses and neighbouring authorities, but unions are not listed. I respectfully say to the Minister that if the aim of stakeholder forums is to involve those most directly affected, then surely the workforce cannot be excluded. New clauses 26 and 35 would remedy that by requiring trade union participation in every enhanced partnership forum.

I support new clause 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), which would establish a legal duty on councils to provide a minimum level of night-time bus services to local employment centres, ensuring that workers such as nurses, hospitality staff and factory employees can get home safely. This is particularly important for women, given that more than one in four will experience some sort of sexual assault in their lifetime. Night-time buses are a matter not just of convenience, but of safety.

Taken together, new clauses 25, 27, 26 and 35 form a coherent package—national oversight and best practice matched by consistent workforce engagement at local level. Alongside new clause 45, these new clauses demonstrate what this Bill should achieve: a bus system that is accountable, safe and responsive to the needs of both passengers and staff. If the Government cannot accept them, I urge the Minister to commit instead to addressing these matters through guidance or a code of practice, and to meet the trade unions and stakeholders to decide how that might be achieved. The Bill represents an opportunity to reshape bus services for the better, but that opportunity will be wasted if we repeat the mistakes of deregulation, fragmentation, inconsistency and sidelining the workforce. These new clauses are about making sure that this time we get it right.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I rise to support new clause 47, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I will also make a passing reference to his excellent new clause 2, which I wholeheartedly support and which—as we have heard—is designed to remove the time restrictions on when disabled persons’ concessionary bus passes can be used.

New clause 47 is very simple and, I would like to think, very logical. It simply requires that the Secretary of State should,

“within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.

I was first alerted to this problem by some very effective lobbying done in Parliament a few months ago, which other right hon. and hon. Members may well remember. I was lobbied by a number of my constituents, who said to me that there was not much point in having a concessionary pass to use buses free of charge if they were unable to do so except when helped by a companion. It rather made a mockery of the concession.

I followed this up with a visit to the New Forest branch of Mencap, and the implications of the scheme were impressed on me as being so obvious as to require little supporting argument. What is the point of giving somebody something for free if they cannot use it without the assistance of someone else, unless a designated companion is able to travel with them for free on the same bus pass? A number of county councils, for example, allow this, but it is a discretionary power. That seems rather strange, because a number of aspects of the scheme are statutory requirements. I believe this should be one of them, if it is not to make a nonsense—as I have already explained—of the statutory requirement that disabled persons should have a free bus pass.

I have tabled a couple of written questions on this topic. One in particular—number 48343, tabled on 27 April—asked the Government whether their review of the English national concessionary travel scheme had made a recommendation on the question of companion passes for the disabled. The answer read, in part:

“The Department for Transport conducted a review of the ENCTS and is currently considering next steps. The review did not consider adding companion passes to the statutory criteria for the scheme.”

The answer then added a standard formulation that I have received in response to other questions on this topic:

“Currently, local authorities in England have the power to go beyond their statutory obligations under the ENCTS and offer additional discretionary concessions, such as extending the travel time criteria for the ENCTS.”

I simply put it to the House that if a pass-issuing authority has a statutory duty to provide disabled people with a free bus pass, there ought to be a statutory duty to require a designated companion to be included on that same pass for those who cannot use it without a companion. That is probably not something that will be decided today, but I hope the impeccable logic of my argument will appeal to the Minister and that within 12 months he will take the action requested.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and to new clauses 23 and 24. I begin by commending the Minister for his engagement with me on this Bill. We have had some robust and good dialogue and conversation on floating bus stops, and I am sure he would agree with me on that.

Nobody in this place should be surprised to hear me speaking about floating bus stops. As we know, for more than a decade, floating bus stops have created a huge challenge for pedestrians. Active Travel England has rightly said:

“Bus stops should be easily accessible… The routes to the bus stops should be safe, direct, convenient and accessible for people of all abilities.”

Is there anybody in this House who does not agree with that?

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend knows that one of the busy floating bus stops in my constituency is right outside St Thomas’ hospital, which I will confess I have had a few bumps on. She and I did oppose its introduction. Does she agree that all floating bus stops should be reviewed, so that when patients are going to important sites such as hospital, they are not being knocked from their bikes or buggies?

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree 100% with her assessment. She is right; all those years ago—I do not want to say how long, because we will be showing our age—we opposed that floating bus stop outside St Thomas’ hospital, because we knew the challenges it would present for pedestrians.

Pedestrians continue to be injured at floating bus stops, with cyclists too often failing to give way. Even though some floating bus stops have small zebra crossings, it is rare to see cyclists stop. We know that blind and partially sighted people are having to walk into cycle lanes and into the way of cyclists, and they cannot see. That will be terrifying and a dangerous experience for them. The risk of injury can undermine their ability to travel independently and safely, and not being able to travel independently is life-limiting. It affects everything from, as my hon. Friend has just said, accessing vital health services, to holding down a job, or just being able to go out and socialise with friends.

Anecdotally, we know that people are experiencing injuries and collisions at floating bus stops. For that reason, I strongly believe that we need to have hard data if we are to address the problem properly. That is why my amendment 21 would ensure that data is gathered on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. As we know, they vary in their design and some pose more danger than others.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. She knows that, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, I share similar concerns for them. We often see that bus ramps are designed to fit in with the bus boarder, but it is then very difficult for the wheelchair user to pivot from the exit of the bus ramp back on to the pavement. Will she join me in continuing to impress upon the Government that we have got to get the design right in order to assist all disabled people, and that disabled people—whether blind or partially sighted, or wheelchair users—must continue to be engaged in this dialogue?

15:45

[Marsha De Cordova]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so well. I am fairly certain that the Minister will have heard him loud and clear and will agree. It is so important that we get the design right. If we are seeking to do what is best, we need to know what needs to be changed, and we need to collect data on the design and location of all floating bus stops so that we can compare it with the number of collisions and injuries.

I very much welcome the fact that Active Travel England will undertake further research, including a national audit and safety review of all floating bus stops, to gain an accurate picture of where such bus stops are in use, what type they are, and so on. That could really help to shape future guidance. I hope that the Minister will say a little more about when the research will commence, because I am sure that many people will welcome it.

Although I appreciate that there will be an equality impact assessment of the Bill as a whole, and that impact assessments have already been produced, it is clear to me that there needs to be a particular focus on the concerns of blind and partially sighted people when it comes to shared-use bus boarders and floating bus stops, so my new clause 23 would require an equality impact assessment on their provision. If we are to have the truly accessible transport system that we are all striving for, we need to pay attention to the impact of our transport decisions on disabled people.

Floating bus stops were introduced in London in 2013, and they have caused havoc. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned the one just over the bridge outside St Thomas’ hospital, but even in my own Battersea constituency they just appear, and they really do create a challenge for many—and not just for disabled people or blind and partially sighted people, but for the elderly and for families with young children and buggies. I would go so far as to say that in many respects the safety interests of some groups of road users have sometimes been treated more favourably, to the detriment of others.

[Florence Eshalomi]

Does my hon. Friend agree that by getting this right and ensuring that we have bus stops that are accessible for everybody, including partially sighted people and disabled people, we will encourage more people to use public transport, because they will feel that it is safe and accessible for them?

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are encouraging people to do more active travel and to use public transport, so we need to ensure that the transport network is fully accessible and inclusive. The Minister has confirmed that an equality impact assessment will be published upon Royal Assent, and I press him again to clarify that for me.

Right now, we have a system that blind and partially sighted people say puts them at risk. It is not just me, with my own lived experience, saying that; many blind and partially sighted people say it, and the many organisations that support them have said the same. That tells me that we perhaps need to rethink floating bus stops. Indeed, if I had my way—I do not, unfortunately—I would ban them all, because they have created a challenge. None the less, we are where we are, and I am really pleased that the Government want to work to improve the situation. I welcome the fact that clause 31 seeks to address some of the challenges. My new clause 24 would place a duty on the Government to carry out an independent assessment.

I welcome the Government’s commitment on producing guidance for local services around the country in order to promote active travel, but also to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely and in reasonable comfort. In my view, that must be mandatory; it cannot be optional. I know the Minister has heard my concerns, and he has confirmed that that will be the case.

I also welcome the partial pause on some types of floating bus stops. As Members have said, it is so important that we address some of the safety concerns before moving to a full-scale roll-out of floating bus stops. I thank organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the National Federation of the Blind, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Transport for All, and the many blind, partially sighted and disabled people, for campaigning on this issue relentlessly to ensure that we really have a public realm that is fully accessible and fully inclusive, so that we can all benefit.

I will not push my new clauses and amendments to a vote. I fully support the Government in their endeavour, and I support this Bill.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

North Shropshire is a very rural constituency, and it is nestled in against the Welsh border, which is wiggly—I think that is the best way to describe it. That means that my constituents’ experience of using buses can be problematic, and I have tabled some new clauses that I hope the Minister will reflect on.

Shropshire is one of the worst-served counties for buses, having lost 66% of its bus miles since 2015. It has lost more bus miles, by percentage, than any other county in England. The average loss of bus miles is about 20.9%, so it has been a severe experience for my constituents. Towns such as Market Drayton have almost become isolated, because their bus service is so poor. I am sure the House has heard me say before that there is only one bus running in Shropshire on Sundays. I am lucky enough to be able to report that it runs from a town in my constituency, but it is hardly an acceptable situation for my constituents.

New clause 37 is sponsored by 30 colleagues from across the House, revealing that my constituents’ experience is shared by people in many parts of rural Britain. It tries to address the problem of poor bus services in market towns by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that a service must be available seven days a week, and that she consults the relevant bodies to ensure that constituents using the bus service can access essential services. My Bus Services Bill, which aims to get people to hospital and other health services when they need to do so, has that requirement, but it could equally be applied to schools, colleges and other important destinations for people who find themselves isolated.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

In Bournemouth East, I am campaigning to get a better bus route to Bournemouth airport, to improve the No. 33 and to reinstate a service in Throop, where the community feel very disconnected. Does the hon. Lady agree that one benefit of this Bill is that it empowers local authorities to run their own bus companies so that they can reinstate those routes?

[Helen Morgan]

I am broadly supportive of the Bill, because I think it will do that. My point is that the power to franchise bus services is all very well, but the funding needs to follow the power. Otherwise, constituencies such as mine will not see the improvements for which they are desperate.

Colleagues have talked about the bus fare cap. I am supportive of measures to keep it at £2, but I must point out that in constituencies such as mine, which has little in the way of bus services, a cap has not made a huge difference. Some of the operators have not opted into that cap, so it has had limited impact for my constituents, important as it is.

The £1 billion fund announced by the Department for Transport last November promised to give rural and coastal areas a real sea change in their bus services, but in Shropshire—as I mentioned, it has had the worst drop-off in its services in the whole country—only £2.5 million was allocated. That is the critical point and why I am fully supportive of the Bill’s measures that will allow local authorities to decide where bus services are essential. The funding needs to follow them, regardless of whether areas are in a combined authority or have a mayor, and it should follow need, not just structure. I urge the Minister to take that on board.

Although we are not voting on new clause 37, across the House, including on the Government Benches, 30 Members have sponsored it. Many similar amendments have been tabled that likewise seek to improve bus services for people living in rural areas, and ensure they are adequate to access essential services. I urge the Minister to consider the intentions of my new clause, and those of similar amendments tabled by colleagues, and commit to some kind of improvement for rural areas when he makes his closing remarks.

I mentioned that North Shropshire is pressed up against the border with Wales and that the border with Wales is very wiggly. That gives my constituents a specific challenge with their bus passes. If they want to catch a bus between two destinations in England but it stops in Wales or they need to change in Wales, their bus pass is not valid. I think that is a bit crazy. For example, if they want to go from Oswestry to Chester and they need to change at Wrexham, their bus pass will not be valid. That is the one service that runs on a Sunday. We need to ensure that people can use their bus passes when they are crossing the border. That is a very low-cost thing, which ought to be very easy for a Government to sort out. My new clause 39 would require the Secretary of State to liaise with the Welsh Government and come up with a workable solution for what is probably an unintended consequence of devolution between England and Wales. I hope the Minister will take that on board and consider a workable solution for people using their bus passes across the border.

