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

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Sir Roger Gale, Carolyn Harris, Sir Edward Leigh, † Dame Siobhain McDonagh, Sir Desmond Swayne

† Aquarone, Steff (North Norfolk) (LD)

† Berry, Siân (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)

† Conlon, Liam (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)

† Dearden, Kate (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)

Egan, Damien (Bristol North East) (Lab)

Gardner, Dr Allison (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)

† Hack, Amanda (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)

† Hall, Sarah (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)

Kohler, Mr Paul (Wimbledon) (LD)

† Lightwood, Simon (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)

† Mayer, Alex (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)

† Myer, Luke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)

† Newbury, Josh (Cannock Chase) (Lab)

† Race, Steve (Exeter) (Lab)

† Robertson, Joe (Isle of Wight East) (Con)

† Smith, Rebecca (South West Devon) (Con)

Simon Armitage and Adam Evans, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Clause 30

Safety and accessibility of stopping places

Amendment proposed (1 July): 40, in clause 30, page 32, line 6, leave out “may” and insert “must”.—(Jerome Mayhew.)

11:30:00

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment 29, in clause 30, page 32, line 9, at end insert— “including their safety on pavements and crossings on routes to, from and between stopping places in both directions of the routes, (aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers, (ab) providing clear and accessible information, including real-time information, about services calling at stopping places and in the wider area,”. This amendment would require guidance relating to stopping places issued by the Secretary of State to include consideration of the provision of toilet facilities and travel information, as well as to promote the safety of people using pavements and crossings near the stopping places. Amendment 41, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, after “comfort” insert “without having to cross a cycle track to board the bus or continue their journey after alighting”. This amendment would extend the purpose of the guidance issued by the Government to include enabling disabled people to travel without having to cross a cycle track in order to board a bus, or once they have alighted. Amendment 42, in clause 30, page 32, line 14, delete “may” and insert “must”. This amendment would require any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to include the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places. Amendment 65, in clause 30, page 32, line 16, at end insert— “(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”. This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place. Amendment 60, in clause 30, page 32, line 30, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take reasonable steps to implement.” This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented. Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert— “(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if— (a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and (b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure. (6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.” This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published. Amendment 55, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert— “(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1). (6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.” This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Amendment 30, in clause 30, page 33, line 3, after “place” insert “from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route”. Amendment 31, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, after “the” insert “information and”. Clause stand part. Amendment 44, in clause 31, page 34, line 17, at end insert— “(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.” This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. Clause 31 stand part. Amendment 45, in clause 32, page 34, line 24, at end insert— “(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders. (1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.” This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. Clause 32 stand part. New clause 11—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders— “(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders. (2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law. New clause 12—Prohibition of new floating bus stops— “(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England. (2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals. New clause 13—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops— “(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England. (2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England. New clause 40—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of— (a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance; (b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards. (3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe. New clause 47—Prohibition on new floating bus stops and proposals to retrofit existing stops— “(1) No local authority may construct any new floating bus stops after the day on which this Act is passed. (2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review all existing floating bus stops to identify changes that need to be made to adapt such stops in line with fully accessible, inclusive-by-design principles. (3) Following the review, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement which outlines— (a) the changes which will need to be made to existing floating bus stops; (b) the steps the Secretary of State will take to make the required changes; and (c) the guidance which will be provided to local authorities on how to retrofit existing floating bus stops.”

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, especially as this is my first time speaking in a Bill Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you so much, everyone. Few issues are more important to people than bus services generally and the accessibility of bus services and buses, which is at the core of clauses 30 and 31. Indeed, few topics come up more often when I talk to residents on the doorstep. It is often residents with the most highest needs who rely on the bus network; that includes our neighbours who are blind, who are partially sighted or who have other sight issues. Ensuring that our buses are accessible and safe for everyone is incredibly important. I welcome those in the Public Gallery who are here to listen to the debate. I thank them for raising important issues of accessibility, especially as they relate to so-called floating bus stops. As safe cycling infrastructure is rolled out to encourage more people out of cars and on to bikes and scooters for valid environmental, health and fitness reasons, in some places we are essentially fitting a third transport network into the existing two: cycle infrastructure is being added to motor vehicle and pedestrian infrastructure. That is challenging to get right and is relatively new, so it is right that the Government are looking at how it is designed so that it works for everyone. Some people like floating bus stops; some people hate them. Some floating bus stops work well, while others are poorly designed. Some simply do not work for anyone—not pedestrians, not bus users and not cyclists. As a cyclist myself, I am acutely aware of that. We have a new floating bus stop on Rifford Road in Exeter. Although some residents in the local area have praised the design, others have raised concerns about it to me. I am pleased that the Government have listened carefully to the discussion about floating bus stops, generally and in the other place, and have heard people’s very real concerns. In accepting Lord Blunkett’s amendment on the matter, the Government committed to issuing guidance on the design of floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent. I welcome that and hope that interested groups will be able to feed into the process. There is a particular issue with the design of one type of floating bus stop, such that passengers alight or disembark from the bus directly on to the cycle track. I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to a pause on that specific type of infrastructure, which applies to any in England that are currently in the design phase. I also welcome the fact that the Government are taking cyclists’ behaviour seriously. Although the vast majority of cyclists obey the rules and are respectful of others, the proposed new penalties and offences for dangerous cycling in the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that a signal is sent to all cyclists about safe cycling behaviour. I believe that that will ensure that the tiny minority of cyclists who recklessly disregard others will face the full force of the law. Overall, I believe that the clauses that we are considering are a welcome compromise. I hope that they will lead to more work to ensure that cyclists and pedestrians, including people who are blind or visually impaired, can avoid designed-in conflict. I do not believe that this issue is fundamentally insoluble. We must be able to find a way to deliver protected cycle lanes where necessary for people, including children, to cycle safely, while also allowing people to embark on and alight from buses very safely and securely.

