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

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

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

† Aquarone, Steff (North Norfolk) (LD)

† Berry, Siân (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)

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

† Dearden, Kate (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)

† Egan, Damien (Bristol North East) (Lab)

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

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

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

† Kohler, Mr Paul (Wimbledon) (LD)

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

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

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

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

Newbury, Josh (Cannock Chase) (Lab)

Race, Steve (Exeter) (Lab)

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

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

Simon Armitage, Adam Evans and Dominic Stockbridge, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

09:25:00

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Will Members please be kind enough to send their speaking notes by email, if possible, to hansardnotes@parliament.uk? Please switch all electronic devices off or to silent. Please also remember that tea and coffee are not allowed in the room during sittings. We will consider first the programme motion as on the amendment paper and then the motion on the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those formally, but they are open to debate if anyone wishes to debate them. The Minister will move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill. Ordered, That— 1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 24 June) meet— (a) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 June; (b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 July; (c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 3 July; (d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 July; 2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 12; Schedule; Clauses 13 to 40; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 41 to 44; remaining proceedings on the Bill; 3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 8 July.—(Simon Lightwood.) Resolved, That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Simon Lightwood.)

It is cooler today, but if hon. Members are robust enough and wish to remove their jackets, they may do so. We now come to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments—there are amendments that have not been selected—have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are ordinarily on the same or a similar issue. I appreciate that I may be teaching granny to suck eggs, but some Members may not have served on a Bill Committee before. Decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated; they take place in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, are taken when we come to consider the relevant clause. Let me explain that: you will find that things are debated and then not voted on, and you might think, “Oh gosh, we have missed something.” We have not. We will vote on them when we reach the stage in the Bill at which they appear, even though they have been grouped earlier, because they are on a similar subject to something else. I hope that is clear. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or the Clerk—I may not know the answer, but the Clerk certainly will. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. Members can speak more than once in a debate, but please indicate that—I do not have second sight. I do not like feeling that someone has been left out because I did not call them, so make sure that you catch my eye, or that of whoever is in the Chair, if you want to speak. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment to speak again only if they wish to do so. Before the Member sits down, they need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a vote. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote, please let me know in advance. Before we start, do any Members need to make declarations of interest?

I am a serving councillor on Norfolk county council.

I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

I am a councillor in Merton.

We will now begin our consideration of the Bill. Clause 1 Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—Duty to promote bus services— “(1) It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction. (2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider— (a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options; (b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives; (c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage; (d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility; (e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; (f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion; (g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services. (3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including— (a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable; (b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage; (c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and (d) plans for future improvements in bus services. (4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.” This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I think I speak for the majority of Committee members in saying that, as this is my first Bill Committee, I will be guided by your experience and that of the Clerks. This clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Bill, namely the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the other place. I will take this opportunity to outline the Government’s objectives for buses, which extend well beyond the Bill and explain why the clause is not necessary. The Government know that for far too long, buses have not been delivering for passengers. Long-term service decline has undermined confidence and contributed to falling patronage. Efforts to buck that trend have not gone far enough. The Government’s vision is for better bus services across the country. We seek to grow passenger numbers and drive opportunity to underserved regions. That means enabling local areas to shape services that connect people to the places where they need to go; that can be counted on as a reliable, affordable, inclusive and better integrated part of the transport network; and that offer bus passengers, in particular women and girls, safety throughout their journeys. Passengers should also be able to access accurate, accessible and timely information about when and where buses will run. The Bill is an important part of delivering that vision. Local leaders will be given powers to decide how best to design bus services in their areas, whether that is through bus franchising or strengthened enhanced partnerships. The Government are taking steps to ensure that essential services, including those in rural areas, are protected, that safety is improved, and that services are more accessible. Legislative change alone, however, is not enough. In addition, the Government have published updated franchising guidance. Reforms to how bus services are funded are also being implemented, with the bus service improvement plan and the bus service operators grant funding being combined into a single bus grant. Furthermore, at the spending review, the Government committed £900 million each year to maintain and improve vital bus services; extended the £3 fare cap until March 2027; and announced franchising pilots in York and North Yorkshire, and Cheshire West and Chester. The clause, therefore, does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. It cannot do so, because our ambitious reform package extends beyond the structural changes that the Bill makes. The clause would also amend the Bill to limit its outcomes to specific aims, which would not take into account the other outcomes that the Government seek to achieve, such as improved safety. I hope that my comments demonstrate to Members the Government’s objectives for buses. For those reasons, the Government will oppose the clause remaining part of the Bill. I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk for tabling new clause 22. I have explained that the Bill is about empowering local leaders across the country to shape better bus services for their communities. Beyond the Bill, the Department for Transport allocated more than £700 million of bus grant funding to local transport authorities in 2025-26. That included additional funding for local transport authorities to boost their capability, so that they can make the most of the opportunities that the Bill gives them. I have already spoken about the announcements at the recent spending review, including the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March ’27. Work is already under way to ensure that the Government provide active support to local transport authorities, such as those interested in franchising. The Bill is about giving local areas choice, and with that comes trust. That is consistent with what the Government seek to achieve through devolution. My view is that authorities and operators want to promote bus services in their local areas, which will help their communities to thrive and create growth. New clause 22, however, would place additional requirements and reporting burdens on local authorities and local transport authorities. That would lead to additional pressures on authorities already under resource constraints. That is not the Government’s intention. We want authorities to be focused on delivering better buses and, as I said, we want to give them the tools to get on and do precisely that. The new clause has the potential to compel authorities to divert funding from essential services to other activities. For those reasons, the Government cannot support it and I ask that the new clause not be moved.