I also tabled new clause 40, which replicates that requirement for Scotland. I appreciate that that does not impact my constituents in North Shropshire, but I tabled it in the name of being inclusive.

I am proud to have been one of the first signatories to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I will not take any of the credit for the new clause because he has done all the hard work, but I will urge the Minister to consider accepting new clause 2 because it is so important. Disability does not stop at 9.30.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

I speak in support of the Bill and in favour of new clause 22 in my name.

We can now say in complete confidence that the privatisation and deregulation of our bus services has been a catastrophic failure for rural towns and villages such as those across North East Hertfordshire. Decades of dogmatic adherence to flawed ideology has created vast public transport deserts where residents have no meaningful alternative to driving a car. The consequent social costs of this failure have been profound: more and more traffic that stifles our communities and chokes our rivers and air with life-limiting pollution; young people cut off from education and employment, forced to leave their homes to get on in life; and our elderly trapped in loneliness and isolation, which should be a source of shame for our entire nation. The privatisation disaster means for those unable to drive or afford a car, a connected life in rural England is practically impossible.

I welcome many of the clauses in the Bill that together offer a chance to reverse the hollowing out of our villages which threatens to end centuries of cultural and economic vibrancy. We need a bus network that comprehensively meets the needs of every community, especially for rural areas that lost their train stations in the Beeching cuts, including Buntingford, Westmill, Braughing, and Standon in my constituency. That is why I have tabled new clause 22, which would empower Ministers to conduct a review into the delivery of guaranteed minimum bus service standards for every community with more than 300 residents across England.

During the progress of the Bill, I ran a survey on the experience of my constituents of their local bus services. Hundreds of residents responded and a massive, if unsurprising, 83% of them felt that the bus services available do not offer a viable alternative to owning and driving a car. As I am sure you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether via the survey or in community meetings, my constituents have been none too shy in sharing their thoughts about the quality, reliability and general usefulness of local bus services. Consequently, it is completely clear to me that voters in North East Hertfordshire are utterly fed up with a bus network based on profitability for shareholders rather than public need. The measures in the Bill to address that with a long-overdue strengthening of socially necessary bus services are very welcome.

However, to succeed in meeting the hopes of communities such as those that I represent, we should go further and move towards a universal basic right to public transport with enshrined service standards across the country, replacing the threadbare, patchwork and inadequate network left by deregulation. Although it may be difficult to imagine, given the current state of public transport in our nation, that is, in fact, something that other countries are quite happily doing already. In Switzerland, the region of Zurich guarantees villages of 300 people or more at least an hourly bus service running seven days a week from 6 am to midnight, linking rural residents to regional facilities for employment, education, training, shopping and leisure, while North Hesse in Germany has a target of bus services reaching every village across the region every hour.

11:30

Now is the time to show that we are no less ambitious for our communities and to set out on a path towards internationally leading bus services in England. To achieve that, new clause 22 would trigger a review into setting minimum bus service standards for communities in England, considering their varying requirements based on population size and rurality, alongside the regulatory powers and funding arrangements necessary for local transport authorities to implement a comprehensive network of this nature. I look forward to hearing the response from the Front Bench to this new clause, which I hope they will consider in the positive light in which it is intended.

I note that the Minister argued against new clause 22 in Committee, on the basis that he believes that the legislation to guarantee minimum levels of service for communities already exists in the Transport Act 2000. I gently say to him that, having reviewed that legislation with a little support from the superb staff at the Commons Library, I have not been able to identify any such powers. I am more than happy to accept that I may well be wrong on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but suffice it to say that Transport Act 2000 or no, the communities I represent in North East Hertfordshire are not yet enjoying bus services remotely comparable to those delivered to guaranteed standards in Switzerland, Germany and elsewhere.

Of course, a comprehensive bus network with guaranteed minimum service standards will require adequate public funding, and it is important to be up front about that. However, year on year, under successive Governments, we have spent billions of pounds on wasteful, counterproductive and environmentally damaging road-building schemes. Analysis suggests that redirecting that funding to the bus services our constituents need for their day-to-day lives would fully fund guaranteed minimum service standards across the country.

A comprehensive bus network based on guaranteed minimum service standards would transform public transport across the country, especially for rural areas. It would demonstrate the profound change the Labour Government were elected to deliver. Above all, it would inject new optimism and opportunities into our communities, as people would find themselves able to make entirely different life choices: young adults could choose to stay living close to friends and family, as commuting from the village they grew up in would become a genuine possibility; key workers struggling with the cost of living could avoid debt and hardship without the need to buy and maintain a second car; and high street businesses would flourish, with greater footfall and an expanded pool of employee talent and energy.

It is time for public transport that puts people before profit. New clause 22 would do just that.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My constituents want the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services to be improved, and that is why I support new clause 34. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for re-tabling it. When the Secretary of State spoke to the Bill on Second Reading, she said that improving bus services underpins the Government’s plan for change. If that is the case, it strikes me as odd that the Government would strip out a new clause made in the other place that specifically stated that that was the purpose of the Bill.

I also support new clause 29, which calls for a review of the provision of bus services to villages in England. There are many villages in my constituency with poor or non-existent bus routes, with particular problems in Spaxton, Enmore, Combwich, Fiddington and Stockland Bristol. These villages find themselves just off the main routes, with the residents left all but stranded, unable even to get to and from Bridgwater unless they have a car.

Even in the villages that do have services, far too often the bus service stops in the early evening. For example, the last No. 16 bus to Langport, which serves Westonzoyland, Middlezoy and Othery, leaves Bridgwater at 5.15 pm. That means not only that the services fail to cater for those who want to travel for leisure, but that many constituents are unable to use buses for commuting because they cannot get home after work.

The review should also consider integration between different modes of transport, which is an important issue for those living in rural areas who need to travel further afield. There has been no usable bus stop at Bridgwater railway station for several years because of road layout problems. It is a relatively small fix, but despite running Somerset council for the last three years, the Lib Dem administration seems unable to fix the problem. We must ensure that the Bill obliges local authorities to act in circumstances such as these, and I hope the review will assist in that.

Another problem my constituents would wish the review to consider is seasonal timetables. I am fortunate to represent a beautiful part of Somerset that attracts large numbers of visitors to both the coast and the Quantock hills. During the summer, demand for buses is understandably higher. What the bus operators seem to forget, however, is that the local resident population relies on bus services continuing all year round. Seasonal buses help those in the north of my constituency commuting to work or college in Weston-super-Mare. The reduced frequency of the No. 20 bus service and the lack of a Sunday service in the winter months mean that fewer people can rely on it. I hope that the Government accept the need for this review and that its results better inform policy when the new franchising is rolled out.

I support amendment 23, which calls for an assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap. The £2 cap was a great achievement of the last Conservative Government, and I was disappointed when the Labour Government decided to scrap it. They increased the amount that all our constituents have to pay by 50% and then proclaimed it a triumph. It sounds like something from Soviet propaganda. We are supposed to welcome this glorious new £3 bus fare as some sort of victory of the proletariat over the forces of capitalism, conveniently forgetting what preceded it. I want to see the £2 cap reinstated, and I hope that the assessment will be the first step toward that.

I want to see bus services improved for my constituents. I believe that amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34 would improve the Bill, and I urge the Minister to accept them.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses.

Within my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) are two sites of the UK’s largest bus manufacturer, Alexander Dennis, which employs around 400 people in Falkirk, with thousands more jobs dependent on the buses created at Falkirk. Manufacturers will welcome new clause 38 and the certainty that it gives by consolidating the provisions of the Bill in Scotland.

Bus manufacturing in Britain has been in difficulty in the past year, partly due to the failure of the previous Government to deliver on their pledge of 4,000 British-built, zero emission buses by 2024. In the end, they supported just over half that number, with just under half being bought from abroad. The Tories funded too few buses and got far too many of them from elsewhere in the world.

Then there was a second policy failure, this time by the Scottish Government’s recent ScotZEB 2 programme, which saw less than one fifth of its buses come from Scotland’s only bus manufacturer and more than three times more come from China. Standing up for Scotland—aye right! Both the Conservatives and the Scottish National party did not take the protection of the domestic bus manufacturing sector seriously, and their failure has jeopardised hundreds of jobs in my constituency and potentially thousands in the supply chain across the country.

All this is to say that the future of a domestic industry that we will need if we want to see a green, clean, safe and effective bus network is contingent on legislation that supports the effective domestic procurement of buses and enables local authorities to make decisions that are right for their area and put the passenger first. The Bill does an excellent job of delivering on those priorities, with a streamlined and more flexible franchising process, stronger powers for grant funding from local authorities, and local authorities able to order in bulk, as in the case of the Bee Network in Manchester.

The Bee Network was bolstered by 254 buses ordered from and built in Falkirk. I will never miss an opportunity to remind the House that the Bee Network’s buses were reliant on the skills and craftmanship of bus manufacturing workers in Falkirk, more than they were reliant on any other place. That is thanks in no small part to the instincts and political foresight of the Mayor of Manchester to work in the national interest—instincts that will be empowered across the country by the provisions in the Bill. If only we had the same foresight from the Scottish Government, who must now deliver on their commitment to a prospective rescue deal for Alexander Dennis workers following the excellent engagement and flexibility of our Transport, Cabinet Office and Scotland Office colleagues.

It is welcome that, following consultation, the ban on registering non-zero emission buses for local services will start no earlier than 2030, as moving too fast on the necessary transition to zero emission vehicles would create a degree of risk for domestic manufacturers in the current market. This year, the industry reported that 35% of ZEV buses purchased in the country by local authorities and operators will come from China, compared with 10% only two years ago. That is an alarming share to have been taken out of our domestic manufacture. We must address that before we throw ourselves head-first or too fast into building an exclusively clean, green and foreign fleet across the country.

While I am sympathetic to the well-intentioned environmentalist calls in amendments 62 and 63 from the Green party to accelerate the non-zero emission buses ban, that approach would risk creating a situation in which authorities and operators would likely be compelled to buy from abroad, further undermining the competitiveness of our domestic industry, on which my community relies. I would more than welcome Green Members’ engagement with the all-party group to discuss how the House can align British industry with the laudable intention of those amendments. The UK timeline will align with the transition in Scotland, as I mentioned, as is addressed in the Secretary of State’s new clause 38 and amendments 46 to 48.

Accelerating our ambition beyond what domestic capacity allows would create a risk that local authorities and operators would be compelled in the long term to buy an unsustainably high proportion of their fleet from abroad, from manufacturers who have received decades of state subsidy elsewhere. I repeat the ask of my all-party parliamentary group for Ministers to use the work of the bus manufacturing expert panel to map out a fully funded and coherent pipeline of zero emission bus orders that can be met by our world-leading domestic manufacturers, and provide the certainty that the sector—especially workers in Falkirk this week—needs before the ban comes in in 2030.

As I mentioned, Falkirk has already seen the benefit of local authority-controlled bus networks, with Labour-controlled Liverpool and Manchester combined authorities making clear strategic commitments to partner with UK manufacturers and ordering significant numbers of buses from Alexander Dennis. Considered strategic and small-p political local leadership can often make more effective policy decisions than the private sector or—I acknowledge—lazy franchisers, who all too often simply look to the cheapest price rather than considering our national, industrial and economic interests.

More authorities operating like that, in tandem with the upcoming changes to the local authority procurement framework, could see us not just protect jobs in Falkirk in the short term but materially enable an expansion of the industry. That is essential to delivering the socially positive outcomes clearly articulated by hon. Members in new clause 45 and amendments 7 and 16, to mention just a few. We cannot forget the social benefit of an industry that provides an additional 3.25 jobs per job hired in manufacturing. The benefits are seen in quieter and smoother journeys, but also in jobs created and protected, taxes paid and communities strengthened.

The Bill seems on the whole to be about building up the powers of our local authorities, but it also gives us an opportunity to build up the bus manufacturing industry while we set our minds to the task of improving local transport. The Bill on the whole is better for passengers, better for local authorities, and hopefully better for British workers. With the Bill we can deliver a transport system that is clean, affordable and reliable and a bus manufacturing industry that thrives for decades to come. First stop, Falkirk.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Tom Gordon.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I will start by speaking to new clause 2, which stands in my name and is supported by over 70 colleagues from across the House. It calls for the removal of time restrictions imposed on disabled bus passes.

