Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Report (1st Day)

18:05:00

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

My Lords, the amendments in this group fall into three parts. Amendment 1 stands on its own and Amendments 2 to 8 work together to a single effect and will be dealt with as such. Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks clarification. All I will say on it is that I look forward to hearing both what she has to say and what the Minister has to say in reply. I will attempt to be brief, given the hour and the amount of business that we have to get through. Amendments 2 to 8 give me an opportunity to thank a group of people who have been largely ignored in debates on this Bill: the private companies, entrepreneurs, capitalists and workers—the people who invest their money in providing a service for this country and who are being simply rubbed out as businesses by this Government and will become merely servants of the state, not entrepreneurs or businessmen, as the Minister was when he ran a private bus company. They are not to have those opportunities but simply to be wiped out. The work they do should be acknowledged because they have worked diligently for us over the years. We are told that what we will get in its place is something better, run by the Government, and we are pointed to places such as London for examples. In London, when the subsidies run out—there are hundreds of millions of pounds of subsidies to operate the buses—we see routes sometimes being cut altogether or having a cut in their frequency. This group of amendments would allow private bus companies to continue to operate without seeking a special permit so as to meet demand. I do not intend to press this group of amendments to a Division. I am sure that the Minister will explain that it is all going to be sunny and wonderful under the state-managed regime, but it is not. We know that from our experience of when the subsidies run out. In that connection—the notion that it is all going to be better because the Government, or, in this case, local transport authorities, will run the buses—I turn to Amendment 1. There is nothing in the Bill, nor have the Government even made the case, as to why it is going to be better, what the purpose of this Bill is, what it sets out to achieve and what the prime focus is. We know that the unions want to see this happen. We know that many, often Labour-run, local authorities want to see this happen, but they should not be the heart and the driver of the way we manage our public transport services. The heart and the driver should be the passengers, in this case bus passengers. Amendment 1 gives us a purpose to the Bill and puts bus passengers at the heart of it. I am grateful, incidentally, for an earlier amendment, now withdrawn, from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which reminded me that accessibility needed to be included alongside performance and quality of service with regard to bus passengers. That has improved the amendment and gives us what we see today. I strongly believe that this Bill needs such a purpose. The Secretary of State needs to be required to put the passenger at the heart of the Bill. There is no sign that that is the intention at the moment. There are only promises and pledges, but nothing in writing. With that, I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for recent meetings with him and his officials. I have tabled Amendment 61 in this group and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his kind comments about my previous amendment—I thought his revised one looked a little familiar. Amendment 61 is not only about disabled access to buses, which is why I wanted to debate it right at the start of Report. Rather, it would confirm the importance of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to bus operators, local transport authorities and, of course, passengers. The Equality Act 2010 sets out, in Section 149, the public sector equality duty of public bodies delivering services to people. Anyone under it must have due regard to the need, and take steps to advance, equality of opportunity, not only for disabled passengers. In this Bill, it is the local transport authorities which are under the PSED directly and plan, implement and monitor bus services in their area, as outlined in Section 108 of the Transport Act 2000. LTAs’ responsibilities are not limited to contracting for certain franchised bus services but include the responsibility for planning services for all their passengers, including the non-franchised. That does not mean that LTAs run the free market commercial bus routes, but they must ensure that everyone in their area has usable bus services. In Committee, the Minister said that the regulation for public sector vehicles—PSVs—includes the duty to make reasonable adjustments. However, in practice, it is often a “best efforts” provision, leaving many disabled passengers frustrated when they cannot access a bus service. The actual compulsory provision includes wheelchair spaces, announcements and visual displays on the next stop, et cetera, and is way stronger than just reasonable adjustments. I have continued to meet some pushback in meetings with government officials outside your Lordships’ House on the formal powers that all PSVs have to comply with. There seems to be something of a mindset that the commercial bus services are not included, but it is clear that they are covered by the Equality Act, which does not say that the definition is about commissioned or franchised services; it is any bus service that qualifies as a PSV, and its work must be monitored under another part of the Equality Act—the PSED—by the local transport authority, which will assess whether bus services in its area are meeting the needs of the people. I have checked the case of FirstGroup Plc v Doug Paulley. The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered in January 2017, sets out in paragraphs 11 and 12 the position that the bus operator had “failed to comply with its duties under the Equality Act” and confirmed that it was a public service vehicle under the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000. The House of Commons Transport Select Committee’s report, Access Denied: Rights Versus Reality in Disabled People’s Access to Transport, published last week, explains in paragraphs 10 to 17 the entirety of the law, including how the Equality Act—and within that, the PSED and the PSV section—and the PSV regulations I mentioned all fit together, as well as retained Regulation (EU) No. 181/2011. The key to all this is the Equality Act, and my amendment simply restates that, as barrister Catherine Casserley said in evidence to the Commons Transport Select Committee, rights to accessible transport “should be enforced in the same way as any health and safety requirement. As part of any operation, any business has to comply with a range of obligations. These should be no different”. The Select Committee concluded that, despite the legal framework, much needs to happen to improve compliance and practice on a daily basis. Disabled passengers agree. We need to remind bus operators and LTAs that the Equality Act duties are at the heart of provision for truly accessible bus services. It needs to be in the Bill.

My Lords, I have spoken in the House before about the need to increase bus speeds. In discussion, the Minister has come forward with a method of bringing some discipline to local authorities with bad congestion problems that make the running of a proper bus service almost impossible—I note Oxford, Cambridge and London as among those places where this is the case.

18:15:00

I welcome the alternative solution that the Minister prefers, which is that traffic commissioners should summon the local authorities which have painfully slow bus routes to ask them what they are doing about congestion. Most local authorities have access to powers to speed up bus services; some are very reluctant to use them. I believe that if the local authorities, the officers and the officials were summoned to a traffic commissioner’s court to give an explanation of their lack of action, this may be a better way of proceeding than imposing financial penalties, which are apparently not the Government’s preferred route.

So far as the equipment on the buses is concerned, I am satisfied that most buses now have the equipment to deal with anti-social behaviour on the bus and from those surrounding it—drivers, cyclists and others, who frequently hurl abuse at the driver.

The compromises that the Minister put forward are acceptable alternatives to what I have said. I make the point that traffic commissioners have very few staff indeed. When the whole apparatus is reviewed, I hope that they will have enough enforcement staff to make these penalties effective in bringing about a speeding up of bus routes.

My Lords, Amendment 1 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act—namely, the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services. I am grateful that His Majesty’s Opposition has taken onboard the amended wording from my noble friend Lady Brinton to include accessibility in the purpose of the Bill. At face value, it is impossible to disagree with this statement. It is fundamental to this legislation, and the range of areas covered in it, that it is about improving bus services across the country. As we heard in Committee, in many parts of the country our bus services have reached a crisis point and are virtually non-existent. Therefore, improved performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services must surely be a clear aim of this legislation. My noble friend Lady Brinton’s Amendment 61 would extend the public service equality duty to cover all aspects of bus services, and it is really important. Whether bus services are run commercially, as is the current situation, or as part of an enhanced partnership or a future LABCo, there is the potential that not all aspects of bus services are fully covered. This will ensure that buses and bus services are covered by the public service equality duty. It is an important amendment. On the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, regarding service permits, I am not convinced by the arguments put forward and see them as trying to compete with the franchised service in a problematic way. These feel like they are creating unnecessary bureaucracy and diktat from the centre, rather than allowing local transport authorities to provide the best service that suits their local communities and letting local government thrive. It feels at odds with what this Bill is trying to achieve. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, before I begin to address the amendments, I thank noble Lords for their continued contributions to the Bill. It remains clear to me that we share a common goal to improve bus services for passengers. This is precisely why the Government introduced this Bill: to empower local areas to design the bus services that their communities need, and to reverse decades-long nationwide trends in declining patronage and services. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said earlier, there are real choices in the Bill for local transport authorities, and rightly so. Nor is the Bill a threat to good private sector operators in the way the noble Lord implies. He referred to the entrepreneurial period in my own career. He should note that it was very largely in the provision of contracts for one of these evil public sector authorities—none other than London Transport—that the company I ran made a modest amount of money. Your Lordships have provided insightful views and challenge throughout the Bill’s passage through this House. As I noted in my letter to all Peers, the Government have taken the time to reflect on the arguments put forward by noble Lords to strengthen the Bill’s measures in detail. I will speak to amendments that have been tabled in my name during this session. It is my view that these amendments would improve the Bill, and I hope they will be welcomed by your Lordships. I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for the recommendations in its 13th report. I note that the Government have welcomed and taken on board the suggestions therein. I will take this opportunity, if I might, to briefly update the House following an exchange in Committee about the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency reporting channel for bus safety incidents and standards in the sector. I noted in Committee, in response to an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that this channel could be more user-friendly. I have since written to the DVSA, which has confirmed that it is in the process of updating all online reporting forms to improve accessibility and streamline the reporting process. Changes will be designed to allow direct reporting to the DVSA intelligence unit, including from the staff of operators, which should enable more timely interventions. Following updates to heavy goods vehicle reporting, the DVSA will be prioritising public service vehicle and coach reporting. This will include carrying out user research, to ensure that the revised forms enable the accurate and timely reporting of issues. I hope this is a helpful update and that it addresses any outstanding concerns about the adequacy of this reporting channel. I thank the noble Lord for Amendment 1. This would place a direct requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to improving the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain as the main purpose of the Bill. As I stated in Committee, I understand why the noble Lord has drafted this amendment. I absolutely share the aim to achieve a better bus network that is more reliable, improves accessibility and performs well. During the passage of what is now the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Gascoigne, tabled a similar amendment. At the time, I explained that the Secretary of State’s and the Government’s wider plans and objectives for the rail network included improving performance, but that this was not the sole purpose. I offer the House the same rationale for this Bill. The objectives of the Bill of course include improving reliability, accessibility and performance; these are important aims. However, the Bill seeks to improve safety, provides local leaders with the powers to make the right decisions for their local areas, supports reaching net zero and puts passengers at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. To single out a limited number of objectives would undermine the message that the Government are trying to convey to local authorities, passengers, operators and the wider industry. I would not support this idea or place it in the Bill. Extending this requirement across Great Britain, as the amendment seeks to, would presents significant difficulties with devolution. In tabling the amendment, the noble Lord appears to be seeking to apply all of the Bill’s measures across the whole of Great Britain. That would raise the potential of cutting across the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Governments to decide how to run their own bus networks and what is best for their local communities. I am sure noble Lords opposite would not want this outcome. As some noble Lords will be aware, the Welsh Government are due to introduce their own Bill into the Senedd in the coming months. I hope the noble Lord understands the reasons why I do not believe this amendment should stand, and therefore will withdraw it. I will briefly address Amendments 2 to 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on service permits. As the noble Lord knows, the Bill introduces new tests which franchising authorities can use to assess service permit applications. These applications are made by operators seeking to run commercial services in a franchising area, including cross-boundary services. The new tests set out in the Bill give franchising authorities more scope to grant service permits. They do so by allowing authorities to consider a wider range of benefits that the proposed commercial services could provide, and then to weigh these up against any adverse effect on franchised services. While some of the noble Lord’s amendments would remove these new tests and others would alter them, the impact would be the same: franchising authorities would be significantly restricted in their ability to take into account any adverse impacts on franchised services made by the proposed commercial service. This would open the door to authorities being compelled to grant service permits for commercial services which directly compete with franchised ones, undermining the coherence and financial viability of franchising schemes. I underline again that I recognise the additionality that commercially operated services can provide and how they can complement franchised networks; that is why the Bill gives authorities more freedom to tap into this provision. However, these amendments would diminish franchising authorities’ ability to control their networks, and they would likely make franchising as a model unviable. This is not in the interests of places with franchising schemes or of providing all local transport authorities with a range of tools to deliver the best possible bus services. Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to prevent bus services being provided in a manner which discriminates against disabled people. I hear the noble Baroness’s concern about the barriers that disabled people continue to face when making day-to-day journeys on local services, and I absolutely share her determination that they must be overcome. As she says, we have had several substantial discussions about this topic. However, as I know the noble Baroness will be aware, Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 defines the concept of discrimination arising from disability, and Section 29, in turn, places requirements on service providers to not discriminate against users, including where arising from disability. This already applies to operators of local services, as it does to local authorities. Furthermore, requiring authorities to ensure compliance with the duty contained in this amendment could only ever have effect where authorities exercise direct control over the day-to-day operations of bus operators—control which does not exist in relation to the vast majority of services, except in franchising. Here, it would be helpful to clarify remarks I made in Committee. The Bill permits local transport authorities to decide whether to pursue bus franchising and enhanced partnerships, or to set up new local authority bus companies. No single model is mandated; that is a decision for local leaders to take. This is directly relevant to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 makes local transport authorities subject to the public sector equality duty. These are listed as public authorities by that Act. That means, for example, that franchising authorities which have assumed responsibility for contracting their bus services are clearly within scope of the public sector equality duty. Furthermore, noble Lords versed in the provisions of the Equality Act will know that an entity that exercises a public function is subject to the public sector equality duty. Therefore, any bus company that exercises such functions, which includes a local authority bus company, would be captured by the duty. This means that a new local authority bus company, enabled by the Bill, would be expected to consider the public sector equality duty whenever exercising public functions. The situation is less clear-cut when it comes to enhanced partnerships between LTAs and private operators. As I have explained, bus companies are captured by the public sector equality duty to the extent to which they are exercising public functions—this would include privately owned bus companies. However, enhanced partnerships will include services that are commercial. Ultimately, it is not for me or the Government to determine what constitutes a public function—that is a question for the courts. Therefore, although I am sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s concerns, I am unable to stand at this Dispatch Box and confirm that all bus operators must comply with public sector equality duty requirements even when not exercising public functions. In fact, to make private entities subject to the duty would be likely to require a substantial rewrite of the Equality Act. I hope that noble Lords would agree that this Bill is not the right place for that.

