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

Siân Berry Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments and reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Training about disability: further provisions

Amendments made: 20, in clause 36, page 39, line 16, at end insert—

“(8A) The Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1865) are amended in accordance with subsections (8B) and (9).

(8B) In regulation 8, after paragraph (1) insert—

‘(1A) Paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to the enforcement of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of Regulation 181/2011 as they apply to a terminal managing body by virtue of paragraph 1A of that Article, and the designated body responsible for the enforcement of those requirements as they so apply is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.

(1B) The enforcement authority in relation to the requirements of regulations made under section 36 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.’”

This amendment ensures that references in the 2013 Regulations to the enforcement authority cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A.

Amendment 21, in clause 36, page 39, line 17, leave out from “10” to “insert” in line 18.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.

Amendment 22, in clause 36, page 39, line 21, leave out “this regulation” and insert “these regulations”.—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment brings regulation 10A(1) of the 2013 Regulations into line with regulation 10(1) of those regulations.

Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in England

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 37, page 40, line 23, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 24 and insert “1 January 2027,”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 33, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered before 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 78, in clause 37, page 40, line 30, at end insert—

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

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

Amendment 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.

Amendment 58, in clause 37, page 40, line 40, at end insert—

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

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

Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 40, line 40, at end insert—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause stand part.

[Siân Berry]

Clause 37 is a good clause on the mandate for the use of zero emission buses in England. In essence, as it stands, it sets zero emission standards for new buses registered after a certain date. Rather than mandating that that date may not be before 1 January 2030, my amendments 32 and 33 would set it as 1 January 2027. I think that is the appropriate level of ambition for the Bill.

I am very aware that air pollution remains an enormous, preventable public health threat and that road transport plays its part in that. In certain hotspots in every town and city, bus travel is responsible for a significant amount of the pollution that people breathe in. That pollution is disproportionately experienced by the people who use and wait for those buses, and the pedestrians along the routes of those buses. We need to have the highest possible ambition.

Buses under Transport for London have had that mandate in place since 2021, despite any legal requirement. All buses procured in London since that day have been zero emission capable, and have been deployed without any kind of problem. The investment has been put in, and it was done in part because of the imperative to clean up dirty air. Bus availability is now clearly no obstacle to the amendment being accepted. Double-deckers, single-deckers and all kinds of buses are available to provide services. One constraint, though, is the ability to charge those buses at depots.

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

I seek clarification on the import of the hon. Lady’s amendment. On Transport for London, she said that no newly purchased bus would be outside this consideration. Proposed new section 151A(1), for which she seeks to bring the date forward, states:

“The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3)”.

Her amendment would therefore mean that no existing bus that was not zero emission at the tailpipe could be used from 2027 onwards. Is that really her intention?

[Siân Berry]

As I understand it—the Minister might want to intervene if I am not correct—proposed new subsection (3)(b) sets the condition that the bus is first registered

“on or after a date”.

The condition is placed on new buses, not on any bus being used. It gives considerable leeway for existing buses to continue to be used. The clause is about procurement, and that is what I understand it to be mandating.

As I say, not every single bus in London has yet converted to zero emissions, but for several years now, new buses being purchased have had zero tailpipe emissions. That is not to say that they do not create any air pollution at all; much air pollution comes from brakes and tyre wear, and dust off the roads—there is a lot more air pollution than what comes out of the tailpipe.

[Simon Lightwood]

The amendment would prevent new non-ZEBs from being used on English local bus services from 1 January 2027.

[Siân Berry]

I thought so—I am not as radical as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham thinks. I think that the amendment is entirely reasonable on bus availability and procurement. It does not speed up the rate of procurement, or mandate that at all.

I am aware that there are challenging issues at certain depots. However, having spoken to private bus operators about this, they often do not lack the willingness to invest in charging infrastructure, and I am sure the imperative for a publicly owned bus company would be even higher. Instead, the constraint for some of them is the ability of the local electricity infrastructure to support the load produced by the rapid charging of very large vehicles with very large batteries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

As has become my custom, I will start with the clause and then look at the amendments. I will be relatively brief, but it is worth highlighting that clause 37 deals with the use of zero emission vehicles for local services in England. It is intended to prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses in local bus services in England, but inevitably there a number of qualifications to the proposed ban.