Under the English national concessionary travel scheme, eligible disabled people are entitled to free local bus travel. The policy rightly recognises that, for a variety of reasons, disabled people rely on public transport to access healthcare, work and education, as well as for family and community purposes. The policy also recognises that disabled people are more likely to require financial support, as they face disproportionately higher costs of living. Yet from 11 pm to 9.30 am on weekdays, that entitlement becomes void, dependent instead on whether travel authorities choose—or even can afford—to extend the benefit. Disability Action Yorkshire, a charity in my constituency, first highlighted the absurdity of the restriction to me last year. Since that meeting, I have been campaigning to have the time restrictions removed. I have met and received support from a number of charities that work with disabled people, including Transport for All, Whizz Kidz, Bus Users UK and the RNIB. The consensus is clear: the current restrictions have huge impacts on the everyday lives of disabled people. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to remove the time restrictions imposed by the ENCTS, allowing disabled passengers to travel for free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of their postcode.

16:15

The facts are simple: disabilities do not disappear at peak times. Why, then, are our policies based on arbitrary timeframes? To design a scheme intended to promote accessibility, only to limit it when most people need it, undermines the very purpose of the policy. The issue came to light when my mum put me in touch with her friend Amy, who gets in a taxi with her son to drop him off at school. She then has to spend 30 minutes waiting before she can use her disabled bus pass to get home. In South Yorkshire, a disabled bus pass holder got in touch with me about how their travel journey included one stop in a different local authority. Kurt, who is registered blind, ended up being thrown off the bus at 9.25 am. Liberal Democrat councillors have long campaigned on this issue, including John Lawson in Kirklees, who raised the case of a Cleckheaton resident with epilepsy who suffered from the restrictions too.

There are around 870,000 disabled bus pass holders in England, making up about 10% of all concessionary users. Although the DFT points out that most local authorities offer some form of free travel before 9.30 am, only a third provide unrestricted, 24/7 access. For many, that means that commuting to work, attending education or making early medical appointments is either unaffordable or impossible. The DFT has a responsibility to improve accessibility. It cannot keep kicking the can to local or transport authorities, claiming it is up to them to make discretionary changes. Just as the Department can enforce the restriction, so it can remove it. It is time to stop passing the buck.

Provision remains patchy, insecure and vulnerable to cuts.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that in East Sussex, where I am lucky enough to be an MP, the county council has already removed the restriction on timings. Indeed, he has met my former Liberal Democrat council colleague Sean Macleod to discuss that. Does my hon. Friend agree that that creates a postcode lottery across the country, where some people are fortunate to live in places that have removed the restriction and others are not so lucky?

[Tom Gordon]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I highlight the work that Liberal Democrat councillors, including him, have done over the years to ensure that such provision is made. That postcode lottery is completely unfair.

Economically, the argument is equally strong. We know that disabled people already face higher living costs. Removing the 9.30 am restriction would open up work and training opportunities that begin before that cut-off, and crucially, the cost of doing so is modest. Research by Whizz Kidz showed that it would cost about 1% of the current annual spend on concessionary travel, and we know that for each pound spent on concessionary bus passes, it is thought that over £3 is brought back in economic benefit.

Ending the restriction would deliver more than just transport access. It would promote independence, reduce isolation, improve health outcomes and encourage greater use of sustainable public transport. Charities such as Whizz Kidz have shown that young disabled people overwhelmingly support 24/7 access, with many saying it would help them build confidence, friendship and skills.

The amendment has support from leading disability charities such as the RNIB, as well as cross-party support in this House. Now is the time for this Labour Government to show their commitment to improving access and tearing down barriers to inequality by supporting the amendment. The Minister and I have had many interactions on this subject and I am sure he is not surprised to see me pushing for it again today. I urge him to consider it, whether through the Bill or further down the line in different possible measures and arrangements.

It is high time that disabled people had the same freedom to travel, the same independence and the same opportunity as everyone else. That is what the amendment would deliver and I urge all Members across this House to support it. Disabilities do not start at 9.30 am, so disabled bus passes should not either.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British buses.

Today’s debate is so important to the people of Shrewsbury, as we have lost over two thirds of our bus routes in the past 10 years. We are one of the largest towns in the UK, with over 65,000 residents, yet we have not seen a Sunday bus for over a decade. We also have very few evening bus services, which is holding back our nighttime economy, despite being a glorious tourist destination.

The new bus powers for franchising will be a game changer for local councils such as ours in Shropshire. They will give us the opportunity to introduce new bus routes if they are considered to be socially necessary, such as that all-important Sunday service or some additional stops to widen access to our current hospital bus route and the new health clinic facilities coming down the track. It is our belief that these social routes could eventually build up their passenger numbers and ultimately become economically viable in their own right.

To that end, I wish to speak in support of the Bill and new clause 45, which seeks to bring forward requirements on transport authorities to deliver the minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services. That could transform access to employment for many of the residents in my constituency. We have only a handful of bus services after 6 o’clock and only one single bus at 8 o’clock, yet we are the county town and host to the county’s health, governance, economic and education services, as well as being a major employer for a county of 350,000 residents. Shift workers, NHS staff and those working in hospitality—as well as those of us who enjoy hospitality—need those buses to run beyond 8 o’clock.

The Shropshire bus services users group has consistently campaigned on the need for evening and the all-important Sunday bus services. Until now, no commercial company would take the risk, but within the last year, bus routes added by my local authority using Government bus service improvement plan money have led to increased passenger numbers and become embedded in our network. To overcome the reticence of private companies to widen their routes at economic risk, the local authority is ready to do that, where legislation allows and where passenger data indicates that all-important demand and socially necessary routes. The new clause would support Shropshire council by underpinning the need to re-establish evening and Sunday bus services, giving the impetus to widen those routes.

To conclude, I wish to remind the Minister, as I do in every speech, that my beautiful town of Shrewsbury lost its Sunday service a decade ago under the last Government, and that it is in both our hands to ensure that we reinstate it under this Labour Government.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and has cross-party support. I really hope that that cross-party support holds up in the vote.

As we have heard, disability does not stop at peak times. I represent a rural constituency and our buses are very infrequent, so having a time restriction on a bus pass is even more serious. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on classics, I enjoy a good tale about mythological creatures such as centaurs and the minotaur, but unfortunately for some of my constituents, seeing a bus is almost as likely as seeing one of them.

Remarkably, there are no Sunday bus services at all in most of my constituency. We have one of the greatest cathedrals in the world, but many of my residents cannot get to it for Sunday worship. Some of my villages have no buses at all, and the likes of Coveney and Wardy Hill have one bus per week. Others have bus services every two hours—those services are probably some of the best. If we restrict disabled people to using their passes after 9.30, they cannot catch the 9.20 bus and have to wait for the 11.20, so effectively they cannot do anything anywhere else in the morning. That cannot be right. We have to remove that restriction.

The current situation is not sustainable or acceptable. For rural communities, the situation is so dire that the recent risk of the 9 bus route between Littleport and Cambridge being halted meant that communities faced being unable to get to work or college. Constituents referred to this service as a lifeline for them, and they were right. To have a situation in 2025 where the ending of a single bus route makes entire communities a transport black hole is dreadful. It is just not acceptable. Had residents been properly consulted, I am certain the proposal would have been comprehensively rejected, which is why I support new clause 32 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) to require consultation before any discussions on the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service. I know the new clause has not been selected, but I hope the Minister will consider it.

The Government’s decision to increase the bus fare cap hit my constituents hard, because many of them have to get more than one bus to complete their journey. I ask both for the cap to be brought back to £2 and for it to be a cap on the journey, not the fare for each bus someone catches. It should not be too much to ask for a basic, functional and affordable transport service for rural communities. Pensioners should not have to miss medical appointments because there is only one bus per hour, students should not have to worry about missing classes, disabled people should not have to miss anything in the morning, and people should not have to move from their home village for the sake of getting to work on time.

This Bill is positive, but the Government need to do a lot more to improve transport services in rural communities such as mine. It would be a start if we allowed the disabled members of those communities to catch buses at any time.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill and new clauses 46 and 66 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer). The Bill represents a step towards giving communities greater control over their local transport networks. Colleagues across the House recognise how vital bus services are for connecting people to opportunities, to each other and to the services they rely on. Sadly, buses are too frequently undervalued because they do not have the visible impact of a train.

It is perhaps fitting that the Bill comes at a time when we are experiencing a tube strike in London, and our colleagues based in London can understand what those of us outside London feel having an entirely dysfunctional public transport network.

I want to raise two points that I hope the Minister and colleagues will take on board as we move towards implementation. In my Calder Valley constituency, which the Minister knows well, we have seen a number of services withdrawn or reduced in frequency, particularly in the upper Calder Valley. Those changes have left many residents feeling cut off, especially in areas where alternative transport is simply not available. I welcome the extension of franchising powers to all local authorities. That is long overdue, and it is a step that gives communities such as mine the chance to shape bus networks to make those networks work for them. I urge the Government to consider how these powers can be supported with the necessary funding and guidance, so that councils can act decisively to protect routes that are essential to community life.

The second point I want to raise is about franchising. I support West Yorkshire combined authority’s plans to bring services under public control and to build a network that puts passengers at its heart. Cross-boundary routes—those that run into Lancashire or Greater Manchester—will not automatically be part of the franchise. While the Bill allows for some alternative arrangements, there is a real risk that those routes could be overlooked. We are a border county and a border country, and I am keen to ensure that the needs of my residents in Todmorden who go to work or school in Burnley are not overlooked. I know WYCA is committed to working with neighbouring authorities, and I hope the Government will support that collaboration. Passengers in Calder Valley and across the country do not plan their journeys around administrative boundaries or transport operations, and we need to be mindful of that.

I am confident that the Bill will provide a better, fairer bus network, and I am proud that it is another example of this Government making people’s day-to-day lives better. But we must ensure that isolated communities across boundary routes such as those in Calder Valley are not left behind. I look forward to working with Front-Bench colleagues to ensure that those voices are heard.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I will speak to new clause 2 brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), which would extend the eligibility of disabled bus passes.

The current restrictions, which mean disabled bus passes can only be used after 9.30 am, have real and disproportionate consequences for disabled constituents, particularly those who rely on public transport as their only means of getting around. For many disabled people, buses are a lifeline. They are the gateway to essential medical appointments, employment opportunities, education and social connection, and they mean the difference between isolation and independence. In rural areas such as Frome and East Somerset, where bus services are already limited, there is a particular challenge. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, if someone misses the morning bus because their pass is not valid until 9.30 am, that can mean waiting several hours more and being late for work.

16:31

Furthermore, some of us in this place represent constituencies that straddle more than one local authority. In those areas, a postcode lottery has emerged: disabled residents living just a few miles apart are subject to different rules. One person’s bus pass might allow travel before 9.30 am, while their neighbour, who lives just across an invisible council border, is forced to wait. I have seen that issue arise at first hand in my constituency. I have been campaigning with Hettie, a diamond bus pass user who lives in Radstock in my constituency and commutes to Bath for work. Radstock falls under the West of England combined authority. When Hettie raised the unfairness of the 9.30 am restriction on disabled bus passes, I wrote to WECA, and I am pleased to say that it responded positively and extended the validity of the pass to 24 hours a day. That was a significant and meaningful win for people in one half of my constituency. However, the other half, who live under Somerset council, remain restricted and are still unable to use their passes before 9.30 am. How can that possibly be fair when all that separates them is an invisible line?

We cannot talk about levelling up or dignity in public life while ignoring the daily barriers faced by disabled people. Nor can we claim to support rural communities while expecting vulnerable residents to navigate a postcode lottery of restrictions that limit their independence and opportunity. I urge the Minister to look closely at the benefits of removing those time restrictions altogether. Let us give disabled people one less barrier to face in their everyday lives and move toward a system that treats all with fairness, dignity and respect.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)]

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 21, which stands in my name. Many members may be unaware that the fare cap that applies to single bus journeys does not apply to services that are provided exclusively to take children to and from school. That is why my new clause calls for the national £3 bus fare cap to be extended to all school routes, and for any future changes to the cap to be applied to school-only transport, too. I am grateful to the Members from across the House who have added their names in support of my new clause.