18:30:00

I recognise entirely what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve here: she wants reassurance, as I do, that disabled passengers are not discriminated against when travelling on buses. That is why I have tabled a series of substantive amendments to strengthen the accessibility provisions in the Bill. They include ensuring that enhanced partnerships, including private bus operators, can now include within their schemes accessibility measures that support independent and safe travel. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has played a critical role in shaping the Government’s thinking, for which I thank her; it will make a practical difference to how franchising and enhanced partnership schemes are designed, altered and implemented.

I am also aware that, as the noble Baroness mentioned, this issue has been examined by the Transport Select Committee, which published its report last week. Again, I recognise that whether and how different parts of the Equality Act apply to all those delivering transport should be clear for operators and transport users alike. Given that the Transport Select Committee has made recommendations in this space, I am keen that this issue be considered holistically as part of a wider review, rather than in isolation. The noble Baroness has my assurance that this consideration will form an important part of the Government’s work, which will be set out in their response to the committee’s report. I would welcome further engagement with her on this topic.

I hope that all this provides reassurance to the noble Baroness and others that the Government have listened and heard their concerns, and that my reassurances have done enough to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I turn briefly to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I am very grateful to him for the dialogue we have had about the importance of local highway and transport authorities making traffic flow properly to enable adequate and reliable bus services. Of course, where there is or will be a franchising scheme, the local transport authority has a direct interest in making sure that the highway network copes with buses and will therefore, as has happened in Manchester, naturally take a much greater interest in the reliability of the local road network. However, as the noble Lord says, across the bus networks in general we will look at reissuing Local Transport Note 1/24, and guidance, including revisions to reflect changes in bus policy resulting from this Bill. That will add weight to this. Some 98% of local authorities in England have powers to enforce parking offences, 87% have powers to enforce bus lane offences, and authorities outside London have, since 2022, been able to apply to the Department for Transport to take on the role of enforcing moving traffic restrictions such as yellow box junctions.

I return to the point that the noble Lord made. The senior traffic commissioner’s statutory documents give guidance to traffic commissioners when operators are in front of them for inadequate reliability. I look forward to a revision of those documents this year to reinforce the power of the traffic commissioner and their willingness to bring local highway and transport authorities in front of them where it is believed that they have contributed to the unreliability of bus services. In answer to the noble Lord’s point about staffing, local transport authorities can of course refer, with detailed data about bus reliability, directly to the traffic commissioner in order for a hearing to take place.

Finally, I note the noble Lord’s comments on the importance of recording incidents both in and outside buses. Some 96% of buses now have CCTV, which is a great fillip for both bus drivers and passengers, ensuring that crime and anti-social behaviour is recorded and properly dealt with. In addition, the department’s bus and coach safety best practice guidance was updated last year to ensure that, alongside CCTV, there is nationwide best practice regarding security and anti-social behaviour incidents.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; I listened carefully to what he said. On Amendment 1, he says that we can trust the Government that performance, accessibility and quality of service for bus passengers are safe in their hands and those of local transport authorities, and that this does not need to be in the Bill. Yet, when one looks at Marshalled List, there are half a dozen—welcome—amendments on accessibility. Why are they there? They are there because the Government forgot about accessibility when they drafted the Bill. They are there because of the work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, and others, who, in Committee, put this issue right at the heart of the discussion. The truth is that there are a number of drivers influencing the Government in their direction on bus policy. They include the unions, local authorities—many of which are Labour or left-wing led—and the passengers. But the passengers should not have to compete with other parties. As I and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, have said, passengers’ interests should be at the heart of the Bill. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 1.

5|18:36|238|156|Division on Amendment 1|Amendment 1 agreed.||0|0

18:47:00

Clause 6: Criteria for granting service permits

Amendments 2 to 8 not moved.

Amendment 9

Moved by

9: Before Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— “Franchising statementIn section 123A of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The power in subsection (1) cannot be exercised until the franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, has published a statement, subject to the requirement in subsection (1B), stating—(a) their objectives in making the franchising scheme, and(b) their reasons and evidence for believing that the making of such a scheme is the best option for achieving those objectives.(1B) It is a requirement that a statement in subsection (1A) must be published before the franchising authority complies with the requirements in sections 123B to 123G.””Member's explanatory statement This amendment seeks to ensure that before initiating the formal franchising process under sections 123B to 123G of the Transport Act 2000, franchising authorities must first publish a statement outlining their objectives, reasons, and supporting evidence for believing that franchising is the best option to achieve their aims.

My Lords, this group consists of three amendments that are sufficiently related to merit being included in one group but are each distinct from each other, and each requires a degree of explanation that, given the hour, I shall try to keep as short as possible, and I hope I will do a sufficiently good job at explaining what their purpose is. Amendment 9 carries forward the notion of accountability that was contained in Amendment 1 relating to the purpose of the Bill. Amendment 1 related to the Secretary of State. Amendment 9 would place upon a duty upon a local transport authority that was considering embarking on a franchising proposal to make a statement as to what their objectives were in doing so. The franchising process itself is set out in some detail as a result of the amendments here to the Transport Act. I have no quarrel with the process, which is quite elaborate and involves half a dozen steps, including an external audit. It starts when a local transport authority, singly or jointly, decides to start it, and it concludes when that local transport authority decides whether or not to make the scheme. It is perfectly lawful for the local transport authority, having gone through all its process, to reach the conclusion that it should not make the scheme and not therefore proceed with franchising. But at no point does the local transport authority have to say to the public, although it may do as a matter of politics and local communications, what its objective is in doing this, what success is going to look like or what it is trying to achieve. Amendment 9 requires that. I think that is very sensible, and should be welcomed by the Minister, so the public know exactly what their local authority is embarking on and with what purpose. Amendment 12 relates to the effect of the franchising scheme on incumbent private bus operators, which are companies that have staff and that have to make investment decisions and so forth. It says that, if having gone through that franchising process a local transport authority quite legitimately decides that it will not make a scheme, then it is not allowed to re-embark on the process for another five years. I would be open to persuasion if the Minister were to say that the period should be three years or even two years, but there must be a period of respite for the incumbent private transport operators during which they and their employees know that they can get on with a future, with a prospect, with reasons for investment and know that they are not necessarily going to be taken into a franchise arrangement. Otherwise, they could live in a state of perpetual uncertainty, with all the effects that would have on investment, business planning and staff morale. Amendment 12 intends to prevent that happening. It involves no criticism of anybody and would be the result of a perfectly legitimate outcome of the process as it stands. But it would be an adverse effect if through change of control, which of course does not have to follow an election in a local authority—change of control happens quite often without elections taking place, because councillors defect or change to one side and coalitions change in local authorities—the bus company does not have that period of respite. Finally, we come to Amendment 13, on which I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say. The Bill does not contemplate giving the Secretary of State any power to step in if everything goes horribly wrong. What I mean by horribly wrong is something equivalent to bankruptcy of a local authority. In that case, the Government have the power to send in commissioners to rescue the situation. A situation of perpetual drift and financial incoherence will not be allowed to persist because that would not be good for the local people served by that local authority. Commissioners are sent in, and everything is somehow brought back into order so that services and so forth can continue. What is contemplated in this amendment—and it is carefully worded—is that “If, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there is a persistent failure”— not a bad weekend— “to deliver a service specified by the contract, the Secretary of State may”— it is permissive— “take over the management of the service”. In exercising this power, he may become the counterparty to the contract and continue to do this until “a new contract is let, or … another permanent solution is found”. The Secretary of State should welcome having this power because it is possible for things to go horribly wrong. You can imagine a situation where bus services in a particular area simply collapse and stop running. What is to happen if that was to occur? This gives an answer to that question and gives the Secretary of State the power to step in. I want to listen very carefully to what the Minister will say because it is just conceivable that he has this power or an appropriate power he can use. I have had the advantage of a brief discussion with him about this beforehand. The Transport Act, which this Bill amends, is a very large document and I do not have the resources of the Government Legal Service at my hand ploughing through it, looking for the necessary power. If the Minister replies that he has such a power and can point it out, my amendment would fall away. If not, it is something that I would want to press and something he, I hope, would welcome. With that, I beg to move.