Under proposed new section 151A(2)(a), the ban will be limited to local bus services or London local services, the rationale behind which is presumably that long-distance buses do not currently have the technology to reliably use electric batteries, as opposed to other forms of lower-carbon technology. That raises questions about rural services that are classified as “local” but are, in fact, long distance. The county of Norfolk is a big old place, and there are long journeys that are classified as “local”.

I raise a flag at the way in which the Government have sought to vary the classification by taking out long-distance journeys, and assuming that bus battery technology is therefore capable of dealing with all other local services. That is not necessarily the case where long rural routes, which are classified as “local”, still face the same disadvantage in battery technology, as it is currently developed. I am raising that issue with the Minister so that he can go away and think about it. The date of registration is 1 January 2030.

The consequence of the clause is that it bans tailpipe emissions, and there is a separate, but slightly more philosophical, point. I have a challenge to the Government’s policy direction: it looks like the Government are picking winners—in fact, they definitely are—in relation to low-carbon technology. The tailpipe emissions include CO₂, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide and particulates, which is all set out in subsection (3)(c). Currently, only hydrogen and electric buses would qualify, so there is a huge implication to this clause.

This is a blanket ban for new registrations, which undoubtedly has some positives but also some negatives of which we collectively ought to be aware. The positives of these vehicles are their quietness and, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion pointed out, air quality. That is a significant positive. I was born and went to school in my early years in London, and the difference in air quality in this city between then and now is enormous. It is a totally different experience from back in the 1970s, when vehicle fumes just enveloped us. That has made a huge difference.

If we agree to the amendment, however, we would be legislating enormous cost increases for the creators of fleets. We need to be careful: the cost of a standard Euro VI compliant bus, which has the most efficient engine, is about £180,000. An electric equivalent is about half a million pounds. These are hugely different orders of cost.

[Siân Berry]

Is the hon. Gentleman taking into account the lifetime of a bus and the changes in running costs?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I was just coming to that. The hon. Lady is quite right, but I am talking about the up-front capital cost. The lifetime running cost may well be cheaper for an electric bus, but the creator has to finance their capital cost on day one, whereas the lifetime operating costs are spread over the effective lifetime of the asset, which, for an electric bus, is an interesting question, actually. The lifetime of the structure of the bus may be 15 or 20 years, but we are not yet sure what the effective lifetime of the battery component of the bus is, and whether or not it needs to be replaced after about 10 years. The data is not particularly robust on that. If it means that we have to change out enormous battery banks during the operating process, that would be a significant additional secondary capex cost.

The Department for Transport figures for March 2024 say that there are 29,400 buses used by local bus companies. If we are going to replace all of those, that would be an £8 billion investment. That is very significant, and it is not considered in the impact assessment. There are some long-term savings, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion quite rightly pointed out. It is not just the differential in costs between electric and diesel; there are reduced maintenance costs as well. There are many fewer moving parts with an electric vehicle as well as the lower fuel cost, but the capex costs are front-loaded, and we cannot ignore that. Have the Government considered the financing consequences of imposing large, increased, front-loaded capex costs on bus companies? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

The second issue here is that through the current drafting, the Government are inevitably picking a winner in terms of technology for low-carbon vehicles, because it focuses on tailpipe emissions and ignores whole-life carbon assessments. That is important; again, we must have a balance of approach here. There is a significant benefit in zero tailpipe emissions, which is primarily about air quality as opposed to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.

There are very significant emissions during the construction of large-scale battery-operated buses, and there are alternatives under development. In the life cycle of the vehicle, if we take into account its construction, operation and disassembly, it is likely that new technologies, particularly ones using synthetic fuels, could be lower in carbon terms, albeit emitting Euro VI equivalent particulates at the tailpipe. The Bill denies an opportunity for that market to develop.