May I apologise to members of the public in the Gallery? When I was chairing on Tuesday, I made the point that I would announce Members and their party, for people in the Gallery who are visually impaired. Our last contributor was Steve Race, the Labour MP for Exeter. I call Siân Berry, the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will speak primarily about my amendments 29 to 31, but I will also say a few words about clause 31. Amendment 29 would amend clause 30(1), which concerns the guidance for stopping places for bus stops. It is a very good clause, but my amendment would ensure that the Bill specifies additional information to be included in the guidance so that it is truly comprehensive as to what bus users need at a bus stop. It includes reference to safe and accessible travel to and from bus stops in the surrounding area, not just accessibility from the bus stop to the bus, as well as reference to toilet facilities for both passengers and drivers. It aims to ensure that clear information is set out, including standards written into the guidance for real-time bus information. If my amendment is not agreed to, I would appreciate some reassurance from the Minister that those issues will be considered in the guidance. There is a strong case for ensuring that the guidance covers them. Additionally, I support amendments 40 and 42, which would usefully replace “may” with “must” in respect of the guidance. In ensuring safe and accessible travel to and from bus stops, it is important that we ensure that people can get to them across things like junctions or main roads that are difficult to cross. People often need to be able to get from the bus stop where they get off to one on the other side of the road to get the bus back. In almost every case, they will need to cross the road that the buses use, so that they can switch directions. An accessible route across the road between two bus stops is an essential component of accessible travel, and it needs looking at in the guidance. I have a very long history of work on toilets, from my time in the London Assembly. That is primarily down to my former colleague Caroline Russell, who is still in the London Assembly advocating for the issue. The cross-party transport committee in the London Assembly, which at the time was led by a Conservative, published a great report called “Driven to Distraction”, which has been submitted as written evidence. It sets out various issues that bus drivers face—pressure, fatigue and all sorts of things that I will address later. Recommendation 5 in the report makes it very clear that the need to use a toilet is an issue for many drivers. We have many more female drivers with serious pressures on them, particularly if they have their period. We also have some older drivers who may experience difficult issues in trying to access toilets while they work. Making sure that drivers have access to toilets is very important. I also draw Members’ attention to the written evidence from Lorraine Robertson, a veteran bus driver. She has worked with other bus drivers to put together what she calls the bill of rights for bus drivers, which contains the right to a clean, serviced toilet and rest facilities on all bus routes. That is incredibly important. Other work done by the London Assembly, including by my former colleague Caroline Russell, includes highlighting the loo deserts that exist on the tube network. It is very easy for an individual London Assembly member to gather information on that; they simply have to ask Transport for London. However, it is much harder to gather such information on bus stops and bus routes, which is one reason why I am trying to put a requirement into the Bill. The fact that someone can travel for half an hour or more on the tube with no toilet services available was instrumental in persuading the Mayor of London to start correcting the situation. He has adopted a goal that sets out a maximum travel time before there is access to a toilet near or inside a tube station. Ministers should consider having a standard for a maximum travel time on buses before there is access to a loo, for the benefit both of drivers and of passengers. I think that the Mayor of London has adopted a standard of something like 20 minutes. When we think about bus routes in smaller towns and cities, access to a public toilet within 20 minutes of travel time is not an onerous thing to make local transport authorities pay attention to. On information, I refer hon. Members to the “Better Bus Stops” report by the Campaign for Better Transport, which has done extensive research into what is needed for bus stops. The report talks about having things like toilets at all interchanges. The campaign is very clear that real-time information is incredibly important, but currently there is no national standard. In Brighton and Hove, at Preston Park station, the real-time information for people disembarking from trains, telling them when the next bus is arriving at the nearest bus stop, is out of action because the bus company and the council are switching to a new system. It would be really good for the Government to start laying out standards for a good bus stop and good real-time information, and for local transport authorities to start adopting a common system that can stay in action instead of being switched around when contracts change. Those would all be real improvements to clause 30 that the Minister should consider. Amendment 30 would amend clause 30(7) by adding to the definition of “facilities” information about access to a bus stop in the nearby area. That would make it a bit clearer that that information is part of the facilities around bus stops, to make them more accessible. I have received some correspondence from campaigners who are in the room today asking that my amendment 30 be withdrawn. I just want to clear up a slight misunderstanding. The amendment does not refer specifically to crossings across cycle lanes or anything to do with floating bus stops. As I have said before, it is primarily about ensuring that bus passengers can reach their return stop accessibly, but also that they can cross nearby junctions. That is what the amendment refers to. On clause 31, I would like to add some words of support. I am very persuaded by some examples that I have been shown by campaigners, particularly about shared borders, which I understand that Ministers are now reconsidering have any support for at all in the guidance. I have also seen some very bad examples of inadequate traffic islands and crossing facilities for floating bus stops. I have heard very convincing testimony about the guidance on the placing of zebra crossings across cycle lanes. When bus stops are used by multiple routes, buses are often unable to stop at the place where people might expect; the bus will sometimes have to stop much further back, and it really does create confusion, so real thought needs to be put into the guidance. By and large, clause 31 is very good as it stands, but we should feed learning into it on an ongoing basis. That is best done through guidance, not through a moratorium or by putting anything too specific into the Bill. It is important that it can be adjusted when learning arises from practice.

11:45:00

I support the amendments that would introduce reviews, record keeping and mapping. Some of that may be onerous, but maybe some money can be shifted in the same department from a couple of dual carriageways or bypasses to make it possible. The correct hierarchy of users of public transport and the streets needs to be maintained. If we put an absolute moratorium on floating bus stops to allow for continuous cycle lanes, that would involve more danger for cyclists. It might involve taking space away from cyclists to maintain space for vehicles, and that would not maintain the correct hierarchy of danger.

Am I right that the hon. Lady is suggesting that a partially sighted person or a disabled person is somehow lower down the hierarchy than a cyclist, simply because they are on a bus rather than walking or cycling?

Let me clarify. Absolutely not: the hierarchy starts with people who are on foot or wheeling, and it moves down, via cycling, with motor vehicles at the bottom. I would like to read out the evidence from the London Cycling Campaign. Its design solutions would ensure that the roads are safe, and many of them involve having extra space. The evidence sets out that “extra space could also mean wider pavements, better sightlines”, for cyclists who need to give way and “less fraught interactions at floating bus stops between different mode users.” The London Cycling Campaign argues that we should “ensure bus services, walking, wheeling and cycling all get appropriate priority and capacity in funding, design guidance and on the ground in terms of physical space. And that likely means being more willing to reduce space and priority for private motor vehicles in more locations.” That hierarchy is what I referred to. Where things are really difficult, it may be the right solution in a lot of cases to keep the bus on the main carriageway and make the other vehicles wait. However, that is for the design guidance. None of us is a traffic engineer—unless a Member wants to interrupt and point out that they are. That guidance must be produced in consultation with disabled people, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted, and it must also have the hierarchy in mind. Those designing the guidance should be much more willing to take space away from vehicles and to keep buses on the carriageway, if that is necessary to provide sufficient space to ensure that the roads are safe and accessible.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I rise to talk briefly about floating bus stops and therefore new clause 47. Floating bus stops exist not least to help with the flow of cyclists, and I support that aim, but they present challenges for the safety of pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities. As ever when it comes to sharing the highway, pavements, and areas in and around bus stops, everything is a balance. It is about satisfactorily mitigating the risk. The challenge with floating bus stops relates particularly to people with disabilities. Of course, cyclists have a responsibility not to hit people, and the vast majority of cyclists are safe users of roads and cycle lanes. Some people, not everyone, have a slightly old-fashioned—I might say ignorant—assumption that somebody with a disability will be very visible, and that it should be obvious to cyclists that they need to take special care. That is simply not the case. That is an old-fashioned, outdated and, as I say, in some cases ignorant view. Disabilities, including physical disabilities, can be very hard to identify. I would support the prohibition of new floating bus stops, and I support all the elements of new clause 47, which is about safety and about recognising the challenges, particularly for those with disabilities. We need to get this right. I urge the Government to support the new clause.