My Lords, the variety of amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seem to put even more obstacles in the way of any local transport authority which wishes to introduce franchising or any elected representatives who decide to franchise services. It feels to me that it is even more bureaucracy. These amendments feel like an ideological response rather than a genuine concern about bus service provision. Local government should have the tools to implement what it assesses is suitable for its area and will be judged on whether it is providing the service that local communities need. Ultimately, the electorate will decide what they think of their services through the ballot box. I do not think we need the Secretary of State to intervene. I have confidence in local government to deliver what is needed for its communities. I am sure the Minister may have a similar viewpoint. I am interested to hear whether the Secretary of State does have a power if it is ultimately needed, but I await the response with interest.

My Lords, Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, requires authorities to publish a statement outlining their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence. My department has established franchising guidance to support authorities through the franchising process. Requiring local authorities to provide an upfront statement is redundant as at that point franchising is still in the exploratory stage, making the statement premature. The franchising scheme assessment provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise. While local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to start with, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The amendment undermines recent efforts by my department to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective. I believe the amendment is unnecessary and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it. Amendment 12 seeks to impose a five-year moratorium on repeating franchising scheme assessments if the previous attempt was unsuccessful. The aim of this Bill is to simplify the process for authorities wishing to pursue franchising, ensuring decisions are made at the appropriate level and in a timely manner. I would contend that this amendment introduces unnecessary constraints on local transport authorities by proposing and adopting an overly rigid approach. Many factors might lead an authority to initially decide against pursuing franchising, only to reconsider later. Imposing a blanket restriction limits the ability to respond flexibly to evolving conditions and opportunities. Assessments are costly and time-consuming, so they will not be undertaken lightly. The noble Lord referred to a change of control, which might happen more frequently than five years, which is one possibility. Another possibility is that commercial bus services in the area, presumably served by an enhanced partnership, change over time, so that franchising becomes, in the local transport authority’s view, the best way of dealing with bus services in the locality. Since bus operators can give but 42 days’ notice of quite radical changes to bus services, including large-scale withdrawals, it would be extraordinarily unfortunate to have a situation where a commercial bus company had given notice on quite a large number of services and the local transport authority found itself unable to propose a franchising scheme as a consequence in any reasonable time. For those reasons, I would say that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope the noble Lord will not move it.

19:00:00

Amendment 13, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, looks for the Secretary of State to have the power to intervene when franchised bus services persistently fail. The noble Lord mentioned that the Transport Act might give the Secretary of State such a power—if it does, I do not know of it. The proposition here is that, contrary to the noble Lord’s strongly held principles—which he has explained to me over many years—of the sanctity of local authority decision-making and their responsibility to local communities, he would like the Secretary of State to step in if a bus service is failing. I would say—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on this—that this is entirely a matter for the local electorate and the local authority.

I do not believe this is very likely to happen. What is more likely is the situation I described when discussing Amendment 12, where a commercial bus operator discovers at quite short notice that it is no longer making any money providing a comprehensive service to a town or a small city and proposes the wholesale withdrawal of those services in 42 days. This would leave the community with no viable services and, if we were to adopt Amendment 12, the local transport authority with no opportunity to replace them via a franchising scheme.

I contend strongly that Amendment 13 is not necessary. The core principle of this Bill is the devolution to local transport authorities of the power to organise or provide, or have provided, bus services in their areas. I see no reason for the Secretary of State to have the power to intervene. I hope the noble Lord will not press this amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for what they had to say. I do not intend to press Amendment 9. I think it is a missed opportunity on the part of the Government. It certainly is not, and was never intended to be, an obstacle—how could it possibly be an obstacle to embarking on a franchising scheme that one has to issue a notice explaining what one is doing? However, on Amendments 12 and 13, I am simply unconvinced by what the Minister said. You can be totally devoted to local decision-making and still expect the Secretary of State to have the power to appoint commissioners in the case of a failed local authority. That happens—and of course it should happen—rarely and in appropriate circumstances. I think the Minister almost sounded frivolous. Let us say people were stranded in the Yorkshire Dales, waiting for a bus that never comes because of the persistent mismanagement of their local scheme. We would be able to quote the Minister and tell them that it is entirely a matter for local democracy—that when the local council elections come, in two or three years, they will be able to put this right, and the bus may then come and collect them. That is complete nonsense. When the time comes, I may wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendments 12 and 13. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Clause 9: Report on assessment of proposed scheme

Amendment 10

Moved by

10: Clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert— “(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit “and”.(A3) After subsection (2)(b) insert “, and(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme;(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.”(A4) After subsection (6) insert—“(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.””Member's explanatory statement This amendment requires the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.

My Lords, I point out that it is not my choice that this is the single amendment in the group. I believe there was some degrouping, which left this amendment stranded as the sole survivor of a group. The principle of bus franchising is one that we on these Benches fully support. The reason for abandoning the privatised model introduced 40 years ago is that it has quite simply not worked. There is no competition between bus companies, as each has gradually dominated particular routes and given up on those that are less well used. Under that model—which exists everywhere in England, except in London—there is a spiralling downwards of the expectation of a regular and reliable bus service. The consequence is the growing frustration of those who absolutely rely on buses, and it puts off from using buses those who would like to. Franchising will provide the powers for local transport authorities to ensure growing improvement in bus reliability and connectivity. It will not be achieved overnight, but progress will stall without additional funding from the Government. The £670 million that the Government announced will be allocated in the coming financial year for improving bus services is a start, but the majority of that funding, as I understand it from government figures, is earmarked for capital expenditure. What is desperately needed is revenue funding to support more operators in providing additional services on which people can rely. My concerns are shared by professionals in the industry. Graham Vidler, head of the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents the bus industry, said: “In most franchising arrangements it’s the local authority who takes the revenue risk, so if passenger numbers aren’t where they expect to be, they and their council tax payers take the hit”. I am sure the Minister has this in sight, but my concern, which is shared by the industry, is that it will be left without funding to get this franchising scheme on the road and working well—hence my Amendment 10 asks for an assessment of the adequacy of central government funding. This must include an evaluation of funding sufficiency and “an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve” bus services everywhere. I hope the Minister can say that there is a big pot of money waiting in the Department for Transport, which he has the keys to, and that he will unlock it and enable us to have the bus services that this country deserves but does not have. Bus services that people can rely on will enable more people to move out of private transport on to public bus services, to the benefit of the environment as much as anything else. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It gave a dose of realism—there is nothing for free in this world and we all know that. In Committee, enormous numbers were bandied around on the cost of franchising, so I did some research. The Greater Manchester franchising bill was £134 million. That money came entirely from Greater Manchester; there was not a penny of government money involved, so it can be done. In Greater Manchester, they did it with £78 million from the mayoral earn back fund from GMCA’s devolution agreement; £33.7 million from the mayoral precepts; £17 million from local authorities; and £5 million of existing and forecast business rates. It can be done from within, but, where there is not a mature combined authority, it is more difficult. That is where the Government need to step in and give funding. The question might be asked: why would we do that? From the very start, this debate has been about the public and making transport more accessible and reliable. All I can tell you from Greater Manchester is that patronage, revenue and punctuality are up and the cost of running the network per kilometre is one-third lower than when it was run by private operators. If we had not franchised in Greater Manchester, we would have a smaller bus network, which stifles growth, and a more expensive network, which supports no one. This is not a lot of money, and I just hope that the Government can look at this. Everything is about capital expenditure, but sometimes you have to create the opportunity for revenue, which can be delivered by having a better bus service going where people want it to go: hospitals, outlying villages and where people live and commute to work from. That is the difference. In Greater Manchester, we now have a night bus that goes to north Manchester—it never did before, but for people to get employment and jobs it is invaluable. It shows that, with imagination and the right funding, franchising does work, but sometimes it needs a bit of help from the Government.

My Lords, my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Goddard have raised, with Amendment 10, the elephant in the room: the adequacy of central government funding to support local bus services. While this legislation has the potential to transform bus services and empower local transport authorities, ultimately money is needed for this. This is not the view just of local and regional government—they would say that, wouldn’t they?—but the bus industry as well. Securing long-term clarity and certainty around funding for the sector—revenue and capital—will help enhance the benefits delivered to local communities. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on this amendment.