I will give another word of explanation at this point. Ordinarily, I would call the shadow Minister first and then other Members, but because Mr Kohler tabled the new clause, I shall call him first and then the shadow Minister. The first four debates on the selection and grouping list are on clause stand part, which means, literally, that the clause being considered shall stand—remain—part of the Bill. If the clause is amended, the Question will be whether the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. When we come to a group with a lead amendment, as we will in our fifth debate, I have the authority to decide whether to subsequently permit a clause stand part debate. We will debate the amendments in the group, and then I will put the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill—but that can be debated. Different Chairmen take different views. My view is that you can have your cake, but you cannot eat it twice. You can have a big debate, which sometimes facilitates a general discussion—that is fine by me—but it almost invariably means that you then do not get a second bite of the cherry with a stand part debate at the end. If you have any questions, ask. It is a slightly complex and arcane process, but we will get there in the end.

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

No, not necessarily. A lead amendment will be moved when we come to a group of amendments, as will happen in our fifth debate. Only the lead amendment will be moved, and it may or may not be agreed to. I will then decide, on the basis of the debate on the grouped amendments, whether everything in the clause has been sufficiently debated and we need hear no more about it, thank you very much. If there are things missing, I will say, “Actually, this still warrants a clause stand part debate.” Other Chairmen may take a different view. I have found, generally, that Members like to take a slightly broader view in debates, which is fine, but you cannot do it twice. What we cannot have is repetitive debates. Because new clause 22 is grouped with clause 1, I call Paul Kohler to speak to his new clause.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The Lib Dems support the Bill and applaud the Government’s ambitions. This is an excellent move forward, and we support the purpose set out in clause 1. The stated aim to “improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services” in the UK is vital. However, buses have for too long been a poor relation in public transport, which is why we are pushing the Government to give local authorities a general duty to promote the use of bus services. The bus is the most popular form of public transport, but it has long been neglected and, to some extent, looked down on. New clause 22 would ensure that local authorities have a duty to encourage the use of buses and promote their benefits and services, but it is only a general duty. Subsection (2) would not be mandatory; it simply suggests the things that a local authority might consider. Although the Government’s ambitions are wonderful and to be commended, we want local authorities to start saying to people, “Yes, buses are important, and we have a role in providing them.” That is why we are pushing the Government on that.

It is very reassuring to have you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I already feel calmer, and I am sure the Minister does as well.

How are you spelling that—calmer or karma?

I will tell you at the end of the day. The Opposition welcome the Bill in principle, which is why we did not divide the House on Second Reading. We welcome it because franchising was an innovation that the previous Government introduced in 2017. At that stage, it was limited to mayoral combined authorities, although any local authority could apply to the Secretary of State for agreement that franchising could be brought in. We are concerned, however, that the Bill does not deliver the goals of value for money and improvement of passenger services as it is currently drafted. It is therefore important that we use this opportunity to carefully consider the many amendments from the Government, official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; each of them has their various merits, and there are many good ideas to improve what every party agrees is currently an imperfect Bill. That brings me to clause 1—the purpose clause—which was proposed by the Earl of Effingham in the other place, and received substantial support. It ensures that the overarching aim of the Bill is to improve bus services, and that that remains at the heart of all decisions undertaken in its provisions. By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose, the clause embeds into the legislation a commitment to improve bus services. That is not merely a formality; it is about setting a clear duty on the Secretary of State to put the improvement of bus services at the core of any decisions he or she makes under the legislation. The clause gives the Bill a necessary focus; it is the framework on which all the baubles of other clauses and requirements are hung. That is important when there is a change to structures, as the Bill anticipates, because it is easy for process to take over from the clear objectives of the Bill. In a purely commercial construct, where there is an operator driven by the profit motive—they need to drive fare box and have customers to get a return on their investment—it is obvious that the natural incentives focus on the customer. When we move to a franchise and the primacy of commercial incentives are removed, the risk is that the customer gets overlooked. In what is commonly described as full-fat franchising—rather like the Manchester example of the Bee Network, which I believe we will refer to quite frequently in Committee—the local authority takes full assumption of commercial risk within its remit and the operator is contracted merely to provide a service. That brings the temptation to mould services in favour of the supplier—particularly if the supplier is a municipal bus company, such as an in-house provider—as opposed to the passenger. With external providers, there are a couple of checks on that: first, the direct relationship between fare box and profitability, which I have already mentioned; and secondly, the local authority’s overseeing position to challenge operators and hold them to account, particularly when partnerships are the enhanced partnerships that we have in many local authorities around the country. That combination enforces the interests of the passenger, even when they are not directly consistent with commercial performance. Under wider franchising, there is a risk—albeit a manageable one—that that check will disappear, because local authorities may become both the judge and the jury. That makes the purpose clause even more important to ensure that the Secretary of State focuses on passengers in every decision. It makes it clear that the accountability for achieving that result lies firmly with the Secretary of State, and it is useful, as in any complex consideration, to have organisational clarity. Nothing in the Bill, other than here in clause 1, puts passengers front and centre—that is a notable omission from the Bill as currently drafted; all the rest deals with procedure. Placing an explicit duty on the Secretary of State provides a valuable guiding principle throughout the Bill’s implementation period, and ensures that every step taken under the Bill will be aligned with the objective of improving bus services for all those who rely on them. The Minister in his opening remarks said that the clause was not necessary, because it does not encompass “the full scope of the Government’s ambition.” Yet the clause says that the Bill will “improve the performance, accessibility and quality”. Surely “quality” encompasses safety, which was the Minister’s example as to why the clause was inadequate to describe the full scope of the Government’s ambitions. I push back on that, because quality does encompass safety in the ordinary sense of that word. Paragraph 1 of the Government’s explanatory notes for the Bill says: “The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill brings forward primary legislative measures intended to support the government’s commitment to deliver better buses.” Clause 1 honours that Government commitment to deliver better buses and should remain part of the Bill.