Perhaps I should declare an interest: tomorrow morning at 10.30 am, I will be having a meeting about floating bus stops with representatives from Transport for London outside Colliers Wood tube station. Should any Member wish to join me, they would be most welcome.

Given that this is a large group of amendments, and given the legitimate concerns of the Committee, stakeholders and disabled people, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for the length of the remarks that I am about to make. I will deal first with clauses 30 to 32 before moving to the amendments. Clause 30 will introduce a power for the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance covering the location, design, construction and maintenance of bus stopping places, for the purpose of promoting safety and facilitating the travel of disabled people. The goal is to ensure that all passengers can travel with confidence, and that bus stations and stops will meet their access needs and incorporate design features that promote their personal safety. Relevant local authorities and National Highways will be required to “have regard to” the guidance when commissioning new or when upgrading or maintaining existing infrastructure in England. A duty to “have regard to” guidance has been extensively considered by the courts and is a well understood legal concept. Local transport authorities will know that they must not simply read the guidance and ignore it; otherwise, their decision will be open to legal challenge. Although the duty is to “have regard”, it is expected that guidance will be followed unless there are good reasons not to do so. The Government intend that the guidance will support authorities to provide infrastructure that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use. That is why the clause requires the Secretary of State to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee when providing new guidance, changing it significantly or revoking it. Engagement with DPTAC and other groups representing disabled people will support the Department to understand the priorities and perspectives of disabled people with a range of impairment when developing the guidance. Members of the Committee may be aware that DPTAC fulfils a function as my Department’s statutory adviser on the needs of disabled transport users. Clause 31 requires the Secretary of State to publish statutory designed guidance on floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent, to which local authorities will be required to have regard when designing new floating bus stops or altering or removing existing ones. The guidance is already in draft and will reiterate the pause on shared use boarders, as well as providing advice to authorities on how to improve accessibility at other types of floating bus stops. To ensure that the voices of disabled people are heard and understood, the Department will also be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee on the guidance before publication. The guidance in clause 31 is separate from the statutory guidance on bus stopping places set out in clause 30, but the two documents will overlap. When that guidance is provided, we will ensure that they align. Clause 32 sets out requirements on demonstrating how authorities have had regard to the guidance about the safety and accessibility of stopping places in clause 30, and about floating bus stops in clause 31. The clause provides a power for the Secretary of State to request information from local authorities on stopping places provided by them and used by local services, including how they have had regard to the statutory guidance. This will enable the Government to better understand what progress has been made across England to ensure that bus stops and, where relevant, facilities in their vicinity are safe and accessible for all users. The information received can be published, and if the Secretary of State believes that an authority has not fulfilled its duty, they may publish a statement to that effect. This is intended to allow the Government to promote accountability and encourage compliance where they have been made aware of concerns. Local transport authorities can also be subject to judicial review if they do not have regard to the guidance. We will set out more details on how this process may work in developing the statutory guidance. Having addressed the three clauses, I want to make some general remarks in response to comments from members of the Committee. We recognise that this is about equality and the ability to make independent journeys confidently. We also recognise that more needs to be done to make these installations accessible to all, which is why the Government accepted amendments tabled in the other place that require us to produce statutory guidance and put in place reporting powers to promote accountability. That is why, alongside these legislative measures, the Government have decided to instigate a pause on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists. In the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail confirmed that the Government will set out details of this pause to local authorities. Of course, it is right that both Houses get to debate and scrutinise proposals on floating bus stops before this pause is instigated. My Department will reflect on the points raised during debates in this Committee, and in further debates on the Bill, before confirming its expectations. The Government are in listening mode, and this is the democratic way forward to ensure that different views are taken into account.

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

I will continue, and if I do not answer the hon. Member’s question fully, he is free to intervene and ask me once again, but I think I will give the reassurance that he requires. On the question of funding, we are also exploring further support for local authorities to retrofit existing sites, including the launch of the next consolidated active travel fund round, which will happen shortly. Remediation activities will be explicitly included in the scope of the fund for 2025-26. Local authorities are also encouraged to use a wide range of available funding, such as highways maintenance funding and new funding announced at the spending review, for any remediation works necessary to meet the new design guidance, when it is published. On a wider point, I remind the Committee that the Government are providing £1 billion in 2025-26 to support and improve bus services in England outside of London. That commitment was followed by the recent announcements in the spending review, with which the Government committed £900 million each year to maintain and improve vital bus services.

00:00:00

Will the Minister give way?

This is a very long response. I will make a little more progress.

It is on a point of clarification.

Go ahead.

On the budgets that the Minister just mentioned, was he clear that the money for retrofitting will come out of active travel funding, rather than bus services funding, or is it a bit of both?

A range of funding pots could be used for the remediation work. As I mentioned, the pause will focus on designs where passengers board and alight directly into a cycle track shared between pedestrians and cyclists. Research by University College London, commissioned by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, identified such layouts as particularly problematic. The hon. Member for Wimbledon specifically raised the question of auditing existing floating bus stops. Clause 32(1)(b) will place a duty on local authorities to respond to requests from the Secretary of State for information on stopping places. That power is broadly drafted and would allow the Secretary of State to ask for information about the number and location of floating bus stops provided by the authority. Transport for London has also undertaken a form of audit on its floating bus stops. We expect such audits to naturally form part of developing local funding programmes. However, my Department will ask local authorities to undertake that work, alongside setting out to them its expectation on the pause. We will work together with local authorities in a pragmatic way to collate information on floating bus stops. Much of the information is already held by local authorities, and I recognise that it is important to addressing this issue. Local authorities will be able to use a wide range of existing funding streams to audit floating bus stops in their areas. For example, the consolidated active travel fund includes capital and revenue elements that can be used for audits, early feasibility work and capital remediation schemes. I have heard the concerns of hon. Members about the behaviour of some cyclists. I am happy to set out my commitment to working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators in this space to support awareness raising through communication on this issue. On Report, I will return with further updates on the Government’s plans. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to enabling more people to walk, wheel and cycle. Good-quality segregated infrastructure is vital to making cycling safer. However, we must ensure that it is delivered in a way that keeps the public realm accessible for everyone. As I outlined, my Department and Active Travel England are focused on helping local authorities to implement change in a way that is more consistent and accessible, through research, awareness raising and good practice. Moving to the amendments, I will begin by discussing amendments 40 to 43. Amendment 40 would place a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to give guidance on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. Clause 30 as drafted gives the Secretary of State flexibility to issue guidance when it is appropriate and based on proper evidence, engagement and policy development. Replacing “may” with “must” in clause 30(1) would create a statutory obligation, impacting that discretion. Such a duty could risk forcing the premature publication of guidance, before the necessary consultation, or the gathering of evidence or stakeholder input, has been completed. That could lead to guidance that is incomplete, inconsistent and frankly unfit for purpose. I have already spoken about the requirement to consult DPTAC, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. That will ensure that any guidance developed is effective, proportionate and responsive to the needs of all passengers. I would like to reassure the Committee that this Government are committed to publishing guidance to ensure that stopping place infrastructure around the country is safer and more accessible to all. However, I am concerned that amendment 40 would frustrate, rather than support, our ability to ensure that the drafting works for all passengers.