My Lords, I have only two things to say. First, I look forward to the Minister confirming that the Greater Manchester franchising scheme was carried out without any government subvention at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, explained to the House was the case. It is something of a revelation to me, but of course I may be wrong and I look to the Minister to say whether he was right. Secondly, I am surprised and saddened that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, whom I see in his place, has not intervened in this debate because, at Second Reading, he was voluble in explaining what we all know: that this Bill will make no difference at all if a very large amount of government money is not made available throughout the country to support it. Yet one listens to the Chancellor today with some sadness on behalf of the country that she has not been able to announce the growth rates she was hoping for, that inflation is higher, that growth rates are lower and that the tax yield is less. Where is this money to come from in these sad circumstances that we find ourselves in? I do not know whether “elephant in the room” is the right expression, but the Bill is to some degree bogus, and the House is grateful, I am sure, to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for pointing that out so acutely.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his intervention. It is helpful of him to have quoted those figures, which I concur with, if only because, earlier in the process of this Bill, some completely different figures were quoted—very high ones—which were incorrect. One reason why the figure in Manchester is so high is that the franchising process that the Mayor of Greater Manchester has had to go through has been tortuous. That is one of the reasons why this Bill is in front of this House—to make franchising simpler and easier to carry out. It is a great achievement for Transport for Greater Manchester and the mayor to have got to the place that they have. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, remarked on the success of the bus service in Greater Manchester, with night services, more reliability and greater revenue than anybody expected. I am sure that noble Lords will recall that I had the pleasure of standing here at the end of last year to announce a settlement of just under £1 billion to every local transport authority in the country. That was the first for some time; previous settlements had been partial and selective between different local transport authorities. Of course, the majority of that money could now be spent rather more economically on a faster franchising scheme, if that is what local transport authorities want to do. Some of them will not want to do that, because it is clear that bus services are a patchwork across England and plenty of towns and cities have adequate local bus services provided through enhanced partnerships. I have no doubt that a local transport authority will see no need to change them in those circumstances. I can name some of those places, but it is probably better if I do not. In any event, the affordability of the proposed franchising schemes, and therefore funding, is already an integral aspect of franchising assessment, which is hard-wired into this legislation. Assessments’ financial case should include consideration of funding available from government, as set out in the statutory guidance. Indeed, the guidance for franchising schemes allows local transport authorities to choose whether it applies to all or part of their area, or to some small part of their area, for a necessarily much smaller expenditure. The franchising assessment must be published alongside the independent assurance report if an authority decides to proceed to a consultation, and that will ensure transparency about the proposed scheme’s financial viability and impact on communities. For those reasons, although I absolutely respect the noble Baroness’s regard for the general measures in the Bill, I hope she will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

19:15:00

The noble Lord referred to the £1 billion last year. Of course, £250 million of that went to bus companies, and £750 million went to local transport authorities, of which there are roughly 140. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that it was about a £5 million one-off sum to local transport authorities. I am not sure how far that takes you in terms of franchising and the subsidies that go with it, given that in London the subsidy is closer to £700 million than £7 million. If this Bill is to go forward, can the noble Lord give us any assurance that sums of that order or greater will be offered to local transport authorities in the future—or have we seen the best of it?

The noble Lord quotes a subsidy figure for London, which is a world city of 10 million people. A choice is made by the Mayor of London in respect of the balance between fares and subsidy, amounting to the balance of subsidy that needs to be put into the network. The subsidy in Manchester will be nowhere near what the Mayor of Greater Manchester thought it would be, because of the relative growth in patronage after a long period of decline. I cannot promise any particular numbers, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, well knows, because that is a matter for the Chancellor, for future years and for a spending review. But I will say that that funding, and the fact that it was universally awarded to every local transport authority, is a clear indication of the Government’s commitment to devolution and local bus services in a way that was not apparent with the previous Government.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the positive way that he always responds to our queries and concerns. My concerns are based on the fact that effective, reliable and regular bus services are essential for people to access employment and the growth agenda that the Government are rightly pursuing. They are also essential to help reduce the number of cars on the road and move people to using public transport more often to help our environmental agenda. That is the backdrop to my concerns. I live in West Yorkshire, and we are desperate for a bit of extra funding to support schemes for franchising there. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Amendment 11

Moved by

11: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— “Duty to consult persons with disabilitiesIn section 123E(4) of the Transport Act 2000 (consultation), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment requires a franchising authority to consult disabled persons, or organisations representative of disabled persons, before making a franchising scheme.

My Lords, I turn to a series of four government amendments which place requirements on franchising authorities relating to accessibility. The first of these amendments, Amendment 11, requires that where an authority gives notice of its intent to make a franchising scheme and begins a consultation, the people and organisations with which it must consult includes disabled people and organisations that represent them. The remaining three amendments require that, when a franchising scheme is varied, local transport authorities must consult with disabled people or with organisations representing them. The only difference between them is the type of franchising scheme they relate to. Amendment 62 applies the consultation requirement where schemes are varied to add to the existing area that they cover; Amendment 63 applies it to variations affecting the extent of the franchising scheme but not resulting in the addition of new areas; and Amendment 64 applies it to all other forms of variation. For all three categories of franchising scheme variation, the Bill already proposes that organisations representing passengers must be consulted, as the authority sees fit, but Amendment 11 requires specifically that disabled people and organisations representing them be included. Together, these measures will help to ensure that the voice of disabled people is heard by local transport authorities when franchising schemes are varied, with the aim of ensuring that plans take proper account of the needs of those people. With that in mind, I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment, as well as the wider package of accessibility amendments that I have tabled in my name. Once again, I thank your Lordships for making the interventions that have helped shape the Government’s approach.

I am grateful to the Minister for his Amendments 11, 62, 63 and 64, all of which add to the Bill a duty to consult local disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Will that cover not just the geographic area of the local transport authority but the range of disabilities? In particular, will it ensure that a range of local disabled people’s organisations are consulted. There is a real frustration when, for example, only one particular disabled organisation is talked to. On my train this morning, I talked to a woman with vision impairment who said that she has real frustrations in this regard. She is on the co-production committee in Hertfordshire, and she said that too often, one organisation for disabled people is gone to, and it is assumed that it understands all the different needs of, say, blind people, deaf people, people in wheelchairs, people with autism—I could go on. I would be grateful for an answer to that question, but on balance I am grateful that these measures are here. They are helpful, but they are not what I was seeking in my earlier amendment, which I shall not go over again. Amendment 18 covers enhanced partnership schemes requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities. I note that new subsections (1) and (2), relating to the enhanced partnership schemes, use the word “may”, not “must”. If an enhanced partnership does not specify, for example, how safe a bus stop area is, or that bus stop areas must be safe, will it still have that responsibility, given that Section 174(1)(a) of the Equality Act states: “The Secretary of State may make regulations … for securing that it is possible for disabled persons … to get on to and off regulated public service vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty”? It says, “may make regulations”, but the point is that there is a duty to ensure that disabled people can get on and off buses easily. If one of the enhanced partnerships decided not to check in a rural area, for example, whether there was street lighting or a pavement wide enough for a wheelchair to 2get off, would that be regarded as acceptable by the Government? There is no compulsion on the enhanced partnership to consult on that. Amendment 19 says that local transport authorities in England must make a bus network accessibility plan. We on these Benches think that is helpful. It is a shame, though, that there is no common framework. It also means that the background behind a plan, who they consulted and what the details were, can continue to remain private. My Amendment 37 is slightly different, in that it proposes an annual report with a common framework, according to which all LTAs would have to compile that report, using certain types of data and looking at certain types of accessibility issues. I said in Committee and I say again now that sometimes, there is nothing like an authority being required to consult, create and publish a plan with its results every year, in order to make the change we were talking about in group 1. We have heard from the House of Commons Transport Select Committee that there is much to do in practice, not just on buses themselves but on LTAs enforcing proper accessibility. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on that. On balance, I am grateful for these amendments, but they are not the legislative sureties that I was looking for in the earlier group.

My Lords, this group of amendments is very important and improves the legislation. I am pleased to read the many amendments from the Government, picking up the issues that many of us raised in Committee, for which I am grateful. But far more consultation and engagement with disabled persons and representative organisations is essential as franchising and enhanced partnerships are adopted by local authorities, and as routes are amended or changed and a new way of working settles down. I am also pleased to see government Amendment 19, which ensures that local transport authorities in England make a bus network accessibility plan. That responds in part to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton in Committee. However, as my noble friend has set out in Amendment 37, we need to take that further; it is essential that we get changes across the bus sector. We hope that the Government respond positively to that amendment.

My Lords, the Official Opposition welcome and support the government amendments in this group, and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to the very pertinent questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in relation to her Amendment 37.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on the Government’s amendments. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, had to say and her comparison of Amendment 37 with government Amendments 18 and 19. The Government believe that tabling these makes a real difference to the provision of services for disabled people. Amendment 19 in particular, which relates to the bus network accessibility plan, will enable local transport authorities to provide properly for people with disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to the range of organisations in areas, and I am very comfortable with reassuring her that the intention here is that there should be such a range; it is not that local transport authorities should choose only one or two organisations, which does not seem right to me. I need to think about what she said on the wider duties to ensure that disabled people have access to all places. We will come on to accessible bus stops and how they should be dealt with in this legislation. I look forward to the opportunity—probably not on this day of Report, but the following day—to debate that, and I shall respond very carefully when we get there. In the meantime, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this worthwhile debate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, still feels able to withdraw her Amendment 37 in favour of government Amendment 19, so that we can have a package of measures for people with disabilities that covers the whole range of solutions for local transport. I hope that noble Lords can accept the amendments in my name.

Amendment 11 agreed.

Amendment 12

Moved by

12: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause— “Franchising scheme: restrictionWhere a franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, prepare an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme under section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 but fail, for any reason, to make and publish a scheme under section 123H of the Transport Act 2000, they must not initiate another franchising assessment for the same area, or a substantially similar area, for a period of five years from the date on which the assessment was prepared.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment prevents franchising authorities from repeatedly conducting franchising assessments for the same or substantially similar areas within a five-year period if they do not proceed to make and publish a franchising scheme.

My Lords, the private sector—the private bus companies—will remain absolutely integral, even under a franchising arrangement and certainly under an enhanced bus partnership, to the provision of bus services in this country under the Government’s scheme. It is incumbent on us to treat them properly and with respect. They cannot be held constantly in a state of suspension, potentially not knowing what their future is, as a result of repeated franchise operations. Amendment 12 is absolutely necessary in order to maintain the sense of investment and purpose that private bus companies need if they are going to go forward, and for that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.

6|19:31|133|185|Division on Amendment 12|Amendment 12 disagreed.||0|0

19:43:00

Amendment 13

Moved by

13: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause— “Poor performance of franchising(1) If, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there is a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by the contract, the Secretary of State may take over the management of the service.(2) In exercising this power, the Secretary of State may substitute themselves for the franchising authority in the relevant contract.(3) The Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service until such time as—(a) a new contract is let, or(b) another permanent solution is found.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.