09:45:00

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 22 would impose an additional duty on local authorities on top of the ones already in the Bill. The considerations that may be taken into account in the new clause are all good and reasonable; I expect any local authority to have them in mind in any event. Although I recognise and agree with the intentions behind the new clause, I am not sure about the wording. Is there harm to it? Possibly, in subsection (3), which would make it mandatory to publish a report every two years that outlines the steps taken to fulfil the proposed new duty, including the steps set out in paragraphs (a) to (d). That would be time-consuming and arguably costly for local authorities, and I wonder whether it would distract from efficient government. There is the additional concern that if local authorities, particularly small ones, are not quite as up on their legislative requirements as perhaps they should be, it may open the door for lawfare and judicial review.

The new clause sets out a duty to promote bus services, but what if that is at the expense of other transport modes, such as bicycling? In many parts of the country, we have increasing competition for road space, with buses and bicycles fighting it out. We will come later in our consideration to the concerns about floating bus stops, for example, in respect of which the desires of the bicycling community are set against pedestrians, particularly those with sight impairments. Where do the Government place their weight of consideration? Do they prefer buses or bicycles? Who should take that decision? Although I support the thinking behind the new clause, it brings into question that kind of consideration, so I am hesitant on it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I will certainly benefit from your guidance on the particulars of the proceedings. In general, I am a big fan of the Bill. I am a bus person at heart. Wherever I go in the country, I make a point of taking the buses—I take notes and sometimes write to local councillors. That is how passionately I feel about this. The good measures in the Bill need to be backed up by clause 1, which was added to the Bill in the other place. The Bill has come from the other place in very good shape, and the clause is part of that. I worry about what the move from the Government to strike out the clause portends for the rest of the Committee proceedings. Is it the sign of real commitment that the bus services deserve? Is it a sign that we will see high-quality, reliable, frequent, high-performance, accessible bus services for the whole country? The Government should explain more why they want to remove this very good clause. I support new clause 22, tabled by my Lib Dem colleagues the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk. It would extend a stronger duty, including an accountability, to local transport authorities. Empowering local authorities is great, but those who need buses—those who struggle with car dependency and cannot reach essential services—need the good measures in the Bill to be backed up by both those duties and real funding as soon as possible.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I rise to endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and to draw further attention to an issue with new clause 22: placing duties on local authorities without money coming in. Central Government are very good, and have been for decades, at requiring things of local government, which naturally leads to increased costs on councils to deliver the relevant duties and comply with the law, but councils do not automatically—in fact, very rarely—get money to go towards complying. The duties set out in the new clause seem obvious. Subsection (1) says: “It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.” Subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (g). I will not read them all out, but paragraph (a) says that authorities may consider “the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options”. There is also a requirement to report every two years. That looks laudable. One would hope it would lead to better bus services, but it would place a cost burden on local government without money coming to every local authority. That is my concern: placing duties without accompanying finance in all cases. That is why I have difficulty with new clause 22, although I appreciate the intention and sentiment behind it.

