Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Committee (2nd Day)

15:45:00

Clause 11: Direct award of contracts to incumbent operators

Amendment 11

Moved by

11: Clause 11, page 8, line 2, at end insert— “(1A) A franchising authority may not make a direct award of a public service contract under this regulation until it has conducted an evaluation of the operator’s previous performance in meeting accessibility targets, including specific improvements to service accessibility for disabled passengers.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment ensures that franchising authorities evaluate the incumbent operator’s past performance on accessibility metrics, including improvements for disabled passengers, before granting a direct award.

I call the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

Hear, hear!

Despite that enthusiastic welcome, and despite the fact that it is normally a great privilege to speak first to any group of amendments being debated in Committee, I am fairly inadequate in opening this group, given that many noble Lords who wish to speak have direct experience of issues to do with disability and access to the transport system. Consequently, if noble Lords do not object, I intend to speak briefly to the two amendments in this group in my name, and I will then take the opportunity to respond later to remarks made by others who have amendments in this group. Amendment 11 is about a condition that we propose should be placed on a local transport authority before making a direct award of a franchise, which it is allowed to do under the Bill. The direct award means that there will be no competition, no tendering of the franchise: it will be given to an incumbent operator, and perhaps even to an in-house bus company set up for the purpose, but without competition. There is considerable anxiety and concern about this proposal in the commercial sector generally, because of its non-competitive character. Our suggestion is that, where there is an incumbent operator whose services you can examine and there is a proposal to make a direct award, at the very least, there should be an additional condition whereby an evaluation has to be made of the services it provides to people who are disabled, of the need for accessibility targets, and of what specific improvements it might make to its existing services to meet accessibility targets. I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment or look at something very similar to it. I look forward to hearing what they have to say. Amendment 42 is also related to accessibility and fits into the broader picture of demand-responsive transport. When I said on Second Reading that the Bill has an old-fashioned, nostalgic air reminiscent of the Attlee Government, I instanced that it seemed to make no reference to demand-responsive transport, which many people feel is at least one of the ways we could provide a public transport network, especially in less populated areas. The Minister seemed to be affronted and said, in effect, that the Bill was full of references to demand-responsive transport. I could not find any, so I am trying to sneak at least one in here. The amendment says that the guidance the Government expect to issue under the Bill on bus infrastructure, stopping infrastructure, stops and so on should at least look at demand-responsive bus services in meeting the needs of disabled bus users. I hope the Government will accept that argument, although I fully take the view that a larger rewriting of the Bill is required not simply on accessibility but to give it that reference to demand-responsive transport that the Minister thinks is there but I think is absent. Those are the two amendments I wish to mention at the moment. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords have to say, and I will respond to their amendments later, on behalf of the Official Opposition. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Moylan. I will speak to Amendments 35 to 39, 43, 45A and 79A, in my name. I thank the noble Lords who have countersigned my amendments. I also support all the amendments in the name of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and have signed them to that effect, but will leave their introduction to her in due course. Amendments 35 to 39 are on floating bus stops. It seems only right and proper to start by answering the question, “What are floating bus stops?” In essence, where a blind person, wheelchair user or, in fact, anybody has to cross a cycle lane that is part of the pavement to get to the bus, or has to cross part of the carriageway to get to an island representing a bus stop some way into that carriageway, those are floating bus stops. In reality, they are dangerous and discriminatory—a disaster for inclusion and accessibility, not just for blind people, wheelchair users and disabled people but for all users: parents with toddlers in pushchairs and prams, older people and younger people. In fact, anyone who crosses a live cycle lane takes their life in their hands, with not just pedal cycles but e-bikes and delivery bikes going in both directions, often at speeds of 20 mph and above. So-called floating bus stops were born to fail, built to fail and bound to fail. Why? Tragically, they are predicated on a simplistic solution to a relatively complex issue. They fail on “inclusive by design”, on “nothing about us, without us” and on any concept of accessibility for all road users. My amendments suggest that the Bill include the concept of inclusive by design. Without it, how can we have anything in this country that is worthy of the title “public transport”? If we continue to have floating bus stops, we will have transport for some of the people some of the time, which is transport for some of the people none of the time. That cannot be the society, communities and transport system we want in 21st-century Britain. Similarly, there is an even more unfortunate concept at the heart of so-called floating bus stops. It is the sense that, because of this planning folly of a change, a piece of the public realm that was previously accessible and could be used independently, not just by disabled people but by all people, is no longer accessible and can no longer be used independently and safely. I suggest in further amendments that we should look at issues of accessibility, wayfinding, advice and audio and visual signals around bus stops. I suggest that the guidance principles set out currently at Clause 22 need significant strengthening to the extent that there need to be cardinal principles in the Bill, not least that the bus must be able to pull up to the kerb—not the kerb at the side of a cycle lane but the kerb of the pavement—and that users need to be able to access the bus from, and alight it to, the pavement without having to cross any cycle lane. I suggest that we need to have proper, meaningful and ongoing consultation around these so-called floating bus stops. Will the Minister say what happened to the consultation around LTN 1/20? How can we have these pieces of public realm imposed on us without effective, meaningful consultation, not least with DPTAC, organisations of and for disabled people, disabled people and all citizens who rightly have an interest in this matter? In Amendment 45A, I suggest that on the passage of the Bill we have a moratorium on all new so-called floating bus stops and a review and a refit programme of all existing unsafe, non-inclusive sites. We need a retrofit within a year of the passage of the Bill because floating bus stops are not fit for purpose, not fit for inclusive by design and not fit to be part of a public transport system. Finally, in Amendment 79A, I suggest that all buses up and down the country have meaningful audiovisual announcements on board within 12 months of the passage of the Bill. Yes, this is a question of accessibility and, yes, this is a question of inclusion, but more than that the great concept underpinning all this is that when you make a change that, on the face of it, is seemingly presented as just for disabled people, everyone benefits. From tourists to people new to an area, audiovisual announcements benefit everyone. I very much look forward to this debate and to the Minister’s response in due course.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have members of the National Federation of the Blind of the UK with us today. I am going to speak to my amendments in this group, Amendments 40, 56 and 57, and I will take them in reverse order because it means that we are dealing with the overarching issues and coming down to more detailed points. First, I thank the Minister for meeting me and discussing the amendments that I submitted for Committee last week and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his two amendments. The only comment I would make on Amendment 11 is that I think it would work only if many of the other amendments about data are also accepted, because the one thing we know we do not have is data about bus services. On the amendment on cost-effective alternatives and ensuring demand-led bus services, many disabled passengers would say that some of the demand-led services available with rail replacement leave a lot to be desired. I have suddenly discovered that there is a rail replacement at 7 pm on a Saturday evening and that there is no wheelchair taxi available within 100 miles to get me somewhere, so I have had to stay the night. The problem about a community having a franchising authority using only demand-led responses, important as they are, is that most disabled people just want to use the ordinary bus service like everybody else. It is therefore a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and to support his amendments, which set out a number of mechanisms to ensure that disabled passengers, especially those who are blind or visually impaired, and those of us using wheelchairs, are able to use bus services safely. All my amendments in this group are to try to clarify and strengthen the right of disabled passengers to be able to access and use bus services, which is not, I am afraid, clear in law. I start with the last of these, Amendment 57, because, as I said, it represents an overarching change to the Bill. I start by saying that I am very grateful to the Minister for the amendment that the Government laid for the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, stating in the Bill that railway services must observe the public sector equality duty, or PSED, under the Equality Act 2010. My Amendment 57 in this group states: “In Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading ‘Transport’, insert … ‘A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation’”.

16:00:00

Shockingly, this means that, for the first time since the passing of the Equality Act 2010, disabled people would have the basic right to access public bus services. Currently, the power rests with bus companies and the only regulation gives the power to the driver to remove people from a bus who do not move to give space to a wheelchair user or another disabled passenger requiring a seat. Don’t get me wrong—that power for a driver is absolutely necessary, because it should never be up to the disabled passenger to have an argument with other passengers and say, “I think you should get off the bus”. But still there is no power under the PSED for disabled passengers to be able to access public bus services. This is also about access to bus stops and ramps, as well as to audio, digital and visual messages on buses. The onus would then be on the bus company to ensure that their buses have working ramps and that floating bus stops, and ordinary bus stops too, are safely designed and that disabled passengers on buses know where the bus is going—and that is one reason why I have signed the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. My amendment would also support his amendments.

Amendment 56 would require relevant authorities to publish a report on the state of accessibility standards of bus services within each authority’s geographical boundaries and state whether they are satisfactory or unsatisfactory. That is important because there is so little data on accessibility of bus services. If authorities were required to write a report on accessibility standards —guess what—data might actually be collected. It also gives bus companies a clear picture of what they need to do. This is stronger than Amendment 11, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which asks only for franchising authorities to evaluate incumbent operators’ past performance on accessibility before granting a direct award.

There is an entire chapter on transport in the 2016 House of Lords Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability. I declare my interest as a member of that committee. Paragraph 281 bears repeating. It says:

“Conversion of buses to facilitate disabled access is often impracticable, and it of course takes time for a large rural fleet of buses to be replaced. But no one can pretend that there has not been adequate time”.

This was written nine years ago, remember. It goes on to say:

“DPTAC explained that as long ago as 2000 the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) were made which included end dates by which all non-compliant vehicles should be withdrawn from service”.

It then quotes:

“These ‘end dates’ were negotiated with the bus industry and were intended to reflect the working life of a bus so that there should be no wholesale withdrawal of buses which still have a number of working years ahead of them. The dates were phased over a 2-year period depending on the size of the bus. The first of these end dates was reached on 1st January 2015 at which point all single deck buses weighing less than 7.5 tonnes should have been compliant with regulations. From 1st January 2016 all single deck buses should comply with PSVAR and from 1st January 2017 all double deck buses should comply”.

Because of the lack of data, I am not even sure that all that has happened now, and I am not sure that franchising authorities would know this and have the tools that they need to make it possible for disabled people to travel.

That brings me to my Amendment 40, which is a probing amendment because I am not sure that Clause 22 makes clear the status of the guidance to be given by the Secretary of State about stopping places. It does not make it clear whether it is statutory guidance that must be obeyed by franchising authorities and, therefore, by contract bus companies that provide local bus services.

Subsections (1) to (3) state that the Secretary of State “may” issue guidance that “may” include various areas, and the Secretary of State

“may at any time vary or revoke”.

However, subsections (4) to (6) are “must” duties for the Secretary of State to publish anything they have done under the preceding subsections (1) to (3) to consult with DPTAC, and stating which bodies are covered by this. But the relevant authorities are asked only to have due “regard” to the guidance. That is not statutory guidance. There is nothing in there about implementation, which explains why, for example, bus companies have been very slow to implement visual, digital and audio information.

I will explain why this matters. If a wheelchair user in a wheelchair space on a route they are not familiar with—facing backwards, of course—cannot see visual or hear audio information about where they are, they will not know where to get off. As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, this is a continuous problem for blind and visually impaired people too.

So, my Amendment 40 strengthens the requirement concerning the Secretary of State’s guidance and the actions of authorities and bus companies in implementing it. My trio of amendments aims to give disabled bus passengers the same rights under law that disabled rail passengers have and that every able-bodied member of the public has. They also probe whether the wording in Clauses 22, 24 and 25 is backed up by the Equality Act, which is why disabled people need Amendment 57. The PSED gives us the right that everyone else thinks we already have but we do not: the right that non-disabled people take for granted every day.

My Lords, I signed several amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and I would have signed those of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which are very good. I speak as somebody who has always loved floating bus islands, because I have no disabilities—other than not being capable of keeping my views to myself—and there seems to be a degree of real safety for cyclists going past them. But, obviously, since we have been discussing this, I have become very aware that floating bus islands are in some quite dangerous situations and difficult places, and I have now changed my mind—which is a rare thing for me to do. There are probably three reasons for me to support these amendments. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, everyone benefits when we make things safe—that is absolutely obvious. When you have an increasingly older population, as we do in the UK, that is incredibly important. There is also the question of fairness. I want a fair society; I know we are a long way off it, but it really is something we should aim for constantly. Lastly, I have family with invisible disabilities, and I do not even know how we can help people who have those. But, clearly, as much information as possible, given as often as possible, will be part of that. Finally, I cannot see anything in these amendments that the Minister would disagree with, so I very much look forward to the Government accepting them all and saying what a good job the Opposition are doing.

My Lords, I will pick up on the points my noble friend Lord Moylan made about demand-responsive buses. I acknowledge what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said. The key point of those buses is not that they are for disabled people but that they are a fundamental part of the future of transport in many rural areas. It is enormously important that, as local authorities migrate to a new way of doing things under the terms of the Bill, they encourage the development of demand-responsive buses. The reality is that they are an important way to bridge the gap between many rural communities and local towns, given the absence of public transport. It is important that buses do not develop in a way that excludes those with disabilities. We need to encourage local authorities in this respect. I agree that currently, demand-responsive buses are significant for the elderly and the disabled, but that is not how it must be in the future. It is important to transition to the new arrangements in a way that does not forget the important role the demand-responsive system will play for disabled people as well. It must be part of local authorities’ responsibilities to be mindful of how that happens. That may involve vehicle standards or other provisions, but demand-responsive buses and disability must go together in the context of a new world where such buses are simply a part of our public transport system.

I rise to speak strongly in favour of all the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and Amendment 56, to which I have added my name. We are trying to get to the position where more disabled people can travel by bus. A good bus network has a positive impact on the local community. KPMG and ITS Leeds found that a 10% improvement in local bus service connectivity is associated with a 3.6% reduction in deprivation, leading to measurable improvements in health, skills and income. However, many disabled people have poor experiences of using buses. I have had my own. On New Year’s Eve, a driver refused to put the ramp down, let everyone else on, and then argued that there was no space for me to get on. We were then left with the potential issue of two people with buggies and I arguing over who was able to use the space. The driver refused to engage with me and tried to split my family up; my daughter is an adult, so, fine. The driver then suggested that we all get off and wait for another bus behind—who knows when? I was having a discussion about all this when an amazing woman with a young child in a buggy who was only going one stop further got off, so that I could get on and take a much longer journey. A number of people have been in touch with me about problems such as having been refused service, ramps not working or drivers not wanting to pick them up. There is also the issue of where the ramp is positioned when buses stop to enable a safe set-down. London buses seem to be in a much better position than others around the country, with induction loops, audio announcements, LCD display screens and information posts, but people should not have to try to count the number of bus stops in order to get to where they are going. In a survey of blind and visually impaired people using TfL, 65% of blind or partially sighted respondents told the Sight Loss Council that making transport accessible was the most important thing to them. I am briefly going to cover floating bus stops, because they are a massive issue for all people. They are dangerous at busy times of day. When I get off a bus, once the ramp goes down I have to pull a wheelie so I can control the speed. But often, there is not enough space for my wheelchair to fit at the side of a floating bus stop. On Westminster Bridge, which I cross at least a couple of times a day, on many days I see bikes not stopping and running both sets of red lights, and where the floating bus stop is located. Indeed, this morning I saw a delivery driver riding the wrong way over Westminster Bridge in the bike lane. Those getting off the bus would not even think to look both ways. They were in quite a dangerous position. I agree, slightly, with noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about cyclists. The situation is dangerous for them, although I find myself turning into a woman of a certain age, shouting at cyclists who run red lights and cause a lot of problems. We have to take into account that TfL’s own published figures suggest that 60% of cyclists do not obey road rules by giving way to pedestrians at crossings. When you factor this into floating bus stops, you can see why the situation is so dangerous. Evidence has been collated by the RNIB, which is keen to highlight how dangerous floating bus stops are for blind and partially sighted people. Government research shows that when London’s floating bus stops were designed, blind and partially sighted people were not involved in the street design process. Wheels for Wellbeing is worried about the number of disabled people who, because of that, could be discouraged from using buses. I am going to use a phrase that I normally use for my experiences of travelling by train: I just want the same miserable experience of commuting as everybody else. We are not quite there yet, but making it better for disabled people makes it better for everybody.

16:15:00

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 35 to 39, which I have put my name to. I have no problem with any of these amendments, particularly Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in which she talks about data, which I will get on to later. I apologise for degrouping, which I know has been weaponised recently. I degrouped mine because there is a subtle difference, and I did not want the two amendments to compete with each other. Rather controversially, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who said that floating bus stops are discriminatory. They are not: they are dangerous for everybody. I cycle, walk and catch buses. I avoid floating bus stops if I can because they are just terrifying. We have a chance to set a template here. I keep banging on about this. London works really well, and we are moving this out to other parts of the country. Accessibility and inclusive design need to be there, so that we can put it out to everybody. Guide Dogs for the Blind and UCL did a lot of research recently, which they sent us, on floating bus stops. We should get people back on the buses any way we can. There are people sitting here who cannot use buses any more. We will talk later about rural areas, but buses are the ultimate form of travel. They should be quick, easy and pleasant to use. We must do everything we can do to make that everybody’s experience.

My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. The debate about floating bus stops—I heard the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others—all depends on the dimensions and who is around. The noble Baroness mentioned Westminster Bridge, where the floating bus stop is on the far side of the bridge. The cycle lane there is a complete waste of time because it is full of pedestrians. The pedestrians are going on the road. It is a question of how much space is allocated to cyclists, to pedestrians, to people trying to get on and off buses—often with wheelchairs, which need to be level—and to vehicles. We have something to learn about that. The opposite example is the other side of Victoria Station, in London, where, probably 20 years ago, a mayor put in a cycle lane but it was so narrow that you had to slow to a dead stop before you could turn a little corner. It is a question of design. A moratorium on these floating bus stops would be a great shame. Many cycle lanes, floating bus stops, and so on need a regular review depending on how many people are using them and how safe they are. Safety has to be balanced between cyclists, people in wheelchairs, able-bodied people and the foreigners who do not understand that we keep left, before we make changes. There are good places for floating bus stops and there are probably some bad ones.

My Lords, this one of the most important groups we are debating on this legislation. I will first speak to Amendment 41, which addresses disability training across the sector. Bus services are a lifeline for many people, providing essential access to employment, education, healthcare and social activities. However, for people with disabilities, navigating the bus system can present significant challenges. It is therefore really important when we consider legislation to look to make improvements, to ensure that public transport is accessible and inclusive for everyone. By incorporating comprehensive disability guidance into staff training, we transform the whole passenger experience. Years ago, I attended bus driver training at one of the bus garages in Camberwell in London. I have to say, to describe it as not fit for purpose would be an understatement. I know significant changes have taken place since then, but we need quality training across the country. For example, training will increase understanding and equip staff with the knowledge and skills to understand the diverse needs of passengers with disabilities, ensuring the right support and assistance. It will also help staff identify and address barriers to accessibility, ensuring that buses and related services are designed and operated in a way that supports all passengers, including those with physical, sensory and cognitive disabilities. When staff are well trained in disability awareness, it leads to a much more positive experience for all passengers, so I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that amendment. We have already heard some powerful case studies as we have discussed these amendments, in particular the detailed one of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I saw an interesting story in my press cuttings this morning concerning a freedom of information request Transport for All had published in London. It showed that wheelchair users were denied access to London buses 441 times in the last year due to inaccessibility. In some 56 instances, the bus ramp failed, and in 385 the user was refused admission for other reasons. That is why this discussion today is so important: people are being denied access to public transport when they are in a wheelchair or have other disabilities. Many other amendments in this group have been clearly detailed and powerfully set out by my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. All of them would strengthen the Bill considerably. All are aimed at tackling accessibility issues, whether that is training, bus stops or bus services, but there is a serious issue we are discussing today, and that is bus stop bypasses. In designing something to keep cyclists safer on our roads, so they are not at the point where buses pull out, and to keep them away from motorised transport, a barrier for blind and visually impaired passengers has been created. While keeping cyclists safe is very important, it is also important that we keep blind and visually impaired bus passengers safe. Design has to be inclusive, as we have heard. I will be really interested to hear how the Government plan to address this serious concern, because consistency of design and design standards is essential. We must look to create a truly accessible transport network that is for everyone. I look forward to hearing the detailed response from the Minister to the many points raised in this important group of amendments.

My Lords, before I commence my response, I would like to update your Lordships on progress since day one of the Grand Committee. I have met with several noble Lords to discuss the Bill, including exploring matters that were the subject of amendments debated in your Lordships’ House. I am also considering the role of guidance, such as bus franchising guidance, in providing clarity on the department’s expectations. I thank noble Lords for offering their thoughts on these issues and look forward to continuing our discussion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, did, I welcome the presence of representatives of the National Federation of the Blind UK, to whom I spoke at the end of the last Committee meeting. I begin by taking government Amendments 44 and 45 together. Amendment 44 makes a minor change to Clause 22 to clarify that where it refers to a public service vehicle, it means a public service vehicle as defined in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. In practical terms, this is the standard definition of a public service vehicle, referenced in the Transport Act 1985 and used in other legislation, whether relating to accessibility or otherwise. This amendment seeks to ensure consistency of understanding between this and other clauses and existing legislation. It does not change the intention or function of this measure. Amendment 45 is intended to future-proof Clause 22 by anticipating the use of autonomous vehicles in local bus services. Clause 22 currently requires specified authorities to have regard to guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. Facilities in this context include those that assist a driver of a public service vehicle to enable passengers to board or alight from the vehicle. The feature most commonly used to do this is the painted cage on the roadway, which keeps an area free of obstructions to enable the driver to position their vehicle flush with the kerb, but it is conceivable that, in future, there may be facilities that support the autonomous alignment of the vehicle without the involvement of a driver. As such, this amendment seeks to remove the reference to a driver in the relevant definition of facilities. It is clearly important that we make legislation for not just the services of today but those of tomorrow and, where possible, avoid the need for future amendments to primary legislation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for Amendment 11. The intention behind the option directly to award contracts is to support the transition to a franchising model. As part of the direct-award contract, the franchising authority can stipulate the accessibility requirements that it expects the operator to deliver. There is existing guidance in place that supports this. This amendment would be likely to delay the transition to bus franchising and increase the burden and cost on the franchising authority, and for these reasons I believe that it is unnecessary. I turn now to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, has tabled to Clause 22. He is one of the many champions in this House for inclusivity and accessibility in transport, and, of course, I absolutely respect his views, as I do those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, given the experiences that they have talked about today and elsewhere, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I will respond to each of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in turn. Amendment 35 seeks to amend Clause 22 by including a power to make guidance to ensure that inclusive design principles are complied with in full. I know that the noble Lord supports the premise of this clause, including our intention to ensure that new and upgraded bus stations and stops are inclusive by design. I am concerned, however, that the amendment as drafted would place unnecessary constraints on how the guidance can be drafted and might make it more challenging for local authorities to implement it effectively. Instead of providing authorities with choice, the guidance would need to encourage the adoption of a single set of principles that might not be relevant in every circumstance. It would also constrain the collaborative development approach that we intend to take. I assure the noble Lord that we have included Clause 22 because we know that stopping-place infrastructure must be more inclusive. However, I am concerned that his amendment would frustrate our ability to achieve this rather than support it. Amendment 36 seeks to emphasise the importance of independent travel for disabled people. Clause 22 currently allows the Secretary of State to provide guidance for the purpose of facilitating travel by persons with disabilities. This amendment would clarify that it is for the specific purpose of facilitating independent travel. As currently drafted, the clause allows the Secretary of State to provide guidance to facilitate travel by all disabled people, whether travelling independently or otherwise. The amendment could have the undesirable effect of requiring guidance to focus principally on those not travelling with companions. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that bus stations and stops should be safe and accessible for everyone, and I believe that the current clause draft is more appropriate for achieving this. Amendment 37 seeks to specify in greater detail what stopping-place features can be covered in statutory guidance. It does this by providing a list of specific stopping-place features that the noble Lord considers to be important to cover. However, Clause 22 already specifies that guidance can cover the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and related facilities. That list is intended to be permissive and overarching. It is important for the decision on what facilities to cover and what advice to provide to be informed by specialist input and stakeholder engagement. We will work closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, or DPTAC, as we develop the guidance. We will also engage with other organisations representing disabled people and others to ensure that the guidance covers the right subjects and can be effective in supporting provision of safe and accessible infrastructure. It seems likely that the features that the noble Lord identifies, as well as others he has not, would be highlighted to us as important for inclusion, regardless of whether his proposed amendment is accepted.

16:30:00

Amendments 38, 43 and 45A concern floating bus stops. Amendment 38 seeks to reduce interactions between cyclists and pedestrians using bus stops, and Amendment 43 seeks to require authorities to adhere to the statutory guidance relating to floating bus stops. Taken together, they would require the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance requiring that buses stop adjacent to the kerb at bus stops to allow passengers to board or alight directly from the pavement and would further require that passengers can continue their journeys without crossing cycle tracks or using pavements which incorporate them.

The statutory guidance under Clause 22 is intended to help authorities to adopt a more consistent approach to providing safe and accessible stopping places. The clause allows for guidance to be provided on aspects of floating bus stops within the planned statutory guidance. In requiring authorities only to pay regard this guidance, the intention is to recognise their need for flexibility in applying recommendations to bus stations and stops in a variety of locations. I agree with the noble Lord on the need for inclusion by design, which is why we are seeking to support authorities with statutory guidance to get it right first time when providing or upgrading stopping places. Inclusion is, however, about everyone, and it is important that authorities consider the needs of all vulnerable road users when they design stopping-place infrastructure.

Amendment 45A seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to announce that no new floating bus stops may be installed. It also requires her to carry out a review of existing sites and announce a programme of retrofitting all sites to ensure they are fully accessible. However, work is already under way that will have the same practical effect. It would also not be appropriate for central government to intervene in the way suggested in matters that are, and always have been, the responsibility of local authorities.

I take this opportunity to update noble Lords on the department’s latest position. Providing safe facilities for cyclists while also not disadvantaging pedestrians, particularly disabled people, will inevitably require some compromise, but we are focused on helping local authorities to implement change in a way that is more consistent and accessible. Active Travel England’s engagement with local authorities has shown that designers are often unaware of existing guidance, meaning that there is a risk of sites being installed that have not met or do not meet current good practice. In response, it is developing an interim advice note to help to address this gap until further permanent good practice advice is available. The aim is to publish this in spring this year.

Floating bus stops are found across the UK, with a high proportion in London. Following concerns raised by some customers, Transport for London published a safety review in May 2024 that found the risk of injury at a bus stop bypass to be low. However, it is now beginning a programme of remedial works in partnership with London boroughs. It is also carrying out a design review in consultation with stakeholders representing disabled people and active travel groups to identify what further changes and enhancements could be applied to improve the accessibility of bus stop bypasses. The department is working with Transport for London with the intention that the lessons learned are applied nationally.

Active Travel England is developing a separate research project to supplement knowledge and address the gaps identified. It is also considering guidance on funding sources that can be used to retrofit existing schemes. Those activities will be supported by stakeholder engagement, and that will include the department’s statutory accessibility advisers, DPTAC.

I hope that the noble Lord and others will agree that taking considered, evidence-based decisions that promote the safety of all road users is the way in which to achieve true inclusion. However, I have taken great care to listen to and note the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Jones, Lady Pidgeon, and others, and I look forward to discussing this matter further with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, alongside the Minister for Local Transport, in a meeting currently schedule for two days’ time. Following that meeting, we will consider further what action we can take to deal with the important issues that he raises.

The next amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, relating to Clause 22 is Amendment 39. This seeks to require consultation with groups representing disabled people and with disabled people themselves whenever the Secretary of State gives, revokes or updates existing versions of the statutory guidance. I have already said that we will work with DPTAC on developing the guidance. The committee has a statutory role in advising Ministers about the needs of disabled transport users. Since most of its 18 members are disabled, this enables them to speak authoritatively for the needs of people with a range of impairments and access needs. However, I also recognise that it is important to understand the everyday experiences of disabled people and the perspectives of the organisations that represent them. That is why we will seek to hear a broader range of voices as we develop and draft the guidance.

Given my clear commitment to meaningful engagement as we develop the guidance, to revisions after it is implemented and to the need for flexibility in how it is undertaken, I believe that the noble Lord’s amendment is unnecessary and overly restrictive.

I thank Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett for Amendment 40. I know that the noble Baroness supports our wish to see an improvement in the safety and accessibility of bus stations and stops. I note that, since the amendment was initially tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett have added their names to it.

At present, Clause 22 requires specific organisations to pay regard to the statutory guidance that will be provided by the Secretary of State on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. The noble Baroness’s amendment replaces the duty “to have regard” to the guidance with a duty instead to

“take reasonable steps to implement”

it. It is Government’s view that organisations using the guidance must have flexibility to make their own decisions based on their local circumstances and what will work most effectively to support their communities, including disabled passengers. While I support the aim to achieve consistency in the design of stopping places, I am concerned that, as drafted, the amendment will place more onerous and overly prescriptive requirements on authorities. It is also likely that such an obligation would be inconsistent with the legal status of statutory guidance, which cannot place an obligation on users to take specific steps.

Although I have explained why this amendment may not offer the right way forward, its intention is in the spirit of improving the Bill. I thank the noble Lords for this, and I will endeavour to take this away and look at options, such as supporting authorities through strengthened guidance to take a proactive approach to identifying and challenging bus service inaccessibility. I will continue to discuss the matter with the noble Baroness, and I invite the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett to join those discussions so that we can ensure that future guidance speaks to the intention of this amendment.

Amendment 41 was also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I appreciate the intention of this amendment and agree that training and awareness are very important. I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, in particular the 441 instances where disabled passengers were refused access to a bus, all of which were unsatisfactory. We of course need to do something about it.

We will seek to ensure that the statutory guidance is written in clear and accessible language, enabling staff in relevant authorities to understand how it should be applied. Regarding bus operators and staff training on the use of the guidance, most operators are not responsible for providing bus stations or stops and, therefore, training their staff on this would be an inefficient use of resources. The statutory guidance will be made publicly available, allowing everyone to take it into account if they so choose. That being said, I reiterate that it is reasonable to expect local authority practitioners to understand the purpose of the guidance and how to apply it. However, I suggest that this can be addressed through existing mechanisms.

The department funds the Bus Centre of Excellence, which organises events, fosters networks, provides training and hosts a dedicated website containing a repository of resources for bus practitioners. The website already features a social value toolkit focusing on equality and buses, links to the department’s REAL disability awareness training package and a webinar on bus and infrastructure safety, among other resources. I respectfully suggest that using the expertise and connections of the Bus Centre of Excellence to disseminate knowledge and awareness is likely to be more effective than creating new processes or obligations.

To correct the record, Amendment 41 was in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, not in my name.

I am so sorry to both noble Baronesses. That is my error. Amendment 42 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, seeks to protect access to local transport services by requiring the statutory guidance to recommend the use of demand-responsive transport, or DRT, where other options are not viable. As I said on the previous day in Committee, DRT has the potential to improve the local transport offer. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, that demand-responsive transport is not mutually exclusive from accessibility. Accessibility must be part of that offer, where it is part of the local transport offer. I agree that authorities should consider a range of transport options when reviewing the future of services, but I am not convinced that the stopping places statutory guidance is the right place for this recommendation. Clause 22 is principally about ensuring that stopping places provide a safe and accessible environment. There may well be times when it is appropriate to consider the role of DRT when planning such work; however, it is more appropriate when considering service provision generally, which is beyond the scope of the statutory guidance about stopping places. I reassure noble Lords that the Government have a strong interest in DRT for areas without regular fixed-route connections, many of which—though not all—might be rural. The department is currently undertaking a monitoring and evaluation exercise on the DRT rural mobility fund pilots and will produce best practice guidance to support local transport authorities interested in setting up DRT services in their areas. Amendment 56 seeks to require relevant authorities to publish a report on the accessibility standards of bus services within their boundaries, including an assessment of how satisfactory they consider them to be. I fully support the spirit of this amendment, which is designed to incentivise local authorities to take responsibility for driving up accessibility standards in their areas. It is precisely because of the need for greater focus and consistency in the provision of safe and accessible infrastructure that the Government are requiring authorities to have regard to the statutory guidance on safety and accessibility at stopping places. However, throughout the process of developing Clause 22, the Government have been clear that the clause and subsequent guidance need to consider a variety of factors. That is why the requirement has been designed to be both proportionate and flexible. In contrast, this amendment as drafted would place an unreasonably high reporting burden on local authorities. It would also introduce significant duplication, with authorities with overlapping jurisdictions required to report on the same matters. For instance, both Eastbourne Borough Council and East Sussex County Council would be required to report independently on the accessibility of bus services in Eastbourne. Achieving compliance could entail a lot of work with little benefit for authorities, which would be asked to report on services for which they are not responsible. For instance, a district council with no responsibility for bus services would still be required to report on the accessibility of services in its area. While I recognise the accountability and positive change that noble Lords seek to encourage, I am not convinced that this is a sufficiently proportionate way to achieve it. As I have indicated, I will think about it further and talk to noble Lords to identify how we can help authorities take decisions on local transport provision with a sufficient understanding of the impact of services on disabled people. Amendment 57 seeks to bring bus operators explicitly within the remit of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. The amendment proposes to achieve this by adding bus operators providing services to the list of public authorities in Schedule 19. Local transport authorities are already subject to the public sector equality duty as listed public authorities in Schedule 19, and this would include franchising authorities. The duty must also be met by an entity that exercises a public function, even if it is not explicitly listed in Schedule 19. This would include any bus company that exercises such functions, such as a local authority bus company.

16:45:00

It is, however, not possible expressly to apply the public sector equality duty to privately owned bus companies without making significant changes to how the Equality Act 2010 operates. It is also important to highlight that all local bus service operators are already subject to substantial obligations under existing legislation relating to accessibility, most notably the Equality Act 2010, which includes the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 require vehicles carrying more than 22 passengers on local and scheduled services to provide physical features to help disabled people travel safely and the Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations 2023 require the provision of audible and visible route and location announcements on board local services.

While I appreciate the spirit behind this amendment, it risks duplicating existing duties and creating potential confusion without providing significant additional benefits. I therefore suggest that the existing framework remains sufficient. I would however be happy to discuss further with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Holmes, how we can ensure that the authorities are mindful of their existing equalities obligations and that they are supported to prioritise the accessibility of local bus services.

I turn to the last amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and apologise for the length of my speech. Amendment 79A seeks to require the provision of audible and visible information on buses within one year of Royal Assent. I understand the importance of this, but I am pleased to advise the noble Lord that the implementation of the Public Service Vehicles (Accessible Information) Regulations, debated in this House in 2023 and commenced later that year, continues apace. Those regulations in effect require exactly what he would like: they already apply to vehicles first used on local services from October 2019 onwards, and by October 2026 most local services will need to comply.

The provision of accessible information grants has also helped the smallest operators to install and use necessary equipment. Those regulations, which are already in place, should soon result in a national bus network that allows anybody to board with certainty that they are heading the right way. I therefore suggest that the noble Lord’s amendment is not required and invite him to withdraw it.

I would like to ask a brief question about the Minister’s Amendments 44 and 45. They refer to automated vehicles. Those of us who worked on the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 will remember that Section 83 disapplies taxis, private hire vehicles and buses in their entirety because of the issues about driver versus non-driver vehicles. I am not asking the Minister for a reply now, but could he write to me in light of Section 83 and say how that would sit with this Bill?

I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention, and I will certainly write to her on that basis.

My Lords, inspired by the Minister, I shall be brief. Much as I expected, there were many valuable insights in this debate, particularly from public transport users who are disabled. We all learned a great deal from what was said, although, for many of us, very little of it was new because we have heard it before—though we are not always hearing sufficient progress in response. That meant it was all the more disappointing that the Minister, although he is known to be sympathetic to this agenda, responded to the debate by saying no to everything. He appears to be programmed by the department to say no to every amendment that is put forward. There is always an excuse why each amendment must be turned down. When we return to this Bill on Report, if amendments are put forward as they have been debated in this group, this side of the Committee will consider them very carefully for support. If my noble friend Lord Holmes puts forward amendments based on his current Amendments 38, 43 and 45A, the Official Opposition would certainly be there to support him. There was a great deal of reference in the Minister’s speech to private meetings he is having with Members of your Lordships’ House and to the prospect of discussion and debate after the Bill is passed about statutory guidance. This will suit the Minister and the department, but we should say—I hope I can speak for every Member of the Committee—that we are here as Members of this House to hold the Government to account in this forum. If it is not possible for us to make progress with amendments in Committee, that is a further reason for saying that we will want them debated and passed on Report or even at Third Reading. Private meetings and promises of consideration when statutory guidance is produced are not enough. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Clause 11 agreed.

Amendments 12 to 20 not moved.

Clause 12: Socially necessary local services

Amendment 21

Moved by

21: Clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert— “(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, or(v) schools, and”Member's explanatory statement This amendment ensures that primary health care services are considered under the provisions of ‘socially necessary routes’.

My Lords, I will also speak about Amendment 23. The new “socially necessary” routes clause is incredibly important in ensuring that bus services across the country provide services that meet the needs of local communities, rather than simply those which are profitable. Sadly, that has been the case outside London for decades since the deregulation of buses in the 1985 Act. We welcome this new clause but want to improve it through these amendments in two clear ways. Amendment 21 would ensure that access to healthcare services, whether primary, such as GP or community, or acute, such as hospitals, are added to the locations that a local service must enable passengers to access alongside schools. We felt it was really important to pull out and add these specific services, as they are so important. I am really pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has added his name to this amendment. The need for children and teachers to have access to schools is obvious, but it should be a service that gets them to school on time. In Tonbridge in Kent, bus services have been cut so much that school bus services either drop children off far too early, leaving them hanging around the streets before school, or they arrive too late for school. This is unacceptable and impacts on children’s education and safety. Access to health services is fundamental to keeping communities healthy and fit. When someone is diagnosed with a condition or illness, they may require regular routine appointments at a range of health buildings, not just at the main hospital but right across the community. In rural areas, these can be spread out over some distance. It is therefore crucial that socially necessary services are explicit to ensure that patients can get to appointments at different health locations without having to rely on family or volunteers to drive them there and back. At Second Reading, I highlighted the situation in Fleet in Hampshire where there is no bus route to the local hospital from neighbouring areas, yet the hospital car park often experiences 45-minute queues. Our amendment aims to address these common concerns. Amendment 23 seeks to clarify that the relevant local authority has a duty to implement a socially necessary service, as far as is reasonably practical, should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support, if needed, and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established. We on these Benches felt that that was important, given that the Bill allows for a clear definition of socially necessary routes but gives no clarity on how these routes will be provided. If, either through franchising or enhanced partnerships, it is proven impossible to secure a provider for a service, what happens? In many ways, this is a last-resort clause. We felt that it was important to ensure that such crucial services for communities are picked up and provided so, as part of this process, the local authority would establish the service itself and produce a report within six months that would set out details of the operation and whether the authority is unable to meet the financial cost of operating the service. This is where the new burdens doctrine would kick in, and thus the Secretary of State would have a duty to consider appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure that the socially necessary service can be provided. From talking to some of the larger operators, they make it clear that socially necessary services will be able to achieve the aim of protecting hard-to-serve areas only if that is underpinned by funding. I am sure that where franchising is used profitable routes will be franchised together with socially necessary services to ensure that a comprehensive bus service is provided overall. However, our amendment picks up those services that are not securing an operator to ensure that communities have access to essential services. I am pleased to note that Green Alliance supports of our amendments around socially necessary local services. I hope that the Government will respond positively to these amendments, which seek to enhance the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 22, which is a delicate, small nudge that suggests that, if you are trying to replace bus services or create new ones, looking at previous scrapped bus routes might be a way forward because, presumably, they were the last to go. I do not live in a bus desert, but obviously a lot of people do so outside London. It is a sad state of affairs when people are forced to use their cars, as so many are in the countryside. Bringing back bus routes that existed and were clearly used before various cuts would make sense. The CPRE report, Every Village, Every Hour, nearly four years ago, set out what a comprehensive bus network for England could look like and the scale of investment needed, which, of course, is a bargain in how much it benefits communities, social enterprise and so on. If the Minister has not read that report already, I suggest that he does so. I agreed also with the previous amendments.

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to which I was delighted to add my name. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, criticised the Bill on the first day in Committee as being mildly nostalgic and backward-looking, a sort of return to the Attlee Government. I have quoted him so many times on this that I really need to start paying him royalties. However, I would like the Bill to be nostalgic and backward-looking. I would love it to go back to the pre-Beeching glory days when buses turned up on time with smiling children. I do not know whether that actually existed.

It did.

17:00:00

I will not comment on the noble Baroness’s age. The Bill is an opportunity to help breathe life into rural areas, to get children on buses going to schools and to get people to hospital. We keep banging on about the elderly and people with disabilities who rely on buses to get to hospitals and GPs. This amendment and Amendment 49, which is not in this group, are absolutely right. I would like to hear how the Government are looking to regenerate areas of so-called social deprivation. I realise that, with bus companies, there is an issue with funding, but I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of mankind to work this one out.

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 22 in the name of my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do so because, in simple terms, it seems logical and sensible to go to what we could describe as the Beeching bus routes. They obviously had sense and users at the time. It seems a logical place to stop, alight from the vehicle and consider how they could be brought back into being. When the Minister responds, will he agree that when considering the cost of not having such bus routes, that cost should be measured economically and also socially, environmentally and psychologically, not least the impact on the mental well-being of that local area?

My Lords, in this group we are debating one of the principal means by which local transport authorities can intervene in existing provision in order to change it. They would change it by the use of socially necessary routes and networks. That potentially means that it has very powerful ripples in how the rest of the market operates. I have a number of amendments in this group. In my Amendment 24, I take the opportunity to keep hammering away at demand-responsive transport as a potentially important way forward in trying to ensure that local transport authorities consider demand-responsive services, not simply fixed-route services, as means of meeting social necessity and social need. Again, this is an important point that is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bill, so I have inserted it here as a means of meeting social need, which it must be. Surely anyone who thinks about this for a moment must regard demand-responsive transport as simply being something that whoever drafted the Bill just forgot about. Anyone who understands transport and how it operates nowadays must realise that that has to have its place in the Bill, not least in relation to socially necessary routes. My Amendment 25 considers a different angle and concerns competition in the market. How are the contracts for these socially necessary routes to be awarded, and to what extent will they effectively allow large operators to lever off existing resources to exclude smaller operators entering the market? No consideration is given to these market issues in the Bill. It is simply assumed that with the state in charge, everything will be absolutely fine. That might be so if you had a completely communist system where all the buses belonged to the Government and nobody was allowed to run a competing service, but that is not what we will have as a result of the Bill. We will have a mixed system, and the effects of the big beast, which is the state throwing itself around the room, on the rest of the market system need to be considered, and it seems that no thought has been given to them. This is one of the areas where those effects might be biggest. My final amendment, Amendment 29, goes to the heart of the problem that this Bill presents us with, which is that socially necessary routes are possible only if somebody is going to pay for them, and there is no funding in this Bill. Of course, I would not expect a funding package to be in the Bill itself, nor am I proposing that one is inserted into it. My amendment does not do that, but it requires reports on the funding that is being made available for these socially necessary routes. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no promise of funding for this. The £1 billion that was allocated in the October Budget—£750 million to local authorities and £250 million directly to bus companies—is spent. A much larger amount is going to be needed if these provisions are going to have any real effect. Of course I know that a spending review is happening and that the Minister will not be able today to pre-empt it, but unless he addresses these issues head on and give some sense to the Committee and your Lordships’ House on Report that there is real money behind this, he is simply holding out a bogus prospectus to the public. That is why I have tabled Amendment 29, so that the Government would be under an obligation to report on the money that they are making available to support socially necessary services. I think that is the heart of the whole thing in this group, and I hope that the Minister has more to say about it than he was able to say at Second Reading.

My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendments 26, 27 and 28, which have been tabled by the Government. A review of enhanced partnerships is under way and is due to conclude in the summer. The objective is to identify areas of improvement to deliver a better minimum standard of bus services across the country. Amendment 26 supports improvements to enhance partnerships designed to enable the enhanced partnership scheme to include a broader set of measures that are directed at improving services generally across the entire local area—for example, setting consistent reliability targets across the entire area rather than on specific routes. Amendment 27 supports the improvement of enhanced partnerships and relates to situations where a local transport authority develops interventions, such as bus lanes and traffic light priority. Where these interventions result in direct and indirect savings to bus operators, it will now be possible for local transport authorities and operators to include measures in the enhanced partnership scheme requiring this additional revenue to be reinvested. This will support the delivery of the bus service improvement plan objectives and improvements for passengers and ensure that the reduction in operating costs is not entirely absorbed by bus operators as profit. The Government’s final amendment in this group is Amendment 28. Most enhanced partnerships have developed a bespoke variation process through which they can make changes to the scheme rather than rely on the variation process in the Transport Act 2000. However, there may be circumstances where this bespoke mechanism is not working for everyone. This amendment therefore provides local transport authorities with very limited circumstances where they can utilise the statutory variation provisions instead of the bespoke variation mechanism in the EP scheme to make changes to their scheme. The purpose of this amendment is to allow local transport authorities to make an application to the Secretary of State when an operator is acting unreasonably and has objected to a proposed variation that would be made under an existing bespoke variation mechanism in an EP scheme. If on application by the local transport authority the Secretary of State is satisfied that the variation cannot be made, due to unreasonable or obstructive behaviour by one or more operators, or that the variation would benefit the people using the local services, they can direct the parties to follow the statutory variation process instead. The measure is designed to provide some protection to local transport authorities to deal with deadlocks in partnership negotiations and to enable changes to local services that are in the best interests of the people who use them. Amendment 21 would alter the definition of socially necessary local services in the Bill to explicitly include entities that have a healthcare or educational aspect. I reassure noble Lords that the definition of “socially necessary local services” includes areas outside large towns and cities and that it includes local services that enable passengers to access essential goods and services. As such, the definition already encapsulates access to healthcare and schools, but I shall look further at what the noble Baroness has said on this matter. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for her Amendment 22, which looks back at services cancelled in the last 15 years to look at socially necessary services in the present and future. I recognise that there have been services recently discontinued that may be considered by a local transport authority as addressing the needs of some of the communities they serve. I shall take that away and look further at what we do in this respect. Amendment 22A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to ensure that when a local transport authority provides a tendered service, it receives the same level of protection as a commercial service. On the assumption that the reference to tendered services refers to services subsidised by the local transport authority, these already receive the same level of protection as other commercial services under this measure. Clause 12 does not differentiate between a tendered service and one provided on a commercial basis. If a local service is considered to be a socially necessary local service, Clause 12 requires the local transport authority to list it in their enhanced partnership plans, irrespective of whether it is tendered or purely commercial. On this basis, the amendment is unnecessary. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 23. This would have the effect that, where a socially necessary local service has been cancelled, the local authority will step in to provide a service when another bus operator cannot be found. It also sets out the implementation steps once the local authority establishes a replacement service. I reassure the noble Baroness that under Clause 12 when an operator wishes to cancel or amend a service, they will need to consider alternatives to mitigate any adverse effects of changes to such services. I point out that local transport 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. This is likely to include socially necessary local services. Clause 12 should result in additional transparency by identifying the socially necessary local services in enhanced partnership areas. This will provide the Government with additional information to inform decision-making around funding for local bus services. Local transport authorities have the best understanding of the needs of their local communities. Any additional obligations introduced through legislation would place an undue burden on local authorities and undermine their independence. I turn to Amendments 24, 25 and 29 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Amendment 24 proposes that demand responsive bus services be specifically considered as a measure for mitigating the possible adverse effects caused by the cancellation of a socially necessary local service. I consider that such considerations should be left to the local transport authority. The Bill sets out that enhanced partnership schemes must include requirements that apply when a socially necessary local service is cancelled or materially altered. These must include consideration of alternative options to mitigate the effects of a cancellation. This will include how demand-responsive bus services could be deployed. The purpose of Amendment 25 of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is to ensure that local transport authorities have regard to maintaining a competitive market. I believe this amendment to be unnecessary because there are existing legislative protections that will ensure that local transport authorities sufficiently consider the impact of their actions under this measure on the market. The decision about how to manage the local network rightly rests with the local transport authority. In making decisions around what measures to include in their enhanced partnership, local transport authorities will need to consider impacts on competition. Existing legislation also requires LTAs to consult with the Competition and Markets Authority when varying their enhanced partnership under the new clause. If the local transport authorities were to decide to set up a local authority-owned bus company or provide service subsidies to fill a service gap, there are wider legislative and regulatory frameworks that will apply and are sufficient.

17:15:00

Finally, Amendment 29 of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, recognises that it is important that local transport authorities know how much funding from central government is available to them and the criteria for its use. Funding allocations are already a matter of public record, and the noble Lord will recall that we have debated the criteria under which government applies funding to all local transport authorities, for the first time for buses, with more flexibility than previously allowed in how to spend the money. The Bill is all about giving local transport authorities choices, and this includes greater flexibility to develop a bus grant and allocate it where it feels it is best needed. This is the intention behind Clause 16.

The noble Lord is right, of course, that future funding will be determined through the spending review process, but, as remarked previously, the Government are keen to ensure that local transport authorities have the ability to look forward and, hence, give a more stable funding scenario for local bus services than has applied in recent times.

I thank the Minister for his response and for the fact that he said he would look further at the detail in Amendment 21. On that basis, I hope we can meet to tease out some of those details, and I therefore withdraw Amendment 21.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Amendments 22 to 25 not moved.

Clause 12 agreed.

Amendments 26 to 28

Moved by

26: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause— “Measures specified in schemes(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) In section 138A(6)(b) (contents of schemes), for the words from “routes in” to “local services” substitute “local services in the whole or part of that area”.(3) In section 138D(2)(a) (measures specified in scheme), omit “serving the routes” (in both places).”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment widens the measures that can be taken by a local transport authority under an enhanced partnership scheme so that they can relate to any local services in the area concerned.

27: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause— “Passenger benefit requirementIn section 138C of the Transport Act 2000 (requirements in respect of local services), for subsection (9) substitute—“(9) The requirements that may be specified in an enhanced partnership scheme also include requirements—(a) as to operators of local services establishing and operating arrangements that facilitate the operation of the scheme;(b) that persons using local services in the area to which the scheme relates benefit from any reduction in the cost of operating those services that results from facilities provided or measures taken by—(i) the Secretary of State,(ii) a local transport authority, or(iii) any other person exercising functions of a public nature.””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment allows an enhanced partnership scheme to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers in return for public expenditure on facilities or measures that will reduce operating costs.

28: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause— “Variation of schemesAfter section 138K of the Transport Act 2000 insert—“138KA Variation where scheme includes provision under section 138E(1) A variation of an enhanced partnership scheme may not be made under section 138K in a case to which subsection (2) of this section applies unless—(a) the Secretary of State has directed the authority or authorities concerned to make the variation, or(b) the variation is one that the authority or authorities are required to make bysection 12(4)(b) of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025.(2) This subsection applies to any case specified in the scheme as one in which the scheme may be varied in accordance with the scheme (see section 138E).(3) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section only if, on an application made by the authority or authorities, the Secretary of State is satisfied that—(a) the variation cannot be made in accordance with the scheme because of unreasonable or obstructive behaviour by one or more operators of local services, or (b) persons using local services in the area to which the scheme as varied will relate will benefit from the variation of the scheme.(4) A direction under this section does not affect the application of the other requirements that must be met before the scheme can be varied under section 138K.””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment provides that where an enhanced partnership scheme can be varied in accordance with the scheme, a variation can be made under section 138K only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that operators have behaved unreasonably or obstructively or that the variation or revocation will benefit users of local services.

Amendments 26 to 28 agreed.

Amendment 29 not moved.

Clauses 13 to 15 agreed.

Clause 16: Grants

Amendments 30 to 33 not moved.

Clause 16 agreed.

Clause 17 agreed.

Clause 18: Information about local services

Debate on whether Clause 18 should stand part of the Bill.

My Lords, I move that Clause 18 do not stand part of the Bill. I also wish to move that Clause 19 do not stand part of the Bill and, with your Lordships’ permission, I will speak briefly to both clause stand part notices at the same time and once only. Clauses 18 and 19 are concerned with information that is to be extracted from local transport authorities but also from bus operating companies. I am perfectly happy with the notion that we should try to have as much information in the public domain as possible, and of course I do not intend—as I think noble Lords will understand—that these clauses should disappear entirely. This is a probing amendment, so to speak, to try to find out exactly what the Government think they are doing in this regard. I will speak very briefly to them. First, quite a lot of the information being sought here, not least on the costs of particular routes and the revenues per route, would be commercially sensitive and belong to a particular company. The fact that Clause 19 allows that to be published in the name of the company is significant. These companies may well be operating a route for a particular local transport authority and another route in an adjacent area, very close by, in an entirely commercial sense. The information sought of them can have real commercial consequences. Nothing here assures me that the Government are respecting companies’ entitlement to have their commercial information protected in what they propose. There are some difficulties in requiring this information. Having had a long association with the board of Transport for London, I am trying to think of a bus route in London where TfL could produce its cost and the revenue from it just like that. That is not entirely how bus services operate normally. Perhaps revenues do, but costs come down to a lot of questions about allocations that can be highly contentious. Quite apart from the difficulty of extracting this information, the main purpose in these two Motions that the clauses do not stand part of the Bill relates to the protection of commercial confidentiality, to which private companies are entitled. There are circumstances in which one can imagine private companies choosing not to bid because their existing business would be threatened by the information they would be required to produce about particular routes. It is important that the Government should be clear about their intentions, what they expect and how they will protect that information, before we proceed with these clauses as drafted.

I was rather surprised to see these latest amendments, which seek to remove whole clauses from the Bill.

They are probing.

If I can continue without being heckled, I am assured that they are probing and that the noble Lord does not want to see these clauses completely removed. He has raised an interesting point about commercially sensitive data. As we know, in running a transport network, data and information are absolutely crucial and transparency is key. All this helps us improve services, so I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response, particularly around commercial sensitivity.

My Lords, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on Clauses 18 and 19. On Clause 18, there is currently no one single source of information for passengers about bus service registrations or similar information about services that operate outside traffic commissioner-administered areas. Information on local bus services is fragmented, and this clause seeks to improve this state of affairs. As such, it enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring franchising authorities to submit information about services operating in their areas. This information will be similar to that provided on the registration of a service with the traffic commissioner, and it will be provided to the Secretary of State. Together with Clause 17, Clause 18 lays the groundwork for a new central database of registration information, bus open data and information about services operating outside traffic commissioner-administered areas. This will provide passengers with a single source of information about local services. It is important to clarify that this provision does not reinstate the requirement for franchised services to be registered with a traffic commissioner. Rather, it provides the power to require franchising authorities to provide information to the Secretary of State, thereby enabling its inclusion in the new central database. In addition, Clause 18 broadens the categories of data that the Secretary of State may collect regarding local services and the vehicles used to operate them. This power extends to gathering information from franchising authorities concerning franchised services and allows the department to collect additional data aimed at improving transparency within the sector. It might be said that the clause would answer the earlier intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about whether all buses actually conform to the PSVAR regulations and, therefore, it would be useful in that respect, too. Crucially, Clause 18 also empowers the Secretary of State to collect data that will support the monitoring of local service operator performance and assist in the effective exercise of ministerial functions. That might include, for example, information relating to the costs associated with operating a service and the number of staff involved in its operation. I hope that explanation is sufficient to allow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to withdraw his opposition to the inclusion of the clause. On the noble Lord’s opposition to the inclusion of Clause 19, the clause works in tandem with Clause 18 to support greater public transparency, and thus accountability, over local bus services. While Clause 18, in part, provides for greater information collection going forward, Clause 19 ensures that equivalent historical information already held by the department can be published. The clause achieves this by amending the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 to insert two new sections to enable the publication of existing operator-level bus data. It also provides for the Secretary of State to give notice to industry prior to the publication of such data. Section 9 of the Statistics of Trade Act requires the consent of individual undertakings before information identifying them can be published. The newly inserted Section 9B disapplies Section 9 of the 1947 Act in relation to information about relevant local services that has been collected under Section 1 of that Act from PSV operators’ licence holders, or their representatives. This disapplication applies during a qualifying period, beginning on 1 May 2015 and lasting until the day when this clause of the Bill comes into force. Disapplying the requirements in Section 9 will allow the department to publish operator-level information collected during the qualifying period, even in cases where consent cannot reasonably be obtained from the large number of individual operators concerned. That point is crucial. The requirement to obtain consent from each individual operator would result in inconsistent data provision. This, in turn, would mean some communities not having access to the same level of information about local bus services as others, or indeed equivalent information for all services within a single community. The newly inserted Section 9C requires the Secretary of State to publish a notice specifying the information intended for publication at least 30 days in advance, and further details the locations where such notices must be published. These provisions will enable the timely and transparent publication of operator-level bus data, improving access to information while maintaining appropriate safeguards. Although the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is of course right that in a commercial undertaking, this information might be considered commercially confidential, it is also essential for the local transport authority representing the users of these services to be able to access such information in order correctly to plan bus services in their areas, for the benefit of all the people who live there. That is the justification for this clause, so I hope he will accept it and withdraw his opposition to it.

I did not hear anything in what the Minister said that remotely addressed the question of commercial confidentiality. The practical effect of this Bill is likely to be that some areas, possibly quite few, take up franchising as an option, while others continue with enhanced bus partnerships. One or two may even set up a municipal bus company, although I doubt whether many will. The fact is that a great part of the bus services provided in this country will continue to be provided by private companies, very often on a commercial basis. The Government’s whole strategy depends on a healthy, prosperous, well-functioning private sector being able to continue. To treat it in this way, as if its commercial considerations were an afterthought, bodes very ill for the way the Government are approaching this topic.

17:30:00

I think the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is missing the point slightly. We talk about who is running the buses; people who see the way that Bee Network buses are run in Greater Manchester will unlock the questions that the noble Lord is asking. How do we get to rural routes? How do we cover the distances to schools? How do we go where the privatised bus companies will not, because the profit is not there? Where do you find the money to fill those gaps to make those routes work? If you bring the buses under your control, the profit that would go to big companies is reinvested. That then funds rural routes and routes to hospitals and schools and for the disadvantaged. It is a simple mathematical thing: instead of putting profits in the hands of share- holders, you put them in the hands of local authorities, which can then do exactly as the noble Lord wants, which is to run the buses profitably. It is a myth—people have seen what has happened in Greater Manchester and will happen in Yorkshire and other areas—that a transport authority with very little vision will decide that it is easier to go its own way than to deliver what is clearly a better, more punctual service, with better public satisfaction and cheaper fares. Those are the benefits of going down the road that we have taken in Manchester, and I hope the Bill enables other transport authorities to partake of it.

My Lords, I beg the Committee’s indulgence for a moment to respond to that magnificent expostulation of a classic Marxian view of the world. It is very hard to see how the noble Lord has found himself on the Liberal Democrat Benches when he believes that one has just to eliminate the profit for the surplus released to pay for everything you might want. The truth is that you need an awful lot of subsidy to run socially necessary services to places that have insufficient passengers to justify commercial services. Those subsidies are necessary, whether you release the modest profits that bus companies make or not. Most of the country relies on private bus operators. Manchester is a special case because of the density of the population. We rely on private bus services and those companies need to flourish. The Government are not remotely thinking about their interests; they are an afterthought. It bodes very ill for the future of bus services in this country that the Government are so inconsiderate of them.

My Lords, I feel compelled to respond to the last point.

The noble Lord has not finished his speech yet.

I will finish it by feeling compelled to respond to the last two interventions. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to his doubt that you could see the cost and revenue for each bus service in London; I beg to differ, because I was responsible for running the thing for 15 years. I absolutely assure him that we knew, to the nearest penny, the revenue and cost allocation for all the routes. That enabled us to provide a broadly acceptable service, in very different circumstances, over the considerably varied area of Greater London. I also assure the noble Lord that that knowledge is collected by any responsible bus operator in the rest of Britain. The point is that it ought to be available to local transport authorities which are keen to offer comprehensive bus services in circumstances where a number of bus operators do so. Many of them are not competed against by others, because they cannot match their comprehensive standards. That means that the local transport authority does not have the information to understand what might be substituted in its place for communities that have a very poor service. I defend both these clauses very strongly. I think good information about this is absolutely necessary. This is not about selling biscuits or buckets; it is about providing public services for people in this country who wish to go about their business and go to work, school, hospitals and other places.

Clause 18 agreed.

Clause 19: Information obtained under Statistics of Trade Act 1947

Clause 19 agreed.

Clause 20 agreed.

Clause 21: Local transport authority byelaws

Amendment 34 not moved.

Clause 21 agreed.

Clause 22: Safety and accessibility of stopping places

Amendments 35 to 43 not moved.

Amendments 44 and 45

Moved by

44: Clause 22, page 24, line 22, leave out from “assist” to “at” in line 23 and insert “with the positioning of a public service vehicle being used to provide a local service” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment amends the definition of “facilities” so that it captures facilities provided to assist with the positioning of both automated and non-automated public service vehicles.

45: Clause 22, page 24, line 27, at end insert— ““public service vehicle” has the same meaning as in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (see section 1 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment inserts a definition of “public service vehicle” into the clause.

Amendments 44 and 45 agreed.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 45A not moved.

Clause 23 agreed.

Clause 24: Training about crime and anti-social behaviour

Amendment 46 not moved.

Debate on whether Clause 24 should stand part of the Bill.

My Lords, at Second Reading I expressed very serious concerns about part of Clause 24. In opposing the clause standing part of the Bill, my approach has been not to rewrite what the Government have proposed in the Bill—and therefore to provide them with an alternative policy—but to ask them seriously to consider and explain their current policy as it stands in the Bill. To that extent, this is like my previous clause stand part probing notices. But, on this particular issue, it is very clear that we are likely to come back on Report with specific amendments to change the text of the Bill, unless we hear something that explains it more satisfactorily than it has been so far. My understanding is that Clause 24 inserts into the Transport Act 2000 a new obligation on the holders of PSV operators’ licences in relation to training. I have no objection at all to the idea that there should be an obligation to train staff, and I have no objection to Clause 25, which has a similar sort of effect but relates to training about disability. All of that is to the good. My specific concern is with subsection (2) of what would be new Section 144F in the Transport Act 2000, where the training requirement under consideration is specified as: “the person has completed training the aim of which is to assist the person to identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”— that, after all, is a large number of criminal offences— “and … anti-social behaviour, within the meaning given by … the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003”. The person to whom this is directed can be only the driver of the bus, as buses run with one person operating them almost exclusively in this country. So the driver of the bus is expected to be trained, and the public are encouraged to think that the driver of the bus will be trained, to a point where they can “identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences … and … anti-social behaviour”. That potentially places a burden on bus drivers that is wholly inappropriate, given their role and their salary, and given that they will almost certainly be on their own on that bus when something happens. Many of the incidents that one can easily envisage would be encompassed by this training would be incidents that, as I said at Second Reading, the Metropolitan Police Force or another police force would respond to with one, two or three uniformed officers. Yet the implication is that a bus driver on their own will be able to “identify, respond appropriately to and, where possible, prevent … criminal offences … and … anti-social behaviour”. The Minister well understands bus operations—that goes without saying—more perhaps than any other Minister who might come here would understand them, but he cannot seriously mean what it says in the Bill. It is possible that he will say, “Oh no, you must misunderstand—when we talk about training and identifying, that is all really so that the drivers know how to report it to the appropriate people”. They have radios and they can communicate to their higher operator and the police, and things like that—and that is the appropriate response that we would be talking about here. But that is not what the words say; they say “where possible, prevent”, which goes a great deal beyond simply telling a bus driver to operate responsibly and take note of what is going on. I am utterly baffled by what the Government are considering here, how it would work in practice and how these words are appropriate in this Bill. Something should and could be included, I agree, about training drivers so that they can identify, respond to and take account of this sort of behaviour, which is sadly all too common on buses nowadays. But the words as they stand put bus drivers in a completely impossible position. Apart from anything else, it would make recruitment very difficult indeed.

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

I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that I completely agree with his sentiment, but I think that he has misunderstood what this clause seeks to achieve. There is absolutely no intention whatever that, as a result of this clause, drivers or other staff should be asked to put themselves at risk.

17:45:00

There are two sorts of actions you can take in circumstances in which criminal acts and anti-social behaviour are about to take place, are taking place or have taken place. The clause responds to recent research undertaken by the department, which found that one-third of public transport users had witnessed assaults or harassment while travelling, and around one in five had been physically or verbally assaulted or harassed. That is completely unacceptable.

There are two sorts of actions that a bus driver can take. First, in appropriate circumstances, while remaining safe in the cab and not getting out—and I agree that is entirely the wrong thing to do, as is a standard part of bus driver training—there are things you can say and do which may help deflect or modify others’ behaviour on the bus. One of the intentions of this clause is to equip drivers with the understanding of what to say when that might happen in order that, if it works, a situation is defused.

The second action is about reporting it, particularly reporting it in real-time so that the appropriate help can be summoned. I can speak about this from personal knowledge, because it is only at the end of last summer that I did my five-day Driver Certificate of Professional Competence training with a number of other drivers online, as is the modern way. We had a long and very interesting discussion about what should be done when these things happen. Some drivers thought that the only thing they needed to do was to report it after it occurred, when actually they are equipped to intervene—not physically—at the time when it is occurring. This is making it clear that such training as is necessary ought to be given to drivers so they all know consistently what should be done in these circumstances. I strongly believe it is a good thing to do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred earlier to some training she had witnessed which was not very satisfactory. The last set of training that I did was extremely satisfactory, and it was very interesting to discuss with bus drivers, who had either experienced threats of violence themselves or had it on their bus, what should be done. It was interesting how great a variation there was in what they thought they should do. Some drivers thought the best method was to keep well out of the way—do nothing and say nothing. That is not satisfactory for bus passengers.

While it is possible to draw the wrong conclusions from this clause, the right conclusion is to have proper guidance about the right training so that all bus drivers can be properly equipped to know what they can do safely for themselves and others in these circumstances. There is such training available—I have had some—but it is not consistently available across the country, and this clause seeks to make it so.

The Minister suggested that I had misunderstood the clause and then gave an explanation of it that sounds very reasonable—and one could probably go along with it. The reason why I have misunderstood the clause is, quite frankly, that it does not say in words in the Bill what the noble Lord said. For example, there is no consideration given to telling the driver to conduct himself safely. The words could be quite easily amended to express what the Minister said, which is what this particular paragraph does not do. I hope that the Minister will feel able to indicate on Report either that the Government will table new wording that will express what he just said much better—I think that would be the better option—or that he would be willing to accept wording drafted by the Opposition that sought to do the same thing. It would be better if the Government came forward with their own wording. It cannot be accepted that this wording stands in the Bill when the interpretation of what it means is so very different from what might be called the natural language interpretation of what stands here.

Clause 24 agreed.

Clauses 25 and 26 agreed.

Clause 27: Use of zero-emission vehicles for registered local services in England

Amendment 47

Moved by

47: Clause 27, page 29, line 36, at end insert— “(4A) Local transport authorities must ensure that, in the implementation of this section—(a) the availability, affordability, and reliability of local passenger transport services are not adversely affected,(b) passengers in all areas, including rural and underserved regions, continue to have access to essential services, and(c) sufficient support is provided to bus operators to enable compliance with zero-emission requirements while maintaining service quality.(4B) Before implementing any changes to local service provision under this section, local transport authorities must—(a) assess the potential impact of such changes on passenger services, and(b) consult with operators, passenger groups, and other relevant stakeholders to ensure minimal disruption to service accessibility and affordability.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment places a duty on local transport authorities to ensure that the transition to zero-emission vehicles does not compromise passenger service availability, reliability, or affordability. It also requires LTAs to consult stakeholders and assess the impact of such changes.

My Lords, a small number of amendments here in my name relate to zero-emission buses. I am concerned that the requirement for them is being imposed with excessive harshness and cliff-edge characteristics upon the bus industry. Amendment 47A, which I will talk about first, creates a form of exemption —a continuation that local transport authorities can put in place, particularly for rural services and in locations where battery-powered buses would be inappropriate because the distance that the rural service is running might be more than it could sustain. Generally, it might be appropriate in some rural areas to continue running diesel or hybrid buses for a further period beyond the cut-off that the Government envisage. That would be a relaxation of the requirement and would be welcomed in many parts of the country. Amendment 47 provides a similar consideration on a broader basis—again, I am not being excessively harsh about all this. Amendment 48A requires the Government to justify their policy on public health grounds by publishing data in relation to the sorts of improvements —particularly air-quality and noise-pollution improvements —that they expect to achieve, for the travelling public and local people, with the changes that they envisage in relation to net-zero buses. It would be helpful if the Government could take an approach that was a little less ideological and more tailored to what might suit particular areas and populations. I beg to move.

Amendment 48 is a small but important amendment picking up on a potential anomaly within the Bill. It is something that Baroness Randerson flagged with us before Christmas. The Bill is clear that it wants to see cleaner zero-emission buses providing bus services across the country, and that is something that I would have thought the majority of noble Lords would support. However, this requirement does not seem to cover mayoral combined authorities. This amendment, therefore, seeks clarification from the Government on whether the provisions of new Section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles also apply to mayoral combined authorities. If not, this amendment should be agreed to ensure that every authority is covered. Transport is a significant contributor to pollution in the UK. In 2021, transport was responsible for producing 26% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions, and the majority of those emissions come from road vehicles, which account for 91% of domestic transport emissions. Getting more cars off the road and more people using quality bus services is essential, as is ensuring that those bus services are as environmentally friendly and zero-emission as possible. I hope that the Minister can provide clarity in this area and put on record today clarification about the subsection at the bottom of page 29, which states: “The date specified under subsection (2)(b) may not be before 1 January 2030”. Those I have been talking to in the bus industry are concerned and I think are misunderstanding what is meant by this. Some clarity on the record would be helpful for all concerned.

My Lords, these amendments cover zero-emission buses, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, have rightly said. The restriction on the use of new non-zero emission buses will not take effect any earlier than 1 January 2030, but the clause places a restriction on the use only of new buses. The noble Baroness is right to raise this issue; I myself have heard some misapprehension about what this actually means. It is about new vehicles, and the flexibility to determine when to replace diesel buses with new electric buses will remain, because if the date were to be 1 January 2030, all vehicles in service on 31 December 2029 would be able to carry on in service. I will shorten the speech I have been given because it replicates some arguments about the use of electric vehicles, but it is common ground between all those who have spoken on this issue today that the operation of zero-emission buses is a really good thing. I do not think we need a complete assessment from local transport authorities. The important point that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made is that there are circumstances in which there can be some further exemptions. In fact, the Bill already provides for the Secretary of State exempting certain vehicle types or routes from the restriction. That is the proposed amendment to the Transport Act 2000, new Section 151A (3)(c), which states: “The Secretary of State may by regulations … specify local services or descriptions of local service in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply”. There is a considerable flexibility here, in particular the recognition that there may still be services where zero-emission buses at the date at which the Secretary of State sets may not for some reason be capable of operation. However, I hope the noble Lord recognises, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, does, that this is generally seeking to do the right thing in respect of air quality and local bus services. Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, probes the scope of Clause 27. I understand and am sympathetic to the concerns she raises. The clause will apply to mayoral combined authorities but as drafted, it will not apply to franchised bus services within such areas. I offer assurance that the Government are actively looking into potential options to address this. I hope to return on Report with an update and, were I to need to speak to the noble Baroness, I hope she would be happy if I did so.

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and I am glad he acknowledged that there are areas of concern. We may want to return to this, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Amendments 47A to 48A not moved.

Clause 27 agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.59 pm.