My Lords, it is common ground between the Minister and me that, in the event of a local authority failing financially, it is possible for the Secretary of State to send in commissioners to sort out the matter. It is also common ground between us that, in the similar event of a local transport authority failing financially and not being able to deliver the bus services that it has contracted, or a franchisee falling into bankruptcy, the Secretary of State would have no power under this Bill, and no power under the Transport Act that the Bill amends, to step in and do anything about it. I think that every noble Lord in this House would agree, if they were entirely disinterested, that that is a power the Secretary of State should have. Amendment 13 would simply give the Secretary of State the power to step in, in those limited and prescribed circumstances, in the interests of passengers. It has been barely an hour since the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that the interests of passengers were absolutely at the heart of the Bill. Of course the Secretary of State should have this power, and for that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.

7|19:45|129|185|Division on Amendment 13|Amendment 13 disagreed.||0|0

19:54:00

Clause 12: Socially necessary local services

Amendment 14

Moved by

14: Clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert— “(iv) health care services, or(v) schools and other educational institutes, and”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment ensures that health care services, schools, and other educational institutes are considered under the provisions of “socially necessary routes”.

My Lords, one of the main purposes of this legislation is to transform bus services across the country. The deregulation of buses in the 1985 Act has seen bus route after bus route thinned out and then cut completely, especially in many rural and suburban areas such as Shropshire and Hampshire. That is why the new socially necessary routes clause in this Bill is so important to ensure that bus services provide the routes that meet the needs of local communities rather than simply those which are profitable. Amendment 14 specifies that access to education, including schools and colleges, and health services, from a GP surgery and primary care to an acute medical setting such as a hospital, are included in the definition of a socially necessary route. These seem to be obvious places to connect communities to in a timely manner. But, as I highlighted in Committee, this is not the current case. In Tonbridge, Kent, bus services have been cut so much that school bus services either drop children off far too early, leaving students hanging around the streets before school, or they are actually late for school. Naming education institutions as part of socially necessary routes will help to address this as we move forward. As a Londoner, I am very fortunate to be able to access local health facilities and world-leading teaching hospitals with ease on public transport. But this is not the case across the country. If we want communities to stay healthy and fit, they need good access to health services wherever they are located. I am sure we all know family and friends who have been diagnosed with a condition or illness. They often require regular, routine appointments at different health buildings throughout their treatment. These are not just in a traditional hospital setting but right across the community. In rural areas, these can be located some considerable distance away. That is why we believe that socially necessary services need to be explicit regarding health services to ensure that patients can get to appointments at different locations without having to rely on family or volunteers to drive them there and back. Amendment 16 in this group puts a duty on local authorities to implement a socially necessary service as far as is reasonably practical should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established. We on these Benches felt that that was important, given that the Bill allows for a clear definition of socially necessary routes but no clarity on how these routes will be provided. If, either through franchising or enhanced partnerships, it has proven impossible to secure a provider for a service, what then happens? This is the back-up clause, but we felt it was important to ensure that such crucial services for communities are picked up and provided. I have no doubt that, where franchising is used, local authorities will package profitable routes with socially necessary services to ensure that comprehensive bus services are provided. But our amendment picks up those services which are just not securing an operator, to ensure that communities have access to essential services. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to these important points shortly to ensure that socially necessary bus routes properly serve local communities. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on their amendments in this group and I beg to move Amendment 14.

For those listeners with visual impairments, I state that my name is Jones of Moulsecoomb. I have Amendments 15 and 53 in this group. I will speak to Amendment 53 first. As we have heard a lot during the progress of the Bill, we need buses in villages. Having them does all sorts of things. It boosts people’s health because they do not use their cars as much and it improves air quality within the villages themselves. It is quite an important aspect of village life to have good buses to good services. Here, I am slightly nervous about asking for a review, because reviews take time and cost money and we have to be sure that they are properly targeted. However, I care about this, I think we could tweak it and perhaps it will find acceptance from the Minister. My Amendment 15 basically cuts out the need for a review, because it states that bus services that were in place should be replaced. That is an option that we could look at. I take buses all the time and it seems to me that, when we reduce bus services, we reduce all sorts of opportunities that people cannot access any more. So I feel very strongly about this and I hope to hear that the Minister looks favourably on these amendments.

20:00:00

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has put her finger on what might be described as the other elephant in the room. The whole purpose of this Bill is defeated if it does not result in uncommercial services being run on the basis of subsidy. We have discussed in a previous group the complete absence of any information from the Government about where those subsidies are coming from. In this amendment, the noble Baroness draws attention to the types of routes that should be included and what a socially necessary service is. To the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I say that no party cares for villages more than the Conservative Party. While I cannot sympathise with her attempt to resurrect bus routes as old as 15 years, I have great sympathy with what she has to say about villages. I hope that the Minister shares that and can reach out to her to achieve the sort of compromise that she is offering—and which can only improve the Bill.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 14. I know through discussions with her that she has a keen interest in protecting vital services, especially those outside large towns and cities. The Bill sets out that a socially necessary local service is a local bus service which “enables passengers to access—essential goods and services … economic opportunities (including employment), or … social activities” and which “if cancelled, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access those goods, services, opportunities or activities”. However, as there has been concern that not all essential services are covered by this definition, particularly healthcare and schools, I want to confirm through this statement to the House that “essential goods and services” includes healthcare, schools and other educational institutions. Therefore, a socially necessary local service may include a bus service which enables passengers to access healthcare and schools. The Government intend to produce detailed guidance to assist in the interpretation and application of this measure. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment. I thank the noble Baroness also for Amendment 16 and want to reassure her that under Clause 12, when an operator wishes to cancel or amend a service, the operator and the local transport authority will need to give due consideration to the benefits that a bus service provides to the local community. LTAs will also need to consider alternatives to mitigate any adverse effects of changes to such services. Under the Transport Act 1985 and the Transport Act 1968, local authorities are already under a duty to secure public passenger transport services that they consider appropriate to secure to meet the requirements of the area and which would not otherwise be met. This is likely to include services that have been identified as socially necessary. Clause 12 should result in additional transparency by identifying the number of socially necessary local services in an area where an enhanced partnership is in place. This in turn will provide government with additional information which can be used to inform the decision-making around funding for local bus services. Local transport authorities have the best understanding of the needs of their local communities. Any additional obligations introduced through legislation would place an undue burden on local authorities and undermine their independence. They should be able to consider all the possible options to deliver the best outcome for passengers. On Amendment 15 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, there was a similar amendment in Committee. I reaffirm that this Government recognise that local transport authorities are best placed to understand and address the needs of the communities that they serve. This Bill is about giving them real powers to decide what is best for their local area. We can recognise that a service that has been cancelled within the last 15 years may no longer be a service that would meet the current needs of the community given that these will inevitably change over time, but I also recognise that some might still be relevant to the needs of the community. As local transport authorities address need for their communities, they can of course consider former routes if they believe that they would represent a contribution to socially necessary local services. In that, I recognise the rather unfortunate nature of some of the funding for rural bus services in recent years, which has provoked new services, cancelled old ones, had the new services withdrawn and had the old ones brought back. She is right in her assumption that local transport authorities should look at the recent past in considering the best pattern of socially necessary services. I also recognise the need to serve villages just like the rest of the communities in a local transport authority area, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out that this is rather more about making sure that the socially necessary services chosen by local transport authorities serve the complete community, including villages, and rather less about a review which, as she said, generally costs time and money—almost certainly, such reviews do. In terms of this Bill, however, it will take up to five years for local transport authorities either to transition to a franchise network or to form a bus company, with a period for the review itself. I agree that it is much better for local transport authorities to consider the needs of villages in their areas and the right options of routes to serve their local communities. I hope therefore that she will not press her amendments.

I thank the Minister for his clarification on socially necessary bus services and his confirmation that healthcare, schools and education institutions are covered by this. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Amendments 15 and 16 not moved.

Amendment 17

Moved by

17: Clause 12, page 10, line 7, at end insert— “(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”

My Lords, the Conservative Government maintained a cap on individual bus fares of £2. We pledged in our manifesto—and had we been re-elected we would have put into that effect that pledge—that we would continue the £2 bus cap. I suppose that I do not need to remind noble Lords that the Conservatives did not win the general election last year. When the cap expired, the current Government replaced it with a £3 cap, with no examination whatever of the effect that might have. We are now in a position, as the months have rolled by, to carry out a review of its effect. We know from studies done independently by Frontier Economics and SYSTRA when the Conservatives were in power that the £2 fare cap delivered significant benefits. The report concluded that the scheme had had a positive impact on bus patronage and had helped to support the cost of living by reducing travel costs. It also noted an increase in the number and proportion of single bus journeys since the scheme began. It would be a very strange thing indeed if the Government said that they did not wish to know the effects of their own policies. The Conservatives wanted to know, and commissioned reports to find out, what the effects of their fare policies were, but the current Government simply do not want to know. I cannot believe that that it is the response from the Front Bench. This amendment requires the Government to carry out that research and bring it to the House so that we can all understand the effect of this large increase in the bus fares cap. I beg to move.

My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches were saddened that the Government cancelled the £2 bus fare cap. It was an incredibly successful scheme that saw an increase in passengers on buses and made bus travel more affordable. I have an amendment to bring back a £2 bus fare cap scheme, which we will debate next week. I believe it is far stronger than this amendment before us today. However, I am glad to see that His Majesty’s Opposition are highlighting this issue through an assessment of the scheme. As I said earlier, the key issue here is always the level of funding for bus services and, indeed, the costs to the passenger. If we want more people out of their cars and using buses, we need to ensure that fares are more attractive and services are provided where passengers need to go. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this amendment.

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said that he deplored the fact that the £2 bus fare had been increased to £3. This is, even for him, an act of great cynicism. The £2 maximum bus fare was introduced by the last Conservative Government on 1 January 2023 —coincidentally, of course, in the run-up to the next election. It was initially introduced for three months. There is nothing that makes the bus industry despair more than this sort of short-termism. You cannot plan ahead for three months so far as bus services are concerned. That £2 limit was increased on numerous occasions in the run-up to the election, and if the Opposition spokesperson is going to tell us that it would have remained at £2 in the foreseeable future, I would be more than impressed. I suspect that this is a plot that has succeeded in luring the Liberal Democrats into the same Lobby. The House would be better served if we waited for the actual debate on the Liberal Democrat amendment rather than suffered what is, I repeat, a cynical operation on the part of the party opposite.