As I said in my opening remarks, clause 1 does not account for the full scope of the Government’s ambition. The shadow Minister talked about incentives; I think the incentives for local authorities are really clear, if not the clearest. They know what is best for their local areas. They are driven by the desire to tackle the social and economic challenges within their areas, and I do not agree that the clause would add anything to that. The shadow Minister’s reading of “quality” to include safety is subjective. I do not think it is as clear as he made out. The franchising guidance states that an LTA must “explain how far it will deliver improvements” if it franchises. The guidance also has a chapter to ensure that an LTA articulates how it is putting people at the heart of franchising assessments. Although it is not in the legislation, the guidance is clear about driving improvements. New clause 22 would create an additional reporting burden on local authorities and local transport authorities, which are already operating under resource constraints, while potentially undermining their devolved powers to determine transport priorities in line with their local transport plans. I am not able to support it. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

1|0|5|9|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 2

Availability of franchising schemes

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 14—Franchising statement— “(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows. (2) In section 123A, 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.’” This new clause seeks to ensure that before initiating the formal franchising process undersections 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. New clause 18—Cost of franchising schemes— “(1) Where a local authority owned bus company is providing franchised bus services, the authority or authorities must publish annually— (a) The anticipated cost of the franchise for that year (b) The actual cost of the franchise for that year. (2) Where an authority (or authorities) have transferred the franchise from a privately owned bus company to a local authority owned bus company, the authority (or authorities) must publish— (a) the costs incurred by the franchising authority in transferring the service, including the transfer of undertakings (protection of employment costs); and (b) a breakdown of how those costs are being incurred. (3) The reports required by subsections (1) and (2) must be published in a format that is easily accessible on the website of the relevant authority or authorities. (4) Each local authority which runs a bus company delivering franchised bus services must ensure that time is made available for the reports required by subsections (1) and (2) to be debated at a public meeting of the full council.” This new clause would require transparency about the costs of franchising local authority owned bus services. New clause 30—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme. (2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in— (a) rural areas; (b) coastal communities; and (c) suburban areas.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes. New clause 38—Franchising authorities: joint forum— “(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions. (2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.”

Clause 2 removes the requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. The measure puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field. It also removes from the process an administrative step that does not provide an effective check on local transport authorities’ plans, given that it occurs before a franchising assessment is produced. I am confident that the measure will make franchising more attractive to local transport authorities by speeding up the overall process. New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, would require authorities to publish a statement that outlines their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence for deciding whether franchising is the best option to achieve their aims, before they initiate the formal process. The Department for Transport has established franchising guidance; to require local authorities to provide an up-front statement during an exploratory stage would be premature. The franchising scheme assessment also provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise. Although local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to investigate the right bus model for their area, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The new clause would also make the franchising process slower and undermine the Government’s ambition to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective. New clause 18 would require local authorities to publish the costs associated with franchised bus services operated by local authority-owned bus companies. Authorities are already subject to statutory requirements to publish detailed information on their spending and financial performance. Under the 2015 local government transparency code, they must regularly publish data on all expenditure over £500, and are required to produce and make publicly available their annual statements of accounts, which are subject to external audit and public scrutiny. The framework ensures a high level of financial transparency and public accountability, making such an additional burden on authorities unnecessary. New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes that includes specific information on rural and suburban areas and coastal communities. The Department for Transport has published franchising guidance, including on the consideration of neighbouring authorities and on the requirement to consult affected areas. The Department continuously refines the franchising guidance, and plans to undertake comprehensive updates after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The introduction of piecemeal additions without considering the guidance in its entirety would risk reducing its effectiveness. In addition to the guidance, the Department supports LTAs through the franchising and bus reform pilot. The ambition is to explore alternative models that may suit a local area and help to provide evidence for the decision. Lessons learned, tools, templates and best practice will be shared throughout the pilot programme. New clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require franchising authorities to establish a forum of stakeholders to address staffing and employment issues in the franchising area. It seeks to increase accountability in areas that choose to adopt franchising. I am sympathetic to the new clause’s aims, but it is not the role of central Government to prescribe how local transport authorities run their services. Franchising guidance that covers driver welfare already exists, giving the franchising authority scope to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services. The new clause is therefore unnecessary and I hope it will be withdrawn.

Clause 2 amends the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the availability of franchising schemes. It is essentially a facilitating clause to allow for one of the really important changes in the Bill, which is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to any local authority other than mayoral combined authorities when deciding whether to embark on a franchising scheme.

10:00:00

Clause 2(2) amends section 123A(4) of the 2000 Act, to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to provide in regulations that paragraphs (b) to (g) of that section, which list the non-mayoral authorities that are franchising authorities, have effect. Clause 2(2) amends section 123A of the 2000 Act to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent before franchising authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities can assess a proposed franchising scheme, and subsection (4) repeals section 143A(5) of the 2000 Act to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent if franchising authorities that are not mayoral combined or mayoral combined county authorities wish to exercise the powers to obtain information about local services in their area under subsections (1) and (2) of section 143A of the 2000 Act. It is a little technical, but it is worth going through the sections to clarify what we are being asked to decide on.

I will deal with the arguments for and against franchising later, but it is important to clarify the Government’s thinking on clause 2(4). As I said in my opening comments, the Opposition are not against franchising—it is, after all, a Conservative innovation, going back to 2017. In fact, I think I am right in saying, from the dim and distant recesses of my memory, that franchising was first developed under Mrs Thatcher’s Government when the buses were first privatised in the 1980s. I look to you, Sir Roger, to confirm whether that is true. We claim credit, then, if credit is due, for franchising.