In Poole and across England, the exclusion of school routes from the fare cap has left families paying more simply to get their children to school—that cannot be right. Local parents, especially those who might have two or more children attending different schools in the area, have complained to me about the unfairness and additional financial pressures that they face as a result. I have raised that with the local bus provider, Morebus, and although it is sympathetic to the arguments, it will not act unless instructed to do so in legislation. I have also raised the matter with the Department and with the Minister, but, as he will recall, I was told that my proposal was too difficult to achieve through the Bill. I therefore urge him to reconsider that approach when he responds to the debate.

I am sure that Members will recognise the very obvious unfairness. The cap applies for a child who gets on an ordinary bus that takes them past their school, but for a child on a school-only bus, the fares are higher. As well as that unjustifiable situation, parents are concerned that they cannot buy their school tickets in instalments and often have to fund the entire cost of their child’s bus journey on a termly basis. That can be expensive and discourages many families from using the bus as their preferred means of school transport.

I see bus services in the way I see most policies: through the lens of making life easier for families in Poole working hard to get by. The Bill offers significant steps towards building a transport network that is genuinely accessible, affordable and reliable. The Government must also be guided by their mission of ensuring that every child has the best start in life. That mission cannot be confined to a single department or a handful of policies. It must run like a thread through Government Departments and be hardwired into how we set priorities and deliver change. Labour values must underpin everything we do.

Extending the £3 bus fare cap to school routes is one practical way that the Government can ease the everyday struggles that parents face and make family life that little bit easier. This simple but impactful measure would reduce the cost of getting children to school, particularly for families with multiple children, and free up parents who would otherwise drive as part of the school run. It would mean lower costs for working families and less pressure on parents juggling a daily mountain of responsibilities. That also lines up closely with the Minister’s ambition to get more people out of polluting cars and into public transport, which I am keen to support.

I recognise that putting more money in the pockets of working people requires broader change, but measures such as extending the bus fare cap to school routes could make a tangible difference to day-to-day life while building a fairer and more accessible transport system for everyone. I therefore urge the Minister to consider new clause 21 seriously and to see how the Government can address the unfair anomaly on school-only bus travel.

[James MacCleary]

Day in, day out, I hear from people across my constituency—from Polegate to Plumpton—who want to use the bus but simply cannot do so. People must be at the heart of transport policy, so let me begin with one example from my constituency. I recently heard from a woman in Wilmington village who wants to get to her job in Lewes by bus but cannot do so at present. To do so, she must travel in the wrong direction to Polegate, wait, then take a slow service through multiple villages. What would be a 15-minute drive becomes an hour or more on the bus, so she drives. That is not a lifestyle choice; it is a failure of network design. This Bill could give us the tools to put that right, if we use them properly.

The A27 in my constituency desperately needs a direct service between Eastbourne and Lewes, and we must make that happen. The stops are on the road; there is just no bus to serve them. That is exactly why I support amendment 2, on socially necessary routes, so that journeys to work, schools and health services are guaranteed, even when the market will not deliver. Franchising powers in the Bill mean that our local transport authority could finally design services around what people need, not what happens to be commercially convenient. The new duty to provide socially necessary routes must make that real. Our amendments would ensure that if the market will not deliver, the authority must step in and be properly funded to do so. The A27 express should be at the top of that list.

I recently heard from a young lady in Stone Cross in my constituency who tries to get to college. Buses fail to appear—one recently sailed by her when she was waiting—and that means lost education time. The powers in the Bill on performance, data and enforcement must bite. We must publish stop-level reliability and give local transport authorities the lever to withhold payment for no-shows and require operator recovery plans. We must also back our “headphone dodgers” amendment, so that authorities can make byelaws against sustained antisocial noise. Safe, civil journeys retain passengers.

Much like the case in Stone Cross, I see the same story repeated in the village of Ringmer. An 85-year-old constituent depends on the bus to reach the Tesco in Lewes, yet sometimes it never arrives, and at other times the driver simply drives on by. That is not a public service; it is a gamble. If people are to use these services, they must be able to rely on them. That is why I back amendment 11, on accessible stopping places and reliability. We must ensure that information is clear, that drivers are trained and that passengers are not left stranded. Rural villages across my constituency send the same message: they have gaps, long waits, and first and last buses that do not work for people’s real lives.

Community transport services are a lifeline in rural areas where commercial routes do not run. In my constituency, volunteer-led Cuckmere Buses and CTLA keep people connected. The Sussex Art Shuttle, run by Cuckmere Buses, shows how small, community-driven transport projects can open up access and enrich local lives. These schemes run on tight budgets and good will, yet they deliver where the market will not. Amendment 9 would recognise their value and ensure that funding streams work for them, not against them.

There is also the Flexibus scheme, a forward-thinking initiative from East Sussex county council showing how a local authority can take control and fill the gaps left by traditional services. With booking available by app or phone, it is a practical, people-centred service that makes rural transport work for many. New clause 8, on VAT rules for demand-responsive services, would make it easier for such schemes, allowing councils to innovate locally and deliver real solutions for communities.

Sadly, in Lewes we have lost our bus station. Years of campaigning could not save it. The result is an interchange tacked on to the Phoenix Causeway bridge—busy, exposed and in the wrong place. It is not possible to grow ridership while dismantling the places where people change buses. We should give local transport authorities explicit powers, duties and funding to safeguard and replace our interchanges as part of franchising schemes. That is why new clause 5, on accessibility reports so that bus stations and interchanges are explicitly safeguarded and properly planned, is so important.

The upcoming Budget must unlock much-needed funding for major roads that are congested and therefore delay bus service. I have raised the A259 in my constituency directly with the Prime Minister in this place. It is a vicious cycle: congestion holds back buses, people turn back to cars, and traffic gets worse. Better buses mean fewer cars, and a transition to a zero emissions fleet must be central to how we plan for the future.

Affordability underpins all of this. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 1 would restore the £2 fare cap, which worked well; it put money back in pockets and passengers back on seats. Lifting it is a bus tax on work, study and care. Our new clause would restore the cap and require a formal assessment of the impact of hikes. We go further: new clause 9 would provide free travel for those on carer’s allowance, and new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), would remove time restrictions for disabled concessionary passes. This Bill will be judged not by what it promises on paper, but whether it delivers for people who wait at the bus stop, and I hope this Government will deliver that.

[Dr Tidball]

I rise to speak to new clause 2, which covers issues of accessibility. My older, younger and disabled constituents often tell me that they are left stranded, enduring painfully long waiting times due to unreliable bus services, and facing distressing situations such as toileting issues, missed NHS appointments or arriving late at school. This is the reality of failed bus services faced by many constituents across my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency as a result of the Conservative legacy. This is unacceptable, as I mentioned on Second Reading, when Reform MPs could not even be bothered to show up—where are they today?

When I was growing up, our South Yorkshire transport system was the envy of the world, but 14 years of the Conservatives’ north-south transport divide and their broken promises of a London-style transport system for South Yorkshire in reality meant that my constituency lost 53% of its bus services, with a paltry 38% spent per head on our doorstep compared with London. And the SL1 tram link bus was scrapped, leaving many of my constituents unable to continue to work or to go to college in Sheffield.

Our local communities have helped build the prosperity of this great nation. From the speciality steelworks in Stocksbridge and the farmers across Penistone, to the advanced manufacturing sites across Chapeltown, my constituents are among the hardest working people we could ever meet.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady and I share a huge concern for ensuring access to all types of transport, including buses, for the disabled of every kind. Does she agree that the strike in London, which is crippling transport services, is causing greater harm to the disabled community here than in any other part of the country?

[Dr Tidball]

The accessibility plans that this Bill will now put in place will dramatically improve the accessibility of bus networks up and down this country.

My constituents have the potential to be the beating heart of British growth, with good, well-connected public transport that unleashes their potential. Our Labour Government have already begun to power this change for transport. South Yorkshire is already set to benefit from £1.5 billion of extra transport funding under this Government, adding £20 billion to our regional economy. I am proud to support the Bill, which will finally end the Tories’ postcode lottery of bus services and will save and create vital bus routes by supporting every community to take back control of our bus network. Through new powers to set routes, fares and services, communities will finally have a proper say in the essential services that they rely on, instead of routes and fares being left to the whim of unaccountable private operators.

Transport inequality leads to health inequality too, which is why it is fantastic that as a result of the work done in the Lords, the Bill will also require local transport authorities—as I said to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths)—to produce bus network accessibility plans. Furthermore, driver disability awareness training will become mandatory for the first time.

16:44

As a result of the measures in the Bill, our Labour South Yorkshire mayor, Oliver Coppard, will be further empowered to take back control of our buses with franchising. Securing the reintroduction of the SL1 tram link bus in my constituency is my top priority as part of that scheme. So, too, are vital improvements to the No. 21 bus serving Penistone, Dodworth and surrounding rural villages, which are some of the worst served by poor bus routes in the country, after a decade and a half of Tory transport inequality.

In my constituency, I have already been cracking on to deliver better buses, helping my older and disabled constituents. Last month, I launched the beautiful new No. 35 hopper bus, the Little Don circular around Stocksbridge and Deepcar. The vital No. 34 extension bus connects the village of Bolsterstone for the first time in a decade. My constituents have described the new services as “a thrilling improvement to” their “quality of life” and a lifeline that has enabled them

“to cope with life’s necessities, not stranded and dependent on others”.

But I do not want to stop there. I want to work with the Government, my constituents and our Labour mayor to look at additional hopper routes around Wharncliffe Side, Oughtibridge and Grenoside to connect to a reinstated SL1 tram link bus. My constituency is the gateway to the Peak District, and I will continue to work with the national park team better to connect local beauty spots such as Langsett with new bus routes.

My constituents are already seeing the benefits of this Government’s choices on transport. The Bill will bring better bus transport closer to home. Equitable access to transport connectivity is the golden thread that weaves our urban and rural communities together, that keeps our families and friendships close, and that ensures that people growing up and growing old in my constituency can fulfil their potential.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I will speak mainly to new clauses 32 and 33 in my name.

There is a lot to like in the Bill, but it is at its weakest where it touches on rural areas. That is a great shame, because if we could solve transport, we could also solve the rural productivity problem. Economic inactivity is nearly two-and-a-half times higher in rural areas than it is in urban areas, and that is directly related to transport issues. If we could boost rural productivity to urban levels, it would fix the Chancellor’s Budget deficit in one go.

The key freedom that the Bill brings is to support local authorities that want to establish a bus franchise or to set up their own municipal service. If we stand back to look at the scale of the challenge, however, do we really think that that will be enough to reverse the long-term decline in rural areas? The answer must be no. Given how cash-strapped and under-resourced most local authorities are, it is clear that most will be unable to take advantage of that freedom without additional support.

In my previous life as a West Sussex county councillor, I served on a committee considering a bus improvement plan, but the measures we were given to look at were all small and tactical. No one on that committee believed that the plan would change the curve. Too many local authorities long ago surrendered to a tacit acceptance of managed decline. That has to change—hence my new clause 33, which would set out a new duty actively to promote and increase bus usage.

The key paradox that must be solved is why, if public demand for bus services is so high, usage is always dropping. Clearly, price is one issue, but the service has also become increasingly mismatched with local need. In West Sussex, a 2021 survey found that 80% of residents had stopped using buses because of a lack of a suitable route or infrequency of service—that is a huge percentage of the potential market to give away. The problem, especially in rural areas, is that what we have left today is a legacy service—the ghostly outline of routes and frequencies that existed years ago. We have fought a long defensive war of attrition, and we have been losing. Individual routes have been salami-sliced to destruction. That is why I have tabled new clause 32 to require local authorities to consult in advance on significant service changes.

In my constituency of Horsham, residents of Partridge Green discovered they were losing their direct No. 17 service to town only when they saw the new timetable. In Slinfold, the No. 63 was removed altogether, also without any warning. The county council says that the changes are nothing to do with them, and they are the responsibility of the commercial operator, but the operator says that they are up to the council. There is simply no one left at the wheel of our local bus service.

When I looked at the huge public reaction as villagers fought to save their services after the axe had already fallen, I could not help but wonder what might have been. What might have happened if we could have harnessed that enthusiasm to create a service that met people’s transport needs? We have been beaten down, over many years, into accepting that it is impossible to fix the problem, yet Switzerland, Austria and Germany, in areas with far lower population densities than many areas of the UK, are providing all-day, every-hour services, seven days a week. We can do that too, if we have the will.

