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

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Given that this is a large group of amendments, and given the legitimate concerns of the Committee, stakeholders and disabled people, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for the length of the remarks that I am about to make. I will deal first with clauses 30 to 32 before moving to the amendments.

Clause 30 will introduce a power for the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance covering the location, design, construction and maintenance of bus stopping places, for the purpose of promoting safety and facilitating the travel of disabled people. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence, and that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and incorporate design features that promote their personal safety.

Relevant local authorities and National Highways will be required to “have regard to” the guidance when commissioning new or when upgrading or maintaining existing infrastructure in England. A duty to “have regard to” guidance has been extensively considered by the courts and is a well understood legal concept. Local transport authorities will know that they must not simply read the guidance and ignore it; otherwise, their decision will be open to legal challenge. Although the duty is to “have regard”, it is expected that guidance will be followed unless there are good reasons not to do so.

The Government intend that the guidance will support authorities to provide infrastructure that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use. That is why the clause requires the Secretary of State to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee when providing new guidance, changing it significantly or revoking it. Engagement with DPTAC and other groups representing disabled people will support the Department to understand the priorities and perspectives of disabled people with a range of impairment when developing the guidance. Members of the Committee may be aware that DPTAC fulfils a function as my Department’s statutory adviser on the needs of disabled transport users.

Clause 31 requires the Secretary of State to publish statutory designed guidance on floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent, to which local authorities will be required to have regard when designing new floating bus stops or altering or removing existing ones. The guidance is already in draft and will reiterate the pause on shared use boarders, as well as providing advice to authorities on how to improve accessibility at other types of floating bus stops. To ensure that the voices of disabled people are heard and understood, the Department will also be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on the guidance before publication. The guidance in clause 31 is separate from the statutory guidance on bus stopping places set out in clause 30, but the two documents will overlap. When that guidance is provided, we will ensure that they align.

Clause 32 sets out requirements on demonstrating how authorities have had regard to the guidance about the safety and accessibility of stopping places in clause 30, and about floating bus stops in clause 31. The clause provides a power for the Secretary of State to request information from local authorities on stopping places provided by them and used by local services, including how they have had regard to the statutory guidance. This will enable the Government to better understand what progress has been made across England to ensure that bus stops and, where relevant, facilities in their vicinity are safe and accessible for all users.

The information received can be published, and if the Secretary of State believes that an authority has not fulfilled its duty, they may publish a statement to that effect. This is intended to allow the Government to promote accountability and encourage compliance where they have been made aware of concerns. Local transport authorities can also be subject to judicial review if they do not have regard to the guidance. We will set out more details on how this process may work in developing the statutory guidance.

Having addressed the three clauses, I want to make some general remarks in response to comments from members of the Committee. We recognise that this is about equality and the ability to make independent journeys confidently. We also recognise that more needs to be done to make these installations accessible to all, which is why the Government accepted amendments tabled in the other place that require us to produce statutory guidance and put in place reporting powers to promote accountability. That is why, alongside these legislative measures, the Government have decided to instigate a pause on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists.

In the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail confirmed that the Government will set out details of this pause to local authorities. Of course, it is right that both Houses get to debate and scrutinise proposals on floating bus stops before this pause is instigated. My Department will reflect on the points raised during debates in this Committee, and in further debates on the Bill, before confirming its expectations. The Government are in listening mode, and this is the democratic way forward to ensure that different views are taken into account.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I want to put on record our thanks to the Government for heeding the calls of many who have spoken in this Committee and the other place about the knotty issue of floating bus stops. Clearly, lots of things need to be reviewed and lots of situations need to be untangled. Is the Minister personally confident that his approach will lead to a safe, workable future, both with the assets that are currently in place and those that are, or would have been, planned?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will continue, and if I do not answer the hon. Member’s question fully, he is free to intervene and ask me once again, but I think I will give the reassurance that he requires.

On the question of funding, we are also exploring further support for local authorities to retrofit existing sites, including the launch of the next consolidated active travel fund round, which will happen shortly. Remediation activities will be explicitly included in the scope of the fund for 2025-26. Local authorities are also encouraged to use a wide range of available funding, such as highways maintenance funding and new funding announced at the spending review, for any remediation works necessary to meet the new design guidance, when it is published.

On a wider point, I remind the Committee that the Government are providing £1 billion in 2025-26 to support and improve bus services in England outside of London. That commitment was followed by the recent announcements in the spending review, with which the Government committed £900 million each year to maintain and improve vital bus services.

--- Later in debate ---

Although I understand the concerns that the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon raise in their new clause 40, I will set out why I do not think it is necessary. First, it would require the Secretary of State to conduct a national assessment of all floating bus stops within six months. That is an unrealistic timetable, given that there is currently no agreed good practice guidance on the safety and accessibility of such designs. That is precisely why clause 31 includes a duty to publish statutory guidance. That guidance may be published up to three months after Royal Assent, which would leave only three months to conduct a comprehensive review based on it. I hope hon. Members will agree that that is neither practical nor achievable.

[Steff Aquarone]

I appreciate the further information that the Minister has provided. I do not want to repeat my previous question, but does he believe, although he may not want to have to specify it to the Committee, that a safe and viable solution exists—I certainly do—and does he believe that these measures will bring about the improvement in safety that is needed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

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

Amendment 76 agreed to.

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

Clause 34

Training about crime and anti-social behaviour

[Steff Aquarone]

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, after “2003” insert—

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 52, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) The training requirement under this section must not include advice, encouragement, direction or expectation that a person should, at any stage, put themselves in danger.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that any training requirements established under this section do not include guidance that would advise, encourage, direct, or imply that individuals should put themselves in danger at any stage.

Amendment 73, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) Before preparing training under subsection (2), PSV operators must consult trades unions on the proposed content and implementation of the training.”

Government amendment 77.

[Steff Aquarone]

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

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

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

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Perhaps the hon. Member for North Norfolk has in mind, as I do, rural bus routes where the number of passengers can be counted on one hand—and they are the same passengers day after day. But the missing bit is the name of the passenger, because there is no requirement to give a name and/or an address to a bus driver. Although it might be possible in rural areas such as the ones that the hon. Member and I represent for a bus driver to get a feeling about a repeat passenger, it would be very unlikely, even in our communities, for that bus driver to have the name of that passenger, and even more unlikely that they would have their address.

[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 ---

I will also address Government amendment 77. As with Government amendment 76, the matter is reserved, but the Welsh Government have agreed to implement measures that will achieve a similar outcome. What that will mean in practice is that the Welsh Government will use training requirements being placed on operators under their proposed bus franchising model, being taken forward through their Bus Services (Wales) Bill. The amendment will provide clarity for drivers and operators providing cross-border services between England and Wales. It will mean that the training requirement on crime and antisocial behaviour will apply to England-only services until the Secretary of State makes regulations to switch on the training requirement; that will happen subject to the Senedd passing the Welsh Government’s Bill. Once the Secretary of State has made regulations, the training requirement will not apply to cross-border services where the service is being provided through powers exercised by Welsh Ministers; and where a cross-border service is being provided under a service permit, the training requirement will apply only to the part of the service in England. This approach should ensure that there is clarity among operators and staff as to which Government’s training requirement applies on each part of a cross-border service.

[Steff Aquarone]

I am grateful to the Minister. If he needs to intervene on me, he may, but can he confirm whether the guidance to be issued on training will specifically mention issues around domestic abuse or whether that will be lumped in with general crimes? I know he mentioned that a number of things to do with violence against women and girls will be in the guidance. Can he confirm that specific issues of domestic abuse will be included, rather than lumped in with general crimes?

[The Chair]

Order. I apologise for interrupting, but at the moment we are summing up this debate rather than coming back to the Minister.

[Steff Aquarone]

I understand. That was the only thing I wanted to say. Thank you, Dame Siobhain.

[The Chair]

Would the Member like to withdraw the amendment or press it to a vote?

[Steff Aquarone]

Can I just give the Minister the opportunity to provide that clarification? I intended to intervene on him, but he finished speaking sooner than I thought he would, and it would be pertinent to the question you asked, Dame Siobhain.

[The Chair]

As long as the Minister is happy to do so, I am happy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 77, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert—

“144G Application of training requirement: services in Wales

(1) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 144F apply in relation to a local service which has one or more stopping places in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.

(2) But the regulations may not provide for those subsections to apply in relation to—

(a) a local service that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or

(b) a local service to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru.”—(Simon Lightwood.)

This amendment provides for the training requirement in new section 144F of the Transport Act 2000 not to apply to services that have stops in Wales until switched on by regulations, and excludes that requirement entirely for services for which the Welsh Ministers are responsible or which are provided in Wales under a service permit granted by the Welsh Ministers.

[Steff Aquarone]

I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert—

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

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

(2) The relevant parties are—

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

(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 69, in clause 34, page 37, line 28, leave out from “or” to “the” and insert

“section 144G or of regulations made under those sections,”.

Clause 35 stand part.

Government amendments 20 to 22.

Clause 36 stand part.

[Steff Aquarone]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Amendments 75 and 69, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) would require that senior managers in bus operators and local transport authorities undertake disability awareness and accessibility training. The effect of proposed new section 144G of the Transport Act 2000 would be to place an obligation on senior managers in LTAs and operators that organise or provide local or school bus services to undertake training and keep records of having done so.

Through the Bill, we are extending existing training requirements to drivers and customer-facing staff. The measures do not change training requirements themselves. Co-production would be appropriate for those developing training packages. The hon. Member for North Norfolk asked for an update on the accessible transport charter. I can confirm that my Department provides the Transport Committee with regular updates on the progress of the charter and upcoming appearances. He has my commitment that we will do that.

It is certainly important that senior management in bus operating companies and local authorities are aware of disability and accessibly issues, but EU regulation 181/2011, once amended by clauses 35 and 36 of the Bill, will require staff in local services who deal directly with disabled passengers, or with issues relating to the travelling public, to be trained in respect of disability awareness and disability assistance. For staff dealing directly with disabled passengers, that will improve knowledge of their duties and responsibilities, and thus effect change at the direct point of interaction between staff and passengers. That approach aims to strike a balance between improving services while not overly increasing burdens on operators and local authorities.

In addition, clause 21 will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan. We expect that this new requirement would also help to ensure that relevant senior management in LTAs are aware of accessibility issues in their area. I reassure hon. Members that where school transport is provided by local services, that would fall within the scope of new enhanced training requirements, requiring relevant staff to be trained on both disability awareness and assistance, which will help to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills and confidence to support every passenger appropriately.

I am concerned that the new requirement may increase the administrative burden without necessarily leading to positive results in the experience of disabled passengers at the point of contact with staff and services. I therefore cannot support amendments 75 and 69 and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Clause 35 will require bus drivers and staff providing direct assistance to passengers on local services to complete both disability awareness and assistance training at least every five years to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills and confidence to support every passenger appropriately. Despite progress in recent decades, clauses 35 and 36 have been developed in response to the barriers that disabled people still face when attempting to make bus journeys. The clauses recognise the role that bus drivers play in helping to overcome those barriers, ensuring that disabled passengers’ rights are upheld, and that they are provided with timely and appropriate assistance.

Currently, drivers of local services are already required to complete disability awareness training, but mandatory course content does not cover the practical assistance that they should also provide. Likewise, other customer-facing staff of operators are not currently required to completely training on disability at all. Clause 35 corrects that imbalance. It is about ensuring that passengers on local services can travel anywhere in Great Britain, with any operator or driver, with confidence that staff will help them to travel safely and in comfort. The measures should help to ensure that passengers receive the help they need, and that buses continue to provide an inclusive experience for everyone who uses them.

Amendments 20 to 22 have been tabled to clause 36. Amendment 20 will ensure that a traffic commissioner is responsible for taking action against a terminal managing body. For the benefit of Committee members, terminal managing bodies in the context of this measure are those responsible for terminals identified in regulation 6 of the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013, namely Victoria coach station and Birmingham coach station. The amendments will be relevant to breaches of the training and publication requirements in clauses 35 and 36. Amendment 20 ensures that the enforcement powers in those clauses align with traffic commissioners’ powers to enforce the training and publication requirements in clause 34. Amendment 21 is consequential on amendment 20. Amendment 22 is a minor technical change to ensure that consistent language is used in the 2013 regulations.

Clause 36 works with clause 35 to ensure that staff are sufficiently trained to uphold disabled passengers’ rights. To that end, the clause allows the Secretary of State to set expectations for operator record keeping and data publication on completed disability training and enables the traffic commissioner to apply appropriate sanctions if legal requirements are not met. The traffic commissioners are operationally independent, and it would be for them to determine how best to prioritise the use of enforcement powers given to them. My Department has consulted the traffic commissioners throughout the development of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham mentioned the impact of training requirements on small and medium-sized operators. Our proposals do not prescribe how the training must be undertaken. That is for bus operators to decide, and we expect disability-related training to be undertaken as part of established learning and development programmes.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Training about disability: further provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 20.

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

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

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

Clause 37

Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in England

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

The buses also have community benefits for apprenticeship opportunities, the local supply chain and job security. Prior to their introduction, bus travel in Warrington accounted for 11% of the nitrogen oxides and 5.7% of the PM2.5 of traffic emissions. Warrington’s Own Buses’ all-electric fleet is a major step forward in tackling poor air quality in the town and building sustainable transport into the everyday life of Warrington.

[Steff Aquarone]

I support the motivations behind clause 37. Making our public transport greener and cleaner is a positive thing and will make it an even more climate-friendly travel option. I note with excitement that Sanders Coaches, which runs many services across my constituency and that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, recently trialled a fully electric bus on the CH1 Coasthopper route between Cromer and Wells—the first ever fully electric bus used by the operator. We can see that rural transport providers are working hard to embrace the green future.

However, we have to recognise the challenges that rural routes face; I associate myself with the remarks made on that topic by the hon. Member. Long distances, limited charging infrastructure and the slim profit margins are all impediments. I would appreciate it if the Minister undertook today to publish, alongside the regulations set out in the clause, guidance and support for rural bus operators on the definitions of local routes. I hope he shares the work and engagement that his Department have done and will be doing with rural operators to make sure that we get this right for them and for the communities they serve.

Amendment 78 is about technology and is similar to something the hon. Member mentioned. It would qualify buses that have been repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of the Bill. “Repowered” means enabled to become zero emission after the date of registration. It involves replacing diesel engines with new, zero emission electric drivetrains mid-life. It is a proven UK innovation that can provide a more affordable and faster route to decarbonisation of our public transport fleet.

For local transport authorities, especially those facing constrained budgets, repowering could present some advantages. First, it can be quicker: companies can convert diesel buses to zero emission in as little as three weeks in their UK facilities. Buses could therefore be back in service quickly, supporting a seamless transition. Secondly, repowering is more cost-effective. A repowered bus can cost less than half the price of a brand-new zero emission vehicle, which could translate to considerable savings for operators and local authorities and allow them to stretch limited resources further. While this route may not work for all buses or local authorities, it is a simple and flexible option to deploy the most cost-effective and timely solution for their fleets. This practical amendment supports British innovation, stretches public funds and accelerates the path to cleaner air and net zero transport, and I urge Members to support it.

Amendment 58 is a small technical change that would clarify that the provisions of proposed new section 151A of the Transport Act 2000 on zero emission vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities. I would appreciate the Minister providing clarity on that point.

Finally, on amendment 63, while the transition to zero emission buses is right and essential for tacking the climate crisis and reducing air pollution, we must be honest about the pressures that transition will place on local authorities. I take the point that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, is making, but in this regard, given the subject of clause 37, I will persist with this point. The pressures on local authority budgets and local transport authorities are why we need amendment 63. It would introduce a sensible and measured requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing how adequate and accessible the central Government funding for zero emission buses has been. It would simply require the Secretary of State to bring forward recommendations on how to improve the system and accelerate the replacement of polluting buses. It is about identifying what works and what does not, and how we can ensure that local transport authorities are properly supported to deliver on one of the Government’s central missions.

Such a report could be helpful for not just local authorities, but the Secretary of State herself when the Treasury inevitably comes knocking asking Departments to justify their spending. Being able to point to a clear evidence-based publicly available report that sets out the scale of funding required to meet our zero emission bus targets will only strengthen the Department’s hand, so I urge the Government to support the amendment.

[Simon Lightwood]

I will start my comments on this group by speaking to clause 37 stand part and then move to the amendments. The clause will prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses on local bus services in England. The full transition to zero emission buses is a vital part of the Government’s plan to make buses better for passengers and to realise the benefits of lower running costs, cleaner air and smoother, quieter journeys. Bus operators have begun to invest in new zero emission buses, supported by Government funding initiatives. All stakeholders including bus operators, manufacturers and local transport authorities share the ambition to achieve a zero emission bus fleet more quickly.

However, I recognise that there is a need for Government intervention to accelerate bus decarbonisation by supporting the sector with greater certainty of future demand for zero emission buses. The clause seeks to provide that certainty. However, in recognition of the need to provide time and confidence to manufacturers to shift production, and to operators and local transport authorities to plan their fleet transition, the change to the law will come into effect on a date specified by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation. The clause specifies that the restriction on the use of new non-zero emission buses will not take effect earlier than 2030. It also allows for the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of vehicle or local services from the restriction—for example, to enable the relevant local services reliant on those vehicles to still run.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion raised the issue of charging capacity at depots. The clean power action plan includes a programme of connection reform measures aimed at reducing the delays—and I recognise those she has spoken about. The Government are moving from a first come, first served model to an approach based on readiness and strategic alignment. If approved, connection reform proposals submitted to Ofgem by the National Energy System Operator will release up to 400 GW of capacity from the oversubscribed connections queue, accelerating the connections that the hon. Lady talked about for customers ready to connect by the end of 2025.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Ofgem are also considering what further action could be taken to accelerate connections for strategically important demand customers. The Government are working to ensure that they understand the specific conditions affecting bus operators and continue to communicate directly with bus operators to share best practice. Battery ranges are getting better; independent tests carried out on behalf of the Department on the UK bus test cycle show that ranges for electric vehicles can exceed 500 km, and further for hydrogen. The Government’s independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee, have been clear: buses should transition to zero tailpipe technologies, and biofuels should be focused on sectors harder to decarbonise such as aviation and maritime. The purchase costs of zero emission buses have decreased in real terms, and they have become more efficient to run.

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 32 and 33 relating to zero emission buses. I appreciate that their intention is to ensure that the English bus fleet is decarbonised as quickly as possible. I can reassure her that the Government share that intention. However, having considered them carefully, the Government cannot support the amendments, and I am happy to set out the reasons why.

Amendment 32 would prevent new non-ZEBs from being used on English local bus services from 1 January 2027. Amendment 33 would enable that by removing the 1 January 2030 restriction currently in the Bill. That would allow the Secretary of State to end the use of new non-ZEBs at an earlier date.

We have stated in the Bill that the measure will not come into effect before 1 January 2030. The precise date will be set by statutory instrument. That will provide the industry with reassurance that the measure will not come into effect suddenly or without warning, and allow sufficient notice to be provided, enabling the industry to prepare for the change to zero emission buses. I am concerned about the impact that an earlier date could have on bus operators and the potential adverse consequences for passengers, such as the cost of decarbonising leading to reduced services and increased fares.

A reduction in bus services could also lead to more journeys being made by car and therefore greater overall carbon emissions. I am also concerned about the potential for job losses in the UK manufacturing sector if an earlier date led to bus operators running diesel buses for longer on certain routes.

As indicated in the published impact assessment for the Bill, there is a significant risk that setting an implementation date too early, before the total cost of owning electric buses reaches broad parity with diesel buses, could have damaging impacts. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw her amendment.

I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk for amendment 78. I appreciate its purpose —to encourage the repowering of existing diesel buses, meaning their conversion into zero emission vehicles. I assure them that we support bus repowering—indeed, I opened a plant myself—as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses in the UK. My Department has introduced the zero emission vehicle repower accreditation scheme to help bus operators to ensure that repowered buses get higher standards of efficiency and emission reduction, invest in their existing fleet and become eligible to claim the zero emission bus incentive in the bus service operators grant.

I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Only new diesel buses will be prevented from being used on English bus services; any existing diesel buses, including those that are repowered, can continue to be used. For any new diesel buses registered after the stated date, regulation 16 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 will require the vehicle keeper to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of any changes to the vehicle that may result in the particulars held on the vehicle record becoming incorrect. That includes changes to the engine or propulsion of the vehicle.

Proposed new section 151A(4)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations…specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine…what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle”.

I can assure the hon. Member for North Norfolk that we would ensure that such documents included those that include up-to-date information about the bus’s powertrain. That would allow such buses to be used on English local bus services. I therefore ask him not to press amendment 78.

Amendment 58 tabled by the hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Wimbledon and for South Devon seeks to clarify that the restrictions on the use of non-zero emission buses from a date no earlier than 2030 apply to mayoral combined authorities. I welcome the intention behind the amendment. The Government agree that the restrictions should apply to local bus services in those areas, creating jobs, supporting local economies and accelerating our journey to a zero emission future. That is why, in response to concerns raised in the other place, the Government expanded the measure to apply to all local services in England, including those in London. If a mayoral combined authority operates a relevant service, they will already be subject to the restriction on using non-ZEBs. That means that the measure as it stands in the Bill already fulfils the intention of the amendment.

I thank the hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Wimbledon, for South Devon and for Didcot and Wantage for tabling amendment 63, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent on the ability of local transport authorities to access funding to decarbonise their fleets. The restriction on the use of new non-ZEBs will not come into effect immediately. That will follow careful consideration of all relevant factors by the Secretary of State, including affordability, and it will be fully debated in Parliament as it will be implemented by affirmative secondary legislation. We state in the Bill that the measure will not come into effect before 1 January 2030. That will give the industry and local transport authorities reassurance that the measure will not come into effect suddenly and without warning, and will allow sufficient notice to be provided, enabling them to prepare for the change to zero emission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Clause 38 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review, within two years of the Bill’s enactment, on the level of bus services being provided to villages in England. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the Lords.

The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts. Although the Bill aims to improve bus services, the review required by the clause would not be practical to deliver. Measures such as franchising and setting up a local authority bus company are significant undertakings that will take time. It is unlikely that a review after two years would allow enough time to capture and assess the impact on rural areas. The full impact of a franchising scheme or a local authority bus company is not expected to be seen until the scheme or company has been operating for some time.

Moreover, although I accept the positive intention behind the measure, it is already addressed by the Bill and wider Government policy. The Government are seeking to reverse the long-term decline in bus services, partly by ensuring that the impact of any changes to bus networks is fully assessed and options are fully explored before a service is changed or cancelled. That will be achieved through measures on socially necessary local services, which will help protect and improve services in rural areas.

Beyond the Bill’s reforms, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, with a dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence conference on quality rural bus services this month, and the first two of our franchising pilots, in York and North Yorkshire and Cheshire West and Chester, announced at the spending review. The Government therefore oppose the clause.

[Steff Aquarone]

I support clause 38, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the provision of bus services to villages in England within two years of the Act being passed. Members will have heard many of my points about the clause in previous speeches, including on amendment 71, which I have pressed to a vote already, but the clause as a whole is not only sensible but essential. I am very pleased that those in the other place added it to the Bill and I hope it will be retained today.

In North Norfolk I have more than 100 villages and hamlets. From Alby and Antingham to Wiveton, Wickmere and Worstead, they are all treasured communities but face challenges with rural transport. Too often, rural communities are treated as an afterthought when it comes to public transport planning. I know this at first hand and my constituents experience it day in and day out. I am sorry to say that the last Government did not do enough in the years that they had to tackle the issues that rural communities face. It is time we stepped up to the challenge of rural mobility.

Villages across England have been cut off by decades of under-investment, deregulation and short-term decision making. The clause acknowledges that rural isolation is not a minor inconvenience, but a daily barrier to work and education, healthcare and opportunity more broadly. The clause rightly demands that the Government take stock of the current state of rural bus provision. It requires an assessment of how many villages are being served by regular bus routes, and it asks important questions about who is being affected—which demographics, which regions and which types of communities are being left behind.

As I said when speaking to my amendments and new clauses on rural bus hubs, having a service to every village might not be the right approach for every area. In many places, moving towards a hub-and-spoke model might be the best course of action. This review would help to identify that and allow us to better understand the current state of play and what steps can be taken to improve the situation.

The clause also rightly mandates consultation with key stakeholders—local councils and transport authorities —who are best placed to speak to the lived reality of rural transport as currently delivered. Without proper scrutiny and transparency, bus networks in rural areas will continue to wither. This review clause is a modest but vital safeguard that ensures we do not look the other way while whole communities are cut off.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long championed the rights of rural communities to fair access to transport. From Cumbria to Cornwall and Norfolk to Newton Abbot, we are fighting for cut-off communities to finally have their challenges heard and their needs addressed. Clause 38 speaks directly to that principle and I urge colleagues across the Committee to support its inclusion in the Bill.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I want to speak in support of clause 38. As a representative of a rural constituency, public transport is one of the things mentioned most frequently when I speak to local people on the doorstep or at events. Car and van ownership in North West Leicestershire is higher than the national average, partly due to the lack of public transport options, including bus and rail.

In the light of the support given to expand local services and our ambition in government, Leicestershire has had an additional £8 million and we are starting to see a change, with bus services no longer being reviewed, reconsidered and cut, but being reviewed with a view to expansion. Bus services are important. People talk about services that have been withdrawn; they feel the loss of service.

As transport is so important, one of the first things I did after I was elected was undertake a local transport survey, and 72% of respondents said that the reason they do not use buses is their frequency and the lack of service and choice. I am sure that the challenge is felt in other constituencies, but local people in my constituency said that buses are infrequent, unreliable, poorly timed and often do not connect towns and villages effectively. That was most commonly felt in Moira, Diseworth, Heather, Ibstock, Ravenstone, Castle Donington, Kegworth and Breedon.

People also said that services stop too early, with no evening or Sunday options, impacting leisure and work. One disabled passenger told me that they can catch a bus to work from Monday to Saturday but cannot be available to work on a Sunday owing to the lack of a Sunday service. Public transport rarely facilitates straightforward journeys to colleges, workplaces or local amenities.

People also said that they needed increased frequency, reliability and coverage, especially in our villages but also in new housing areas. A villager in Belton told me that buses can be unreliable. That has put them off using the service, particularly because, the last time they risked it, they ended up stranded and had to get a taxi home. That happens even in our larger conurbations, where just two weeks ago a resident told me they had to wait for more than an hour for the next bus because the one they had planned to catch simply did not turn up.

Clause 38 provides the opportunity to review and assess the challenges to local services, and to make sure that our ambition reaches all parts of communities, including villages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

I rise to strongly support clause 39, which was the inspiration of Lord Hampton, the Cross Bencher who tabled it in the other place. It would require the Secretary of State to collaborate with industry stakeholders to implement a vision zero programme for buses, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries during bus operations and improving overall safety in the sector. It is very hard to argue against that as an objective for the Bill.

The Minister expressed support for the concept and direction of travel. His primary argument against the clause was that it would somehow get in the way of a multimodal approach to the reduction of injuries on transport, but there is no reason why it need do so. It could co-ordinate with a multimodal transport response. Nothing in the clause prevents it from being part of a wider piece of work. I accept that the legislative requirement would be limited to the bus sector, but a non-legislative multimodal approach would be perfectly permissible, and it is a ministerial sleight of hand to suggest otherwise. The Minister is using some other review as an excuse not to keep this very good clause.

The reason why it is a good clause is that personal injury to passengers on buses caused by sharp braking is a significant issue. A 2019 study for Transport for London showed that three quarters of bus passenger injuries in London were due to non-collision incidents, such as sharp braking or harsh manoeuvres. This disproportionately affects older females and standing passengers, whether they are standing for the journey or standing on their approach to a stopping place.

The challenge with the current statistics is that they are binary—they report either collision injuries or non-collision injuries—and are not broken down further into, for example, sharp braking or avoiding manoeuvres. The clause would help to get to the bottom of where risk lies, expose the data and lead to an effective focus on remediation efforts. I strongly support it.

[Steff Aquarone]

I have very little to add to the speech of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. Any road death involving a bus is one too many; any injury to a bus passenger is one too many. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon shared the London statistics with me: just last year, there were 20 deaths resulting from collisions involving buses: 10 pedestrians, two cyclists and eight passengers. That tragic toll represents a 17% increase in bus-related fatalities on the previous year. Each death is a tragedy—20 families, 20 sets of loved ones and 20 communities who were shaken by those deaths—and we should be taking action to reduce bus-related death and injury. That is why clause 39 must remain part of the Bill.

It is rare that a non-collision leads to a passenger accident in a car; almost all such non-collision passenger accidents happen on buses. We need a different approach, and that is why we need a specific vision zero ambition in the Bill. That would set the standard for safety and send a message that we will not accept fatalities and injury as inevitable by-products of public transport. I hope the clause remains part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I, too, am frustrated that the Government did not see fit to address those concerns by amending the clause.

Let us start by being clear: assaults that take place on bus services are not abstract statistics—they are real events affecting real people. Often, drivers and frontline staff are simply doing their jobs and passengers are just trying to get from A to B. We cannot tackle this problem unless we properly understand it. To do that, we need robust, consistent data.

Here lies the point: at present, too many of those incidents go unrecorded, or are not handled consistently across different operators and regions. Clause 40 would put a stop to that, creating a clear and consistent duty that, if an operator is contracted to run services, it must record this data and share it with the local authority. That is the very least the public expect. Furthermore, the inclusion of a duty on a local transport authority to consult with relevant trade unions regarding issues of staff safety arising from the data collected is a good step. It will ensure that the data is used in practice and could lead to increased safety for staff and passengers.

It is clear that the clause is about more than data collection; it is about creating a feedback loop between those who operate bus services, those who oversee them and those who work on them. That would ensure that when violence occurs, it is recorded, known, and acted on. That is how we start to build a safer system for staff and passengers—for everyone. The Prime Minister recently it made clear that abuse of those working in the rail industry is “utterly unacceptable”; he responded to a question on the abuse of rail staff by saying:

“The abuse and assaults on staff are utterly unacceptable. We are taking measures to make sure they are safer.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 281.]

I am sure the Prime Minister believes the Government should take measures to ensure that bus staff are kept safe, not just rail staff. For that reason, the Minister should push to maintain clause 40 in the Bill. It is not only the right thing to do; it seems that the PM backs it too. I want to protect those who serve our communities, and ensure that public transport is not only affordable and reliable, but safe. Clause 40 helps to deliver that vision, and I implore the Government to keep it in the Bill.

[Simon Lightwood]

I thank hon. Members for their thoughts on recording and sharing data about assaults. In the other place, we highlighted the fact that the Bill already includes measures to enhance the safety of staff and passengers on bus services. As I set out, many operators—and indeed the police and the Home Office—already collect data on assaults, and it makes sense for them to rationalise how best to manage their operators and staff in that respect. We are not seeking to duplicate the work of the police. Victims may also not want to report incidents without their consent, and we should be cognisant of that.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

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

[Steff Aquarone]

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

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

[Simon Lightwood]

To respond to new clause 10, the English national concessionary travel scheme costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations, such as extending the hours in which a pass can be used, would need to be carefully considered. As I said to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion regarding new clause 9, local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations.

A review into the ENCTS was concluded in 2024, which included an assessment of the travel times of the scheme; the Government are considering next steps. On that basis, and as the new clause would cut across the ENCTS review, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steff Aquarone]

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

I will actually press both this new clause and new clause 35 to a vote. When discussing the Bill, there is an elephant in the room: the Government’s decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3, which is no less than a bus tax on communities across the country. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs to passengers, supported struggling households and, crucially, helped to bring people back to the bus network after years of decline. It was precisely the kind of bold, inclusive transport policy that we need more of, not less.

Fares that have been raised by £1 per trip might not sound prohibitive to some, but for those on a low income or families making multiple journeys each week, that represents a significant burden. Many people who rely on buses are running a household budget without much wiggle room, and an increase of £10 a week, which adds up to hundreds of pounds a year, is not money that some of my poorest or most vulnerable constituents have to spare.

[Josh Newbury]

I question the logic of the hon. Member’s statement that the increased cost is £10 per week. He is assuming that somebody travelling two journeys per day buys a single fare each time, but most people who use the bus regularly will invest in day savers, weekly savers, monthly savers or even longer season tickets. Perhaps he would like to revise his estimate.

[Steff Aquarone]

I imagine that there are many different calculations in different parts of the country; mine is based on casework inquiries. A limited number of fare options are available to people in my constituency, as is the case in many rural areas, and I think that £10 is a reasonable approximation.

New clause 19 would ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of the Bill, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to reintroduce the £2 fare cap. It would restore a measure that was working, that passengers appreciated, and that delivered wide social and economic benefits. I urge Committee members to join me in supporting the new clause, axing the bus tax and putting money back into the pockets of our constituents.

[Simon Lightwood]

I have already explained the Government’s position on the bus fare cap. It ensures that passengers up and down the country have access to affordable bus fares and, through those, improved opportunities.

New clause 19 would provide that operators taking part in the scheme may be given priority consideration in the awarding of financial grants. That may give rise to unintended consequences; for example, it is likely that larger operators would be more able to cap fares at £2, potentially muscling out smaller and medium-sized operators in allocations for grant funding. Moreover, it also might impact service levels by reducing the funding available to keep services viable. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk to withdraw the new clause.

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

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

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jerome Mayhew]

What a clever, clever intervention. Floating bus stops were introduced in 2013 under the coalition Government; I fully accept that. I was first elected in 2019, so I could not have spoken either in favour of or against the adoption of floating bus stops. This is the first occasion on which legislation has come before us in which floating bus stops have been an issue. The hon. Member is quite right that I have not mentioned it before.

While I have entered the private Member’s Bill ballot, I have not been successful. If I had been, would I have introduced a private Member’s Bill solely about floating bus stops? Perhaps not—I stand guilty as charged. However, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, while it is always tempting to throw political brickbats around, there are, even in this room today, people who are living with the consequences of floating bus stops. We should be working collaboratively to find a workable solution that helps real people.

Amendment 42, which is also in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, makes mandatory something that is simply advisory, as the clause is drafted. The amendment would require such guidance to include:

“the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places.”

Can the Minister describe a situation in which the Secretary of State would not wish to provide such guidance? I am sure he would accept that there are some very serious problems here that need to be addressed. Given that the Secretary of State will want to do this in any circumstance that either he or I could envisage, why would he object to making the requirement mandatory?

Amendment 65, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would expand the screen information associated with bus stopping places. The amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places could include—or, if amendment 42 is adopted, must include—guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place. Accessibility guidance addresses not just physical infrastructure but information provision, which is equally crucial for enabling disabled people—particularly those with cognitive impairments, who rely on the reassurance of timings, and blind or partially sighted passengers, who require audio information —to travel independently and confidently. Amendment 65 would extend such benefits beyond disabled people to older passengers, tourists and passengers who do not have technology such as smartphones. I support that intention.

As ever, I have concerns about the funding associated with the amendment, because we have to accept that there is a very significant cost to these undoubted improvements. I question whether all local authorities and bus operators have the technical capacity and, most importantly, the funding to install and maintain real-time information displays at every stopping place. I am aware that there is such infrastructure in large metropolitan areas such as London. However, what about rural areas, such as the ones that the hon. Member for North Norfolk and I represent? It is a very different picture there.

Let us not forget that this legislation will apply to every local authority in the country, so some pretty small local transport authorities will be applying whatever comes out of the Bill. Will they have the funds and resources to satisfy the amendment, if it is adopted? I hope that it is adopted, and that the Government say, “This is a very good idea, and we will fund it”, but I am not holding my breath.

Amendment 60, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would beef up clause 30 by replacing the words “have regard to” with

“take reasonable steps to implement.”

The amendment would ensure that the authorities listed in subsection (6) took reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State was implemented. Members will be aware that “reasonable steps to ensure” is a legal term of art, so it is not just about making a list; it has a degree of compulsion to it. An LTA could be challenged, through the judicial review process, on whether such reasonable steps had been taken.

Again, it all comes down to money. I agree with the ambition behind amendment 60, but change costs money, and the Government are not providing the support. This provision would leave LTAs open to costly challenges by rights groups. I say that it is costly because to mount a successful defence against an argument that reasonable steps had not been taken, the LTA would have to demonstrate in its response that it had done so, taking into account its financial position, resources and ability to raise funds. We already know that, under the Bill, a debt-raising ability is being applied to both bus companies and local authorities.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The shadow Minister is right to say that legal action is likely to be brought by rights groups, but does he not agree that good, accessible design should not be price-tagged based just on the cost for those who need it? In fact, good, accessible design benefits everyone, and it could be part of the reason why more people use public transport.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I agree with everything that the hon. Member for North Norfolk said. As I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, this would undoubtedly improve the service provided not just for people with disabilities but for all of us. I will not speak to amendment 43, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; others may wish to do so.

Amendment 55, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff, which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The training would have to be made available to bus operating companies. I support the intention behind the amendment, as guidance alone will not deliver accessible infrastructure unless staff understand and implement it. Training will help to embed best practice among bus staff and improve disabled passengers’ safety and confidence. There is again a “but”, though.

One reason to hesitate is money, but there is also a lack of detail about training providers and the additional financial burdens on local transport authorities. Where will the money come from to conduct the training in franchise bus systems? We have already seen how costly franchising alone can become, with the Bee Network. I would love to have another crack at those numbers and get the Minister finally to admit that he is wrong and I am right, but I will not, as I have tried it three or four times already. The amendment would add even more financial burden on local transport authorities, with a lack of detail about funding.

Clause after clause, we are seeing, first, how expensive the proposed changes are, and secondly, how financially risky they are. Those are two different things. Something can be expensive but the risk is adopted by another organisation, or it can be expensive and the risk lies with the taxpayer. The Bill as a whole, and these clauses in particular, create more financial risk for the taxpayer, particularly in local transport authorities, and a more expensive process, because all these good things are expensive. We want to achieve all of them, but we are not seeing Government money following their ambition.

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

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kohler]

I fear that is true. I do not think they are subsidising—I think they are coming in and taking a profit, and I absolutely agree.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan.

To refer to the general comments made by the shadow Minister, I am totally up for supporting things that put passengers first and are aligned to that purpose. I was regretful that the Committee disagreed to clause 1, on the inclusion of the overall purpose of the Bill, in our previous sitting.

The shadow Minister gave a long and wide-ranging speech; I was disappointed that it did not extend to his own personal tactics for rope sabotage, given the provenance of his business background—but perhaps that is for a future hearing. I will leave the Minister to respond to the issues of the words “outweigh” and “persons”, because I feel that it is his Bill to defend, but I do not fear the potential to refuse to the same extent as the shadow Minister.

Let us get back to what we are substantially talking about here, which is the cross-border issue. From my perspective—my constituency and that of the shadow Minister share many geographic characteristics—the whole point is that, however it is looked at, bus transport, even in urban areas, does not make a profit. Franchising is a welcome model because it allows the state, which is funding the operations, to contract to the providers who are going to deliver the service most efficiently and effectively. I do not see room for the entrepreneurial business model and profiteering that the shadow Minister refers to.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The risk of the franchising model, as we are already seeing in Greater Manchester, is that the size of the contract determines the amount of profit. Although the profit percentage is reduced, it is applied to the full size of the contract. Ironically, there is no incentive for the operator to reduce costs—for example, by pushing down wages—because wages are paid as agreed under the contract, and then the operator receives the 3% or 4% on top of that. My concern is that, as currently evidenced in Greater Manchester, we are seeing costs rise despite services being operated by private sector companies.

[Steff Aquarone]

The shadow Minister makes a valid point, as is always the case, but it takes us into the philosophical domain again. I gently point out that there are other perfectly profitable industries where the cost-plus model is the industry norm, and where it is possible for investors to make a return.

Nevertheless, to bring us back down to earth, I want to mention a couple of scenarios. One is from my own experience—in fact, from the shadow Minister’s constituency, which I travelled through growing up, where we had two providers leapfrogging each other from Aylsham to Norwich on commuter journeys. It was literally the same service, but if someone happened to get on the wrong bus, they could not get the same route back on the other operator. That is a fine example of why it would be appropriate to refuse a cross-border permit.

Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) sent me an example:

“We also have an issue of cross-county boundary bus routes. For example it takes maximum 10 minutes to drive from Malmesbury (Wiltshire) to Tetbury (Gloucestershire) but up to 2 hours on the bus as there is a huge diversion to another big town and then on to Tetbury through the small villages”.

These measures are about the practicalities of cross-border permits. With more rural areas likely to enter into combined mayoral authority arrangements, that will reduce the need for cross-border permits. Although I am grateful to the shadow Minister, I do not see the equivalence with open access in rail. This is, to me, what validates the franchising model overall, as well as providing for necessary moderation in common-sense, cross-border issues.

[Joe Robertson]

It may be tempting to think that the shadow Minister was particularly detailed, lengthy and comprehensive in his earlier contribution, but from where I was sitting, he was all too brief. There were a great range of issues that he failed to address, and I feel it is my role to address them.

Before that, I will agree with what the hon. Member for North Norfolk said about different companies providing services to similar or the same destinations, where using one service in one direction means that another service in the other direction cannot be used. Unfortunately, the Government are currently unpersuaded that that is a problem for ferry services to the Isle of Wight, which is a shame, given that the Government—I agree with them on this—are reforming public transport. I will, however, save that debate for another time.

It was good to hear some genuine philosophical disagreement between the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. I am sure that the hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of members of the public listening to this Bill Committee will have noticed that it was done in a polite and respectful way. I think the shadow Minister almost went too far at one stage, and I was nudging the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to intervene—even though she is a Green MP and I am a Conservative—because I think she missed an opportunity to fight back, but maybe she will in a later sitting.

I will make a few brief points on the principle, but they are anchored in amendments 46 and 50. They concern the idea that assessing whether a new proposed service will have an adverse effect on a current local service is slightly academic, contested and possibly futile, especially if we add in the possibility that, although the analysis and conclusion may have been done in good faith, they will not translate when a service is brought into effect and the market is tested.

I therefore completely support the shadow Minister’s amendments seeking to get rid of the analysis of an adverse effect. It is entirely possible that an element of the service could be adversely affected by the introduction of a new service. To some people, that is a net gain; to others, it is a net loss. Who is to say which of those competing groups is more important than the other?

I have a completely hypothetical example. The local economy of my constituency is heavily reliant on tourism, but people also use buses to get to work and my older constituents rely on them for their daily movements, such as going shopping, visiting friends or going to appointments, including at the hospital. We could end up with a bus franchising proposal that has a net positive effect on moving visitors around between the key tourist areas. That may have an overall positive effect on the economy—on paper and maybe in reality—and that effect may trickle down and raise the prosperity of the whole area. However, that proposal could also have a negative effect on the older population, who need bus services to move around year in, year out. They do not need to travel to the key hotspots that drive the tourist economy, but to GP practices and shopping areas, and not tourist shopping areas but those that provide essential goods for residents, particularly older residents.

That example poses a very legitimate question: is it more important to provide a service that leads to a general raising of the economy and wellbeing by improving tourism, which some might say has a trickle-down effect on everyone, including older residents, or is it better to protect people who are more vulnerable and who have fewer opportunities, if any, to use a different mode of transport? People could come to fair but different conclusions about that.

Whether a proposed new service will have an adverse effect on a local service is an unanswerable question, and it cannot be fitted into an assessment. If an assessment can be made at all, it will be entirely reliant on subjective, statist, planned, expert-led analysis. One can only hope that a conclusion drawn from that analysis would translate into the real world and be correct, but it is entirely possible that it would not.

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

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

When local authorities embark on franchising, it is essential that integration is not an afterthought, but a core requirement. That means ensuring that franchising schemes actively assess opportunities to improve integration with rail, with active travel and with other bus routes, and that those assessments are built into the planning process from the outset. That would not only deliver better outcomes for passengers, but support and complement the Government’s objectives around integrated, efficient public transport systems. We have an opportunity to build a system that works together, not in silos. I urge the Government to grasp it.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak to my new clause 36, but I will first touch briefly on my concerns about new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham.

I can see the case that the hon. Member and his colleagues are trying to make about the importance of periods of stability for bus operators. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon says, the timeframe proposed does not strike the right balance. Five years would be longer than the term of a metro mayor or local authority, meaning that the bad work of a previous mayor or administration could tie the hands of their successor and, most importantly, could leave residents stuck with the same problems for half a decade. Given the timeframes at play, I think a better compromise could be found. It would be bad news for democratic accountability if a previous administration’s botch job—or even intentional mismanagement, perish the thought—of a franchising assessment could prevent its newly elected successor for taking action over the entire course of its term.

I also have concerns about the impact of local government reorganisation under the current drafting of the new clause. It says that

“the same area, or a substantially similar area”

could be covered by a whole new authority or administration within the timeframe, where a franchising assessment is prevented. That means that a body that has been wholly abolished could leave its successors hamstrung.

I appreciate the intention behind the clause, and I am grateful to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham and his team for raising the concerns of the industry about the timeframes. However, I wonder whether a compromise could be found on Report that better balances operators’ concerns with democratic accountability.

My new clause 36 would make a very simple addition to the assessments for franchising schemes, ensuring that we look into how a new scheme can lead to better integration for different modes of transport. People feel that there is a lack of joined-up thinking between our bus and train networks in many rural areas. Arguably, that is down to the current set-up, with two private companies responsible for services but under no requirement to consult or collaborate on delivering more linked-up services.

[Joe Robertson]

I take the hon. Member’s point about joining up buses and trains. As I am on the Committee, might he also include ferries in that analysis?

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the hon. Member for his astute point. I would be glad to include ferries. After all, the new clause proposes better-integrated transport across all modes and modalities. We do not have any ferries other than river-crossing ferries in my constituency.

My constituents have found the issue of lack of co-ordination so frustrating that they have carried out research into it themselves; I thank David and James for furnishing me with the statistics. The first bus to arrive misses the first train of the day from Sheringham by a mere six minutes. For those who are not familiar with the Bittern line, it does not quite have central London regularity, which means that it is roughly an hour until the next possible train arrives. At other points during the day, there is either a 45-minute wait or hoping for a delay so that the bus arrives before the train departs.

A more joined-up approach would benefit both bus operators and train companies, allowing seamless integration of travel and reducing the miles in the journey to be carried out by car. My new clause would add to the franchising assessment the ability to see how franchising could make that transport integration a reality.

I do not think that franchising is a silver bullet to create integrated transport, which is why we will later consider an amendment that I have tabled that would add the enhanced partnership model. However, while we are expanding how franchising works, it would be remiss of us not to add common-sense thinking about integrated transport for those who are embarking on franchising for the first time.

I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said about amendment 57. We have got to fund it, too.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will start with clause 10, to which explicit reference has not yet been made, and under which section 123D of the Transport Act 2000, which refers to auditing, is to be amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (8). Subsection (2) sets out that a franchising authority may not proceed with a proposed franchising scheme unless it has obtained a report from an “approved person” on the assessment of the proposed scheme.

The approved person—this is important—will replace the requirement to obtain a report from an auditor. We read, under the new drafting, that the approved person must be independent, but based on that drafting we have no idea what other qualities the approved person may or may not have.

Subsection (3)(c) requires the report to state whether the information relied on in the authority’s or authorities’ assessment is of sufficient quality for the purposes of the subsections, which I will not go into. Subsection (4) will replace section 123D(3); it states that the Secretary of State must issue guidance as to when it is appropriate to appoint an approved person and what the franchising authority needs to take into account when selecting an approved person, including in relation to whether a person is independent. Subsection (7) sets out that an approved person means a person specified in regulations by the Secretary of State.

That raises the question whether the local transport authorities have the technical know-how and/or financial competence to create and then run these franchises. That is the big question that we have been debating backwards and forwards over the past few days. We know that they are expensive; we know that they are complex. I will not rehash arguments that I have made already, which we can take as read. We know that it is crucial that any plans be fully developed, properly costed, stress-tested for viability and generally fit for purpose before we press go on an entirely new system.

The requirements of clause 10 are important in facilitating that stress testing. On the face of it, the clause appears to water down the independent oversight, particularly on financial management. One of the core risks of franchising, as we have discussed, is the transfer of commercial risk from the operator to the local authority. That is a very significant change—one of the most significant changes.

Here we are, having a report on the plans: we no longer need an auditor who is financially qualified. Instead, we have an approved person. It could be an auditor, but we just do not know. The only qualification that we are told the approved person will have is their independence. That is a good thing, but subsection (7) writes a blank cheque to Ministers:

“‘approved person’ means a person specified…in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

We have not seen those regulations; I assume that they have not yet even been drafted. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the point. What specifications will he seek to put into the regulations?

If the Government want the Committee to vote in favour of substituting an approved person for an auditor, it behoves the Minister to tell us the kind of people who would qualify as an approved person, beyond their mere independence. I look forward to his detailed response, so that members of the Committee can feel satisfied that we are discharging their duty properly by understanding at least the direction of travel of the regulations.

I want to know what qualities, qualifications or expertise will be required. I question why the term is not defined in the Bill, but instead left to future regulations. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to sit down now and decide what kind of person we wish an approved person to be. It is not dependent on future information becoming available. It seems to be slightly sloppy drafting to define a term in reference to a future regulation—that is no definition at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

Okay—sorry.

[Steff Aquarone]

I rise to speak to clause 14 and amendments 66 and 64, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.

I warmly welcome the clause’s protection of socially necessary services. I have spoken before about how important local bus services are for our rural areas, and I want to bring that to life because the term “socially necessary” does not do justice to the significance of those services. For many, a more accurate term would be “lifeline” services. They are absolutely vital for many small villages, and they are often far from profitable. Although they may not bring a grand economic boost to the operator or local authority, they bring a huge social benefit to the communities that they serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 54 would place a duty on local transport authorities to identify and then satisfy the need for all—and I stress “all”—socially necessary services, irrespective of supply, under an enhanced partnership. The amendment does not explain how the services would be supplied by the local authority—presumably, there would be a tender process—but it would require the authority to produce a report within six months. That report would identify the need, estimate the costs of provision and associated funding gaps, estimate the impact of a new service

“on local accessibility and transport needs”,

provide

“a timeline for the operation of the service”,

and specify local funding shortfalls. That measure, if adopted, would be a truly revolutionary departure for the identification of local need and subsequent funding, because it would hand demand assessment to the local authority, but the cost of provision to the Secretary of State. What could possibly go wrong? I genuinely look forward to the Minister supporting the amendment and explaining how he will fund that.

The Liberal Democrats’ amendment 74 would require the Secretary of State to advance proposals within 12 months to

“guarantee a service for socially necessary services”,

where that service has been absent for six months and

“the local transport authority is unable to run the service.”

That is a second extraordinary proposal, because it would again place identification of need—according to the highly subjective definition of social necessity—in the hands of the local authority, but would give the Secretary of State a legal duty to supply that assessed need. It envisages the Department for Transport directly running individual routes that have escaped the design of the franchise network or the enhanced partnerships. Presumably, since the Department for Transport has to supply for that need, it will be liable for procuring, right across the country, individual routes that are not part of a wider contractual arrangement. There we have it: the Department of Transport directly running individual routes, spread across the country, independent of wider bus provision. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.

[Steff Aquarone]

Amendment 54 is a really important protection for the safe and necessary services that I described. The shadow Minister’s points perhaps highlight the issue of funding more generally in bus franchising and enhanced partnerships.

The amendment would ensure that steps are taken within six months of identifying a route as socially necessary to ensure that the route actually runs. It would also enable the Government to provide them with support and funding to ensure that the route is available, if the financial burden on the local authority is deemed too great. This is another useful protection for the socially necessary services to ensure that they are not another victim of the funding crisis in local government. I have already made clear how important these services are and why we have to ensure that they are protected.

Looking at the perilous financial position of our county council in Norfolk, I fear that there could come a point where that spectacular fiscal mismanagement means that they cannot afford to keep these services going. In that instance, I do not think that my constituents should be the ones who are punished. The Government should step in to protect their access to all the services and opportunities that a socially necessary service provides.

To conclude, I am pleased that the importance of bus services has been truly recognised in law. I am supportive of the sentiment and much of the drafting of the clause. However, if we accept the importance of these routes, we should not make a half-baked attempt to protect them. We should ensure that all important services are considered when deciding on socially necessary routes, and that there are strong protections for both these services and our communities that they serve.

[Simon Lightwood]

Amendment 54 seeks to establish a process for local transport authorities to implement a socially necessary service where no operator has decided to do so. However, I believe it is unnecessary, because legislation already exists to address that issue. Under section 63(1) of the Transport Act 1985 and section 9A of the Transport Act 1968, local authorities are already under a duty to secure public passenger transport services that they consider appropriate to meet the requirements of the area, and which would not otherwise be met. Clause 14 also sets out that enhanced partnership schemes must include a requirement to investigate alternatives that can be provided if a socially necessary service is cancelled or varied in such a way as to have a materially adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access necessary goods and services.

The amendment also places an obligation on local authorities to fund specific bus services. However, as I set out before, how local authorities choose to spend their funding is a matter for them. I reflect on previous comments from the Liberal Democrats about being all for devolution, but also liking to stipulate exactly how to do it from the national centre. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on how and where to prioritise their local bus grant. Restricting the range of choices for how an LTA does so would go against the spirit of the Bill, and it is our aim to give more control to local leaders. I have outlined why I believe that the amendment is not needed, and I ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk to withdraw it.

[Steff Aquarone]

I am a little disappointed that the Minister did not address the shadow Minister’s accusation of passing the financial buck directly to Government in his response. The measure is fundamentally about funding to protect services. If the Minister is relying on sections in previous Acts of Parliament, the interpretation of those sections is not a given without specific reference, which the Bill does not make. I do not share the Minister’s confidence that those obligations will be upheld.

[Simon Lightwood]

I think it is sad that the hon. Gentleman does not share my confidence in local areas being able to shape their services.

I now turn to amendment 74, which is the final non-Government amendment tabled to clause 14. It seeks to ensure that there is a Government-backed scheme that will guarantee that all socially necessary local services continue to operate. As I am sure I have mentioned before, this Government have reaffirmed our commitment to bus services in the recent spending review by confirming around £900 million each year from 2026-27 to maintain and improve vital bus services. Allocations for that fund will be made through the bus funding formula, which already takes account of local need. The Department is also committed to review the current formula and ensure that it is allocated as fairly as possible. That will take place in due course.

Department for Transport

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Transport Committee and the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to debate the transport estimates.

I felt a bit underwhelmed by the Chancellor’s offering for transport following the spending review. I am not really sure what she had to offer my constituents in North Norfolk. We saw funding for the continuation of the bus fare cap, which is welcome, but still an increase to the £2 cap that was previously in place. Other than that, what will help them? Upgrades to the Ely and Haughley junctions, which would support improved connections for business and passengers out of Norfolk, were once again overlooked, which will lead only to a higher cost when the Government eventually realise they are necessary. There were also questions over funding for active travel at a time when we should be investing more to encourage modal shift and making walking and cycling an easier and more attractive option, and a complete fiscal straitjacket was placed on the future of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, on which I will focus my remarks.

I am serving on the Bill Committee, and we have learned that the Government have applied a money resolution that means the Bill can incur expenditure only under existing Acts and not create anything of its own that would require any actual money. It often feels like we are living through a certain political sitcom in this place. In this instance, the Treasury has effectively shut the Department for Transport in the back of a taxi and tasked it with coming up with something incredibly popular and completely free. I fear it is only a matter of time until we get a ministerial statement doubling the number of quiet carriages on trains.

The serious point is that we cannot deliver the radical change and improvement that our rural public transport network needs without new money to support it. The Minister responsible for buses, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has made laudable efforts—I believe that he really believes in buses—and there is a lot of really good stuff in the Bill, but just creating and distributing powers without any funding to support their use, and barely any funding to support and develop best practice on how to use them, will not deliver the improvements we need. Indeed, the Department’s Bus Centre of Excellence is staffed by a grand total of three people, and with day-to-day spending cut by the spending review, we are not likely to see a hiring spree any time soon.

Supporting rural public transport helps across Departments. It supports people’s access to medical appointments in a timely manner, reducing missed appointments or worsened conditions. It reduces the benefits bill by widening access to employment and training opportunities. It is better for the planet, reducing car journeys and the resulting emissions. Revolutionising rural public transport would be a cross-Government win. I hope the Treasury can see it that way too and finally give it the funding that it needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I thought the former mayor was quite a talented individual and he was succeeded by another talented individual, who has had to make tough choices around funds that were committed but never implemented under the previous Government. Promise after promise was made, but with no delivery whatsoever. None the less, the right hon. Member should carry on campaigning.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) rightly talked about buses. I have already mentioned the amount of funding that we are putting in there, and the £616 million for active travel, which has been mentioned by a number of Members, on top of the £300 million that was allocated last year. I had a great time last Easter cycling with my wife around the hon. Member’s constituency on Rebellion Way, which is a wonderful piece of Sustrans infrastructure.

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the Minister for coming to North Norfolk; he is welcome at any time. Having experienced at first hand the reality of rurality in my constituency, does he agree that we need to look at alternative models for rural public transport?

[Mike Kane]

We are giving back control of buses to local authorities—as difficult as it is in some circumstances. It is a £1 billion commitment. People in rural economies need to get about just as much as people in cities and we are committed to making sure that that happens.

Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). I cannot wait to visit and to ride on the No. 65 bus. She is a doughty campaigner for her constituency. She also talked about two Labour Governments working hand in hand to bring rail investment to Magor and Undy station, and I am glad that she has had correspondence with the Roads Minister on the safety of the M48.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) rightly talked about HS2. He highlighted the need to connect our maritime industries on the south coast with the rail network, so that we can take maximum advantage of both maritime and rail to get that freight off our roads.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) summed it up when he spoke about the collapse of Galley Hill Road, which I thought was a metaphor for transport under the last Government. We have committed to the Lower Thames Crossing, with an initial investment of £590 million, and we will be making announcements on that in due course. We have also put in £54 million to fix potholes in Kent. The Government are showing that we are committing to the Lower Thames Crossing, with announcements to come, and are fixing the roads, and yet not one Reform Member came to this debate. Let us remind the people of Kent day in, day out about Reform’s lack of commitment to improving their lives compared with what we are doing.

I was with the predecessor of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) at the British Ports Association. Do they only elect Scottish Members to the Surrey Heath constituency? I noticed that even some of the mannerisms were the same. The hon. Member made some important points about evidence-based transport systems. I think we are demonstrating that we are not a cultural, woke Government but are looking policy data to drive our decisions about how we best connect this country up. He also talked about road safety. Our manifesto included a commitment to long-term connectivity for transport across the country. That will be coming, so I hope he gets involved in the debate when it comes forward.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage talked about HS2. We have accepted James Stewart’s recommendations about the cost overruns, although the hon. Member was right to highlight them. He also asked about how our railways and maritime industry can work together. Green shipping corridors will be key to the future of shipping, but the grid capacity in our coastal communities is not up to scratch. He knows that and we know that, and that is why we made manifesto commitments on our grid capacity. I note that we have already made announcements about greater European train connectivity, but I understand the point he makes about depot constraints; the Government are looking at that as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) is a real champion for Cornwall. I was glad that we could announce £4.1 million for Cornwall alone in 2025-26 in addition to the £201 million —which, as he mentions, is four times greater than the last settlement. We hope to see things improve in that wonderful part of the country.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) always astonishes me. He is like some latter-day Hilaire Belloc in his pinstriped suits and polka-dot tie. He was so positive about the Government that I thought he was going to cross the Floor for a second; we will give him time. He mentioned being disappointed about some areas, but we have done more to decarbonise transport this year, more for buses than any Government have done for a generation, and more for active travel in one year than any Government for a generation.

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

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

It is cooler today, but if hon. Members are robust enough and wish to remove their jackets, they may do so.

We now come to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments—there are amendments that have not been selected—have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are ordinarily on the same or a similar issue. I appreciate that I may be teaching granny to suck eggs, but some Members may not have served on a Bill Committee before.

Decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated; they take place in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, are taken when we come to consider the relevant clause.

Let me explain that: you will find that things are debated and then not voted on, and you might think, “Oh gosh, we have missed something.” We have not. We will vote on them when we reach the stage in the Bill at which they appear, even though they have been grouped earlier, because they are on a similar subject to something else. I hope that is clear. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or the Clerk—I may not know the answer, but the Clerk certainly will.

A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. Members can speak more than once in a debate, but please indicate that—I do not have second sight. I do not like feeling that someone has been left out because I did not call them, so make sure that you catch my eye, or that of whoever is in the Chair, if you want to speak.

At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment to speak again only if they wish to do so. Before the Member sits down, they need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a vote. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote, please let me know in advance. Before we start, do any Members need to make declarations of interest?

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am a serving councillor on Norfolk county council.

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

I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I will give another word of explanation at this point. Ordinarily, I would call the shadow Minister first and then other Members, but because Mr Kohler tabled the new clause, I shall call him first and then the shadow Minister. The first four debates on the selection and grouping list are on clause stand part, which means, literally, that the clause being considered shall stand—remain—part of the Bill. If the clause is amended, the Question will be whether the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

When we come to a group with a lead amendment, as we will in our fifth debate, I have the authority to decide whether to subsequently permit a clause stand part debate. We will debate the amendments in the group, and then I will put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill—but that can be debated. Different Chairmen take different views. My view is that you can have your cake, but you cannot eat it twice. You can have a big debate, which sometimes facilitates a general discussion—that is fine by me—but it almost invariably means that you then do not get a second bite of the cherry with a stand part debate at the end.

If you have any questions, ask. It is a slightly complex and arcane process, but we will get there in the end.

[Steff Aquarone]

What you have just described is in the event that the amendment is agreed to. Is that right?

[The Chair]

No, not necessarily. A lead amendment will be moved when we come to a group of amendments, as will happen in our fifth debate. Only the lead amendment will be moved, and it may or may not be agreed to. I will then decide, on the basis of the debate on the grouped amendments, whether everything in the clause has been sufficiently debated and we need hear no more about it, thank you very much. If there are things missing, I will say, “Actually, this still warrants a clause stand part debate.” Other Chairmen may take a different view. I have found, generally, that Members like to take a slightly broader view in debates, which is fine, but you cannot do it twice. What we cannot have is repetitive debates.

Because new clause 22 is grouped with clause 1, I call Paul Kohler to speak to his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will speak to the clause and to new clause 30 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. We have this Bill Committee, Department for Transport estimates day and the forthcoming Transport Committee report on connecting rural communities—we wait for years for the opportunity to talk about buses, and three come along at once.

I strongly welcome the widening of bus franchising opportunities. Rural transport, in particular, needs a proper rethink, and the greater powers that transport authorities can get hold of as a result of the Bill will, I believe, allow local leaders to do just that. People are already welcome the idea of bus franchising. When we visit London, we do not quibble about whether our red bus is run by Transport UK, Arriva, Stagecoach or another franchise holder; we care that it comes at the time we want and takes us where we want to go.

What is lacking in the Bill, however, is leadership relating to how the powers can be used to make a much needed difference to people in rural areas. We have models of urban bus franchising to follow—London has taken the lead and now Manchester is following—but it has never been attempted in a truly rural area. It would be quite reckless of the Government to leave authorities completely rudderless, because some would be guaranteed to go off the rails, and we all know that residents would pay the price in their passenger experience and council tax bills. I gently say to the Minister that this is not about whether guidance is in the pipeline; it is about how far it goes and how robust it is.

Our new clause 30 is the first of our many new clauses and amendments that seek to provide guardrails, guidance and models for those adopting franchising for the first time, in a situation where there may be little evidence to go on. Given the concerns of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about how franchising might work in rural areas, there could be some good news for him in our new clause, but we need to adjust our thinking about what good bus services look like in such areas. While we do not want a top-down imposition of things on rural, coastal and suburban areas, I and other hon. Members believe it would be good for those areas to be given a greater degree of support from the Government than there currently is in the Bill. I also think that specifically outlining such areas in the Bill will help to ensure greater consideration of the unique characteristics of those parts of the country.

Even if the Department pledges to produce guidance, it could fail to address the challenges faced in rural communities in particular. Coming from a rural area, I know how much Government policy feels like it was written by someone who has rarely stepped foot outside the SW1 postcode. Our coastal communities remain without a top-table representative in Government, and I struggle to see how residents of rural communities can trust that such guidance will be forthcoming unless it is in the Bill, or that it will represent the challenges and needs of their areas.

I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to what we are trying to achieve with new clause 30. I do not expect him to accept it, although he is welcome to do so, but I hope that he outlines the steps that his Department will take to provide comprehensive and structured support to those authorities embarking into uncharted territory with their franchise schemes, beyond what we have heard already.

[Simon Lightwood]

I will try not to repeat the comments that I have made already, but I will say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, that yes, the Conservative Government did put franchising in place. They also ensured that it was near impossible to achieve, as there were so many barriers. Instead of playing party politics about Manchester, what the Conservatives should be saying to Andy Burnham is, “Thank you for your vision. Despite all the barriers that we placed before you, you still managed to achieve franchising and improve bus services throughout Greater Manchester.” The shadow Minister also talked about the primacy of passengers—but excuse me if I judge the previous Government on their actions, not just their words, because from 2010 to 2024, 300 million fewer miles were travelled on buses.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 35 allows LTAs to consider constructing rural bus hubs and defines certain characteristics of such a hub. As I said, local transport authorities already have the flexibility to determine the most appropriate bus infrastructure for their areas, including rural settings, without the need for additional statutory requirements. Embedding such provisions in legislation does not offer any new powers and is therefore not needed. Moreover, the new clause risks fettering the discretion of LTAs by imposing specific conditions on the location and required facilities of a rural bus hub. That could undermine local decision making and limit the ability of authorities to design infrastructure that reflects the unique needs and priorities of their communities. The new clause is not necessary and I ask the hon. Members not to press it.

[Steff Aquarone]

I wish to speak to new clause 35 and amendments 70 and 71 tabled in my name. The Minister has done a very good job of outlining what those proposals seek to achieve, for which I am grateful. I am seeking to remedy the lack of vision for fixing the public transport problems that we face in rural areas.

As I have said, we cannot just throw new powers at rural areas and hope for the best. We have to create workable models for adoption to support areas to use the new powers in the best way possible. There has been great excitement about how to use them to transform the bus networks in our major cities, but in all the conversations here on this issue, rural communities seem to have been forgotten about.

In rural areas, the local bus service is not just a convenience or a “nice to have”, but a real and genuine lifeline. For many, it is the main way they can get to see friends and family, go to medical appointments, and get to the shops and to leisure activities. Bus services keeps many rural villages going. It is no surprise that when the withdrawal of routes in areas like this are proposed, there is fury locally and major campaigns against it.

I asked some of my rural colleagues about their experiences and, unsurprisingly, I was inundated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) has been campaigning to save the X5 between Aylesbury and Hemel Hempstead, which was replaced with an unreliable service that is making it hard for residents to get to key medical appointments. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) are trying to bring back the 84/85 route from Yate to Wotton, a vital route to shopping centres, schools and colleges and for those visiting HMP Leyhill. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) has been working with campaigners to save school bus services in Ancells Farm, with children facing the prospect of long walks down unsafe roads to get to and from school in Fleet.

There are all these communities and campaigns, but we still have not come up with better ways to serve rural areas and protect their access to services. It is telling that when my Transport Committee colleagues and I, several of whom are represented on both sides of this Committee, wanted to go and see some best practice of rural bus networks for our “Buses connecting communities” inquiry—report forthcoming shortly; I am sure everyone will be reading it as soon as it is published—we had to travel to the Republic in Ireland to find them. We simply do not have good examples of successful rural networks here in the UK.

All of that serves to say that it is time for a bold new approach. A good few years ago, when we were researching the Liberal Democrat manifesto for Norfolk’s 2021 county council elections, we undertook research with a number of key local stakeholders to hear what they thought of the local bus network and what we could do to improve it. I personally interviewed bus companies, council officers and other stakeholders. Most importantly, we surveyed local people, including those who do not currently use buses—an often overlooked audience segment. We concluded that we need to combine two of the most successful features of current public transport models to create a new model for rural public transport. Those two things are park and ride services and demand-responsive transport. Pairing them could create a real network that works for our rural towns and villages without the near-impossible task of running an hourly timetable to every village. That conclusion resulted in the rural bus hub scheme outlined in new clause 35.

Rural bus hubs would allow people to get between key towns and villages that they need to visit directly. People in many rural areas suffer from having to take buses in the opposite direction from where they want to go, going to the nearby town or city just to go straight back out again. That adds hours to people’s journeys, the journey is totally derailed if one link in the complicated chain goes wrong, and it is ultimately an inconvenient way to get about. As a result, it does not improve passenger numbers.

Similar to our park and ride networks, rural bus hubs would have facilities to enable those living nearby to travel to the hub independently, either by car or active travel routes. The hubs would have the amenities to charge electric vehicles, and to lock and store bikes safely, so that people could easily return to them to complete the final few miles of their return journeys. The hubs would also be well served by demand-responsive transport for those who are not independently mobile. That would ensure that the network could reach into all areas, including rural villages and harder-to-access communities that may never have had a regular service, if any service, from an existing bus route.

Such passengers, once at the hub, could catch direct, frequent buses to any part of a proper network, getting them to the hub nearest to where they want to go, and linking up with train connections or even hospitals and employment areas. It is a model that could easily be adopted by transport authorities. It would reach the most people possible without seeking to run a regular bus through every village, and it would connect those in rural areas to a proper public transport network that broadens the range of their destinations, rather than just taking them to the nearest city or large town.

My amendment 70 would permit rural bus hubs to fit into the current model of franchising, allowing for specified services to include those running to and from, or between, the hubs. My amendment 71 would add to the review of service provision to villages an assessment of how service in the villages could be impacted by the establishment of rural bus hubs, or how the establishment of the hubs has affected services for villages at the time of the review. That would ensure that, as we assess how villages are faring following the passing of the Bill, we do not simply grow a list of complaints but assess what could be done differently to make improvements and the impacts that those improvements would have.

I grew up in a rural village with a sketchy bus connection. I now live in another, and my children are growing up with the same sketchy connection that I had. That cycle cannot continue. We have to do better for areas like mine, and conventional thinking is not going to cut it. It is time for a radical rethink of how we deliver public transport in rural areas. We have to challenge the old ideas and be willing to seize on something new.

I am sure that the Government will oppose these ideas, but I would gently say that they have not put forward anything equivalent. It is all very well to say, “You could do anything,” but there is nothing of substance to say, “Of all the things you could do, these are the things you might specifically like to consider.” We could feasibly help households to reduce the number of vehicles they rely on, saving them thousands every year. We could encourage active travel by expanding the number of journeys, and the hubs could be a component of that. By expanding demand-responsive transport, we could even remove car reliance altogether, while connecting the carless to a far better range of travel times and destinations than they currently have.

The same old approach is not working. The situation will not magically fix itself with the new franchising powers alone. We have to try something different, and do something to create networked, accessible public transport that works for people, and gets them where they want to go, when they want to go there. I do not think that is asking the world, and I hope that the Government will pledge to look into this idea further to deliver real change for people in North Norfolk, and rural communities across the country.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 3 is not controversial, so I will not make a long speech. Proposed new subsection (2A) of the Transport Act 2000 simply makes it clear that, where more than one area is specified in a franchising scheme, the specified areas “need not be contiguous.” I say no more about that.

Amendment 70, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, adds a reference to bus hubs. As he is my constituency neighbour, our constituents share many of the same experiences, and I absolutely support the sentiments that he eloquently expressed: rural areas are often overlooked, bus policy is designed with the major cities and large towns in mind, and policymakers—perhaps because they have limited experience of life in the kind of rural communities that he and I serve—do not consider the very different challenges that we face. I therefore support the sentiment of the amendment, but the challenge is the cost. We keep coming back to the money—or lack of it—in this legislation, because it is disproportionately expensive.

The hon. Member is absolutely right that park and ride is an interesting hub-and-spoke model for rural areas, but there is also the on-demand model, which I have previously described as the Uberfication of rural transport. The tech is obviously already there. Someone books in and says that they want to go from here to there; the algorithm sorts out the route and how many people can be picked up; and then they are delivered from door to door. Because it is door to door, it has the opportunity to provide an improved customer experience.

The challenge is getting the take-up, because it requires a large number of people to buy into such a scheme, and the set-up costs are expensive. There has been a trial in Wymondham, in Norfolk, where the county council put forward a type of on-demand rural service, but the take-up was disappointingly low. Why was that? My working hypothesis is that, if it is a pilot, hardly anyone knows about it, but if there is wide-scale adoption—“This is the future of rural transport”—and it is backed up with public information so that everybody in the community cannot help but know about it, the take-up will be much greater and that then transforms the economics of it.

As a fellow Norfolk MP, I fully support the concept behind the hon. Member’s amendment, but I am afraid that I question whether it is needed, given the specifics of the drafting. As “places” are not defined under the clause as drafted, I am not sure about the requirement to define a specific place—this is my lawyer’s background coming through; it is a nasty rash I am developing—and I wonder whether there is a legal need for that clarification.

I will move on to clause 4. According to the explanatory notes, it inserts proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(a) into the 2000 Act to clarify that services can be specified by routes or the places intended to be served. I think that is sensible. For example, a franchising authority could specify the services by listing the principal points to be served, so, “The local services to be provided under local service contracts are ones that serve the following principal points,” followed by a list of what they are, such as the hospital, the railway station and the doctor’s surgery.

Another example under this proposed new subsection would be for services to be specified route by route. I will come back to that in a moment, because that is quite an important clarification when we look at the kind of operators that will be in a position to provide these services. Specifically, there is a question about the access of small and medium-sized enterprises to contracts under franchising, which sounds a bit niche but is nevertheless important.

Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(b) of the 2000 Act clarifies that services can be specified by describing intended services in general terms. It is broad and gives franchising authorities a wide range of options for specifying services under this proposed new subsection. That, again, is eminently sensible; I will not go into the detail.

Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(c) of the 2000 Act clarifies that franchising authorities can combine the approaches under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, a franchise authority that covers both urban and rural areas could specify services by reference to the specific routes for the urban areas, in line with proposed new paragraph (a), and then could take a broader approach for the rural areas. Finally, paragraph (d) clarifies the catch-all that franchising authorities can specify services “in such other way”.

--- Later in debate ---

I support such concepts where the finances add up, but yet again the Bill is silent on money. It is no good leading us up the garden path with all the bright, shiny things we should be doing with our bus services but not providing the money to local authorities to satisfy the demands of their communities—in fact, it is almost cruel of the Government.

[Steff Aquarone]

I appreciate the warm support from the hon. Gentleman, who is, as he stated, my constituency neighbour. I defer to his lawyering experience on his salient points about the propriety of my amendments given the Bill’s drafting, but I will ask for his reflections on two points.

First, cost is a big unanswered question in the Bill. If the Minister had access to the Treasury, I know that he would be raiding it to fund improved rural bus services. Does the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agree, however, that at least looking at a hub model makes more sense financially, and for service provision, than trying to establish hourly services in every village?

Secondly, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for amendment 71. Although I intend to withdraw amendment 70, I will push amendment 71 to a vote with his support.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I do not disagree with anything the hon. Member said. I do not have in my head the financial details associated with rural hubs, but it makes more commercial sense as a matter of principle, although it would probably not be profitable, to have a hub-and-spoke approach rather than an hourly service for every village. I do not know whether the hon. Member has counted the villages in North Norfolk, but there are well over 100 in Broadland and Fakenham, so that would be a challenge for any provider.

The Opposition support the concept of new clause 35 if the finances—the missing link—add up, but we question the need for it, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing what it sets out.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have campaigned politically in North Norfolk for nearly a decade; all the while, people have been sharing with me their frustrations with our local public transport network. Since the age of 11, I have been watching different operators’ buses leapfrog each other along radial routes and trying to work out a better way of doing things for everyone.

Too many people find that the current system is not enough of a network to get from where they are to where they want to be at the times they need. One young person in Briston in my constituency is studying to work in childcare. She is eager to secure an apprenticeship at a local nursery, but she cannot get to the nursery in question until 9 o’clock—far too late for the 8 am start time. That has caused her to miss out on a promising opportunity, and her transport options mean that she continues to struggle to break into the sector. Another constituent told me how she had moved to her village because it had a bus service and she hoped that it would give her disabled son the opportunity for greater independence. But the village has since lost that service—and with it, the independence of the residents who relied on it.

Our local buses are so much more than just vehicles for ferrying people from A to B. They are the key to training and employment for those entering the world of work. They are an antidote to loneliness, allowing people to see their friends and family and to take part in community groups and activities. They also have to get our older people to their vital medical appointments. For example, to get to the main hospital in Norwich, someone has to go all the way into the city centre and change buses. That means that bus users in most of my constituency can attend a clinic only in the middle of a whole-day trip.

If only the local authority had the power to design the routes and times that work for the needs of the population—putting on direct services between busy hubs, for instance. This is the problem: for far too long, the importance of bus networks in our area has not been reflected in how they have been treated by those in power.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In my constituency, Reform-led Warwickshire county council has still not appointed a transport portfolio, a month on from the elections. While it dithers and delays, a rural community suffers: bus timetables are being reduced and routes are being cut. Those who rely on public transport most are obviously being punished. Does my hon. Friend agree that bus transport in rural areas deserves urgent and serious attention?

[Steff Aquarone]

I certainly agree. Much as I will slag off Norfolk county council at times, at least it has someone driving a bus, in contrast to her council.

The problem is how the issue is being treated by those in power. It is not the fault of bus operators; I have been grateful for the time and engagement that they have provided me on this issue and they are a valuable source of counsel as we look to the exciting future for rural services.

I am also a huge fan of demand-responsive transport, which could be opened up to serve a much wider range of needs with some common-sense simplification of the rules. No, it is politics that has prevented a bright connected future, not bus operators. The last Government’s funding mechanism for local transport was completely unsustainable, making councils compete for pots of funding rather than supporting long-term strategy. That made for a perfect storm in the Conservative-led council in Norfolk, which could trumpet quick wins from the grants, all the while lacking a comprehensive and overarching vision or strategy for how we create a proper rural public transport network.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I really recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. Under the Conservatives, Bracknell Forest council saw bus miles per head fall from 10.9 to 6.3 miles—a reduction of 42 %. Only under a Labour council have routes now been expanded. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we work closely with bus companies through enhanced partnership models—if that is right for the local area, as it is in Bracknell Forest—to improve local services for our residents?

[Steff Aquarone]

The hon. Gentleman has helped me make progress because the issue is all about attitude and mindset. In Norfolk, a former leader even eagerly told the council that Norfolk is a car county. If only the council had realised earlier that its pipe dream of a quarter of a billion pound link road through a site of special scientific interest was never going to happen, it could have spent the £50 million it has poured down the drain in the past five years while pursuing its fantasy on buses instead.

I hope that the powers promised in today’s Bill are seized on in Norfolk. Bus franchising can be an important first step to what we need in my constituency of North Norfolk. At present, our buses do not link up well with our one train line. There is no opportunity for integrated ticketing and no meaningful link between how the profit generated by the most popular routes can be used to provide those that are socially necessary. A radical rethink of how we deliver these services is needed. I hope that whoever gets control of these powers after the reorganisation of our local government is willing to do it. If those powers were to fall into our hands at Norfolk Liberal Democrats, we would be ready to show what a successful model for rural public transport looks like, just as we have seen happen in our cities.

The Government need to come clean on how bus franchising will be funded. I hope that through the Transport Committee’s inquiry on connected communities, my colleagues and I will help unlock a public transport revolution in every corner of the country.

The ask from the people in North Norfolk who are concerned really is not difficult: they want to be able to catch a bus to the places they want to go at the times they want to travel. This can be our chance to move away from outdated thinking. It is time to create the transport network that would really revolutionise the experience of local passengers. Let’s make North Norfolk’s buses great again!

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

There are so many ridiculous things about modern housing developments, but chief among them is the fact that they are still designed around car usage as the primary mode of transport. An obsession with winding roads to the depths of rabbit-warren estates will never encourage people to use active travel. Instead, we need to build new housing developments with cycle lanes, footpaths and green corridors at their heart.

Current planning legislation gives precious little power to planners when facing the greed and legal appetite of property developers, but we cannot carry on building houses people cannot afford, with designs that are making people unhealthy, car-dependent and isolated. We can ingrain the same walking and cycling culture that my North Norfolk villages have developed over decades for the homes, families and children of the future. The question is, will the Government legislate to make it possible?

North Sea Vessel Collision

Steff Aquarone Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

MCA assets are being deployed currently to assess and monitor any potential environmental impacts of this accident. The hon. Gentleman is right that the area is richly biodiverse. The priority remains extinguishing the fire on the Solong, so that we can properly evaluate the situation. Once we get that done, we will use every resource possible to ascertain the extent of the pollution, and to clear it up.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Let me put on record my thanks and appreciation to the resilience team at North Norfolk district council and its staff, and the port of Wells for its response and preparedness. It is not instantly clear what areas will be affected, and with changing winds and weather conditions, pollution can change course. North Norfolk is 50 nautical miles away from the incident and is currently predicted to be unaffected, but we are keeping a close eye on what happens. Will the Minister confirm that he will keep all MPs along the North sea coastline updated on developments? Will he also confirm that if pollution is set to reach North Norfolk, my fishing communities will get as much notice as possible? They have well-rehearsed plans in place, but they need good notice in order to deploy them.

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member makes an important point about how interconnected our coastal communities are when it comes to this type of incident. Our officials are monitoring where the pollution is going; we are looking at wind direction. I am grateful for the fact that his local resilience team is stood up, and I am happy to keep all Members informed of the ongoing situation, when required.