My Lords, I will make just a few points about the former £2 national bus fare cap. The first is quite obvious. The previous Government left no forward funding for that scheme at the time of the election and, indeed, left a rather large hole in the public finances, which, in effect, prevented its continuation. The second point is that it is very easy to assume that somehow the maximum cap of £3 meant that all fares went up by 50%. The vast majority of travellers on bus services travel for a short distance and many of them paid less than £2 in any event. Fares between £2 and £3 went up only by inflation, and the cap still applies to longer-distance journeys that would cost more than £3. In any event, in February, the Government published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 fare cap. Evidence from that suggests that the scheme had a relatively greater impact on leisure trips compared with those for education and employment and was, in fact, rather poor value for money. So I believe that a legislative requirement for further evaluation is unnecessary and, on that basis, I would ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

My Lords, I hesitate to be drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, who intends only to provoke me. But I am to some extent provoked. I am provoked to the extent of pointing out that there was a solemn pledge by the Conservative Party in its manifesto to continue the £2 bus cap and that the Conservative Party keeps its pledges. He should not find that astounding. As far as the Minister is concerned, we suddenly discover that leisure trips on buses are of no account and no real value. “It is much better if people use their cars for leisure trips”. I mean, really, this an astonishing convolution of his arguments: “Now we don’t value leisure trips”. Of course we want people to use buses for leisure trips—and not merely people who are economically active. This is something the Government should understand properly. They should look into the effects of their own policy. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

8|20:15|155|127|Division on Amendment 17|Amendment 17 agreed.||0|0

20:25:00

Amendment 17A

Moved by

17A: Clause 12, page 10, line 7, at end insert— “(5) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the impact of the level of employers’ National Insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and lay it before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment would require for a review of how the increase in National Insurance contributions from 6 April 2025 would affect socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

My Lords, in the last week or two, your Lordships’ House has occupied itself extensively with the effects of the increase in national insurance contributions on various parties, often vulnerable and small operations. One of those is the private sector providers of special educational needs transport. They are vulnerable to the increase in national insurance contributions, for reasons that have been spelled out at considerable length in earlier debates on another Bill. In the end, it seems likely that your Lordships’ House will, with its customary sense of responsibility, give way on the NICs Bill and allow the Government to have their way, and to do so very shortly. After all, in the end, the King’s Government must go on and the King must have supply; it is a financial matter. Fortuitously now, we have in front of us a Bill on bus services, where we have an opportunity to return to the matter—I shall speak only briefly, because it has been well aired—and come forward with a measure which is not financial in character and against which the other place will not claim financial privilege. Amendment 17A simply calls for an assessment by the Government of the consequences for SEND transport of the increase to and changes in national insurance contributions. Noble Lords will not need reminding that it is not merely the rate that has an effect but the threshold at which the national insurance contributions are payable. In a way, this is the least the Government can offer, after the way in which your Lordships’ House has, as I say, indulged them with its customary sense of responsibility. We should look at this carefully. This form of transport is absolutely crucial to schools and it is part of the bus service, in the broadest sense. I hope very much that the Government will be able to support this amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, we on these Benches have consistently advocated for sufficient funding to meet the transport needs of those requiring accessible services, particularly those relying on special educational needs and disabilities—known as SEND—bus services. Given our support on this issue, in this Bill and other legislation, we feel it is essential to assess the impact of NICs increases on these vital services. A review would ensure transparency, protect accessibility for SEND passengers and mitigate financial pressures on operators that could jeopardise these services. Without a proper review, there is a real risk that rising costs could force operators to cut routes or reduce service levels, leaving many SEND passengers without reliable transport. This would undermine efforts to create an inclusive and accessible bus network. A thorough bus assessment would help identify any necessary mitigations, to ensure that SEND services remain sustainable, well-funded and fit for purpose. Protecting these services is a matter not just of policy but of fairness, ensuring that no one is left behind due to financial pressures beyond their control. We therefore support this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.

20:30:00

My Lords, Amendment 17A concerns the impact that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will have on socially necessary bus services, including those for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant effect on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment that this amendment suggests. Local authorities are responsible for arranging home-to-school travel and delivering this through a range of providers. Department for Education officials engage regularly with local authorities to understand the challenges that they face and will continue to monitor this situation. It is expected that private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes to their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations. The Government have already announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26, which includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions. This is not ring-fenced funding, and could therefore be used to fund contracted services should a local authority wish to. Moreover, I understand that a large proportion of special educational needs and disabilities transport operators are self-employed and therefore exempt from this charge. The Government are protecting the smallest businesses and charities by increasing the employment allowance to £10,500. Next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions at all, more than half of employers will see no change or will gain overall from this package, and employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance contributions. On socially necessary services more broadly, excluding special educational needs and disabilities transport, the Government have already confirmed, as I said, an additional £925 million for the 2025-26 financial year to support and improve bus services in England outside London. The Government recognise that local transport authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their communities and can use the £925 million to introduce new bus routes, make services more frequent and protect crucial bus routes, ensuring passenger access to essential goods and services. I contend that this amendment is not required.

My Lords, it is a sorry reply from the Minister. The modest amounts of money he splashes around seem to have an awful lot of work to do, since they are the response to nearly every group of amendments we have discussed. It is very sad that he does not want to accept this amendment, and, in that light, I feel I am obliged to test the opinion of the House.

9|20:33|150|126|Division on Amendment 17A|Amendment 17A agreed.||0|0

20:43:00

Amendments 18 and 19

Moved by

18: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause— “Requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 138C (requirements in respect of local services) insert—“138CA Requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities(1) An enhanced partnership scheme may specify under section 138A(5)(b) requirements about enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort.(2) The requirements may include requirements about securing alternative means for the carriage of a person with a disability where—(a) the person cannot travel on a public service vehicle being used to provide a local service because the vehicle’s wheelchair space is occupied and cannot be vacated readily, and(b) it is possible for the person, together with any wheelchair, mobility aid or assistance dog which the person has with them, to be carried in safety and reasonable comfort to the person’s intended destination by a taxi or private hire vehicle.(3) Before making an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services that have one or more stopping places in the area to which the scheme relates.(4) In this section—“assistance dog” has the meaning given by section 173(1) of the Equality Act 2010;“mobility aid” has the meaning given by section 164A(6) of that Act;“persons with disabilities” means persons who have a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of that Act.” (3) In section 138F(6) (consultation), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”(4) In section 138K (variation), after subsection (8) insert—“(9) Before varying an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme as varied will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services that have one or more stopping places in the area to which the scheme as proposed to be varied relates.(10) In this section, “persons with disabilities” means persons who have a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”(5) In section 138A(5)(b) (requirements which may be specified in enhanced partnership schemes), for “section 138C” substitute “sections 138C and 138CA”.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment requires a local transport authority to consult disabled persons before making an enhanced partnership scheme, and to impose requirements to enable travel by disabled persons on local services independently and in safety and reasonable comfort.

19: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause— “Bus network accessibility plansIn the Transport Act 2000, after section 113B insert—“Bus network accessibility plans: England 113BA Bus network accessibility plans(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England must, before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, publish a bus network accessibility plan in relation to the authority’s area.(2) A bus network accessibility plan must—(a) identify what (if any) provision is made to assist persons with disabilities to travel on local services that have one or more stopping places in the authority’s area;(b) set out the extent to which, in the authority’s opinion, the provision made in the authority’s area enables persons with disabilities to travel on such local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort;(c) describe what (if any) further action the authority intends to take to enable persons with disabilities to travel on such local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort.(3) The authority must review the plan—(a) if there is a substantial change to the provision of local services in the authority’s area, and(b) in any event, at least once every three years.(4) The authority must alter the plan—(a) following any review carried out as required by subsection (3)(a), or(b) if the authority considers it appropriate to do so for any other reason.(5) The authority may replace the plan as they think fit.(6) In preparing and reviewing a bus network accessibility plan, a local transport authority must consult—(a) persons operating local services in the authority’s area, (b) such persons with disabilities who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority to represent such persons, as they think fit, and(c) any other persons whom the authority considers it appropriate to consult.(7) In this section “persons with disabilities” means persons who have a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment provides for local transport authorities in England to make a bus network accessibility plan.

Amendments 18 and 19 agreed.

Clause 18: Local government bus companies

Amendment 20

Moved by

20: Clause 18, page 13, line 35, at end insert— “(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—“(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.