But one of the greatest risks associated with franchising is the transfer of commercial risk from private operators to the state—to local authorities. Risks can be managed, and in the right circumstances it can be an appropriate decision, but it is a very significant one, because it takes all the commercial complexity away from the operator and gives it to civil servants. That is not straightforward. We all understand that running bus operations requires complex contractual negotiations. We have to develop the system from scratch because, with the exception of eight local authorities that have retained municipal bus companies, every other local authority in the country will be starting from a blank page, with the institutional memory having been erased over the previous 30-plus years of municipal bus companies running the buses.

We know that it is complex because the Department for Transport has acknowledged it in the allocation of resources: of the roughly £1 billion that the Government have said is going towards buses, £700 million is allocated to helping local authorities to navigate the complexities of taking on franchising. What, then, gives the Minister confidence that the Secretary of State’s oversight should be removed? Whether or not it is the right thing to do, we should all agree that we are facilitating local authorities in undertaking a high-risk activity. They are taking on significant commercial risk, which means the responsibility for losses as well as profits, if there are any, yet at the same time the Bill is removing the safeguard of oversight by Department for Transport officials as expressed through the consent of the Secretary of State.

Surely this is absolutely the wrong time to remove oversight. The Government can encourage local authorities to consider franchising, and give them money to undertake an assessment, but if they are then to say, “Fill your boots. We’re stepping back and you can do it without our oversight. If you make an obviously stupid decision, you don’t have to run it past us. We’re removing our right as the Department for Transport to have any kind of oversight over this—any kind of safeguard to say, ‘Hold on—you haven’t thought this through properly’,” in my submission that is a foolhardy approach. What gives the Minister confidence that the Secretary of State’s oversight should be removed in not just a few but all circumstances? What evidence does he pray in aid to support his confidence that oversight no longer needs to be considered?

Until now, the Government have referred to the experiment of the Bee Network in Greater Manchester. That is the first full-fat franchise and is soon to be followed by franchised services in the Liverpool and West Midlands mayoral combined authorities. Transport for London has been up and running for longer than any franchise, but London receives £650 million of subsidy support for its franchising every year. If the Government are going to expand franchising across the country, they have to back it up with the kind of money that makes it a success.

Some people will say that London is a much bigger conurbation than any other local authority we will be talking about, and they will be right. It also has some unique characteristics in its size and the complexity of its transport system. However, even when it is almost impossible to drive a car as an alternative, and when the system has the unique advantage that most people have to use public transport, whereas in other parts of the country they may be rich enough to drive a car, reducing public transport patronage, it requires £650 million of public subsidy every year.

Greater Manchester is a more recent example, and arguably a more coherent one for other large cities around the country. It cost £134 million to establish the Bee Network in its transition phase, which I think—the Minister will correct me, because I am working from memory here—was over about an 18-month period. The business plan thereafter was that, over the course of the forecast period, there would be some losses and some profits, but overall it would be net profitable by about £94 million. That was the business case upon which the investment decisions were taken by Greater Manchester. However, independent reports suggest that in year one—the ’25-26 financial year, which we are in at the moment—it is on course for an enormous £226 million deficit. The Bee Network, the shining example that the Minister and other Government Members referred so positively on Second Reading in encouraging many other authorities to follow suit even though they have no experience of franchising—the gold standard to which the Bill points—is itself £226 million in the red in its first year. If the Minister is interested in where that figure comes from, I refer to the Oxera report.

Why has Greater Manchester gone so terribly wrong in its first year? The answers are manifold, but I will outline some of them. The first is disastrous negotiation skills, because it is asking civil servants to undertake activities and use expertise that they have not previously developed. For example, Greater Manchester assumed that, by taking on the commercial liability from the previous operators, it would, when those operations came to an end, under the TUPE regulations, receive all the trained and qualified drivers necessary to run a bus network. We can see how, on the face of it, it might be sensible to think, “They’ve got enough bus drivers to run their services. We’re taking on those services, so presumably, under TUPE, we’ll take on the bus drivers as well.” With that confidence, Greater Manchester guaranteed to the new operators, under contract, that, for a fee, they would provide at start-up sufficient qualified bus drivers to run their services.

What actually happened is that the exiting bus operators, as they ran down their services to a known finish date, stopped training new bus drivers, because they were not going to need them. Greater Manchester started its operations and was under a contractual obligation to provide qualified bus drivers, but it did not have enough. Right now, we have between 300 and 400 agency bus drivers who have been brought into Greater Manchester having their accommodation paid for by the state and being paid agency rates of roughly £25 an hour, instead of the national average of about £12.60 an hour, to drive the buses. The cost overrun on that one element is over £17 million a year.

That is just one tiny but very telling example that even when a large, complex and sophisticated local authority—a mayoral combined authority—starts doing this thing, it has to do it with its eyes open, and not blindly say, “Here are the toys in the toy box—go and play.” Mummy and daddy—the Government—are going off into another room and saying, “You can juggle the knives yourself.” That is not sensible government.

We see another example in the purchase of the buses. Greater Manchester has decided that it wants to own the buses, rather than merely lease them. For a private company to buy a bus of the equivalent standard, it costs £180,000. Under the negotiating skills of Greater Manchester, that has risen to £220,000, so a £40,000 surcharge is being applied to every bus that Greater Manchester buys because of the requirements that it has placed on the provider.