There are currently artificially-produced fuels made using renewable energy that have no net CO₂ emissions over their life cycle. If they are interested, I can explain the basic process to Members: it uses carbon capture plus hydrogen from renewable electricity, synthesised via processes such as the Fischer-Tropsch or methanol synthesis, to create e-diesel, e-kerosene, e-methanol or e-gasoline. The key benefit is that it works with existing engines and fuel infrastructure, and avoids the enormous carbon emissions from wasting existing built infrastructure and machinery.

We need to understand that we have “spent” an enormous amount of carbon and greenhouse gases in constructing the 29,400 vehicles—buses—already out there, many of which have a natural life that could be extended significantly. We do not even need to convert them: we could just pour a synthetic fuel into the same bus, saving all the carbon associated with the manufacturing of new, large-scale hydrogen or electricity buses. At the very least, that would be a significant transitional material to extend the use of existing, or pre-manufactured, vehicles.

We try to reduce, reuse and recycle, and that would be an absolutely classic case of a good thing, and yet the clause, I am afraid to say, prohibits the development of that market. I suspect that that is not the intention of the Department or the Minister, but that is what will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

In March, I chaired the inaugural UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which aims to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus building while helping local authorities to deliver their transport ambitions. More than 50% of new buses registered in 2024 were zero emission—a record 1,600, up 33% on the previous year’s record of 1,200. We hope to see the appetite for ZEBs continue to flourish, with private investment and alternative funding models stepping in to ensure that the sector’s journey towards decarbonisation continues. As a result, the Government are already taking forward what is intended by amendment 63 and we have concerns that it would add unnecessary complexity to the process. I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

[Siân Berry]

I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments 32 and 33, but I am quite disappointed. I take his points about potential downsides. I assume that, in outlining them, he took into account all the lovely investment that he was just talking about and assumed that there would be no additional Government investment to enable the target date to be met. I would like the law of the land that we create during this process to retain the hope that there may be increases in investment in public transport and buses in future Labour Budgets.

I will withdraw amendment 32, but I would like to press amendment 33 to a vote. That would remove the stipulation that the date cannot be before 1 January 2030 and give Ministers the opportunity to look again at whether an earlier date is possible. I appreciate that it is too much to expect the Minister to accept the new date proposed in amendment 32 today, but I think it is completely reasonable to expect the Committee to agree to give him an opportunity to look again at the date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.—(Siân Berry.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I support the speeches made by the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for North Norfolk, and I am exasperated that the clause is being rejected. I asked the Secretary of State about incorporating vision zero goals in the road safety strategy, as it is an entirely reasonable aim for there to be no deaths on our roads. To reject such a goal only for buses seems utterly unreasonable, and contrary to what the other place decided.

Every death that is due to a bus is 100% preventable, and we should be setting the goal of eliminating bus-related death. It is already part of the Bill—to take it out is even worse than not including it in the first place. I am very supportive of keeping the clause in the Bill. It does not go into detail about what is required but would merely ensure that the goal is set, which is completely reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 44—Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—

“(1) In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—

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

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

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

(3) Local authorities must consult with trade unions on health and safety matters which arise from reports to CIRAS.’”

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

[Siân Berry]

I have tabled a number of new clauses relating to safety of working conditions, health and safety, and reporting of bus safety. I want to speak in detail to new clause 5, but I will speak only briefly on the other related new clauses.

We need to see a step change in attitudes and effort on bus safety. Buses are a poor relation compared with other forms of transport in terms of the amount of work and care that goes into the safety of drivers and working conditions, much to the detriment of public safety. I therefore fully support the written evidence from the RMT. I am disappointed that this issue was not voted on in the Lords, because there is a clear case and a high need for it to be looked at.

It is a shame that a Bill with such potential to include these kinds of measures does not, hence these new clauses. In its written evidence, the RMT argued that

“decades of fragmentation and deregulation has led to poor working conditions in much of the sector and a stark lack of oversight for health and safety. As a report into the UK’s deregulated bus market by former UN rapporteur Philip Alston states ‘privatisation also appears to have resulted in lower quality jobs in the bus sector and unsafe working conditions’.”

Given that the Bill is intended to undo and help to mend some of the harm of privatisation, and to create better standards, these measures need to be brought in.

Bus workers are subject to many health and safety risks, including fatigue. I have met with bus drivers about the impacts of fatigue and the kinds of shifts they have to carry out. We will discuss new clauses about working times later. When drivers spot issues, they need to have a confidential reporting system such as that in new clause 5. It would be good to include in the Bill a means of reporting confidentially without fear of repercussions, which is a safety measure used in many other industries.

I will speak more on the individual measures in the new clauses to come, but they all need to be looked at. They come as a package to ensure that drivers have better working conditions, that there are better qualifications in management, that things can be reported, and that data on the current situation can be collected and used to focus attention on these issues in future.

[Simon Lightwood]

New clauses 5 and 44 seek to require local authorities to ensure that local bus operators are providing their drivers with access to CIRAS. The Government are deeply concerned about any safety incidents in the bus sector, but the issue was discussed in the Lords, and the Government cannot support in legislation an amendment that specifies a third-party service.

CIRAS is one of a number of suitable routes through which safety concerns can be raised. For example, anyone may anonymously report a lack of safety or conformation to standards in the bus sector to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency intelligence unit. The DVSA may use that information to investigate the situation, including working with other Government Departments and agencies, as well as the police. The Minister for Rail noted the need to raise awareness of that service, and officials are working with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. I remember discussing this very issue with the RMT.

There are comprehensive standards covering all aspects of bus operation, such as roadworthiness of vehicles, operational services and driver standards. Those are enforced by several organisations including the DVSA. Operators of those vehicles are licensed by the traffic commissioners, who also consider any non-compliance issues and ensure that bus operators are effectively regulated. Those regulatory systems also include provisions on the responsibilities and conduct of drivers. Drivers or any member of the public may at present report any concerns to CIRAS if they would rather use that route. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Department is absolutely committed to ensuring safety in the bus sector, and that the new clause is unnecessary.

[The Chair]

Does the Member want to pursue this new clause?

[Siân Berry]

I do not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Bus safety performance data

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

‘144F Bus safety performance data

(1) Local transport authorities must—

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

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 45—Bus safety performance data—

“(1) In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—

‘144F Bus safety performance data

(1) Local authorities must publish bus safety performance data online every quarter at a minimum.

(2) Every calendar year, local authorities must submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor to assess the data’s accuracy.

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

(4) Local authorities must consult with trade unions on any safety issues detected by this data.

(5) Local authorities must make the release of bus safety performance data by operators a requirement of any franchise they enter into.’”

This new clause seeks to ensure that local authorities publish bus safety performance data every quarter and that franchises place a requirement on operators to release this data.

New clause 49—Bus accident investigation branch—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Bus Accident Investigation Branch.

(2) The Bus Accident Investigation Branch must have the aims of improving the safety of bus travel and preventing bus accidents and incidents.”

[Siân Berry]

New clause 6 relates to the same issue of bus safety. It requires local transport authorities to collect and publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and to submit that bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of it assessing the data’s accuracy. That is a very important thing that we should be doing at a national level.

This is another probing new clause, so I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about how that will be done in some other way. It is now routinely done in Transport for London’s reporting, which has been incredibly useful for everyone interested in road danger, such as people interested in pedestrian and cyclist safety. It has been a really good thing, so extending it and making it a duty on every local transport authority should be very basic and not resisted.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 6, which I will deal with alongside the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), which deal with the same issue. These new clauses seek to require local authorities to publish bus safety performance on a quarterly basis, which must be audited annually.

Road safety is a priority for the Government, which is why we are developing a road safety strategy—the first, as I have said, in over a decade. The Department for Transport already collects data in respect of reported collisions involving personal injury, and publishes that information at a local authority level. Records of individual collisions are also published as open data. That is carried out through the STATS19 framework, which relies on reports from the police.

We recognise concerns about the lack of data collection for areas off the public highway. As a result of those matters being raised in the other place, the Department is engaging with the standing committee on roads injury collision statistics, which reviews the STATS19 framework to understand how those concerns can be addressed. Data is also collected from public service vehicle operators who must report incidents to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, thanks to the PSV operator licensing requirements.

I hope that provides reassurance that the Department is absolutely committed to ensuring that passengers benefit from safe journeys on bus services, and is working to ensure that passengers can access information about those matters easily. As a result, I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

[Siân Berry]

This is a probing new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7

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

“(1) In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert—

‘, subject to subsection (1A).

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 42—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—

“(1) In the Transport Act 1968, in section 96(1), at end insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).

(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service under provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any consecutive weeks.

(1B) In meeting the condition of subsection (1A), drivers cannot be subject to any loss of pay.’”

This new clause seeks to limit the permitted driving time for bus drivers to no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any consecutive weeks.

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

“(1) In The Driver’s Hours (Passenger and Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1971, Article 4(2) is amended as follows—

‘(1) In the inserted words before paragraph (a), after “Act” insert “, subject to subsection (2A),”’

(2) At the end of the inserted text insert—

‘(2A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service under provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 must not on any working day be on duty to drive a PSV for more than five and a half hours without a break of 45 minutes.’”

[Siân Berry]

This new clause would set a permitted driving time for bus drivers—drivers of public service vehicles—that matched the permitted driving time for heavy goods vehicle drivers. Currently, the permitted driving time for bus drivers is considerably less stringent than for HGV drivers. Some of the data that we have received from the RMT on this issue shows that bus drivers can drive up to 10 hours a day and they have a 30-minute break as a minimum—I am sure that many operators operate different shift patterns than that, but this is what is permitted—after five hours and 30 minutes of driving. In every two consecutive weeks, there is a requirement for them to have 24 hours off duty. However, there is some flex in the rules, which means that someone can actually drive for 130 hours across two weeks. To me, that is asking for trouble. I feel that drivers are potentially being put under far too much pressure by these rules and that we need to look at having this kind of limit in our law.

Two similar new clauses have been tabled: new clauses 42 and 43. They take the same limits but treat them more in aggregate, which may be an attempt to be more flexible. I would be really interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how bus drivers’ hours will be regulated in a way that ensures greater safety than is currently the case.

[Simon Lightwood]

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 7, which I will discuss alongside new clauses 42 and 43. The new clauses seek to align the GB drivers’ hourly rules with the maximum permitted weekly and fortnightly driving limits in the assimilated drivers’ hours rules. They also aim to increase the break requirements for drivers of local bus services in the GB rules to something akin to those in the assimilated rules. The maximum permitted daily driving time for a bus driver is 10 hours, where the driver is providing a regular bus service and where the route length does not go beyond 50 km. The maximum permitted driving time for a driver providing a service beyond that, as well as for coach drivers and HGV drivers, is nine hours, which is extendable twice a week to 10 hours.

While I recognise the hon. Member’s intentions, there are a few unintended consequences to the proposed changes. First, they would increase the number of drivers required to undertake the same amount of work. That would likely have a knock-on impact on the considerable progress made in the last couple of years in addressing bus driver shortages.

Secondly, the proposed changes would likely impact how drivers work. When such a change was previously put to bus operators, they advised that it would result in an increase in the number of drivers having to work split shifts. That is likely to be unpopular with bus drivers, because it would likely mean that they would have to wait around at operating bases for a number of hours. Operators have worked hard to avoid drivers working split shifts when organising shift patterns.

Thirdly, such a change would limit a driver’s earning potential, due to a reduction in the maximum number of hours they could work. The result of all these changes could lead to bus drivers leaving the profession, which would impact the progress made in addressing driver shortages.

[Siân Berry]

Would the Minister not agree that shorter consecutive hours and more flexible shift patterns might attract more people to consider bus driving as a potential career?

[Simon Lightwood]

I think that the hon. Member is insinuating that there would be a choice there, but her proposal would remove that choice.

As I was saying, the result of the changes could be bus drivers leaving the profession, which would impact on the progress made in addressing driver shortages and could lead to cuts in the frequency of services or even cuts to entire routes, which I am sure we all agree we do not want to see. Should service cuts occur, they would likely have a disproportionate impact on those on the lowest incomes, who rely most on the provision of bus services. On that basis, I suggest that the hon. Member withdraw the new clause.

[Siân Berry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities

“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 123X insert—

‘123Y Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities

Officials from a franchising authority responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme must have certification from—

(a) the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, and

(b) the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health.’”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause would require officials from franchising authorities responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme to have IOSH and NEBOSH certifications.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

Following on from my other new clauses, this new clause would simply mandate that those who work in franchising authorities and who are responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing franchise schemes be qualified through the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. That would, I hope, lead to greater focus on health and safety in the work that they do.

[Simon Lightwood]

New clause 8 relates to training for officers in franchising authorities. It specifically focuses on officials from franchising authorities holding certification from the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. Under current health and safety legislation, local transport authorities are required to ensure a safe and healthy work environment, which includes risk assessments, proper training and compliance with health and safety regulations. It is therefore right that a local transport authority that has chosen to franchise determines what level of qualifications is required to ensure that it meets those important requirements.

The effect of the new clause would be an increase in the cost and time that it takes to franchise if the Government required all staff to achieve certification before they started the process. Part of the Government’s bus reform is to simplify and speed up franchising and drive down costs. The new clause would disproportionately impact authorities considering franchising, including those in smaller towns and rural areas. We all agree that health and safety is paramount for bus staff, passengers and the wider public. I will therefore ask my officials to consider that this matter be addressed in the updated guidance for franchising authorities.

[Siân Berry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Review of the use and costs of bus travel for children

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the use of bus services by children.

(2) The review must assess—

(a) the level of use of bus services by children,

(b) the degree to which cost is a limiting factor in children’s use of bus services,

(c) the potential health, social and environmental impacts of children being unable to use bus services as a result of the cost of those services, and

(d) the potential impact of making bus travel free for children.

(3) For the purposes of any review undertaken under this section, ‘child’ means any person under the age of 18.

(4) In conducting a review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and youth organisations.”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children and to consider the impact of making bus travel free for children.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 21—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—

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

(2) Any review must assess—

(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New clause 52—Fare cap for school-only services—

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

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

[Siân Berry]

New clause 9 is about looking again at services for children, particularly their uses of them and the cost of them. The new clause defines a child as

“any person under the age of 18”

and I think that is significant. It means that it overlaps, I think, with new clause 25, which we are debating separately and which looks at 16 to 25-year-olds, but anyone under the age of 18 needs access to buses. They are, almost by definition, not drivers and not always going to have access to a car, but they are always going to need access to essential goods and services and things that help them to thrive, particularly education. I have heard evidence too many times from young people who are struggling to access college for training and other opportunities because of a lack of bus services.

The cost of bus services for children varies hugely around the country. We have many different proposals from different Members, including colleagues in the Liberal Democrats, trying to get the Government to look again at the cost of bus travel for young people as part of the Bill. What I would like to hear from the Minister in response to my new clause and other new clauses that hon. Members have tabled is that the Government will look again at the cost of travel for young people. We have the example of Scotland, where young people can now access buses for free up to the age of 21. We have the example of London and other local authorities that are paying their own money out to make it possible for younger people to get free travel.

It really should be Government policy that young people up to the age of 18, or 21, can travel for free, so that they have the maximum opportunities to access training, social occasions and all the ways in which they become fully fledged adults. I think the Government should be making this a priority in the Bill. They have not yet done that, and this new clause helps them to do so.

[Steff Aquarone]

I will briefly touch on new clause 9, tabled by the Green party, and I will also speak to new clause 21. Buses are often the first form of transport that children use by themselves, without the supervision of parents. They are vital for many children to get to school every day, as well as socialising, and they are an important way to build independence and allow access to people and places outside their immediate vicinity. As a result, this review is welcome and a positive amendment that the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support.

New clause 21, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, would place a duty on local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage within their areas. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and I do not necessarily share the same degree of pessimism about the Bill overall, but we share a belief in measuring the impacts of changes to policy. In his case, it is franchising, but in mine it is the impact of the fare cap.

This is a simple but important proposal. At its heart, there a basic principle: if we want more people to use buses, we have to understand what is stopping them, and fare levels are a crucial part of that picture. The new clause would ensure that local authorities assess how fare structures influence ridership trends, what changes might improve accessibility, and what role simplified ticketing could play in encouraging more people on to buses.

Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture of their wider consequences on social inclusion, economic activity, environmental goals and so on. That is short-sighted policymaking that this new clause seeks to correct.

[Siân Berry]

On a point of clarification, under subsection (1) of the new clause, could local transport authorities collaborate to conduct this kind of research? I worry that a single local transport authority might struggle to carry out robust research on its limited amount of data, whereas it might work slightly better if they were to team up.

[Steff Aquarone]

I could not possibly talk about the inquiries that the Transport Committee is considering undertaking, but I would say that we all have an active interest in how to account for policy impacts on integrated travel as a whole. It may be that the Minister can attend a hearing in the forthcoming inquiry to speak to the exact point that the hon. Lady has just made.

Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture on their wider consequences, as I have said. The evidence is compelling; we know from both national and international experience that lower, simpler fares drive higher patronage. We have seen that with the £2 fare cap still inexplicably being phased out by the Government. With successful fare reform in places such as Germany and the Netherlands, affordable and innovative ticketing has increased public transport use. This new clause would bring that learning to a local level. It would empower transport authorities to act and analyse their policy in an informed away, based not on guesswork but on real data, public consultation and a clear understanding of what works.

This is not onerous. Most of our local authorities are already gathering some, if not all, of this data. What this new clause would do is provide consistency, as well as clarity, and a stronger evidence base for future fare and ticketing policy. It puts passengers and communities at the heart of decision making, and gives us the tools to reverse the long-term decline in bus use that has plagued far too many parts of the country for too long. If we are serious about boosting ridership, cutting emissions and making public transport fair and accessible, we need to understand the role of fares properly. This new clause would help us to do just that.

[Simon Lightwood]

New clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seeks to require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children, or those under 18, to consider the impact of making bus travel free for them. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money to taxpayers, while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people.

Local authorities and bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. For example, in the year ending March 2025, these concessions were offered by 24 out of 85 travel concession authorities in England outside of London, and by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of 85 local authority areas in England outside of London. A good example of that is Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority, which launched the tiger bus pass, offering bus fares of £1 for those under 25.

We want bus fares to be affordable, which is why we are funding the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027, and confirming around £900 million in revenue funding each year from 2026-27 to maintain and improve vital bus services. As I said, local authorities may choose to use this funding to support such initiatives based on their local needs. As such, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw her new clause.

[Siân Berry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Review of the English national concessionary travel scheme

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS).

(2) A review undertaken under this section must assess—

(a) the effectiveness and impact of the ENCTS for eligible persons,

(b) the impact of the timing restrictions of the ENCTS, and

(c) the approximate cost of removing timing restrictions of the ENCTS to allow eligible persons to use the scheme 24 hours a day and seven days a week.

(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and relevant user groups.”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS) and explore the consequences of removing timing restrictions.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Siân Berry]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 32—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) local transport authorities;

(b) bus operators;

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

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

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

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

New clause 48—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—

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

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

[Siân Berry]

I will be as brief as I can. New clause 10 and the other new clauses in the group are all aimed at the same thing. It is an anomaly in this day and age that older people and disabled people have a time restriction on the use of their bus passes. The Government must look at that, particularly in relation to recent changes to welfare policies and the ongoing cost of living crisis that means that more and more people, according to the Government’s own aims, will be going to work. They also may be taking part in valuable volunteering for the community. The Government must look at this again, and I support any provision that will achieve that.

[Steff Aquarone]

New clause 32 in my name and new clause 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion both call for a review into the impact of the current timing restrictions, whereby those eligible for the ENCTS, whether through age or disability, receive free travel only after 9.30 am. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for tabling new clause 48, and I am happy to speak to it. I wish to press new clauses 48 and 35 to a Division, but I will not press any other remaining Liberal Democrat new clause.

New clause 48 would immediately remove the time limit for those with disabilities. It may surprise the Committee to learn that I am going to praise a transport policy of Norfolk county council, which has used its discretion to remove time limitations and allow disabled people to use their bus passes at all hours. I have heard very positive feedback. Therefore, I think the new clause would be a sensible and useful measure. I urge the Government and the Committee to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw new clause 10?

[Siân Berry]

I shall do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.