My Lords, I hope noble Lords will agree that in my speeches so far this evening I have been as brief as possible. This amendment is of some technicality and legally quite complex. Not being a lawyer, I hope that I can get it right and explain it correctly in as brief a compass as possible, but if I go on a little bit longer than I have otherwise, I hope noble Lords will indulge me. I will start at some distance from the Bill, with European Union procurement law, to which we were subject for so many years. Anybody involved in local government or any departmental procurement will remember that it obliged us to put out to tender any contracts that were above a certain threshold. We had to advertise them and go through what was known as the OJEU process. At that time in European law, a question arose: what was the situation of a public authority which had set up its own company? Could it award work to a company which was its own subsidiary, without going out to tender? This case, which was called Teckal, went to the European Court of Justice, which determined that in certain circumstances, especially those in which the subsidiary was doing substantially most of its work for the public authority, contracts could be awarded to it without the need for any tendering. So, you have a public authority which has a subsidiary, the subsidiary does most of its work for that public authority, and contracts can be awarded without going out to tender—the Teckal exemption. Of course, we left the European Union and in the course of time we replaced that procurement legislation with our own Procurement Act, seen so ably through the House, if I may so, by my noble friend Lady Neville- Rolfe. That procurement legislation carried forward the provisions of the Teckal exemption—I do not know whether it is still called that but I am going to call it that because everybody in the procurement universe does—so that the situation I described still pertains in UK law. The Bill offers to local transport authorities three ways of carrying forward the provision of bus services: through an enhanced bus partnership, through the franchising route, or through establishing their own bus company subsidiary. It is manifest to me, even as a non-lawyer, that a bus company that was established and owned by a local transport authority, which inevitably would provide practically all its services to that local transport authority, would qualify for the Teckal exemption —that is, work would be given to it without going out to tender. I am going to park that for a moment. Let us now travel to a different part of the Bill, relating to the franchising route. Permission is given to local transport authorities to make initially what is called a “direct award”, which is to give to the existing incumbent bus company the contract to carry out the franchised service without going out to tender. This provision would apply for only a limited period. One understands the Government’s thinking on this: if you are going to adopt a franchise model and you have only one bus company operating, then perhaps you should be able to give it to that company for the sake of continuity and smooth operation and then develop the market later, so that when you next arrange your franchising there is a market into which you can tender. The direct award route is not in itself objectionable— I am not saying that anything in this is objectionable. I come to the interaction of the two, because the anxiety is that the legislation is so drafted—not deliberately, I imagine, but I will come to that—that it may be possible for a local authority on the one hand to use the route of setting up its own subsidiary bus company: a so-called LABCo, which seems to be the terminology that is going round; I depreciate it as much as I think the Minister does, from the shaking of his head. On the other hand, a local authority could then use the direct award mechanism to give the whole contract to its own subsidiary immediately and without any tendering. I think the Minister can respond to what I have said by saying one of three things. Fortunately for him, I have given him my own inadequate explanation of this case in advance, so he has had some time to think about it. He can say that I have got the law wrong—he has the benefit of the Government Legal Department behind him, and I have my poor resources, so that may be the answer. He will be able to explain why I have got the law wrong and put the House right as to what the legal position is. That is one thing. He could say that I have alighted upon a loophole and a weakness in the legislation which should be addressed, that he is going to take steps to address it, that my amendment is therefore unnecessary and that something will be done between now and Third Reading. Or he could say words to the effect that I have got the law right, the loophole exists, and he is going to do nothing at all about it. In the last case, I give notice that I suspect I would want to the test the opinion of the House, but in the first two cases, if I was corrected on the law or if the Minister said that he agreed with me on the law and was going to do something about it, then I would of course expect to withdraw my amendment. I am very interested to hear what noble Lords have to say about this exciting argument that could, for all I know, provoke widespread debate in the House, but I am particularly interested to know what the Minister has to say when he comes to reply. I beg to move.

This is a rather technical amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, stated, and one about which I have received several pieces of correspondence in the last 24 hours. Although I understand the intent of the amendment, I am not sure that it is actually necessary. I find it hard to imagine that local authorities, which often struggle with capacity and the financial means to deliver, will want to suddenly introduce their own bus company just ahead of awarding contracts directly to this new company. I hope the Minister can clarify the situation and allay any fears.

Amendment 20, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, seeks to prevent new local authority bus companies—I will not say LABCos; I cannot make that work—from being able to directly award franchising contracts using what he described correctly as the Teckal-style exemption in the Procurement Act 2023. Clause 18 will help to support public ownership where desired by repealing the ban on new local authority bus companies, but the Bill is not prescriptive about the structure of any of those new companies. Local authorities can consider a range of options for structuring a new bus company. One of these options could be to establish a new company as a Teckal company, which would, as he says, allow a local authority to directly award service contracts to that company without the requirement for a competitive procurement exercise at any time. The noble Lord referred to Teckal as a loophole, but it is part of a much wider landscape of public procurement law, which, as he says, was enacted in the Procurement Act 2023 by the previous Government. Use of the Teckal exemption is complex and subject to challenge, given that it allows contract awards outside the usual controls imposed by the public procurement regime, and specific and rigorous tests are required to use the exemption. Local authorities must be careful to ensure that these companies are within the Teckal parameters if they pursue this option, which would likely require significant funding and investment in organisational capacity and capability, as the noble Baroness referred to. All this means that any local authority looking at Teckal would need to consider very carefully whether this is appropriate for its local context. Existing precedent for Teckal local authority bus companies in the UK, while limited, is that Teckal has been used only in scenarios where private operators are not interested or fail—for example, as an operator of last resort. For existing Teckal companies, the exemption is utilised only in the event of private operators being unable to do so, rather than as the default option for providing local bus services. Teckal is open to all public bodies that own any type of commercial company; it does not apply only to local authorities, only to local authority bus companies, or only to transport companies. Removing Teckal as an option only for new local authority bus companies would be an unusual—and, I believe, unnecessary—departure from the status quo around existing procurement legislation. As it stands, there does not appear to be a compelling reason to isolate new local authority bus companies as the only type of public company that cannot use Teckal, and no evidence has been provided to support what would be an extraordinary diversion from established procurement rules. My department plans to publish guidance on local authority bus companies after the Bill comes into force, which will address the use of the Teckal exemption. We will of course work very closely with stakeholders when developing and drafting the guidance to help ensure that the exemption, if used, will not be about local authority bus companies having the upper hand over the private sector but about genuinely improving bus services for local passengers in that area. I therefore hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment. It might be convenient if I briefly move on to Amendments 21, 22 and 23, tabled in my name, which are also about helping to provide a level playing field between new and existing local authority bus companies. Clause 18 gives all local authorities the freedom to set up a new bus company if they choose to. Under this clause, new companies are not subject to restrictions regarding how they might secure funding or financing. This is at odds with the five existing local authority bus companies that are. Restrictions, as set out in the Transport Act 1985, mean that the existing local authority bus companies are unable to access private finance, which creates inconsistencies. My department has engaged extensively with stakeholders while developing the measures for this Bill and feedback has been strongly in favour of greater parity between how new and existing local authority bus companies can finance their operations. The amendment will remove restrictions on existing local authority bus companies accessing private borrowing, if they are doing so for the purposes of, or in connection with, providing local services. As I have mentioned, this will help to provide a level playing field for both new and existing local authority bus companies. It will provide greater choice for local authorities in how they potentially fund a local authority bus company, which will give them more freedom to achieve ambitious and far-reaching improvements to local bus services. Amendments 21 and 22 are consequential to Amendment 23. I finish by saying that I do not believe that there is likely to be a large-scale establishment of new local authority bus companies, but the powers contained in this Bill are necessary because, frankly, the bus market is not what it was. There is not much competition in some areas, and in others there is none. In those cases, a new local authority bus company might well be the way in which a local transport authority seeks to provide bus services in the future. It would be, as a postscript, a fitting riposte to some of the excesses of previous eras of competition in bus companies. I will not repeat it now, but if noble Lords were to look at the sorry story of the Darlington bus wars, where a perfectly satisfactory municipal bus company was reduced to being put into liquidation by the predatory activities of private companies, they would see why there might be some interest in local authorities to set up new local bus companies in the future. There might even be a little interest in using Teckal to do so.

My Lords, I apologise for not addressing in my opening remarks the government amendments in this group, which I am happy to say I am content with. I mean, if one is as short of money as the Minister and his department probably are then giving local transport authorities the power to borrow money is probably the best that you can hope to get away with. We have no objection to those amendments. I am disappointed—well, not entirely disappointed; I am rather thrilled—that the Minister has more or less agreed that I got the complex legal position right, but I am disappointed that he feels that the loophole should stay open. It should not. One of the purposes that the Government have set out is to encourage competition, where it can be stimulated, between bus service providers. To allow those two provisions to operate together in a way that would exclude competition would be an abuse. The abuse should be closed down. It is simple to do so: they could just say it was not going to be allowed. It would not upend procurement law. It would not overturn the sacred rules of procurement. It would simply say, in this specific case, because of the way these two statutes will interact, you cannot actually do the thing that would be an abuse. So I am sorry to say, because I know it is getting on—actually, we have made good progress and there is time—that I am afraid I am going to have to ask the House’s opinion on this matter, because I do not think the Government should be allowed to take this lackadaisical approach.

10|21:01|54|125|Division on Amendment 20|Amendment 20 disagreed.||0|0

21:10:00

Amendments 21 to 23

Moved by

21: Clause 18, page 14, line 23, leave out “73(5) (activities” and insert “73 (control over constitution and activities” Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 14, line 27.

22: Clause 18, page 14, line 23, after “end” insert “of subsection (5)” Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 14, line 27.

23: Clause 18, page 14, line 27, at end insert— “(ii) after that subsection insert—“(5A) Subsection (3)(b) does not apply in relation to borrowing money for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision of local services by a public transport company to which subsection (5B) applies.(5B) This subsection applies to a public transport company the controlling authority of which is—(a) an authority the functions of which are exercisable in relation to an area in England, or(b) two or more authorities the functions of which are exercisable in relation to areas in England.””Member's explanatory statement This amendment removes the restriction on public transport companies in England borrowing money where the money is borrowed in order to provide local services.

Amendments 21 to 23 agreed.

Clause 20: Information provided on registration of local services

Amendment 24

Moved by

24: Clause 20, page 15, line 36, leave out “as follows” and insert “in accordance with subsections (2) and (3)” Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 20, page 17, line 9.

My Lords, this group covers data provisions. Before I speak to the amendments in my name, I note that there have been questions from stakeholders about releasing commercially sensitive information. I reassure noble Lords that the department will be mindful of publishing information that could be seen as commercially sensitive under the powers in Clauses 21 and 22. Officials will engage with industry on the Government’s intentions for and the use of this data before exercising the power. I will be as brief as I can on the other amendments in this group—Amendments 24, 25, 26 and 29. Amendments 25 and 26 are necessary to clarify that regulations made under Section 6 of the Transport Act 1985 that may involve the processing of personal data do not operate in contravention of data protection legislation. This is engaged due to the potential for information being processed under these provisions to contain personal data. Amendment 24 is consequential on Amendment 26. Amendment 29 does the same job as Amendments 25 and 26, and for the same reasons, in respect of regulations made under Section 141A of the Transport Act 2000. Amendment 27 enables the traffic commissioners to share existing registration information with the Secretary of State and enables it to be uploaded to the new registration database. It enables registration, variation and cancellation applications which are pending when this clause enters into force to be uploaded to the new database once they have been processed. Like Amendment 28, which I will turn to next, it supports our ambition to provide the public with the right information to help them make better-informed travel decisions. Amendment 28 has been tabled to ensure that the Secretary of State can receive the same information about franchised services as other registered bus services are required to provide. In essence, the amendment creates consistency in the data provided by franchised and non-franchised services, enabling the public, via a new registration database, to make better decisions regarding their journeys. It also future-proofs the power in Clause 21, ensuring that, if changes are made to the information gathered under the 1986 regulations, this is reflected in what can be gathered for franchised services under Clause 21. Amendment 33 is a further minor and technical amendment. It is necessary to ensure that Clause 24 functions in a manner consistent with the provisions in the Data Protection Act 2018. Amendment 24 is consequential to this amendment. Amendment 43 to Clause 27 clarifies that provisions made under the powers in new Section 144F of the Transport Act 2000 that may involve the processing of personal data do not operate in contravention of data protection legislation. That is necessary due to the potential for information being processed under Clause 27 to contain personal data, given that it includes requirements to keep records about staff who have undertaken training in relation to crime and anti-social behaviour.