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

We will have to agree to disagree on that, I am afraid. Amendment 41 seeks to extend the Secretary of State’s power to give guidance, including for the purpose of enabling disabled people to make journeys without the use of a floating bus stop. The intent would be to produce guidance that advises authorities to construct stopping places in a way that would enable people to travel without crossing a cycle track. Essentially, that means providing guidance to authorities that floating bus stops should not be installed and should, if already installed, be removed, where work in the scope of this guidance is undertaken. Authorities, as listed in clause 36, would then be required to have regard to the guidance. This Government do not believe that a complete ban on floating bus stops is appropriate, given the need to improve safety for cyclists and to enable more people to cycle. The requirement to publish statutory guidance, to which local authorities are required to have regard, will enable the Government to set out clearly what is expected of authorities in terms of making floating bus stops accessible. Amendment 42 would mandate that the Secretary of State “must” issue guidance, specifically about the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and facilities, and how authorities engage with others in relation to stopping places. The statutory guidance will cover a broad range of considerations in relation to stopping places including, as I said, location, design, construction and, where relevant, maintenance. By amending the clause to say that the Secretary of State must give guidance about certain characteristics of a stopping place, the amendment risks being overly prescriptive and would restrict the Secretary of State’s power to develop guidance informed by stakeholder engagement. Amendment 43 has two separate purposes. It seeks to ensure that relevant authorities, which have a duty to have regard to the guidance on safety and accessibility of stopping places, always comply with the recommendations of the guidance. The only exception to this would be where there are exceptional local circumstances not to do so, and only if authorities have obtained prior written approval from the Secretary of State. We expect that all relevant authorities will comply with their duty to have regard to guidance under clause 30. It is crucial, however, that authorities have the flexibility to apply those solutions that work best in each location and in individual circumstances. Without that flexibility, we risk preventing authorities from progressing infra-structure upgrades that might otherwise have been considered, rather than encouraging them to do so. Amendment 43 would also require the Secretary of State to make a judgment on a case-by-case basis as to what constitutes exceptional local circumstances. Given that those will differ in each case, that may be difficult to provide in a consistent manner. The amendment also seeks to introduce a statutory pause on the construction of floating bus stops and shared bus stop boarders. It would do this by requiring authorities that have a duty to have regard to the guidance under clause 30 not to proceed with construction of such stopping places until guidance on floating bus stops is issued by the Secretary of State under this clause. It is unclear how this amendment of clause 30 on the stopping place guidance and the floating bus stop guidance in clause 31 would relate to each other. The latter must be published no later than three months after Royal Assent, while the clause 30 guidance has a longer timetable, with no statutory deadline. In practice, that means that guidance on floating bus stops would be available in the short term, but not under clause 30. The practical effect of the amendment would be to negate the guidance under clause 31, because local authorities would not be able to use it. That would delay authorities’ ability to plan and carry out works to make floating bus stops more accessible. The amendment is disproportionate and, along with amendments 40 to 42, unnecessary. I turn to amendments 29 to 31 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Amendment 29 seeks to expand the purposes for which statutory guidance can be issued to include matters such as safety on pavements along the route, access to toilet facilities and real-time information, some of which are beyond the intended scope of the guidance. Although those are important considerations, many are already covered within the scope of clause 30. The current drafting of the definition of “facilities” provides sufficient flexibility for the guidance to address accessible information and other relevant facilities. Welfare facilities for drivers are covered in existing bus franchising guidance. In enhanced partnership areas, it is the responsibility of operators to provide adequate welfare facilities for drivers. That can be discussed and agreed with local transport authorities as part of the partnership. I have already spoken about the information provisions in the Bill. Bringing multiple sources of information together in one place will help to improve the situation for passengers and ensure a more consistent approach, as the hon. Lady said. Issues such as pedestrian safety on pavements and at crossings are addressed through existing statutory duties on local authorities, and do not require repeating here. The consultation requirements that I have set out will ensure that the guidance reflects expert advice on the issues that matter most, including safety and the facilities that are provided at bus stops. Amendment 30 seeks to narrow the definition of “facilities” in subsection (7) by specifying that such facilities should include those provided to assist people with accessing a stopping place from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route. Amendment 31 seeks to clarify that the definition of “facilities” includes facilities providing information to passengers. The definition of “facilities” in the clause is deliberately broad to ensure that the guidance can cover a full range of accessibility features, such as information facilities or facilities in the surrounding area of stopping places that support access. Highlighting specific types of facility would risk unhelpfully reducing flexibility or, potentially, conferring priority on the provision of one type of facility. On facilities that provide access to the nearest stopping place on any route, some bus stops, particularly those in rural areas, are located very far apart, on dual carriageways or in places with one-way traffic systems. If the hon. Lady’s intention is to capture all facilities between stops, that is outside the scope of the guidance. The amendments would also pre-empt proper and full consultation with disabled stakeholders to determine what may be most appropriate. For the reasons I have set out, amendments 29 to 31 are unnecessary, and I ask that they not be moved. I turn to the three amendments in the names of the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Amendment 65 deals with service information at stopping places—in particular, real-time arrival information. I have explained that statutory guidance can cover the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places and the facilities in the vicinity. I have also covered the broad definition of “facilities”, which will enable guidance to be given on a range of accessibility features and nearby features; facilities providing service and real-time information would fall within the existing definition in subsection (7). I am concerned that the amendment would give the impression that one feature or facility has priority over the others covered in the guidance. The amendment would also pre-empt consultation with stakeholders, including on what disabled passengers themselves consider a priority. Amendment 60 seeks to strengthen the duty on authorities in subsection (6). It would require them to “take reasonable steps to implement” guidance, in place of the current requirement to “have regard to” it. The amendment was also tabled in the other place. Although the Government did not accept it, we listened carefully to the concerns raised and tabled Government amendments to strengthen the package of accessibility measures in the Bill. They include clause 21, which will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan. However, I reiterate the points made in the other place. The purpose of statutory guidance under clause 30 is to support authorities to provide consistent, safe and accessible road infrastructure suited to the needs of their area. It is not intended to set a single rigid standard for bus stations and stops that is applicable to all circumstances. Allowing authorities to consider the guidance and its application in relation to different stopping places will allow them space to assess other relevant factors in their decision making. A more onerous requirement would not provide that flexibility.

12:15:00

Amendment 55 would require the statutory guidance issued under clause 30 to include provisions about training programmes for relevant staff in relevant authorities. My Department will take care to ensure the statutory guidance is written in clear language, so that relevant authorities have clarity on how it should be applied. It will be made available, so that operators that commission work on bus stops and/or facilities can consider the guidance. For those reasons, a specific power or duty is not necessary. I hope that the hon. Members will not press their amendments to clause 30.

Amendment 44 would amend clause 31 to include a specific reference to “shared bus-stop boarders” as a type of floating bus stop. It is true that there are many types of floating bus stop designs and that various terms have been used interchangeably, leading to some confusion about what exactly a floating bus stop is. That was highlighted by Living Streets in its research. To address that and to help clarify the scope of the statutory guidance, clause 31 includes a definition, which refers to an area within the

“vicinity of a stopping place”

that incorporates a cycle track. That was chosen so as to encompass all design types, including shared use bus boarders, bus stop islands, bus stop bypasses and so on. It is unnecessary to mention shared use bus boarders specifically, since the existing definition already includes them.

I agree that being clear and unambiguous about what designs are being referred to is important. The statutory guidance will include advice on different design types under the umbrella term “floating bus stop”, which will help to provide much needed clarity. We will also ensure through our communications with local authorities and stakeholders that we are clear about what a floating bus stop is. We will clarify that it includes shared use boarders. I trust that that will provide reassurance and that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.

Amendment 45 would amend clause 32 to require local authorities to collect information on the location of all the floating bus stops on their network. It specifies exactly what details must be recorded. Local authorities are responsible for managing their road networks, including traffic management measures such as floating bus stops. It is already incumbent on them to ensure that they know what is on their network and when it was installed in order to plan for maintenance, repairs and, in due course, any changes needed in order to meet their statutory duties to manage the road network. That is true of all traffic management infrastructure, not just floating bus stops.

Creating a statutory requirement to record data on floating bus stops, but not on any other traffic management feature, would be disproportionate. Having accurate data about the state of the road network is important. I reiterate that Active Travel England is developing further research on floating bus stops, one strand of which will focus on better understanding the distribution of different types and assess their safety records. The amendment is unnecessary as we are already carrying out work that will deliver similar objectives, so I hope that it will not be pressed to a vote.

New clause 11 would create a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on aspects of the Bill that relate to floating bus stops and lay it before the House. As I am sure the Committee is aware, the Equality Act 2010 places a duty on public bodies to seek to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in exercising their functions. Disability is one of the protected characteristics in the Act to which that duty applies. An equality impact assessment is a process by which a public body can demonstrate how it has considered the impact of its policies on those groups and is an established part of the policymaking process. Making it a mandatory requirement is therefore unnecessary. It is also disproportionate to focus on the floating bus stops measures in the Bill.

New clause 12 would require the Government to set out how they propose to prevent local authorities from installing any floating bus stops and to put those proposals before both Houses of Parliament for debate. As I stated earlier, we do not believe that a complete ban on floating bus stops is appropriate. The Secretary of State will be required to publish statutory guidance, to which local authorities must have regard. That will enable us to set out clearly to authorities what is expected of them in making floating bus stops accessible. Active Travel England is also considering further funding to help authorities retrofit existing sites.

New clause 13 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to commission a review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops within a year of Royal Assent, in collaboration with groups representing disabled people. I have explained that work is already in development that will address this issue, including further research by Active Travel England on floating bus stops.

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

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

That is precisely why Active Travel England is doing this work—so that we can identify a design standard in order to ensure that our transport systems are accessible for everybody. The new clause would also, in effect, ban floating bus stops by requiring all buses to pull into the kerb, regardless of local cycling needs. That would not be appropriate, because we must continue to ensure that cyclists are also able to travel safely. I have spoken at length about the action that my Department is taking, the research of Active Travel England, and the funding available to support local authorities. The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not repeat those points, but for those reasons I ask hon. Members not to press the new clause to a Division. New clause 47 tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham has similarities to new clauses 12 and 40. Beyond the points that I have made about practicality and necessity, the new clause raises various practical issues. For one, local authorities with works under way would be unable to complete them. Unfinished works on pavements and roads may put pedestrians at risk, and unfulfilled contracts may impose costs on local authorities. In addition, the term “inclusive-by-design”, which is used in the new clause, is not a legally recognised term. It is unclear what design principles would apply to that requirement, which may create confusion for local authorities. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clause.

I am grateful for the Minister’s considered response to all the amendments. I spoke in favour of a number of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is not a member of the Committee. The mathematics of the Committee are pretty obvious, so I will treat the majority of them as probing amendments. Some of them have done their work, and I hope that those that the Minister batted away will be quietly reconsidered when he is back in the comfort of his ministerial office. I consider amendment 40 to be one such probing amendment, so I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert— “(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if— (a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and (b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure. (6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”—(Jerome Mayhew.) This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published. Question put, That the amendment be made.

12|0|3|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 33

Safeguarding duty: drivers of school services

12:30:00

I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 33, page 35, line 33, at end insert— “29AA Application of section 29A duty: services in Wales (1) Section 29A (duty to check barring information) applies in relation to a school service that takes up or sets down passengers at one or more points in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide. (2) But the regulations may not provide for that section to apply in relation to— (a) a service for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares— (i) that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or (ii) to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru, or (b) a service that is provided under arrangements made by a body to which the duty in section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 applies (duty of local authorities and governing bodies to have regard to guidance given by Welsh Ministers).” This amendment provides for the duty to check the criminal record certificates of drivers of school bus services which have stops in Wales not to apply until switched on by regulations, and excludes that duty entirely for services for which the Welsh Ministers, Welsh local authorities or governing bodies of schools in Wales are responsible.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

The drafting of the amendment looks complex, but its outcome is quite simple. It removes Welsh services where it is considered that the Welsh Government can achieve a similar outcome to clause 33. The clause closes a loophole whereby some drivers of school services are not required to have a criminal record check, including checking the children’s barred list. Although this matter is reserved, the Welsh Government have agreed to implement measures through the Welsh Government’s Bus Services (Wales) Bill currently going through the Senedd that will lead to a similar outcome. The Welsh Government have agreed that services operating under a local bus service contract or permit, which will be established through the Bus Services (Wales) Bill, will require operators to ensure that the appropriate criminal record checks are done for qualifying drivers of school services. They have also agreed that local authorities and governing bodies of schools in Wales must have regard to the Wales learner travel guidance under section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008, which can include guidance about criminal record checking. The Welsh Government have advised that they will update the guidance so that drivers of services provided by those bodies will be subject to the same checks required by clause 33. Ultimately, even though the amendment removes Wales from the Bill, we are clear that drivers of all closed school services will require a criminal record check. Clause 33 seeks to mandate bus operators to carry out enhanced criminal record certificate and children’s barred list checks for drivers of closed school services, or to check the update information in relation to a previous enhanced criminal record certificate every three years, where the driver undertakes such services frequently or on more than three days over a 30-day period. When I refer to a “closed school service”, this is a service that is not open to the public. It is not a public service that stops at or near a school; it is used solely to transport schoolchildren to school and home again. Under current legislation, when a public service vehicle operator is contracted by a school or local authority to provide closed school bus services, there is statutory guidance that advises local authorities and schools to ensure that a safeguarding check has been carried out at an appropriate level for each driver. For these drivers, it is expected that each one will have an enhanced criminal record certificate, which includes a check on whether the driver is on the children’s barred list. However, the Government have been made aware that other closed school bus services are currently operating independently, not contracted or operated by schools or local authorities. In these cases, there is no explicit requirement for drivers to have an enhanced criminal record certificate, including a children’s barred list check. Clause 33 aims to close that loophole so that contracted school services are not being held to a higher standard than commercial school services, and that children are safe on all closed school bus services, regardless of whether they are contracted or commercial. By requiring operators to carry out checks of the children’s barred list, the operator will know whether the driver is barred from working with children. The clause will mean that in addition to the driver committing an offence by driving children while being barred, the operator will also commit an offence if they permit the driver to drive on their service. Currently, operators are not mandated to carry out checks on their drivers and so can rely on their having no knowledge that the driver is barred as a defence. The clause changes that.

I will not rehearse the rationale behind the need for the proposed new sections in clause 33; the Minister has set that out pretty clearly. However, there is one issue that I seek clarification on from him or his officials. The clause makes it an offence for an operator to permit a driver to drive a closed school service if the operator either knows or has reason to believe that the driver is barred from undertaking regulated activity relating to children. So far, so good. That is an offence and it comes under the criminal justice system. The clause also requires the operator to check the enhanced criminal record certificates at least every three years, and it sets out how that can be achieved, but it is silent as to whether the failure to do so is an offence. I have a question for the Minister: if an operator fails to comply with the duty to check every three years, what are the practical consequences? Is that failure an offence? I stand to be corrected on that; I may have misread the clause when I read it some time ago. If it is not an offence, how does he intend proper enforcement to be undertaken, because without robust enforcement and information on the consequences of failure to comply with the clause, the safeguarding duty risks being diminished? I will not go into the details of Government amendment 76. I fundamentally accept the need for it, because it deals with devolution. It does prompt a question about timescales, however, which the Minister might be able to put my mind at rest about. We want these improvements to be made, because they address the safety of children and the provision of transport for children, which are important. Yet through the devolution process that we all have to respect, we run the risk of a delayed response in devolved areas of the country, because there is currently no guarantee of timescales in the clause. I understand the constitutional niceties that the Minister has to comply with, but it would be helpful for Committee members, and for Members of the House more widely, to receive some assurance that conversations have at least taken place with the devolved Administrations, so that they are fully aware of the need for this amendment and their own legislative processes are not unduly delayed. If he could reassure me on that point, I would be grateful.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him some further details about those points, if that will suffice. Amendment 76 agreed to. Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 Training about crime and anti-social behaviour

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, after “2003” insert— “(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).” This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 52, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, at end insert— “(2A) The training requirement under this section must not include advice, encouragement, direction or expectation that a person should, at any stage, put themselves in danger.” This amendment seeks to ensure that any training requirements established under this section do not include guidance that would advise, encourage, direct, or imply that individuals should put themselves in danger at any stage. Amendment 73, in clause 34, page 36, line 35, at end insert— “(2A) Before preparing training under subsection (2), PSV operators must consult trades unions on the proposed content and implementation of the training.” Government amendment 77.

The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 34 and the introduction of specific training for bus drivers to help them to identify and respond to criminal offences and antisocial behaviour. Everyone should feel safe when travelling by bus. Ensuring that drivers have the confidence and skills to recognise criminal and antisocial behaviour and, where safe, to intervene appropriately, is an important step forward. This is a practical and necessary measure, and we are pleased to see it in the Bill. Amendment 61 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon seeks to address a worrying gap in the legislation, by ensuring that the training includes identifying the signs of domestic abuse. Local bus drivers often play a central role in their communities. They see the same passengers day in, day out, which puts them in a unique position. They can notice patterns and recognise signs of distress, and they know how to report concerns safely and appropriately. Domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence. Coercive control, financial abuse and emotional manipulation can be just as damaging. They often go unnoticed, because they do not always meet the threshold of immediate fear for one’s personal safety, but let us make no mistake: those forms of abuse rob victims of their freedom, security and dignity. We must ensure that where there is an opportunity for someone to notice the indications of such abuse, that can be reported swiftly and effectively. We know, from too many horror stories, that missed opportunities can cost lives. One in five people will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, which is a chilling statistic. We believe it is essential that frontline public service workers, which includes our hard-working bus drivers, receive training to help to spot those signs and act accordingly. This is not about placing undue burdens on drivers; it is about empowering them and all those in public-facing roles, through the proposed training, to be part of a society that recognises abuse and does not turn a blind eye.

Clause 34 concerns crime and antisocial behaviour. It is about improving personal safety and the perception of safety for people, especially women and girls, which was a key component of the Government’s manifesto. The measures aim to train staff in the bus industry to identify and respond to acts of crime, including violence against people, particularly women and girls, and antisocial behaviour. The Minister will deal with the details of the clause in his remarks, so I will reduce my comments as much as I can. Although the principles of clause 34 are, of course, difficult to argue against, I have a number of concerns about the current drafting, similar to the concerns I had with clause 33, that I urge the Minister to address. Proposed new section 144F(2) of the Transport Act 2000 requires training “to identify, respond appropriately to and, where safe to do so, prevent” crime and antisocial behaviour, but it does not set out minimum content standards or accreditation requirements. This is a sensitive issue. We are anticipating drivers putting themselves into certainly confrontational—perhaps even violent—situations, so we have to be very careful what we are asking them to do in the legislation. Will the Minister confirm that it is not the intention of the legislation to require bus drivers to physically intervene in potentially violent situations? That is quite an important point that we need to make clear. How will we ensure the consistency of training quality across different bus regions? Has any assessment been undertaken of the availability of training professionals across the country? It is not a niche area, but it is certainly a small area of training. If not, how can the Minister impose a requirement without having undertaken an assessment of the ability of the sector to comply with that requirement?

12:45:00

Amendment 61, in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon, in essence adds any form of domestic abuse into the list of what bus drivers should be looking out for when they are seeking to identify crime. Domestic violence is of course a very significant issue that we should not underplay. In fact, the crime survey for England and Wales estimates that 2.3 million people aged over 16—1.6 million women and 712,000 men—experienced domestic abuse in the year to March 2024. It is a huge issue. While having domestic violence on the list does not do any harm—I am anticipating the response from the hon. Member for North Norfolk—I question the ability of a bus driver to take action in relation to identifying domestic violence.

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

I thank the shadow Minister for his comments on our proposed amendment. Perhaps I can give him some reassurance about my interpretation of the driver’s mandate to intervene in all those situations. Having been on training that sought to raise awareness of a range of issues, including domestic abuse, I know that trainers often say, “No matter what you are taught today, you are not expected to always intervene. If you do not feel safe to do so, do not do so.” I would apply the same logic, perhaps in a different way, to the amendment: it is not expecting drivers to take on the burden of identifying, let alone resolving, issues of coercive control. However, I think public-spirited drivers—I can think of many such drivers in my constituency, and I am sure the shadow Minister can as well, given that they are often the same people—would want to learn more about how they can spot the signs, and perhaps just report a change in a pattern of behaviour to a local beat manager who may well be entirely familiar with the name of the person concerned.

I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s greater knowledge of training in this area. I am substantially persuaded by the information that he put forward in his intervention. Amendment 52, which is in my name, seeks to ensure that any training or requirements established under this clause do not include guidance that would advise, encourage, direct or imply that individuals, in this instance bus drivers, should put themselves in danger at any stage. I am grateful for the Minister’s non-verbal indication during my earlier comments that I was right in assuming that that was not the Government’s intention, but my amendment would make express what the Minister has implied. Although it is entirely right that drivers and frontline staff receive training to identify, respond to and, where safe, prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour, we must be clear that their personal safety is also essential. The amendment ensures that no training delivered under these provisions would ever advise to the contrary. It preserves the purpose of clause 34 by ensuring staff that are trained to recognise and respond appropriately to crime and antisocial behaviour while guaranteeing that such training will never instruct them to act beyond what is reasonable and safe. I will leave it the Minister to address amendment 73. Amendment 75, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant senior managers to undertake regular training on disability awareness and accessibility. I appreciate its intention, but I have two concerns. First, it would inevitably place an additional regulatory burden on operators and local transport authorities, where there is currently no clear evidence of an existing gap that needs to be filled. We have to remind ourselves that we are not running the buses in this Committee; we are creating legislation that requires other people to run the buses in a certain way. As legislators, it is always tempting to think, “Oh, that’s a good idea. Let’s put that in the Bill.” However, we sometimes forget that we are dealing with primary legislation, which requires an Act of Parliament to change. We need to be very careful that we do not create an administrative overload, and this provision would be an additional regulatory burden without clear evidence. We also need to be cognisant of the fact that, although some of the potentially affected organisations will be local transport authorities or large municipal bus companies—at least in the future—many of the affected businesses will be small and medium-sized enterprises, some of which will be very small local bus operators that need to be protected from over-regulation. Secondly, there is a danger of duplication and confusion when there are other statutory duties and guidance being created in the Bill, particularly those in clause 30 that deal with the safety and accessibility of stopping places. We need to ensure clarity, not an overlapping jurisdiction of training mandates, which may cause regulator confusion. Those are my concerns about amendment 75.

I am very impressed with the clause; it adds good things to the Bill and it is appropriate that drivers are given good information and training on how to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. Some of the concerns raised by the shadow Minister are covered in proposed new section 144F(2) of the Transport Act 2000, where it says “respond appropriately”. In many cases, the appropriate response may be to call the police, and sometimes it may be to report back to senior people within the organisation or merely to ask that CCTV be reviewed to see whether an offence has been committed. Those are all appropriate actions that do not put people in any danger. I also want to speak in support of amendment 61, from my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It would be a very good addition to the clause, because many sub-crimes—things that fall below the level of crime—will still raise alarms to do with domestic abuse. A lot of progress has been made in training people who work in pubs and nightlife on the Ask for Angela service. Bus drivers may also be approached and potentially asked for support or help to get away, and they need to be able to respond appropriately. People need training on how to spot others who might be in danger and to act appropriately. Will the Minister also give us some reassurance? The clause contains the very broad definition of “criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”. I want to raise the issue of child criminal exploitation; I tabled related amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill on Report. Issues such as county lines and spotting children in danger could be part of this training. During that debate, I also spoke about the need for people to treat children as children, not criminals, as they might be vulnerable or in danger themselves. There are also issues around unconscious biases and the adultification of black children in particular. Those things might all potentially be within the scope of this training, because it is important that people are given more duties to deal with criminal issues and training to avoid some of the pitfalls. Finally, I ask the Minister for an update on discussions with trade unions and the potential new duties in amendment 73, tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). Since he is not a member of the Committee, I want to make sure that the Minister responds to his question about involving trade unions to ensure that training is prepared appropriately and in discussion with them.

I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon and for Didcot and Wantage for tabling amendment 61, which seeks to include domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, as part of the mandatory training for bus staff on crime and antisocial behaviour. I am glad to confirm to hon. Friends and members of the Committee that clause 34 already captures domestic abuse. That is because domestic abuse is a criminal offence, and the clause outlines that training must cover “criminal offences that would cause a victim or potential victim of the offence to fear for their personal safety”. Furthermore, under the powers in the clause, the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance that will cover behaviours associated with violence against women and girls. Through that guidance, bus operators will be made aware of the breadth of different types of violence against women and girls, and how to train their staff to identify, respond to, and, where it is safe to do so, prevent incidents of such behaviours occurring on the bus network. To answer the question from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, guidance on training requirements will be developed in consultation with stakeholders, drawing on existing good practice. The ambition is to empower drivers and other staff to recognise and be able to respond to acts of antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls, which may involve passengers, themselves or their colleagues. When determining how drivers and other staff should respond to such incidents, a key consideration will be how to ensure that the personal safety of the employee or employees is not put at risk. I hope I have provided enough assurance for the hon. Member for North Norfolk to feel able to withdraw amendment 61. Amendment 52, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, seeks to ensure that guidance issued under the powers in clause 34 does not lead to staff placing themselves in danger at any stage. The Government listened to concerns raised in the other place, including from the hon. Member’s party. We tabled an amendment to clarify that staff will be trained to prevent incidents only where it is “safe to do so”. For the benefit of the Committee, I confirm that staff will not be expected to put themselves at risk or in danger at any stage. Training on crime and antisocial behaviour will help staff to understand ways in which to de-escalate and defuse situations that occur on the bus network. That is a key part of the Government’s vision for making buses safer and more inclusive for all passengers—and, in the case of this clause, particularly for women and girls. I hope the hon. Member is satisfied and will therefore not press his amendment. Amendment 73 was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). It would require public service vehicle operators to consult trade unions before preparing training for bus drivers and staff who deal with the travelling public, or issues relating to them, on how to identify, respond appropriately to and, where safe, prevent criminal and antisocial behaviour. Specifically, it would mandate that trade unions be consulted on the proposed content and implementation of the training.

13:00:00

The Government are alive to the concerns that the amendment seeks to address. That is why a Government amendment in the other place clarified the role of drivers when dealing with antisocial behaviour and made it clear that they are expected to intervene only when it is safe to do so. However, amendment 73 would place an additional and unnecessary burden on public service vehicle operators and increase the time, resource and cost required to develop and deliver training. It might also lead to inconsistency in the training delivered by different operators, and inconsistent service provision across the network. The Government intend to engage with relevant stakeholders when developing guidance on mandatory training, including those representing the driver perspective, such as trade unions. I therefore ask my hon. Friends not to press the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the spirit of the Government’s objective to reduce violence against women and girls, I think it would be sensible to make reference to that within the guidance.

I thank the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: 77, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert— “144G Application of training requirement: services in Wales (1) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 144F apply in relation to a local service which has one or more stopping places in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide. (2) But the regulations may not provide for those subsections to apply in relation to— (a) a local service that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or (b) a local service to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru.”—(Simon Lightwood.) This amendment provides for the training requirement in new section 144F of the Transport Act 2000 not to apply to services that have stops in Wales until switched on by regulations, and excludes that requirement entirely for services for which the Welsh Ministers are responsible or which are provided in Wales under a service permit granted by the Welsh Ministers.

I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert— “144G Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility (1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility. (2) The relevant parties are— (a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence; (b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services. (3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding— (a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services; (b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and (c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities. (4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation. (5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed— (a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five year period thereafter; (b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period. (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations. (7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.” This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regular undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 69, in clause 34, page 37, line 28, leave out from “or” to “the” and insert “section 144G or of regulations made under those sections,”. Clause 35 stand part. Government amendments 20 to 22. Clause 36 stand part.

I will speak briefly in support of our amendments 75 and 69, which would require relevant senior managers in our bus networks regularly to undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility. Accessibility must be embedded at every level of our public transport system. It should be an intuitive consideration for all staff, from frontline drivers and conductors to the most senior decision makers. Although it is absolutely right that drivers and attendants understand the needs of disabled passengers, that alone is not enough. We must also ensure that those in positions of strategic responsibility—those making decisions about timetables, fleet upgrades, route changes and service delivery—fully understand how their decisions impact on disabled people. Too often, accessibility is treated as an afterthought rather than a starting point, and that must change. By ensuring that senior managers receive training, amendment 75 would help to create a strong, informed culture of accessibility across the network. It would ensure that inclusion is not just a box to tick but a guiding principle in how our bus services are designed and delivered. After all, improved accessibility and user experience benefits everybody, not just the people for whom it is necessary. This is the right thing to do. It is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone. I also want to note the recommendations of the recent Transport Committee report into accessibility in the transport system, “Access Denied”. I was proud to be part of the Committee that published the report. The report made recommendations about ensuring that relevant training is suitably co-produced with disabled people, and that the Government ensure an expert unit assesses the quality of available training. In response, the Government told us they were working to create an accessibility charter and that they intend to “undertake further work to assess how clear and straightforward standards that a charter can help provide could support consistent, high-quality training.” Will the Minister provide further clarity on what that further work is, and the progress he has made on it? Such an update would be incredibly relevant to the amendments, as it would ensure that the training carried out is of a suitable standard and comes with the needs of disabled passengers and service users at its heart. To conclude, I urge the Government to support amendment 75. It is a simple but powerful step towards better, more inclusive bus services for disabled passengers and for everyone.

If hon. Members cast their minds back to earlier, they will know my exact views on amendment 75, so I will not repeat them. I will not speak on amendment 69, because my remarks would be similar to those on amendment 75. I will, however, speak briefly on clause 35. Clause 35 will introduce measures on disability training. There is currently a requirement in article 16 of EU regulation 181/2011 for mandatory training on disability awareness and disability assistance to be undertaken by particular categories of staff of carriers and terminal managing bodies, with different categories of staff required to do different elements of the training. The Government are totally right to realise that that is an unnecessary complication, and that there needs to be a tidying up exercise so that all staff dealing with passengers in the transport sector receive similar training. Clause 35 streamlines the requirement so that all categories of local bus service staff referenced in article 16 of the EU regulation should undertake both disability assistance and disability awareness training, and stay current every five years. It enables bus drivers and staff who deal directly with the travelling public or issues related to them, including those who provide direct assistance to passengers, to be informed of the needs and experiences of disabled people—quite right too. That is a good clarification. Clause 36 deals with training about disability and contains further provisions. Its intentions are as decent as those of clause 35, and they are undeniably important. Namely, it seeks to ensure the effective implementation of disability awareness training requirements. However, we need to be aware of the potential issues with regulatory overreach and the administration burden. Measures under subsection (1) of the clause empower the Secretary of State to require operators to keep, publish and provide compliance records. I am repeating myself slightly, but this is an important point: we are dealing with primary legislation that covers the entire sector. It affects not just big organisations but SMEs; we have to remember that not all operators are large organisations. For SMEs with a small workforce or a small fleet, increases to the administrative burden can be disproportionate to the benefit that such requirements to maintain data can bring to others. I wonder whether that burden is justified in terms of its outcome, and not just theoretical tidiness. Theoretically, I understand the provision and it makes sense. We are saying, “We want operators to do these things, therefore we want records that are updated and published regularly.” In reality, that comes with a time and labour cost. How will services be improved in practical terms as a result of the additional requirement? Has the Minister already conducted an impact assessment of the additional financial and administrative burdens that the measure will place on smaller local authorities and bus operators? Government amendment 20 ensures that references in the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 to the “enforcement authority” cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A. Again, I will leave it to the Minister to address the amendment. I hope Committee members are applauding my changed approach to the pace at which I am going through some of these provisions—it is against my better judgment. As a former lawyer, I love going into the subsections, but I am trying to canter on. There is a concern with amendment 20 that we are loading a whole load of additional obligations on to traffic commissioners, these previously unknown—certainly in my case—servants of the state. A question arises about capacity and the funding necessary to increase it. Traffic commissioners already oversee a vast amount of regulatory functions for operating licensing, vehicle standards and general compliance across the bus and coach sectors. The Bill, particularly clause 36, adds significant additional enforcement duties, and that obviously comes at a cost in both manpower and legal fees. If a commissioner takes enforcement action, they have to be prepared to defend their decisions in court, and that is expensive, particularly if they lose. We can all agree that there are significant costs associated with the clause, should it be enacted, but the Bill is silent on funding for traffic commissioners—there is no mention of it all. What is the assessed cost to traffic commissioners of the proposed changes, in aggregate? What changes will be made to traffic commissioner budgets to allow for this burden? Will the Minister conduct an assessment of the current work of traffic commissioners and whether they have the resources and time to fulfil this additional duty? Those are minor but important points; we have to think about the practicalities of what we are asking. This is not guidance but primary legislation, so we need to be cognisant of its consequences and prepare for them. Government amendment 21 follows amendment 20, and I have no comment on it. The same goes for Government amendment 22, which is another procedural tidying-up exercise that I have no objection to. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)

13:14:00