Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Simon Lightwood]

A range of funding pots could be used for the remediation work. As I mentioned, the pause will focus on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Research by University College London, commissioned by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, identified such layouts as particularly problematic. The hon. Member for Wimbledon specifically raised the question of auditing existing floating bus stops. Clause 32(1)(b) will place a duty on local authorities to respond to requests from the Secretary of State for information on stopping places. That power is broadly drafted and would allow the Secretary of State to ask for information about the number and location of floating bus stops provided by the authority. Transport for London has also undertaken a form of audit on its floating bus stops.

We expect such audits to naturally form part of developing local funding programmes. However, my Department will ask local authorities to undertake that work, alongside setting out to them its expectation on the pause. We will work together with local authorities in a pragmatic way to collate information on floating bus stops. Much of the information is already held by local authorities, and I recognise that it is important to addressing this issue. Local authorities will be able to use a wide range of existing funding streams to audit floating bus stops in their areas. For example, the consolidated active travel fund includes capital and revenue elements that can be used for audits, early feasibility work and capital remediation schemes.

I have heard the concerns of hon. Members about the behaviour of some cyclists. I am happy to set out my commitment to working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators in this space to support awareness raising through communication on this issue. On Report, I will return with further updates on the Government’s plans. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to enabling more people to walk, wheel and cycle. Good-quality segregated infrastructure is vital to making cycling safer. However, we must ensure that it is delivered in a way that keeps the public realm accessible for everyone. As I outlined, my Department and Active Travel England are focused on helping local authorities to implement change in a way that is more consistent and accessible, through research, awareness raising and good practice.

Moving to the amendments, I will begin by discussing amendments 40 to 43. Amendment 40 would place a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to give guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. Clause 30 as drafted gives the Secretary of State flexibility to issue guidance when it is appropriate and based on proper evidence, engagement and policy development. Replacing “may” with “must” in clause 30(1) would create a statutory obligation, impacting that discretion. Such a duty could risk forcing the premature publication of guidance, before the necessary consultation, or the gathering of evidence or stakeholder input, has been completed. That could lead to guidance that is incomplete, inconsistent and frankly unfit for purpose.

I have already spoken about the requirement to consult DPTAC, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. That will ensure that any guidance developed is effective, proportionate and responsive to the needs of all passengers. I would like to reassure the Committee that this Government are committed to publishing guidance to ensure that stopping place infrastructure around the country is safer and more accessible to all. However, I am concerned that amendment 40 would frustrate, rather than support, our ability to ensure that the drafting works for all passengers.

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

I challenge the Minister’s rationale on clause 30. I understood him to be saying that making a duty mandatory might force the Government to issue guidance before consultation is undertaken, but there is nothing in the clause that suggests that. If he wishes to propose that as an argument against amendment 40, he needs to set out what it is in said amendment that would require the issuing of guidance prior to any consultation or standard operating procedures. I cannot see anything like that.

[Simon Lightwood]

We will have to agree to disagree on that, I am afraid.

Amendment 41 seeks to extend the Secretary of State’s power to give guidance, including for the purpose of enabling disabled people to make journeys without the use of a floating bus stop. The intent would be to produce guidance that advises authorities to construct stopping places in a way that would enable people to travel without crossing a cycle track.

Essentially, that means providing guidance to authorities that floating bus stops should not be installed and should, if already installed, be removed, where work in the scope of this guidance is undertaken. Authorities, as listed in clause 36, would then be required to have regard to the guidance. This Government do not believe that a complete ban on floating bus stops is appropriate, given the need to improve safety for cyclists and to enable more people to cycle. The requirement to publish statutory guidance, to which local authorities are required to have regard, will enable the Government to set out clearly what is expected of authorities in terms of making floating bus stops accessible.

Amendment 42 would mandate that the Secretary of State “must” issue guidance, specifically about the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and facilities, and how authorities engage with others in relation to stopping places. The statutory guidance will cover a broad range of considerations in relation to stopping places including, as I said, location, design, construction and, where relevant, maintenance. By amending the clause to say that the Secretary of State must give guidance about certain characteristics of a stopping place, the amendment risks being overly prescriptive and would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to develop guidance informed by stakeholder engagement.

Amendment 43 has two separate purposes. It seeks to ensure that relevant authorities, which have a duty to have regard to the guidance on safety and accessibility of stopping places, always comply with the recommendations of the guidance. The only exception to this would be where there are exceptional local circumstances not to do so, and only if authorities have obtained prior written approval from the Secretary of State.

We expect that all relevant authorities will comply with their duty to have regard to guidance under clause 30. It is crucial, however, that authorities have the flexibility to apply those solutions that work best in each location and in individual circumstances. Without that flexibility, we risk preventing authorities from progressing infra-structure upgrades that might otherwise have been considered, rather than encouraging them to do so. Amendment 43 would also require the Secretary of State to make a judgment on a case-by-case basis as to what constitutes exceptional local circumstances. Given that those will differ in each case, that may be difficult to provide in a consistent manner.

The amendment also seeks to introduce a statutory pause on the construction of floating bus stops and shared bus stop boarders. It would do this by requiring authorities that have a duty to have regard to the guidance under clause 30 not to proceed with construction of such stopping places until guidance on floating bus stops is issued by the Secretary of State under this clause.

It is unclear how this amendment of clause 30 on the stopping place guidance and the floating bus stop guidance in clause 31 would relate to each other. The latter must be published no later than three months after Royal Assent, while the clause 30 guidance has a longer timetable, with no statutory deadline. In practice, that means that guidance on floating bus stops would be available in the short term, but not under clause 30. The practical effect of the amendment would be to negate the guidance under clause 31, because local authorities would not be able to use it. That would delay authorities’ ability to plan and carry out works to make floating bus stops more accessible. The amendment is disproportionate and, along with amendments 40 to 42, unnecessary.

I turn to amendments 29 to 31 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Amendment 29 seeks to expand the purposes for which statutory guidance can be issued to include matters such as safety on pavements along the route, access to toilet facilities and real-time information, some of which are beyond the intended scope of the guidance. Although those are important considerations, many are already covered within the scope of clause 30. The current drafting of the definition of “facilities” provides sufficient flexibility for the guidance to address accessible information and other relevant facilities.

Welfare facilities for drivers are covered in existing bus franchising guidance. In enhanced partnership areas, it is the responsibility of operators to provide adequate welfare facilities for drivers. That can be discussed and agreed with local transport authorities as part of the partnership. I have already spoken about the information provisions in the Bill. Bringing multiple sources of information together in one place will help to improve the situation for passengers and ensure a more consistent approach, as the hon. Lady said.

Issues such as pedestrian safety on pavements and at crossings are addressed through existing statutory duties on local authorities, and do not require repeating here. The consultation requirements that I have set out will ensure that the guidance reflects expert advice on the issues that matter most, including safety and the facilities that are provided at bus stops.

Amendment 30 seeks to narrow the definition of “facilities” in subsection (7) by specifying that such facilities should include those provided to assist people with accessing a stopping place from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route. Amendment 31 seeks to clarify that the definition of “facilities” includes facilities providing information to passengers. The definition of “facilities” in the clause is deliberately broad to ensure that the guidance can cover a full range of accessibility features, such as information facilities or facilities in the surrounding area of stopping places that support access. Highlighting specific types of facility would risk unhelpfully reducing flexibility or, potentially, conferring priority on the provision of one type of facility.

On facilities that provide access to the nearest stopping place on any route, some bus stops, particularly those in rural areas, are located very far apart, on dual carriageways or in places with one-way traffic systems. If the hon. Lady’s intention is to capture all facilities between stops, that is outside the scope of the guidance. The amendments would also pre-empt proper and full consultation with disabled stakeholders to determine what may be most appropriate. For the reasons I have set out, amendments 29 to 31 are unnecessary, and I ask that they not be moved.

I turn to the three amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Amendment 65 deals with service information at stopping places—in particular, real-time arrival information. I have explained that statutory guidance can cover the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and the facilities in the vicinity. I have also covered the broad definition of “facilities”, which will enable guidance to be given on a range of accessibility features and nearby features; facilities providing service and real-time information would fall within the existing definition in subsection (7). I am concerned that the amendment would give the impression that one feature or facility has priority over the others covered in the guidance. The amendment would also pre-empt consultation with stakeholders, including on what disabled passengers themselves consider a priority.

Amendment 60 seeks to strengthen the duty on authorities in subsection (6). It would require them to

“take reasonable steps to implement”

guidance, in place of the current requirement to “have regard to” it. The amendment was also tabled in the other place. Although the Government did not accept it, we listened carefully to the concerns raised and tabled Government amendments to strengthen the package of accessibility measures in the Bill. They include clause 21, which will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan.

However, I reiterate the points made in the other place. The purpose of statutory guidance under clause 30 is to support authorities to provide consistent, safe and accessible road infrastructure suited to the needs of their area. It is not intended to set a single rigid standard for bus stations and stops that is applicable to all circumstances. Allowing authorities to consider the guidance and its application in relation to different stopping places will allow them space to assess other relevant factors in their decision making. A more onerous requirement would not provide that flexibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

That is precisely why Active Travel England is doing this work—so that we can identify a design standard in order to ensure that our transport systems are accessible for everybody.

The new clause would also, in effect, ban floating bus stops by requiring all buses to pull into the kerb, regardless of local cycling needs. That would not be appropriate, because we must continue to ensure that cyclists are also able to travel safely. I have spoken at length about the action that my Department is taking, the research of Active Travel England, and the funding available to support local authorities. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat those points, but for those reasons I ask hon. Members not to press the new clause to a Division.

New clause 47 tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham has similarities to new clauses 12 and 40. Beyond the points that I have made about practicality and necessity, the new clause raises various practical issues. For one, local authorities with works under way would be unable to complete them. Unfinished works on pavements and roads may put pedestrians at risk, and unfulfilled contracts may impose costs on local authorities. In addition, the term “inclusive-by-design”, which is used in the new clause, is not a legally recognised term. It is unclear what design principles would apply to that requirement, which may create confusion for local authorities. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for the Minister’s considered response to all the amendments. I spoke in favour of a number of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is not a member of the Committee. The mathematics of the Committee are pretty obvious, so I will treat the majority of them as probing amendments. Some of them have done their work, and I hope that those that the Minister batted away will be quietly reconsidered when he is back in the comfort of his ministerial office. I consider amendment 40 to be one such probing amendment, so I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—

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

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

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

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

The drafting of the amendment looks complex, but its outcome is quite simple. It removes Welsh services where it is considered that the Welsh Government can achieve a similar outcome to clause 33. The clause closes a loophole whereby some drivers of school services are not required to have a criminal record check, including checking the children’s barred list. Although this matter is reserved, the Welsh Government have agreed to implement measures through the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill currently going through the Senedd that will lead to a similar outcome.

The Welsh Government have agreed that services operating under a local bus service contract or permit, which will be established through the Bus Services (Wales) Bill, will require operators to ensure that the appropriate criminal record checks are done for qualifying drivers of school services. They have also agreed that local authorities and governing bodies of schools in Wales must have regard to the Wales learner travel guidance under section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008, which can include guidance about criminal record checking. The Welsh Government have advised that they will update the guidance so that drivers of services provided by those bodies will be subject to the same checks required by clause 33. Ultimately, even though the amendment removes Wales from the Bill, we are clear that drivers of all closed school services will require a criminal record check.

Clause 33 seeks to mandate bus operators to carry out enhanced criminal record certificate and children’s barred list checks for drivers of closed school services, or to check the update information in relation to a previous enhanced criminal record certificate every three years, where the driver undertakes such services frequently or on more than three days over a 30-day period. When I refer to a “closed school service”, this is a service that is not open to the public. It is not a public service that stops at or near a school; it is used solely to transport schoolchildren to school and home again.

Under current legislation, when a public service vehicle operator is contracted by a school or local authority to provide closed school bus services, there is statutory guidance that advises local authorities and schools to ensure that a safeguarding check has been carried out at an appropriate level for each driver. For these drivers, it is expected that each one will have an enhanced criminal record certificate, which includes a check on whether the driver is on the children’s barred list.

However, the Government have been made aware that other closed school bus services are currently operating independently, not contracted or operated by schools or local authorities. In these cases, there is no explicit requirement for drivers to have an enhanced criminal record certificate, including a children’s barred list check. Clause 33 aims to close that loophole so that contracted school services are not being held to a higher standard than commercial school services, and that children are safe on all closed school bus services, regardless of whether they are contracted or commercial.

By requiring operators to carry out checks of the children’s barred list, the operator will know whether the driver is barred from working with children. The clause will mean that in addition to the driver committing an offence by driving children while being barred, the operator will also commit an offence if they permit the driver to drive on their service. Currently, operators are not mandated to carry out checks on their drivers and so can rely on their having no knowledge that the driver is barred as a defence. The clause changes that.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not rehearse the rationale behind the need for the proposed new sections in clause 33; the Minister has set that out pretty clearly. However, there is one issue that I seek clarification on from him or his officials.

The clause makes it an offence for an operator to permit a driver to drive a closed school service if the operator either knows or has reason to believe that the driver is barred from undertaking regulated activity relating to children. So far, so good. That is an offence and it comes under the criminal justice system.

The clause also requires the operator to check the enhanced criminal record certificates at least every three years, and it sets out how that can be achieved, but it is silent as to whether the failure to do so is an offence. I have a question for the Minister: if an operator fails to comply with the duty to check every three years, what are the practical consequences? Is that failure an offence? I stand to be corrected on that; I may have misread the clause when I read it some time ago. If it is not an offence, how does he intend proper enforcement to be undertaken, because without robust enforcement and information on the consequences of failure to comply with the clause, the safeguarding duty risks being diminished?

I will not go into the details of Government amendment 76. I fundamentally accept the need for it, because it deals with devolution. It does prompt a question about timescales, however, which the Minister might be able to put my mind at rest about. We want these improvements to be made, because they address the safety of children and the provision of transport for children, which are important. Yet through the devolution process that we all have to respect, we run the risk of a delayed response in devolved areas of the country, because there is currently no guarantee of timescales in the clause.

I understand the constitutional niceties that the Minister has to comply with, but it would be helpful for Committee members, and for Members of the House more widely, to receive some assurance that conversations have at least taken place with the devolved Administrations, so that they are fully aware of the need for this amendment and their own legislative processes are not unduly delayed. If he could reassure me on that point, I would be grateful.

[Simon Lightwood]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him some further details about those points, if that will suffice.

Amendment 76 agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Training about crime and anti-social behaviour

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 34 and the introduction of specific training for bus drivers to help them to identify and respond to criminal offences and antisocial behaviour. Everyone should feel safe when travelling by bus. Ensuring that drivers have the confidence and skills to recognise criminal and antisocial behaviour and, where safe, to intervene appropriately, is an important step forward. This is a practical and necessary measure, and we are pleased to see it in the Bill.

Amendment 61 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon seeks to address a worrying gap in the legislation, by ensuring that the training includes identifying the signs of domestic abuse. Local bus drivers often play a central role in their communities. They see the same passengers day in, day out, which puts them in a unique position. They can notice patterns and recognise signs of distress, and they know how to report concerns safely and appropriately.

Domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence. Coercive control, financial abuse and emotional manipulation can be just as damaging. They often go unnoticed, because they do not always meet the threshold of immediate fear for one’s personal safety, but let us make no mistake: those forms of abuse rob victims of their freedom, security and dignity. We must ensure that where there is an opportunity for someone to notice the indications of such abuse, that can be reported swiftly and effectively.

We know, from too many horror stories, that missed opportunities can cost lives. One in five people will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, which is a chilling statistic. We believe it is essential that frontline public service workers, which includes our hard-working bus drivers, receive training to help to spot those signs and act accordingly. This is not about placing undue burdens on drivers; it is about empowering them and all those in public-facing roles, through the proposed training, to be part of a society that recognises abuse and does not turn a blind eye.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 34 concerns crime and antisocial behaviour. It is about improving personal safety and the perception of safety for people, especially women and girls, which was a key component of the Government’s manifesto. The measures aim to train staff in the bus industry to identify and respond to acts of crime, including violence against people, particularly women and girls, and antisocial behaviour. The Minister will deal with the details of the clause in his remarks, so I will reduce my comments as much as I can. Although the principles of clause 34 are, of course, difficult to argue against, I have a number of concerns about the current drafting, similar to the concerns I had with clause 33, that I urge the Minister to address.

Proposed new section 144F(2) of the Transport Act 2000 requires training

“to identify, respond appropriately to and, where safe to do so, prevent”

crime and antisocial behaviour, but it does not set out minimum content standards or accreditation requirements. This is a sensitive issue. We are anticipating drivers putting themselves into certainly confrontational—perhaps even violent—situations, so we have to be very careful what we are asking them to do in the legislation. Will the Minister confirm that it is not the intention of the legislation to require bus drivers to physically intervene in potentially violent situations? That is quite an important point that we need to make clear.

How will we ensure the consistency of training quality across different bus regions? Has any assessment been undertaken of the availability of training professionals across the country? It is not a niche area, but it is certainly a small area of training. If not, how can the Minister impose a requirement without having undertaken an assessment of the ability of the sector to comply with that requirement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments on our proposed amendment. Perhaps I can give him some reassurance about my interpretation of the driver’s mandate to intervene in all those situations. Having been on training that sought to raise awareness of a range of issues, including domestic abuse, I know that trainers often say, “No matter what you are taught today, you are not expected to always intervene. If you do not feel safe to do so, do not do so.”

I would apply the same logic, perhaps in a different way, to the amendment: it is not expecting drivers to take on the burden of identifying, let alone resolving, issues of coercive control. However, I think public-spirited drivers—I can think of many such drivers in my constituency, and I am sure the shadow Minister can as well, given that they are often the same people—would want to learn more about how they can spot the signs, and perhaps just report a change in a pattern of behaviour to a local beat manager who may well be entirely familiar with the name of the person concerned.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s greater knowledge of training in this area. I am substantially persuaded by the information that he put forward in his intervention.

Amendment 52, which is in my name, seeks to ensure that any training or requirements established under this clause do not include guidance that would advise, encourage, direct or imply that individuals, in this instance bus drivers, should put themselves in danger at any stage. I am grateful for the Minister’s non-verbal indication during my earlier comments that I was right in assuming that that was not the Government’s intention, but my amendment would make express what the Minister has implied.

Although it is entirely right that drivers and frontline staff receive training to identify, respond to and, where safe, prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour, we must be clear that their personal safety is also essential. The amendment ensures that no training delivered under these provisions would ever advise to the contrary. It preserves the purpose of clause 34 by ensuring staff that are trained to recognise and respond appropriately to crime and antisocial behaviour while guaranteeing that such training will never instruct them to act beyond what is reasonable and safe.

I will leave it the Minister to address amendment 73. Amendment 75, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant senior managers to undertake regular training on disability awareness and accessibility. I appreciate its intention, but I have two concerns. First, it would inevitably place an additional regulatory burden on operators and local transport authorities, where there is currently no clear evidence of an existing gap that needs to be filled.

We have to remind ourselves that we are not running the buses in this Committee; we are creating legislation that requires other people to run the buses in a certain way. As legislators, it is always tempting to think, “Oh, that’s a good idea. Let’s put that in the Bill.” However, we sometimes forget that we are dealing with primary legislation, which requires an Act of Parliament to change. We need to be very careful that we do not create an administrative overload, and this provision would be an additional regulatory burden without clear evidence. We also need to be cognisant of the fact that, although some of the potentially affected organisations will be local transport authorities or large municipal bus companies—at least in the future—many of the affected businesses will be small and medium-sized enterprises, some of which will be very small local bus operators that need to be protected from over-regulation.

Secondly, there is a danger of duplication and confusion when there are other statutory duties and guidance being created in the Bill, particularly those in clause 30 that deal with the safety and accessibility of stopping places. We need to ensure clarity, not an overlapping jurisdiction of training mandates, which may cause regulator confusion. Those are my concerns about amendment 75.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I will speak briefly in support of our amendments 75 and 69, which would require relevant senior managers in our bus networks regularly to undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility. Accessibility must be embedded at every level of our public transport system. It should be an intuitive consideration for all staff, from frontline drivers and conductors to the most senior decision makers. Although it is absolutely right that drivers and attendants understand the needs of disabled passengers, that alone is not enough. We must also ensure that those in positions of strategic responsibility—those making decisions about timetables, fleet upgrades, route changes and service delivery—fully understand how their decisions impact on disabled people.

Too often, accessibility is treated as an afterthought rather than a starting point, and that must change. By ensuring that senior managers receive training, amendment 75 would help to create a strong, informed culture of accessibility across the network. It would ensure that inclusion is not just a box to tick but a guiding principle in how our bus services are designed and delivered. After all, improved accessibility and user experience benefits everybody, not just the people for whom it is necessary. This is the right thing to do. It is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone.

I also want to note the recommendations of the recent Transport Committee report into accessibility in the transport system, “Access Denied”. I was proud to be part of the Committee that published the report. The report made recommendations about ensuring that relevant training is suitably co-produced with disabled people, and that the Government ensure an expert unit assesses the quality of available training. In response, the Government told us they were working to create an accessibility charter and that they intend to

“undertake further work to assess how clear and straightforward standards that a charter can help provide could support consistent, high-quality training.”

Will the Minister provide further clarity on what that further work is, and the progress he has made on it? Such an update would be incredibly relevant to the amendments, as it would ensure that the training carried out is of a suitable standard and comes with the needs of disabled passengers and service users at its heart. To conclude, I urge the Government to support amendment 75. It is a simple but powerful step towards better, more inclusive bus services for disabled passengers and for everyone.

[Jerome Mayhew]

If hon. Members cast their minds back to earlier, they will know my exact views on amendment 75, so I will not repeat them. I will not speak on amendment 69, because my remarks would be similar to those on amendment 75. I will, however, speak briefly on clause 35.

Clause 35 will introduce measures on disability training. There is currently a requirement in article 16 of EU regulation 181/2011 for mandatory training on disability awareness and disability assistance to be undertaken by particular categories of staff of carriers and terminal managing bodies, with different categories of staff required to do different elements of the training. The Government are totally right to realise that that is an unnecessary complication, and that there needs to be a tidying up exercise so that all staff dealing with passengers in the transport sector receive similar training.

Clause 35 streamlines the requirement so that all categories of local bus service staff referenced in article 16 of the EU regulation should undertake both disability assistance and disability awareness training, and stay current every five years. It enables bus drivers and staff who deal directly with the travelling public or issues related to them, including those who provide direct assistance to passengers, to be informed of the needs and experiences of disabled people—quite right too. That is a good clarification.

Clause 36 deals with training about disability and contains further provisions. Its intentions are as decent as those of clause 35, and they are undeniably important. Namely, it seeks to ensure the effective implementation of disability awareness training requirements. However, we need to be aware of the potential issues with regulatory overreach and the administration burden.

Measures under subsection (1) of the clause empower the Secretary of State to require operators to keep, publish and provide compliance records. I am repeating myself slightly, but this is an important point: we are dealing with primary legislation that covers the entire sector. It affects not just big organisations but SMEs; we have to remember that not all operators are large organisations. For SMEs with a small workforce or a small fleet, increases to the administrative burden can be disproportionate to the benefit that such requirements to maintain data can bring to others.

I wonder whether that burden is justified in terms of its outcome, and not just theoretical tidiness. Theoretically, I understand the provision and it makes sense. We are saying, “We want operators to do these things, therefore we want records that are updated and published regularly.” In reality, that comes with a time and labour cost. How will services be improved in practical terms as a result of the additional requirement? Has the Minister already conducted an impact assessment of the additional financial and administrative burdens that the measure will place on smaller local authorities and bus operators?

Government amendment 20 ensures that references in the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 to the “enforcement authority” cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A. Again, I will leave it to the Minister to address the amendment. I hope Committee members are applauding my changed approach to the pace at which I am going through some of these provisions—it is against my better judgment. As a former lawyer, I love going into the subsections, but I am trying to canter on.

There is a concern with amendment 20 that we are loading a whole load of additional obligations on to traffic commissioners, these previously unknown—certainly in my case—servants of the state. A question arises about capacity and the funding necessary to increase it. Traffic commissioners already oversee a vast amount of regulatory functions for operating licensing, vehicle standards and general compliance across the bus and coach sectors. The Bill, particularly clause 36, adds significant additional enforcement duties, and that obviously comes at a cost in both manpower and legal fees. If a commissioner takes enforcement action, they have to be prepared to defend their decisions in court, and that is expensive, particularly if they lose.

We can all agree that there are significant costs associated with the clause, should it be enacted, but the Bill is silent on funding for traffic commissioners—there is no mention of it all. What is the assessed cost to traffic commissioners of the proposed changes, in aggregate? What changes will be made to traffic commissioner budgets to allow for this burden? Will the Minister conduct an assessment of the current work of traffic commissioners and whether they have the resources and time to fulfil this additional duty? Those are minor but important points; we have to think about the practicalities of what we are asking. This is not guidance but primary legislation, so we need to be cognisant of its consequences and prepare for them.

Government amendment 21 follows amendment 20, and I have no comment on it. The same goes for Government amendment 22, which is another procedural tidying-up exercise that I have no objection to.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)