21:15:00

Amendment 44 seeks to clarify a Bill measure’s interaction with data protection legislation. It relates to powers under Clause 29 and, once more, the functioning of this clause may involve the processing of personal data. I confirm that this will be carried out in a manner consistent with the Data Protection Act 2018. Amendment 45 is consequential on this amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am pleased to see these amendments from the Government around the issue of data transparency and the use and processing of personal data relating to the bus sector. I am assured by the Minister’s introductory remarks on this group of amendments.

My Lords, we have no objection to these amendments.

I commend these amendments to the House.

Amendment 24 agreed.

Amendments 25 to 27

Moved by

25: Clause 20, page 16, line 43, at end insert— “(13) Where regulations under this section impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(14) In this section “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies that provision contained in regulations under section 6 of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to the processing of personal data does not operate in contravention of the data protection legislation.

26: Clause 20, page 17, line 9, at end insert— “(c) after that subsection insert—“(7A) Where the regulations impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).”;(d) in subsection (8), at the appropriate place insert—““the data protection legislation” , “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly;””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies that provision contained in regulations under section 6I of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to the processing of personal data does not operate in contravention of the data protection legislation.

27: Clause 20, page 17, line 9, at end insert— “(4) Information received by a traffic commissioner under section 6 or 6I of the Transport Act 1985 before this section comes into force may be provided by the traffic commissioner to the Secretary of State (in which case the information is provided without restrictions on its disclosure or use).(5) Subsection (4) does not authorise the disclosure or use of information in contravention of the data protection legislation (but that subsection is to be taken into account in determining whether the disclosure or use does contravene that legislation).(6) In this section “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment enables certain registration information held by the traffic commissioners when this clause comes into force to be published by the Secretary of State.

Amendments 25 to 27 agreed.

Clause 21: Information about local services

Amendments 28 and 29

Moved by

28: Clause 21, page 17, line 31, at end insert— “(g) any other information which may be prescribed under section 6(2)(a) of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to the registration of a local service under that section.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment enables the Secretary of State to obtain the same information under section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 as may be obtained under section 6(2)(a) of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to local services which are required to be registered under that section.

29: Clause 21, page 17, line 40, at end insert— “(6) After that subsection insert—“(8A) Where the regulations impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(8B) In subsection (8A) “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly.””Member’s explanatory statement This amendment clarifies that provision contained in regulations under section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the processing of personal data does not operate in contravention of the data protection legislation.

Amendments 28 and 29 agreed.

Clause 24: Local transport authority byelaws

Amendment 30

Moved by

30: Clause 24, page 20, line 2, leave out “after section 144” and insert “before the italic heading preceding section 145A” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment ensures that new section 144A is inserted in the correct place in Part 2 of the Transport Act 2000.

My Lords, Amendment 35, tabled in my name, seeks to apply the local transport authority by-laws powers contained in the Bill to London. Clause 24 will enable local transport authorities to introduce by-laws to tackle anti-social behaviour on vehicles, as well as within and at bus-related infrastructure. Giving these powers to all local transport authorities is intended to give them the flexibility they need to effectively enforce against anti-social behaviour on the transport network and ensure that there is greater consistency across England. When I first introduced the Bill, these powers did not apply to London. However, after engagement with Transport for London, it asked to be included in these provisions. This is because, while its officers can deal with anti-social behaviour at bus stops and bus stations under existing by-laws, it cannot easily enforce against anti-social behaviour on buses themselves. Closing this loophole will give TfL the same powers as other local transport authorities in England, and it will help make buses in London safer for passengers and staff. While on the subject of bus by-laws, I will speak briefly to three further amendments tabled in my name. Amendment 30 is minor and technical. Its purpose is to ensure that the powers being granted to local authorities to make bus by-laws are inserted correctly into the right part of the Transport Act 2000. Amendment 31 intends to ensure parity between by-laws powers being granted to LTAs and London. In expanding the application of the local transport authority by-laws measure in Clause 24 to London, it was necessary to take account of the prevalence of smart card payments. This is reflected in the drafting of Amendment 31. However, the Government have also identified the need to allow local transport authorities outside London to deal similarly with smart card payments on bus services in drafting bus by-laws. That is what this amendment achieves. Amendment 32 is consequential on this amendment. I beg to move Amendment 30.

My Lords, this Bill has been about bus services outside the capital, yet at this stage there is suddenly a lengthy amendment about London and giving Transport for London the powers it needs more easily and effectively to support by-laws on London buses. The Minister has provided clarity on this and the other government amendments in this group; they have provided the assurance needed, and we are content with them.

My Lords, we have no objections.

Amendment 30 agreed.

Amendments 31 to 35

Moved by

31: Clause 24, page 20, line 15, at end insert— “(za) with respect to tickets and other things (whether in physical or electronic form) which authorise a person to enter and travel on local services;”Member's explanatory statement This amendment ensures that byelaws made by local transport authorities can allow for the use of smart card tickets on local bus services.

32: Clause 24, page 20, line 16, leave out from the first “to” to “the” in line 17 Member's explanatory statement This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 24, page 20, line 15.

33: Clause 24, page 23, line 41, at end insert— “(3A) Subsection (3)(a) does not operate to require or authorise the processing of personal data in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but that subsection is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).”Member's explanatory statement This amendment clarifies that the duty to give reasonably detailed particulars in a fixed penalty notice does not operate in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation.

34: Clause 24, page 24, line 23, at end insert— ““the data protection legislation” , “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”Member's explanatory statement This amendment defines terms used in new section 144E(3A), inserted by my amendment to clause 24, page 23, line 41, and is consequential on that amendment.

35: After Clause 24, insert the following new Clause— “TfL byelawsIn the Greater London Authority Act 1999, after Chapter 8 of Part 4 insert—“Chapter 8ABus byelawsLondon local service byelaws 244A Power to make byelaws for London local services(1) Transport for London may make byelaws regulating one or more of the following—(a) travel on London local services;(b) the maintenance of order on London local services;(c) the conduct of persons while travelling on London local services.(2) The byelaws may, in particular, make provision—(a) with respect to tickets and other things (whether in physical or electronic form) which authorise a person to enter and travel on London local services;(b) with respect to the evasion of payment of fares or other charges;(c) with respect to interference with, or obstruction of, London local services;(d) prohibiting vaping by persons on London local services;(e) with respect to the prevention of nuisance.(3) The byelaws may provide that a person contravening them is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding—(a) level 3 on the standard scale, or(b) such lower level or lower amount as is specified in the byelaws.Enforcement 244B Powers of authorised persons(1) An authorised person may—(a) issue a fixed penalty notice (see section 244C) to anyone who that person has reason to believe has committed—(i) a bus byelaws offence,(ii) a premises byelaws offence, or(iii) an offence under this section; (b) require a person who the authorised person reasonably suspects of committing or attempting to commit a bus byelaws offence to do one or both of the following—(i) to give their name and address;(ii) to leave any vehicle in relation to which the byelaws under section 244A apply.(2) An authorised person may use reasonable force to remove a person who has failed to comply with a requirement under subsection (1)(b)(ii).(3) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1)(b) commits an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the exercise of functions under this section and section 244C, and Transport for London and authorised persons must have regard to the guidance when exercising those functions.(5) The Secretary of State may at any time vary or revoke guidance issued under subsection (4).(6) The Secretary of State must publish—(a) guidance issued under subsection (4), and(b) any variation or revocation of the guidance.(7) In this section—“authorised person” means a person authorised for the purposes of this section by Transport for London;“bus byelaws offence” means an offence under byelaws made under section 244A;“premises byelaws offence” means an offence under byelaws made under section 25 of the London Transport Act 1969 committed on premises used by a London local service.244C Fixed penalty notices(1) A fixed penalty notice issued under section 244B is a notice offering the person to whom it is issued the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty to Transport for London.(2) Where a person is issued with a fixed penalty notice in respect of an offence—(a) no proceedings may be taken for the offence before the end of the period of 14 days following the date of the notice;(b) the person may not be convicted of the offence if the person pays the fixed penalty before the end of that period.(3) A fixed penalty notice must—(a) give reasonably detailed particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence;(b) state the period during which (because of subsection (2)(a)) proceedings will not be taken for the offence;(c) specify the amount of the fixed penalty;(d) state the name and address of the person to whom the fixed penalty may be paid;(e) specify permissible methods of payment.(4) Subsection (3)(a) does not operate to require or authorise the processing of personal data in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but that subsection is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(5) An amount specified under subsection (3)(c) must not be more than £100.(6) A fixed penalty notice may specify two amounts under subsection (3)(c) and specify that, if the lower of those amounts is paid within a specified period (of less than 14 days), that is the amount of the fixed penalty.(7) Whatever other method may be specified under subsection (3)(e), payment of the fixed penalty may be made by pre-paying and posting to the person whose name and address is stated under subsection (3)(d), at the stated address, a letter containing the amount of the penalty (in cash or otherwise).(8) Where a letter is sent as mentioned in subsection (6), payment is regarded as having been made at the time at which that letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.(9) In any proceedings, a certificate that—(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of Transport for London, and(b) states that payment of the fixed penalty was, or was not, received by the date specified in the certificate,is evidence of the facts stated.(10) In this section“the data protection legislation” , “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).””Member's explanatory statement This clause will allow TfL to make byelaws local bus services in London. It also provides for those byelaws, and TfL’s Road Transport Premises Byelaws, to be enforced by authorised persons, including by means of fixed penalty notices.

Amendments 31 to 35 agreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned.