Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moylan and Lord Hampton

3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those expressed by other noble Lords. It was the Minister’s expertise and enthusiasm in particular that shone through. I thank too the Bill team and the Table Office. We got some truly cross-party support, and it was great fun. It is true to say that, since it has gone through this House, it has become a much safer Bill than when it began here.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister’s private office, the Bill team and the other civil servants involved in the Bill, who have dealt with the Official Opposition with promptness, courtesy and responsiveness in an exemplary way. I also thank the Minister for his openness and engagement with the Opposition during the Bill. That contributed greatly to its swift and efficient passage through Committee. The Minister sets an example that many of his colleagues on the Front Bench could follow in relation to transparency, engagement and so forth, which could help with the dispatch of our business in your Lordships’ House. I thank the Opposition Whips team, in particular Abid Hussain and Henry Mitson. I express particular thanks to my Whip throughout all this, my noble friend Lord Effingham.

I am trying to be positive when I say that this is not the worst Bill introduced by the Government so far, but none the less it remains a pretty poor Bill. It does damage and removes private entrepreneurialism from the bus sector, where, as we know, private enterprise and the spirit of private enterprise are the only keys to economic growth. It is here primarily to gratify the unions and certain local authorities and not to do very much indeed for passengers. Most importantly, it gives powers to local authorities that they are neither equipped nor funded to exercise. To that extent it is, as I have said earlier, a somewhat bogus Bill.

We have improved the Bill in your Lordships’ House. We have added a purpose clause so that we know what it is meant to be about and what standard we can hold the Government to. We have ventilated further the £2 bus cap and what the consequences are of removing it, which is a further amendment that passed. We have also brought into the Bill the very sensitive issue of special educational needs transport and the effects that the reduction in the threshold for national insurance contributions has on that sector and its survival—which is so important. As I say, that is now part of the Bill as it goes to the other place.

We have removed unnecessary language—dangerous language—about what was expected from bus drivers in dealing with crime. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said, we have also seen amendments to review services to villages, which we were glad to support. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has introduced an amendment which focuses on improving the overall safety of buses and the way in which bus services operate. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, sadly not in his place—as indeed he was not when the amendment was moved on his behalf by my noble friend Lord Moynihan—has added important protections to the Bill in relation to violence against women and girls.

Finally, it is worth noting the flanking action by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which saw improvements made to the Bill in relation to floating bus stops, the back of which I think we would all like to see. So, it leaves your Lordships’ House a better Bill.

The Minister said something about the Bill coming back. I see no reason for it to come back. All those amendments are very worth while, and I hope that the Government will embrace them in the other place and simply move on.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moylan and Lord Hampton

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, at Second Reading I expressed very serious concerns about part of Clause 24. In opposing the clause standing part of the Bill, my approach has been not to rewrite what the Government have proposed in the Bill—and therefore to provide them with an alternative policy—but to ask them seriously to consider and explain their current policy as it stands in the Bill. To that extent, this is like my previous clause stand part probing notices. But, on this particular issue, it is very clear that we are likely to come back on Report with specific amendments to change the text of the Bill, unless we hear something that explains it more satisfactorily than it has been so far.

My understanding is that Clause 24 inserts into the Transport Act 2000 a new obligation on the holders of PSV operators’ licences in relation to training. I have no objection at all to the idea that there should be an obligation to train staff, and I have no objection to Clause 25, which has a similar sort of effect but relates to training about disability. All of that is to the good.

My specific concern is with subsection (2) of what would be new Section 144F in the Transport Act 2000, where the training requirement under consideration is specified as:

“the person has completed training the aim of which is to assist the person to identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”—

that, after all, is a large number of criminal offences—

“and … anti-social behaviour, within the meaning given by … the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003”.

The person to whom this is directed can be only the driver of the bus, as buses run with one person operating them almost exclusively in this country. So the driver of the bus is expected to be trained, and the public are encouraged to think that the driver of the bus will be trained, to a point where they can

“identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences … and … anti-social behaviour”.

That potentially places a burden on bus drivers that is wholly inappropriate, given their role and their salary, and given that they will almost certainly be on their own on that bus when something happens. Many of the incidents that one can easily envisage would be encompassed by this training would be incidents that, as I said at Second Reading, the Metropolitan Police Force or another police force would respond to with one, two or three uniformed officers. Yet the implication is that a bus driver on their own will be able to

“identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences … and … anti-social behaviour”.

The Minister well understands bus operations—that goes without saying—more perhaps than any other Minister who might come here would understand them, but he cannot seriously mean what it says in the Bill. It is possible that he will say, “Oh no, you must misunderstand—when we talk about training and identifying, that is all really so that the drivers know how to report it to the appropriate people”. They have radios and they can communicate to their higher operator and the police, and things like that—and that is the appropriate response that we would be talking about here. But that is not what the words say; they say “where possible, prevent”, which goes a great deal beyond simply telling a bus driver to operate responsibly and take note of what is going on.

I am utterly baffled by what the Government are considering here, how it would work in practice and how these words are appropriate in this Bill. Something should and could be included, I agree, about training drivers so that they can identify, respond to and take account of this sort of behaviour, which is sadly all too common on buses nowadays. But the words as they stand put bus drivers in a completely impossible position. Apart from anything else, it would make recruitment very difficult indeed.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

I have had conversations with bus operators and bus drivers, who are very worried about this issue. Bus drivers tell me that the very act of opening a door to walk out and face a passenger is seen as aggressive. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is absolutely correct on this one.