It is good to see bus services getting legislative attention, and I appreciate that, but I hope that the Government do not think that this Bill will be nearly enough by itself. I urge the Government to make a special study of the needs of rural areas, which have been a recurring theme during the debate, and work out what it would take to genuinely reverse decline.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I support new clause 22, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who is temporarily not in his place. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.

What Members notice when they come to London from rural constituencies, such as my constituency in Suffolk, are all the red buses, all over the place. Routes run from early in the morning until late into the evening, in no small part because of the years of excellent Labour administration that Londoners have enjoyed. Out in Suffolk, we certainly do not have a fully integrated bus service. For a start, there are simply not enough buses. From 2010, a decade of declining public funding left the interwoven jumble of local bus maps looking decisively threadbare. From 2018 to 2024, 18% of bus services in my county council area simply vanished.

In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I have been supporting residents fighting to save local bus routes, and I am sure that many hon. Members will have been doing exactly the same in their areas. In Bury St Edmunds, we managed to get the 73 and 73A bus routes retained, which are essential for getting children to school at the Thurston community college. At Marham Park, where residents were in danger of being fully cut off, we did the same, thanks to £8 million of funding from the Government. In the years to come, we will further undo the loss of bus services: some 17 new or improved bus routes are rolling out just this month across Suffolk.

If people are lucky enough to live on a route that survived the last 15 years, the problem is that they will be hard pressed to find a bus that goes anywhere after 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Imagine a lady from the village of Honington, in my constituency, who has to attend a 4.30 pm appointment at the West Suffolk hospital about her dodgy knee. The 332 bus runs from Honington to Bury St Edmunds four times a day, so she catches the 2.40 pm bus and arrives in Bury St Edmunds with an hour to spare. She has her appointment and she gets out of the hospital after an hour, so at 5.30 pm she is standing outside the hospital and she cannot get home. She has missed the last bus and she is stuck in Bury St Edmunds. She cannot march 10 miles home, because she has a dodgy knee, and she has no friends, so she gets a taxi. A taxi is £35, but our imaginary lady has no choice—she has to pay that £35.

We capped the cost of a bus fare at £3, but we all know that for lots of real people in rural areas, inadequate bus service means that transport costs easily spiral out of control. That is why we need to critically examine the minimum bus service standards required across communities in England. Many Members have spoken about CPRE, which has mentioned that some countries such as Switzerland legally mandate public transport frequencies for communities of different sizes. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire —who still has not returned to the Chamber—will ensure that progress is made towards undoing some of the inequalities that have built up in transport, and will move us much closer to the unified transport model that we all know we need.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I rise to support amendments that will serve to ensure the most vulnerable and isolated people in our communities are not cut off from employment, health services, education and leisure. I will start with new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who has just returned to the Chamber. That new clause would remove the start time from the use of disabled bus passes. I must declare an interest, as my own son George has one of those passes. It is a crucial element of helping young people with disabilities to gain their independence, and for teenagers and young adults with additional needs, it is a far more cost-effective option for accessing college and school than providing costly and isolating taxis.

The bus pass that George and many of his classmates hold cannot be used on the way to school—in our case, that is two buses and two fares—but can be used on the return journey. While that causes frustration to parents such as me, for others, it is completely unaffordable. It forces many of them to use the offered council taxis, which are crippling councils. For those who are able to drive, blue badges are not time-restricted; why should those on a bus pass be discriminated against? We know that people with disabilities are less likely to be in employment, so anything that reduces barriers to work should be grasped by this Government. When this issue was raised in an Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the Minister pointed to the cost, but as the proposal would affect only disabled bus passes and not the whole concessionary bus pass scheme, it would apply to only 10% of passes, so the cost is fairly low.

I turn to Liberal Democrat new clauses 7 and 16, as well as new clause 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), which relate to young people. The very first motion I put to my party conference, back in 2014, proposed extending discounted bus fares for young people. That policy made it into the following Lib Dem manifesto, and has remained in some form ever since. I cited a case then that applies now: that of a young person from Bere Regis who secured an apprenticeship in Bournemouth. They were no longer eligible for a free bus pass to access the college course, because for some reason, when the age of participation was increased, the age of bus travel was not. They had to take several buses each day to access their job. The cost of doing so took up such a large proportion of their income, and the service to their village was so poor, that they had to give up their apprenticeship.

If we are to make bus services sustainable into the future, they need to be a genuine choice for young people: an alternative to buying a car or a motorbike. If we are to deal with congestion and air quality and reach our net zero targets, we need public transport to be a real option for everyone. Achieving long-term change typically starts with young people. It makes sense—young people are familiar with using buses for school, so extending discounts so that they have them available as they start in the world of work or higher education is most likely to deliver the long-term change that we need. Students from the Purbeck school and Magna academy have all written to me confused about why they were not eligible for discounted bus fares, even though they were now expected to stay at school. This policy feels like a clear oversight from a previous Government, and one that could be easily fixed by this Government.

I also support my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), who has proposed a cap extension for school services. Not extending the cap to those services is incredibly unfair. I have also been lobbied on the issue, particularly by families living in Merley, who are just about within the three-mile window.

During my village tour in the summer—whether I was in Bere Regis, Gaunt’s Common, Shapwick or Hinton Martell—the No. 1 issue that came up was buses. Communities that are cut off from bus services cannot thrive, so I welcome amendments 6, 7, 28 and 29 and new clauses 4 and 15, which would ensure that such communities are considered and—whether it be via commercial services or community minibuses—that small villages are not cut off. It seems ironic that British people always use the phrase, “You wait for a bus and then two come along at once.” For thousands of my constituents in Mid Dorset and North Poole villages, just one every so often would be nice.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

My amendment 66 and new clause 46 are not intended to change Government policy, nor to bind the hands of locally elected mayors or transport authorities—quite the opposite. Amendment 66, which my hon Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, talked about some considerable time ago, would require local transport authorities to set out a clear, transparent formula for calculating whether a service is socially necessary and then to use that formula in deciding how funding is allocated. That reflects recommendation 53 in the Transport Committee’s “Buses connecting communities” report.

17:00

Amendment 66 would purposefully give local leaders flexibility to create their own formula, because the Minister is right that priorities will differ from place to place. The amendment would not be a diktat from Whitehall, but a window into decision making, for the first time allowing residents to see what is being prioritised and why. The amendment would make it clear where the cut-off point for taxpayer support lies when resources are scarce. It could also empower local communities. For example, if one criterion in the formula was usage, passengers or would-be passengers could rally together, use a bus and protect it by using it more.

More importantly, the amendment would stop supported services lists from stagnating. As a new development springs up, its needs might then be included. The amendment would curb the risk that the loudest voices secure the best buses. We would have service design and funding guided not by noise, but by numbers. I very much welcome the Minister’s assurance that socially necessary local service guidance will ask local authorities to publish a description of the methodology used, but given that he now accepts the principle, I see no reason why we should not put it in the Bill to future-proof this concept.

New clause 46, which I also tabled, relates to a growth duty. I want to give local leaders the tools they need to do the job. As I have said before in this place, it is wrong to pigeonhole local transport authorities as the place of sticking-plaster solutions. Success lies in active local leaders embracing a network-wide approach. That will inevitably mean tough decisions and trade-offs. It will sometimes mean the choice to enhance one route over supporting another, such as by increasing the frequency of a well-used existing service, extending the operating hours of a commercially viable bus or adding some extra stops at either end of a route. Given that we are about to have in primary legislation more obligations on socially necessary services, we should balance that with a duty in legislation for the LTA to consider using some public money to grow and improve its existing local bus services, because in the round that is the way we get better buses.

The Minister has suggested that new BSIP guidance will address those points, but I gently say that BSIP guidance can change. The original 2021 bus service improvement plan mechanism was specifically not about supporting existing routes, and then there was an about-turn in 2023 with BSIP+. Legislation, not guidance, should support local leaders to make the call on service enhancements and provide the ability to try new and innovative approaches when the goal is to grow passenger numbers. After all, growing passenger numbers is ingrained in the national bus strategy, and I was pleased that the Minister mentioned it in the first part of his opening remarks.

I welcome the Minister’s constructive engagement as we have discussed setting standards to increase ridership through statutory guidance on stopping places. We have also discussed franchising guidance and being clear that it is not enough just to consult current passengers—we need would-be passengers, too. After all, we need more people on buses, and everything we do has to be about encouraging more passengers. More farebox means better services overall. On that note, I thank Grant Palmer for what it did in Dunstable recently, and I also thank the Dawsongroup for bringing a bus to Parliament as part of Catch the Bus Month. This September, I wish all Members and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very happy Catch the Bus Month.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Two weeks ago, the No. 61 bus made its final journey—yet another bus service my constituents relied on has been lost, with no apparent thought given to how people are supposed to get to work, school, college or hospital appointments, or simply from A to B. The withdrawal of the 61, which took residents directly to Winchester hospital, will make life significantly harder for many of my constituents. That is why I support new clause 37, which would guarantee every town a regular bus service to hospitals and GP surgeries, and amendment 2, which would ensure that socially necessary routes include those serving hospitals, schools and colleges.

As well as the 61, we have seen the withdrawal of the 461, the major route that served Peter Symonds college, and the 46, which was an important service for the residents of Valley Park. They were cut because they were not considered commercially viable, but healthcare and education are essential services. No one should be left isolated from a school, college or hospital simply because a bus company cannot turn a profit.

In addition to cuts to bus services, Conservative-controlled Hampshire county council’s decision to withdraw discretionary top-up enhancements to the English national concessionary travel scheme has increased challenges for my disabled constituents. I support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), because disabled people must not be unfairly restricted in when they can travel.

The removal of the companion bus pass and the restriction of free travel to between 9.30 am and 11 pm creates fresh barriers for many disabled people, including the 55,100 visually impaired residents in Hampshire. Last month, I visited the Guide Dogs community team centre in Chandler’s Ford, where I spoke to constituents who are deeply worried about the cuts. One told me she now struggles to reach medical appointments, while another, due to her disability, prefers early morning buses to avoid bright sunlight, which causes her severe eye pain. I have been supporting Guide Dogs’ campaign to make sure that people with a visual impairment can travel independently and with confidence.

Many visually impaired constituents understandably require assistance to travel safely, often relying on friends and family to accompany them to work, school and medical appointments. I have heard from constituents that losing access to the companion pass has meant that they are travelling less and resorting to costlier methods of travel, including taxis, to get around. The savings to the council are minimal compared with the cost to my constituents’ quality of life. That is why new clause 2, which would remove time restrictions on disabled concessionary passes, and new clause 9, which would extend free travel to carers, are so important. They would help restore independence and dignity to those who need public transport the most.

I hope the Government will accept the amendments that I have addressed and ensure that socially necessary routes are protected, because my constituents need affordable, reliable buses now.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the Bill back before the House. Although it does good work, it simply does not go far enough in its ambition or its delivery of the change we need—that is apparent from the number of amendments tabled on Report.

One of the really important amendments for me is new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). I spent the final week in August visiting dozens of North Norfolk’s villages as part of my summer tour. I heard about a huge range of issues, but a consistent theme across my area was frustration with our buses. Shirley and David in Hindringham told me that two buses a day just is not enough to get them to the places they need to go at the times they want to get there. They are right: that is indicative of a system that serves nobody in rural areas like mine.

It is not just anecdotes that back up that feeling; the numbers do, too. Those of us in the east of England get less than half the spend per head on transport as those in London. We accept that the transport system in our capital is different and that, overall, more money ends up being needed to accommodate the millions who need it, but to spend on each individual Londoner more than double the amount that is spent on my residents is patently unfair—and that is before we consider the advantage that urban areas have. They are set up for carrying out public transport. Running a bus network through a busy, well-populated area will always be easier and cheaper per head than having to dart around country lanes, picking up at small villages a handful of times a day.

I am excited about the prospect of franchising, which could bring real benefits to Norfolk’s bus services. However, rural areas like mine are embarking on the unknown. Franchising has a track record in big cities such as Manchester and London, but how we make it work in other areas with different characteristics remains unknown. That is why new clause 12 is so important. We should not be prescriptive, and nobody wants to force areas into pre-designed templates, but we have to offer them suitable support and off-the-shelf models so that they do not go through it totally alone.

As the Transport Committee, of which I am a member, found in its “Buses connecting communities” inquiry, there is a lot to learn from elsewhere when it comes to running successful bus networks, especially in rural areas. Without providing some of that knowledge in the form of clearly researched and defined transport model options, I worry that we are setting up another postcode lottery, whereby the quality of how these new powers are used depends on whether a transport authority got lucky in trying to make a new scheme work.

I spoke in Committee about how one such model should be a rural bus hub-and-spoke network, which would give the most coverage possible to as many areas as possible. Trying to reach every single village all the time just is not feasible, and we have to accept that. What is feasible is making sure that every village is near to a rural bus hub that is accessible through walking, cycling or a short drive. These hubs, if connected to one another, will finally create a rural network. We have to start challenging old ideas about how rural public transport works, and to be bold in the solutions we take forward.

I am very supportive of new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). To its credit, Norfolk county council has voluntarily expanded the times when people can use a disability bus pass, and I have heard positive testimony of how this has helped many people in my area. People across the country should be able to benefit from that equally, so I hope the Government will support new clause 2 tonight.

I make no apology for constantly banging on about buses. It cannot be beyond us to build a rural bus network that takes people where they want to go, when they want to go there. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking, but I urge them to seize the opportunity before them. They should not let this Bill go through as an unfunded damp squib that creates some new powers, with no help in their delivery. I hope they will take the suggestions of Members on board tonight, and make this the best possible Bill to drive forward the much-needed rural bus revolution.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I will speak to new clauses 1 and 2, and amendment 9. This Government are giving more powers to local authorities, such as the franchising of local bus services. They expect councils to fund more bus services, while they undermine and reduce councils’ core funding at the same time. Our amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central Government funding to support franchise schemes. That is essential because, due to the pandemic, bus service usage massively declined in my constituency of Wokingham.

Since then, the Lib Dem-run council has acted to improve local bus services, increasing the frequency of services on key routes. It is now predicted that bus services in Wokingham will recover to pre-pandemic rates. The Lib Dem-run council has done that despite being one of the lowest-funded unitary authorities in the country, but Labour’s new council funding formula will take £47 million away from Wokingham over the next three years. How can the Labour Government expect councils such as Wokingham to improve services and take on the responsibilities created by this Bill without proper support from Government, as is called for in amendment 3?

I wholeheartedly support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), which proposes that time restrictions be removed from disabled people’s concessionary passes. That would be widely welcomed by many of my constituents.

I also support new clause 1, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would restore the £2 fare cap. That would help younger and older constituents in my Wokingham constituency.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

There is a lot to welcome in the Bill, and I support the overarching aim. However, there are several important details that very much concern small operators and community transport providers in my Witney constituency, and I shall speak on their behalf. They include West Oxfordshire Community Transport, including Andrew Coles, Andrew Lyon and their team, and David Miles and Amanda, who have done so much to get the First & Last Mile moving.

My fear is that the franchising frameworks and new training requirements stipulated in the Bill will squeeze out community operators and that the social and economic cost will be severe, particularly in rural areas where mainstream operators have withdrawn. Section 22 community bus permit holders, who provide transport on a not-for-profit basis without the need for a full public service vehicle operator licence, ensure a service in communities that would otherwise be completely unserved. The Bill currently does not recognise this category at all. That raises a couple of worries.

One particular worry is that the new driver safeguarding and training requirements could become unworkable for small fleets. The Bill’s provisions do not clearly differentiate between private hire vehicles—dedicated school buses—and public service buses which may sometimes carry schoolchildren as part of the general route. In practice, that means that every driver would need full safeguarding training, regardless of the service they normally operate.

17:19

For larger companies that would be manageable, but for small operators with mixed or volunteer drivers, such as West Oxfordshire Community Transport and First & Last, the infrastructure to train and certify every single driver at short notice simply does not exist. Community bus services already provide some training for their drivers, volunteers and employees, but we are seeking proportionate requirements for drivers and transitional support to help small operators to meet new reporting and training burdens.

Another real threat for community operators is around franchising and tendering. Small and community operators risk being locked out of very complex bidding processes and a lack of guaranteed inclusion in them. Competing for franchise contracts demands administrative and legal capacity well beyond what a volunteer-led organisation can manage. What is needed to address that is explicit protection for community operators within franchising models.

There is much to welcome in the Bill, but I say again that there is a risk of some unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to look into them.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Over the summer recess, I held surgeries in 52 towns and villages across my constituency and an issue that came up again and again and again was buses, or rather the lack of them. Many communities in my rural constituency are now effectively cut off. Some have just one or two buses a day, but others, such as Bigbury, St Ann’s Chapel and Ringmore, have no service at all. Since 2015, bus journeys in Devon have fallen by 40%. Under the previous Conservative Government, services were cut, scaled back or made so unreliable that they are no longer usable. I do not think it is a coincidence that not a single Conservative Back Bencher is in the House to talk about the state of our bus services.

Since the election last year, the cuts have continued. The Gold bus, which goes from Plymouth and Torbay and is a vital connection for lots of rural communities between larger economic centres, has been downgraded this month. This is not just about inconvenience; it is about opportunity or the lack of it. Buses connect people to jobs, education, healthcare and each other. Without a convenient, frequent and affordable service, people of all ages are being left behind. In some areas, the last bus leaves before the working day ends, stranding carers, hospitality workers and students, and stifling our visitor economies. That is why I support amendments 2, 5 and 6, which require local transport authorities to identify socially necessary routes and ensure service provision where commercial services are unable to meet demand.

Transport planning must reflect the reality of people’s daily lives, and access to healthcare and education should not be dictated by commercial viability. Devon has the largest county road network in the country, but only seven commercially viable routes. We need more buses, not fewer, to encourage more regular usage—it becomes a virtuous circle.

Public transport plays a crucial role in ironing out inequalities. In a session on child poverty this morning in this place, transport came up several times as an element that is contributing to child poverty levels. When I visit schools and colleges, I regularly hear about the prohibitive cost of public transport. Even just a few pounds for a journey is a significant amount for a student and hits disadvantaged students the hardest. This is why I support new clauses 6 and 17 to offer discounts for under-25s and those in post-16 education, to ensure that transport is not a barrier to education or employment.

Another issue affecting residents in my constituency is the postcode lottery on concessionary bus passes. In Devon and Torbay, as many others have said, usage is restricted to after 9.30 am on weekdays, which means that residents may not be able to attend early medical appointments or get to work on time. As this Government are keen to encourage disabled people back into the workplace, that must be looked at.

Devon county council tells me that the revenue support grant mechanism provided by central Government has fallen substantially since it was introduced, to the point that the scheme is now primarily financially supported through councils’ own revenue budgets. Concessionary travel in the Devon county council area is expected to cost nearly £8 million this financial year, while the cost of offering pre-9.30 am travel to all passholders is estimated to be £2 million per annum. I am really proud to support new clause 2, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), which would remove time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, but local authorities must be properly funded for it.

In the face of all the challenges, local people are stepping up, and I would like to highlight the incredible community-run services we have in South Devon, including Bob the Bus, the West Dart bus and the Coleridge bus—groups helping to fight rural isolation, reducing loneliness and providing a vital lifeline to those who would otherwise be cut off. These services are under growing pressure. Small transport operators should be prioritised for grants from local transport authorities, ensuring that they can continue to support those who rely on their services. I therefore support amendment 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), whose work on the Bill I commend.

Public transport in rural communities is a basic service, but right now, in far too many parts of South Devon, it simply does not exist. While I support the many positive measures in the Bill, we must go further to fully address the needs of rural areas and ensure that no community is cut off. Decent public transport alleviates poverty, reduces the number of cars on the road and enables the young, the elderly and those who cannot drive or afford a car to participate fully in the economic and social life of their communities. It does require serious investment, but the gains to be had from this financial commitment are exponential.

The previous Government wasted £2.5 billion on the cancelled leg of High Speed 2, which is almost enough to fund a service to every village every hour of every day across England—imagine the transformational power of that if the right choices were made.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank my fellow members and the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee for the work they did; I felt work on the Committee was very constructive from the different Opposition Members. It followed some very constructive amendments that were made and agreed in the other place, too, including on villages and vision zero for road danger. I was sad to see so many good ideas defeated and removed in Committee. I think this issue crosses party boundaries; it should be about practicalities, not party politics.

On road danger, I am pleased to have tabled new clauses 41, 42 and 43, with support from members of the RMT, which seek to improve safety through driver support and wellbeing. These measures are all necessary to achieve vision zero for road danger for our buses.

I am full of support for new clause 2 and other measures that seek to remove time restrictions on concessionary bus passes. Having these time restrictions is a major disincentive to working. The Government cannot keep dodging this contradiction in their stated policies, and must act to enable disabled people’s mobility and enact real equality.

Young people, too, have received attention with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and in Liberal Democrat measures. I myself have tabled new clause 44, which seeks simply to enact a policy that is already in place in Scotland in order to give free bus travel to anyone under the age of 22.

Today, however, I want to advocate mainly for clean air, as the promoter of the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—Ella’s law—and for toilet access to be taken seriously by Government in relation to buses. My amendments 62 and 64 would help to fix those policy gaps. The clauses in the Bill on zero emission buses seem to block the highest ambition by not setting the earliest date for a mandate on new procurement of zero emission buses until 2030. That is a really long time still to be buying dirty, diesel-powered buses. It is extremely poor when dirty air is a killer, and when in certain streets and hotspots—often where the least advantaged live—cleaner buses can make a real difference and it is in the gift of public authorities to deal with it. I believe that the Mayor of London and Transport for London began procuring zero emission buses only as long ago as 2021. Given that some London routes are very long indeed, such buses could be introduced in other areas much sooner. With the right help and investment, the infrastructure could be built and good, green jobs could be filled, as implied by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). I have yet to hear good reasons from Ministers why the clause is so tragically unenterprising.

Another vital issue of equality is ensuring that access to toilets features in local transport plans for bus infrastructure and facilities. This is the ideal time for me to be talking about this topic; I apologise to Members who have also been in the debate for a while. As Age UK said in January in its delightfully named “Lifting the lid” report, for older people, those with health conditions and many others, the availability of public toilets can determine whether they feel able to leave their homes. It is basic equality of mobility.

My Green colleagues on the London Assembly are famously very persuasive. Working with groups including Age UK, they have gained consensus and won investment, and targets have been set for toilet access on the tube network—toilets should be no more than 20 minutes of travel time away. The Minister talked about creating more accessible stopping places. That kind of standard access to essential toilet facilities on bus routes would enable mobility, and it is so achievable. I hope that Ministers will listen and take these proposals forward in their work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have had an interesting debate with around 25 to 30 speakers, and some themes have developed from it. A number of speakers mentioned disability access, particularly issues with floating and shared-border bus stops for those who are visually impaired or blind. Other speeches focused on concessionary travel during rush hour and concessionary companion passes. We also heard a number of descriptions of local bus needs in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, particularly focusing on rural needs.

I want to pick out two or three speeches for commendation, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke in support of amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34. He highlighted a concerning failure by his Liberal Democrat county council, so if we want to improve bus services, we know where the Liberal Democrats can start. I commend the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who put his name to and championed new clause 47, which aims for companion passes to form part of the concessionary travel scheme.

I would like to mention the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), because he had a tiny pop at the Conservatives, particularly about new clause 10 relating to antisocial behaviour. I think this requires a bit of explanation. It was right of him to highlight that the position of His Majesty’s Opposition has changed on this measure, and I will explain why. When we discussed new clause 10 in Committee, the hon. Member will recall—if he does not, he can always refer to Hansard—that I was very sympathetic to the objective of his new clause, but, as I now accept, I took a rather narrow objection to its drafting. The new clause adds a description to a non-exhaustive list and is therefore technically not required, because the definition was already employed. The definition is one of nuisance, and audible antisocial behaviour is, by definition, nuisance. It was the lawyer in me coming out, and I was being slightly otiose.

[Mr Kohler]

Does the shadow Minister accept that I made the point to him in Committee that he was being too narrowly lawyerly? Does he also accept that when I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, the Conservative Benches jeered almost unanimously on this point?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I stand corrected, in the sense that I have listened to the hon. Member and, on reflection, I accept that I was making perhaps too legalistic a point. If by adding “sustained antisocial auditory disturbance” to the definition of nuisance we can make what is an implied power an express one, I am happy to support that. As for the jeering, perhaps my hon. Friends were cheering—who knows?

[Tom Gordon]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

On that point, I will give way.

17:30

[Tom Gordon]

The shadow Minister mentioned how the Conservative party came to change its view on my hon. Friend’s amendment on audible noises. One thing that has not come up during the debate is his party’s position on new clause 2, which would extend concessionary bus passes. Given that the argument is an economic one and his party wants to see disabled people getting to work, will he support that tonight?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful, although I am not sure whether that was an intervention on jeering or cheering and the difference between them. I will go so far as to say that I am not in a position to make economic spending commitments at the Dispatch Box. Although we are supportive of the principle, that is why we will not vote for something that writes a blank cheque for the future, because at least the Conservatives are trying to be economically responsible.

Without amendment, the Bill is a missed opportunity in relation to bus stop design and disability access. It is a missed opportunity in relation to antisocial behaviour on buses and bringing that in line with the protections already enjoyed by rail passengers. It is also a missed opportunity not to focus on passengers as the primary object of all actions undertaken as a result of the Bill, particularly in relation to rural areas.

The Bill is not just a missed opportunity; it is also, in its current drafting, damaging for the future prospects of the provision of bus services, because it risks exposing local transport authorities to potential bankruptcy without support from the Secretary of State. That is, in the first instance, in terms of oversight of plans for franchising—particularly for small local transport authorities—and giving them the all-clear. Secondly, if franchise systems are set up and then they fail to provide over a prolonged period, the Secretary of State must surely be able to step in and provide those services—if we are interested in the experience of passengers as opposed to the organisation. I have raised those two issues consistently throughout Committee and earlier on today. They are significant, genuine concerns that prevent the Opposition from supporting the Bill in its current form.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he is approaching the debate. Local authorities all over England are letting contracts every single day, and all manner of contracts could go wrong. What is peculiar about this power that means there is a risk of bankruptcy?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am sorry that the hon. Member was not in his place throughout the course of the debate, as he would have heard that a franchise is not a normal contract. Under an enhanced partnership or a standard operating contract, that is exactly so: a contract is let and the commercial risk lies with the provider. The challenge with franchising is that the commercial risk is transferred 100% to the taxpayer, because the local transport authority is no longer letting a commercial contract; it is buying in services for a price, with the commercial risk lying with the taxpayer. That is the crucial difference. I am glad that the hon. Member put his finger on that, because I am as worried as he is about it.

Finally, I will mention the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We do not agree on many issues, but I do agree with her on this. She said that a lot of good amendments were tabled by Opposition parties—certainly three parties; there were sadly none from Reform, which would not know a transport policy if one got up and slapped it in the face. The hon. Lady came up with some good ideas, and even the Liberal Democrats came up with something or other. As for the Conservatives, we came up with good idea after good idea, yet until now they have all been rejected by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to his concession on all those good ideas.

[Simon Lightwood]

With the leave of the House, I thank those who have contributed to today’s debate. I have carefully listened to the points raised. The breadth of interest shows that although we may not agree on the approach, we share an ambition to improve buses for all passengers.

As I have mentioned throughout the passage of the Bill, this Government strongly believe that local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their local communities; they know and understand their areas’ specific needs and have a direct relationship with their communities. We do not want to increase the number of burdens on them. We must trust the local areas that we are empowering to take the right decisions for local people.

Even though I recognise the importance of ensuring that there is full accountability, there are a large number of amendments that do not align with that core principle and that would actually increase the burdens on local transport authorities. Amendments have also been proposed today that would take away key funding decisions from local areas, requiring them to fund specific parts of the bus services in their area without considering the possible negative consequences that will undoubtedly arise for others. As I have mentioned, this Government seek to provide greater flexibility in how a local area uses its bus grant. Local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their communities and we must trust them to do that.

I will respond to several points raised by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). On the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, despite what the Conservative party claims, franchising was delivered on time and on budget there, and that is despite the overly complex process that they had to go through because of the previous Government’s Bus Services Act 2017. We are correcting the mistakes of that legislation, cutting red tape and making the process more efficient.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I hope that the Minister is not misleading the House inadvertently. Although he is right that it was delivered on time and on budget—it was about £156 million—it is argued that the subsequent year of operation had a deficit of about £236 million. Even though it may have been delivered on time and on budget, it has been in a terrible deficit ever since and is on strike now.

[Simon Lightwood]

I am afraid that we have been around this roundabout quite a few times. I neither recognise nor agree with those figures. We would have thought that the Conservatives, as the party that gave Greater Manchester the power to franchise buses, would be more supportive of one of the few positive things that they did in government. If the Conservative party thought it was so important, why did it not do something about it while in office?

I also remind the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), that he was literally the buses Minister. Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government of the 1980s who deregulated buses outside London, which led to services being cut, fares going up and patronage going down. This Labour Government are reversing decades of decline in bus services.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Minister should see how committed we were in office, because I gave more than a billion pounds to Manchester for that scheme and for setting it up. Indeed, the National Audit Office recently praised our £2 bus fare scheme, saying it

“achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage.”

[Simon Lightwood]

I would not stand there so proud of overseeing 300,000 miles fewer travelled by buses under the Conservative party.

Moving to the matter of concessionary travel, let me begin by recognising the strength of support for new clause 2 in the party of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). Although the intention of that amendment and others on concessionary travel is understandable, the ENCTS costs around £700 million annually, so any extension of statutory entitlements must be carefully considered to ensure financial sustainability.

Having received a good outcome from the bus funding in this spending round, we will shortly make a multi-year allocation to local authorities to support bus services locally. The multi-year nature of these allocations will enable local authorities to plan their bus services with greater certainty and negotiate the best value provision from bus operators. Local authorities already have the power to offer additional concessions beyond the statutory scheme funded locally. For example, in the year ending March 2025, 66% of travel concession authorities offered concessionary travel to companions of disabled people. I would also note that a review of the ENCTS was conducted under the previous Government in 2024, including consideration of travel times, and we are currently reviewing this for next steps.

On the matter of travel for police officers, many operators already offer free travel to police officers. We are discussing with the industry how we can build on that offer and increase awareness, given the importance of safety on buses. This work is being led by the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) to discuss that further.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

It is good news that 66% of local authorities recognise the importance of companion bus passes for those disabled people who cannot otherwise use a bus, but given the lack of logic of giving somebody a pass that they cannot use, is this not one of those cases that ought to be taken away from discretion and simply added to statute as a matter of common sense?

[Simon Lightwood]

We believe in passing the power and the funding down to local areas to make these decisions. A multi-year funding settlement has been reached and details of that will be provided to local authorities in due course. They already have the power and they will have the funding and the ability to do just that.

I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling amendment 58. The Bill seeks to remove the existing requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. This is a purely administrative step and has no effect. It occurs before a franchising assessment has been produced, so the Secretary of State has no evidence at all on whether to support or block a move towards franchising. The Bill’s purpose is to help streamline and simplify bus franchising and, in turn, open up the option of bus franchising to all local transport authorities. Clause 1 is consistent with that aim. It puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field and will speed up the process for those authorities pursuing bus franchising. For this reason, I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

I will now address amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and amendment 59 from the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham together. I am aware of the recent campaign by the hon. Member for Wimbledon regarding noise nuisance on the bus network, and I can confirm that the Government are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour on buses, including headphone dodging. In Committee, I outlined the existing regulations in place, which set out the behaviour expected of drivers and passengers travelling on buses, so I will not repeat them here.

Further to those existing powers, clause 28 of the Bill provides scope to tackle a broad range of antisocial behaviours, and that could include making byelaws to tackle disruptive forms of behaviour. Of course, Conservatives Members would know this if they had bothered to read the Bill, but they obviously had not noticed this when they were talking to the press about headphone dodging. As such, these amendments are not necessary and I would ask right hon. and hon. Members not to press them.

I move next to the issue of fare caps. The previous Government left no funding to maintain any form of cap beyond 2024. We stepped in with a £3 cap to avoid a cliff edge and to ensure that fares remained affordable. The fare cap captures around one fifth of bus fares. This reflects passengers’ use of other forms of ticketing, such as a weekly season ticket. As a result of the recent spending review, funding has been secured so that authorities can provide targeted interventions if they so choose. School-only services were fully considered when designing the £3 fare cap scheme, and it was determined that they should not be included.

On amendment 23, the Bill introduces socially necessary local services as a measure. The £2 fare cap ended in December 2024 prior to this measure coming into force. The expectation is that it will take some time for local transport authorities to identify socially necessary local services in their areas. An evaluation of the £2 fare cap has already been published by the Department for Transport. It looked at the first 10 months of the previous fare cap. Evidence suggested that the scheme delivered low value for money.

17:49

[Tom Gordon]

The Minister made an interesting point earlier about allowing local transport authorities and mayors to make decisions when it comes to buses. Why does he think that a national mandatory bus fare cap should apply but not a national mandate allowing access for disability passes? Why is it that some decisions should be taken locally and others nationally, and how does he reconcile those differences?

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The national fare cap has been successful. We continued to expand it to ensure that it was affordable across the board. I hear what he says, but I go back to my points: we were giving local areas the power to do exactly what he is talking about.

We are undertaking an evaluation of the £3 bus fare cap. The outcomes will be known in the coming year. I hope hon. Members will withdraw the amendments.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that the £3 fare cap is an essential lifeline for people taking the bus from Burnley to Blackburn hospital, which was a service that I managed to secure through work with local transit companies and Lancashire county council?

[Simon Lightwood]

I completely agree, and unlike the Conservatives, we actually got it funded.

I thank hon. Members for the new clauses and amendments on the provision of socially necessary services. Clause 14 requires areas with enhanced partnership schemes to specify a process that will apply when a local transport authority wants to change or cancel a socially necessary local service. In franchising areas, existing legislation and measures contained in the Bill set out a detailed procedure governing changes to a franchising scheme. That includes changes to services specified in a scheme. Careful consideration has been given to the Bill’s measures, ensuring that there is an appropriate balance between consultation and burdens being placed on local transport authorities. The consultation requirement proposed by new clause 32 would be duplicative.

On amendment 2, when the Bill was debated in the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail made a statement to the House to officially confirm that medical and educational establishments come within the definition of essential goods and services. My Department is also producing bespoke guidance for LTAs, which will emphasise that point.

The desired effect of amendment 5 is already sufficiently covered by the Transport Act 2000. On amendment 6, following the spending review settlement, LTAs will be allocated a significant amount of support through the bus fund to decide where they can invest in their services. My Department has committed to ensuring that funding is fairly allocated. The amendment runs contrary to the Government’s aims. Amendment 7 is contrary to the Government’s view that local leaders are best placed to make decisions on how they spend their funding. Restricting the range of choices for how a local authority does that would therefore go against the spirit of the Bill.

On amendment 8, the Department already publishes bus data through the bus open data service. That provides timetable, bus location and fares data for local bus services across England. The Department also publishes bus statistics through gov.uk. The majority of the statistics are updated annually, with information on bus fares made available quarterly. Providing further information directly to Parliament is therefore not necessary.

Amendment 60 would create practical challenges and may not provide the benefits the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is seeking. The needs of communities evolve over time. Services that previously ran may have been integrated into other bus networks through changes intended to make the bus route better reflect current needs. I also note that the amendment does not work because an operator cannot amend or cancel an already cancelled service. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask hon. Members to withdraw those amendments.

Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), with the support of the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), would include training on domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, in the mandatory training for bus staff on crime and antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for Wimbledon tabled the same amendment in Committee. In Committee, I said that clause 34 captured domestic abuse because it is already a criminal offence. However, I must clarify that there is no specific criminal offence of “domestic abuse”. Under existing legislation, if someone commits a criminal offence and that behaviour also satisfies the definition of domestic abuse under section 1 of the 2021 Act, it is treated as an aggravating factor in the commission of the underlying offence, and that can also be considered during sentencing.

The definition of “abusive behaviour” in the 2021 Act includes physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, and psychological, emotional and other abuse. The measures in the Bill already account for abusive behaviours that are also criminal offences. However, that is unlikely to be the case for parts of the definition from the 2021 Act—namely economic abuse, or psychological and emotional abuse, which may not be criminal offences. Those abusive behaviours are less likely to be apparent, and I do not consider it reasonable to expect bus staff to be able to identify instances of such behaviour in the course of their duties. Should an incident escalate to a criminal offence that would cause a victim or potential victim to fear for their personal safety, it would be covered under the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw amendment 14.

On minimum service levels, I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) for tabling new clauses 22 and 45 respectively, and those who sponsored the new clauses. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley)—I always look forward to her reminder about Sunday services in Shrewsbury, and hope that those days are numbered given the Bill’s progress. The Bill will empower local areas across the country, including by giving them the tools to decide where to run services and their frequency. The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the transport needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts, as set out in the Transport Act 2000. I clarify for the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire that section 108 of that Act requires an LTA to develop policies that meet the transport needs of persons living, working, visiting or travelling in the authority area.

If an area chooses to franchise its bus services, it must consider lots of factors to determine the right level of service needed to support its communities. That level is likely to be different in different areas. Similarly, when an LTA considers an enhanced partnership, a lot of work is undertaken to understand the service level that the local area requires, and it will then work with operators to investigate how best to proceed. [Interruption.] I believe that I am being hastened on. [Hon. Members: “More!] I have never been so popular.

Finally, let me address the amendments on zero emission buses. In developing the Bill, we have taken into account the need to provide the industry with sufficient notice before the measure comes into effect, and with reassurance that it will not happen suddenly. We have also considered the impact on bus manufacturers. A significantly earlier date could impact on bus operators and passengers. The costs of decarbonising sooner could lead to reduced services, increased fares and an increase in car use. With that, I bring my remarks to an end. I thank Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 38 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The result of the Division is as follows: the Ayes were 69, the Noes were 400.

17:54

Division 288

Ayes: 69

---

Liberal Democrat: 59
Reform UK: 3
Green Party: 3
Independent: 2
Conservative: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 300

---

Labour: 282
Independent: 5

18:04

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 2 June).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 1

Franchising schemes: general

Amendment proposed: 58, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4).—(Jerome Mayhew.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:07

Division 289

Ayes: 92

---

Conservative: 85
Reform UK: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 364

---

Labour: 288
Liberal Democrat: 61
Independent: 9
Green Party: 3

Clause 3

Specification of services

Amendment made: 31, page 2, line 27, leave out “relation to”.—(Simon Lightwood.)

Clause 11

Variation of schemes

Amendments made: 32, page 7, line 25, leave out “relation to”.

Amendment 33, page 7, line 31, leave out “relation to”. —(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Clause 14

Socially necessary local services

Amendment proposed: 23, page 11, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:22

Division 290

Ayes: 158

---

Conservative: 87
Liberal Democrat: 60
Reform UK: 3
Independent: 3
Green Party: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 297

---

Labour: 287
Independent: 6

Clause 24

Information provided on registration of local services

Amendments made: 35, page 20, leave out lines 20 to 29.

This amendment and Amendments 36 to 45 remove provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.

Amendment 36, page 20, line 42, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35.

Amendment 37, page 21, line 18, leave out subsections (6) and (7).—(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35.

Clause 25

Information about local services

Amendment made: 38, page 22, line 17, leave out subsection (6).—(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35.

Clause 28

Local transport authority byelaws

Amendment proposed: 10, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert

“, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”.—(Mr Kohler.)

This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:35

Division 291

Ayes: 153

---

Conservative: 86
Liberal Democrat: 59
Reform UK: 3
Green Party: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1

Noes: 300

---

Labour: 288
Independent: 6

Amendments made: 39, page 28, leave out lines 33 to 36.

Amendment 40, page 29, leave out lines 19 to 21.—(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35.

Clause 29

TfL byelaws

Amendments made: 41, page 31, leave out lines 31 to 34.

Amendment 42, page 32, leave out lines 14 to 16.—(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35.

Clause 34

Training about crime and anti-social behaviour

Amendment made: 43, page 37, leave out lines 31 to 40. —(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35.

Clause 36

Training about disability: further provisions

Amendments made: 44, page 39, line 19, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 45, page 39, line 40, leave out paragraph (a). —(Simon Lightwood.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 35.

Clause 39

Extent

Amendment made: 46, page 42, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) Section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland) extends to Scotland only.”—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment is consequential on NC38.

Clause 40

Commencement and transitional provision

Amendments made: 47, page 43, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) Section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland) comes into force—

(a) for the purposes of making regulations, on the day on which this Act is passed;

(b) for remaining purposes, on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint.”.

This amendment is consequential on NC38.

Amendment 48, page 43, line 13, at end insert—

“(4A) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland).”.

This amendment is consequential on NC38.

Amendment 49, page 43, line 16, at end insert “other”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 48.

Amendment 50, page 43, line 17, at end insert—

“(6) For regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (3A)(b) or (4A), see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (Scottish statutory instruments).” —(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 48 and NC38.

Schedule

Procedure for varying franchising scheme

Amendments made: 34, page 44, line 11, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 51, page 49, line 1, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 52, page 51, line 8, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 53, page 51, line 9, at end insert—

“(zi) a variation of additional facilities identified under section 123A(3)(d) in the scheme;

(zii) a variation of the plans for consultation included in the scheme under section 123A(9);”.

This amendment provides for variations of additional facilities identified in a franchising scheme and of plans for consultation included in the scheme to be covered by the variation procedure in Part 3 of new Schedule 9A to the Transport Act 2000.

Amendment 54, page 51, line 11, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 55, page 51, line 13, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 56, page 51, line 15, leave out “relation to”.

This amendment removes words that are unnecessary.

Amendment 57, page 51, line 21, leave out “12(b)(i),” and insert “12(b)(zii), (i),”.—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment provides for consultation with the Welsh Ministers, local authorities, relevant organisations and the Passengers’ Council in the case of a variation of plans for consultation included in a franchising scheme.

[The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Stephen Morgan)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to report an error in the announcement of the Division results for the first vote this evening, which was on new clause 2. I can confirm that the correct numbers were 69 for the Ayes and 300 for the Noes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Teller for that point of order and for correcting the record. I hereby direct the Clerks to correct the numbers and confirm that the Ayes were 69 and the Noes were 300.

Third Reading

18:46

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Government believe that reliable, affordable and accessible transport is not simply a luxury to be enjoyed by some, but that it should be everyone’s right to access essential services, travel to work or school, fulfil aspirations and expand horizons. Today we take a step closer to that vision, because after 14 years of failed deregulation, seeing services cut, routes axed and fares rise, we are finally taking our lifeline bus services off of life support. This vital legislation ushers in the biggest change to our buses in a generation. It means improved services for passengers and protection for socially necessary routes. Greener buses will be rolled out faster. Accessibility and safety standards will be raised across the board, and buses will be integrated across local transport so that it is easier and simpler to get around.

Ultimately, this Bill is about where power lies. It transfers control away from private interests and towards the public good, and away from central Government and towards the local leaders who know their areas best. They and they alone will choose how best to meet local transport needs, be it through franchising, enhanced partnerships or locally owned bus companies. My message to the public is simple: buses will get better.

I thank hon. Members for the scrutiny and support they have provided throughout the Bill’s passage. I specifically recognise Opposition Members including the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for holding the Government to account and for their considered questioning. It has been a respectful and constructive process, which I must say has been refreshing.

Many of the measures in the Bill build on the national bus strategy, which I know the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), played a role in implementing, particularly in Greater Manchester. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for his excellent work and dedication in steering the Bill through the House. I know that the genesis of the Bill stretches back a long time, so I also acknowledge the passion and foresight of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), in making the case for the Bill and her advocacy for a better bus network for all. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to all the parliamentary staff, including the Clerks and Chairs, as well as to my officials, who have worked at pace to help deliver this landmark legislation.

Buses connect us to the things that matter most, yet for too long they have been a symbol of decline. That changes now. After committing substantial funding for bus services, we are now getting on with fundamental reform, fixing the faults of the industry, transferring power to the local level and putting passengers and local communities first. Change is coming to our buses. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

17:14

[Mr Holden]

What bus passengers really want is reliable, affordable and cheap bus travel on a growing network. That is what was guaranteed under the last Conservative Government’s £2 fare cap. It was a commitment in our manifesto, and one that worked. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may jeer, but the National Audit Office said—they might want to listen—in praise of the DFT that the

“DFT’s £2 bus fare cap achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage”.

That is a policy abandoned by Labour but stood up for by the Conservatives. This Labour Government scrapped it, and they keep on pretending that a 50% increase to £3 is actually beneficial to taxpayers.

There is zero indication of how the Bill will improve passenger numbers or ensure rural coverage. Indeed, the Bill creates an even more fragmented and inconsistent service across the country. Labour has scrapped a national fare cap and failed to replace it properly, and now it expects local councils to pick up the bill without any extra funding. The last Conservative Government delivered real investment for passengers, backing bus services and improvements in the west midlands, and Greater Manchester with £1 billion. I was there with Mayor Burnham, and anyone would think it was all down to him. I am sure Ministers are finding dealing with Andy as interesting as I did. We also did so in West Yorkshire, delivering bus service improvement plans, and working with local authorities to get real results.

The Bill is the opposite of that. It will drown councils in process, drive up costs and threaten rural connectivity while ignoring what passengers really need. Without significant subsidies, councils will naturally prioritise cities and towns over villages, leaving our rural communities even further behind. Just as we have seen in our courts and our prisons, the Government risk creating yet another two-tier system—this time for buses—where city regions are supported and everyone else is simply forgotten. How else to explain forcing operators towards zero emission bus registration without any plans to help make that transition for them?

After hammering rural communities with attacks on family farms, the Government will do exactly the same all over again with reduced services because they are not providing extra funding. To make matters worse, they are undermining the very infrastructure that buses rely on by cutting roads funding in road investment strategy 3 by 13% in real terms and delaying or cancelling critical projects. The Government cannot promise better bus services while cutting the very roads that they and all other users depend on. In tearing up the safeguards around the Secretary of State’s oversight, Ministers are giving councils free rein to set up municipal bus companies without ministerial sign-off or competitive tendering. Let me be absolutely clear: if those companies fail, the responsibility lies squarely with the Secretary of State, with taxpayers left to pick up the Bill.

Moreover, the Bill has completely ignored the shortage of bus and coach drivers across our country. We have called time and again for 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to be allowed to drive buses beyond 50 km a day. Fifteen months ago, the consultation ended. This Government have had 14 months, yet last week, in answer to a written parliamentary question, they said that they are still considering their response to the consultation. It is a straightforward and common-sense change that would help tackle driver shortages, boost businesses and tourism, and get more buses back on our roads. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor have told this House repeatedly that they will pursue growth by any means necessary, yet when an opportunity clearly presents itself, as this has done, they do not seem to want to move at all.

In this week of hugely damaging and disruptive strikes in our nation’s capital—we will see further bus strikes across the country next week—the Government are putting ideology ahead of delivery and siding with the unions over passengers, with a Bill that fails bus users, fails rural communities and fails to guarantee value for taxpayers. That is why we on the Conservative Benches will vote against the Bill tonight, and I urge all hon. Members to do the same.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

18:55

[Mr Kohler]

My party supports this Bill. After decades of failure, with the deregulation orchestrated by the Tories, this is clearly a move in the right direction. It is not ambitious enough, and I regret deeply your failure to reinstate the £2 bus fare cap, the failure to remove the time limits on concessionary travel for disabled people and your failure to address—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly used the words “you” and “yours” throughout this afternoon’s proceedings. Please can he do better?

[Mr Kohler]

And the Government’s failure to address the awful scourge of headphone dodgers. Most fundamentally, the Bill will not work unless it is properly funded. At the moment it is not, and the Government cannot hide behind localism when it needs proper funding. However, we will support the Bill.

18:57

Division 292

Ayes: 362

---

Labour: 283
Liberal Democrat: 59
Independent: 8
Green Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 87

---

Conservative: 85
Independent: 1

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.