Another example—I could go on, but I will stop after this one—is the cost of depots. Greater Manchester has decided not to contract services that come with their own depot, in an arrangement in which it says to an operator, “We’ve got all these routes; we want you to provide and maintain the buses that operate them, and provide the drivers.” Under such an arrangement, those operators go off, sort out their own depots, provide their own buses and provide the trained drivers. Service quality is part of the contract, and the operator either complies with its contract or not. That is the relationship between the local authority and the bus operator. In Greater Manchester, it is different: the authority has taken responsibility for it all. The mayor has said, “I don’t want to have just the use of the depots; I’ve taken the decision to buy them.” A bus depot that had, from memory, previously been bought for £3.4 million was bought three years later by the mayor for more than £12 million. Why? Because he said he was going to buy the bus depots—and how many are there around? The market dictates the price.

Those are just three examples. The Government say that franchising is the future and that it is actively encouraged. They said that in the King’s Speech, and no doubt if I went back over Hansard I would find that the Minister has said it too. They say, “Franchising is one of the options, but we encourage more of it.” We have two examples to date of franchising in operation. The first is London, which has unique characteristics because of its size and the lack of availability of driving for most people, and still needs £650 million of public subsidy every year. The second, and most recent, is Greater Manchester, a mayoral combined authority, with all the sophistication and complexity brought by its public servants and all the financial heft that a large city can bring to franchising, and yet we see huge cost overruns and mistakes being made.

We have to ask ourselves: is this the time to remove oversight by the Department for Transport? I say absolutely not. If that is what is happening in Greater Manchester, what would a small local authority do? What chance does it have of developing a franchise scheme without falling into financial pitfalls or exposing itself to commercial risks that it does not fully understand? That is not its fault; it has not done it for more than 30 years and it does not have the institutional memory or expertise.

10:15:00

I am clearly wrong, because the Government are going in another direction. Let me ask the Minister a specific question. We are changing tack here, and these are technical changes, so what data is the Department using to support the assertion that franchising is a success and should be expanded? I am talking about commercial data. I understand arguments about ridership and customer satisfaction—those are definite benefits. I am not saying we should not franchise—it is, after all, a Conservative innovation—but we need to do it with our eyes wide open and with significant support from the Department.

What data are the Government relying on to put forward the view that local authorities will be able to handle this? What level of subsidy do the Government assess is likely to be required for a significant expansion of franchising? Does that take account of cost overruns in Manchester? If the Government agree with me that there are cost overruns in the financial performance of the Bee Network of Manchester this year, what impact assessment have they undertaken of the consequences of that? Who is going to pay for that cost overrun? If that happens in other local authorities, where does the buck stop? Who is ultimately responsible? If it is the local authority, it will go bust. Given the size of a local authority and the amount of money it has—its revenues—these are determinative factors that could bring it into default.

So where is the money? The clause—the whole Bill, in fact—is meaningless without the money to support these decisions, and yet we do not know where it is. If the experience of Greater Manchester—the only recent example of the introduction of franchising—is the path to be followed, then we are going to need many billions of pounds to support franchising across the country. And it is not just money; we will need skills, because local authorities are absent the skills. They do not have the experience of designing bus services under franchise operations, and they do not have the experience that TfL has with ticketing and fares policy. That is not straightforward; it is highly complex to design a fares policy across the various demographics in a community. We can blindly say, “Oh well, they can work it out,” but these things make a huge difference to the financial viability and effectiveness of the service for the demographics that local authorities seek to serve. They do not have experience of revenue enforcement, or even of where to locate bus stops and how walkable communities work. It is all achievable, but the skills are not there, and yet the Bill is silent about the skills required and how local authorities are expected to develop and pay for them.

The Minister’s answer to my next question may be the same as Lord Hendy’s answer to a similar question put to him in the other place. Lord Hendy’s answer was that the Government would rely on the Bus Centre of Excellence—a great-sounding organisation, Sir Roger, which no doubt you are familiar with. I looked into the Bus Centre of Excellence and it turns out to have a core team of just three employees. It is a tiny organisation. If the Government’s answer to the skills deficit is the Bus Centre of Excellence, I ask them to think again. Can the Minister explain how that very small organisation will be scaled in order to provide this service to local authorities right across the country, given that every single one of them will be entitled, under the clause, to advance a franchising scheme even if they have never done it before or are the smallest local authority in the country?

There are quite a few questions there—and they are serious ones. No doubt I will mess around with politics later on, but these are serious questions that go to the heart of the efficacy of the Bill. Without the money and the skills, this is empty, meaningless posturing, with the added risk that it may lead some local authorities into a very dangerous place financially.

That was clause 2. I move on—at a rather slow pace; forgive me, Sir Roger—to new clause 14 in my name, which seeks to inject some realism and clarity into the franchise application journey. Even the process of application is time-consuming and very expensive, hence the Government’s allocation of £700 million towards it. Given that the Government have already decided to step right away from this whole area and to say, “You don’t need to consult us on whether you apply for a franchise scheme. We have no right of veto any longer. We’re going to give that away. It’s over to you guys,” and given the considerable risks that we have already identified, surely it makes sense at the start of that process to ask local authorities to do some of the difficult thinking before they spend tons of money on a formal application process. No doubt the Minister will tell me in a moment that these questions will be addressed at that point, but surely, doing that at the start of the process must make sense.

There will be no Secretary of State’s consent needed under section 123C of the 2000 Act, so it is an open field for all local authorities, irrespective of size, financial strength, organisational capacity and experience, and the other factors that I have missed—that was a non-exhaustive list. We need to require that a considered process of assessment be undertaken. First, there should be a considered assessment of the objectives of a franchising scheme: what is the local authority trying to achieve by taking on this new role and responsibility?

Secondly, there should be an assessment of the reasons and, crucially, the evidence for the belief that such a scheme is the best option. Many leaders of local authorities want to stand up for their community, and they rail at the apprehension that they have insufficient powers to do so. They want to put their arms around all the levers they can pull to improve services for their community. All those goals are right and laudable, but they all create risk. Leaders—particularly some of the mayors and directly elected leaders that we are moving towards under local government reorganisation—will want to stamp their mark and say, “This is what I’ve done. I’ve taken control. We’re going to take back the buses.”

We can understand that. The political incentive to do that will be very strong. However, we need to protect those leaders from themselves and ask them at least to go through the consideration process carefully before they take the decision to spend a lot of time and money. Doing so will sharpen the thought process at the start of the franchise journey, force the evidence to be obtained and then confront some of the difficult questions. That does not mean to say that those cannot be overcome—they may well be, but we should do it the right way. That is what new clause 14 is about. It is better to address those questions before a full application, contrary to the explanation of the noble Lord Hendy in the other place.

New clause 18, also in my name, seeks to bring clarity and transparency to the process, and deals with the cost of franchising a scheme. The current position is that the vast majority of privately owned bus companies, often working collaboratively with local authorities in enhanced partnerships, provide the services. Only eight local authorities in England and Wales somehow retained their municipal bus companies—another time it would be interesting to consider from a historical perspective how it was that they did so, but they did: Blackpool Transport Services, Halton Borough Transport, Ipswich Buses in Suffolk, Nottingham City Transport, Reading Buses, Warrington’s Own Buses, Newport Bus and Wightbus. Those are the historical anomalies. Everywhere else, we have partnerships or enhanced partnerships.

The Government’s intention in this area was made clear in the King’s Speech some months ago: to expand the number and scope of municipal bus services. That direction of travel is clearly ideological. There is a distrust of the profit motive—I think that would be a fair categorisation of a number of Labour Members—and a default belief in the efficiency and inherent goodness of the state, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Clause 22(1) removes the 30-year-plus restriction on local government bus companies. Why is that a problem? Surely we should let a thousand flowers bloom, and every local authority should be free to design and implement services that it feels best represent the needs of its community. In one sense, I agree; I am all for devolving power down to the lowest level, where it should properly sit. That is fine—it is good, even—so long as there is a level contractual and economic playing field between a municipal bus company and other commercial providers. When we say “commercial providers”, that is overwhelmingly small and medium-sized enterprises that live in, work in, employ and support our communities.

The sector and industry have repeatedly expressed significant concern that where the local authority is both the commissioner and the provider of services, there will be a lack of transparency in the contractual negotiations associated with any deal, and private sector operators will be unfairly discriminated against when tendering for the opportunity to run the buses. Whether we agree that that will happen or not, any fair-minded Committee member can absolutely understand why those would be genuine and legitimate concerns for the sector, where the same organisation seeks and provides the services itself. To deal with that, we need transparency—that would be a given, surely—to demonstrate both to providers that there is a fair, level playing field, and to taxpayers that they are getting value for money.

Where is the governance to prevent local authorities from awarding to themselves—to the municipal bus company—against the commercial interests of their taxpayers? That has been raised by many operators. I have not made it up; I have been lobbied by a significant number of bus companies, and they have significant concerns. New clause 18 would address that.

New clause 18(1) is about transparency. I have been told by the Prime Minister that “transparency” is a byword for this Government, so I should be pushing at an open door. With the disinfectant of sunlight sprayed across the numbers, the new clause sets out for all the real costs of franchising. It does nothing else; it just says, “Tell us how much it has cost. Be open, and be transparent. Show us the savings that the state has managed to deliver.” Its impact is to prevent decisions from being made on false assumptions.

The Minister should have self-confidence—I know he does; he is a confident young man—and welcome the opportunity to show how much better municipal bus companies will be. If he has confidence in their commercial performance and in his ideology that the state is right and more efficient than the private sector, then tell us: what could he be afraid of?

I briefly move on to new clause 30, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would provide guidance within 12 months of Royal Assent on the development of franchising systems. The Liberal Democrats have made their point on that. It comes down to money. What is the point when there is no money? I am slightly concerned that it could be counterproductive, given my very significant concerns that franchising will be the shiny new toy that local authorities—particularly those with newly elected leaders of whatever description—will want to play with. My concern is that, if adopted, this new clause would further encourage franchising despite its huge financial risk. Fundamentally, it comes down to the money.

10:30:00

New clause 38 states that the franchising authorities should have a joint forum with operators and trade unions to address bus service staffing and employment issues. I have deep concern about that. Clearly, this is another clause that has been drafted by the trade unions. It is an overt return to beer and sandwiches as the correct approach to contractual negotiations. The question for the Government is whether franchising is a commercial relationship governed by contract, or a status amalgamation of competing rights and obligations where we have workers’ councils, and the consumer—the bus rider—becomes just one element of that. I am interested to hear the Government’s views on this given that they are overtly encouraging local authorities to return to an “On the Buses” approach with municipal bus companies, as there was back in the 1960s. It would be interesting for the Minister to explain the ideological background to that decision. It comes down to the primacy of the passenger.

In the Opposition—I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats and the Greens—we believe in the primacy of the passenger. That is why we have bus services. Will the Government agree? At the Bee Network, because of Andy Burnham’s requirements, hourly rates for drivers have gone up from the national average of about £12.60 an hour to £16. There are two ways of looking at that. A bus driver will think, “Excellent, we are being paid £16 an hour when we used to be paid £12.60.” I understand that, but who is paying? It all comes down to the money, and there are only two possibilities. Because wages are more than 60% of the overall cost of operating bus services, it is a very important decision. If we put up the prices like that—I cannot do the percentage increase, but it must be 25% or so—the answer is either the fare payer or the taxpayer. There is no one else.

Because of that ideological decision, buses are now more expensive than they need to be, because the organisation is choosing to pay more than the going rate—up to £16. There is an impact on taxpayers’ and fare payers’ cost of living, disposable income and ability to take the bus in the first place. That is just a small example. A person pays more for the bus and in tax, and they get less and less because the passenger is no longer in the lead. Who does the Minister support? Does he support efficient driver costs at the going commercial rate, or does he support artificially inflating pay through this process? There is an argument for both, but let us be honest about it. What do this Government say? If it is the latter, who will fund the difference?

The concern raised by many stakeholders about this Bill is not about its contents. We all agree with its contents, but the money and expertise are lacking. Local councils do not have either. As I said on Second Reading, although this Bill “hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it does not ensure that there is fuel in the tank.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 97.] We have great sympathy with Conservative new clauses 14 and 18. It is important that we ask local authorities to list the objectives and evidence. It is also be important to go through the costs. Those constraints and disciplines are crucial and will avoid ideological decisions. We have seen that already with rail nationalisation, where a Transport for London model, which the industry and many Labour Members supported at one point, would have been a better approach than concession contracts. New clauses 14 and 18 are a useful brake on letting ideology, rather than pragmatism, take control. They are not impediments; they are things that surely should be done and are good practice. We will support new clauses 14 and 18. On new clause 30, we want to make it easier for local transport authorities that do not have the expertise. Having a number of off-the-shelf approaches to franchising is surely a good thing. There are specific issues in rural areas and villages, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk will speak to, but in urban areas we have real issues with bus routes that do not keep to local authority boundaries, but cross them. There are problems of co-ordination when bus routes cross boundaries, and an absence of buses because of those problems. Having a number of off-the-shelf ways to help authorities would surely be a good thing. I will leave it to my hon. Friend to take on that matter.

All the comments I was going to make have already been made by the shadow Minister. He was so complete and comprehensive that he leaves no space for any additional comment. However, I will briefly give my slant on some of the points. When I rose at the beginning of this sitting, it was to talk about the costs that would be put on to local authorities by the general duties in new clause 22. That has been dealt with. This clause will put much more significant costs on to local authorities that choose to go down the franchising route—after all, franchising is a choice available to a transport authority. Those are costs incurred by transferring a risk from commercial operators to local authorities and the taxpayer if the business does not go in the way of the business plan. The shadow Minister has already spoken about the huge cost subsidy, effectively, to the services operated in London and Manchester, where there are huge economy of scale advantages. My view is that the franchising model, if it works at all, works for high population densities—cities, large local authorities and those that can swallow bad years—and offers nothing at all for smaller authorities other than the option to take a step into the unknown for no obvious benefit. I think of my local authority on the Isle of Wight—it is fanciful to think that that unitary authority could in any way take a step towards franchising. Even if we end up with a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire county council, which has a big budget deficit, it seems highly unattractive to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight to go down the franchising route and take on all those risks. I have no direct experience of the Manchester model, but if Manchester really is the shining beacon, it is one that has cost a huge amount of money. However, that is a huge amount of money that the taxpayer in Manchester may be able to swallow. For a transport authority with a significant chunk of rurality—Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is an exception only in that it has an island attached to it, not in terms of how rural it is—I cannot see the figures adding up because no money goes with franchising. The Government may talk about money being available for bus services and the £3 fare cap. Those are welcome things, but they are not sums of money that naturally flow with an option to go down the franchising route. Although that does not go against having franchising as an option, I feel that it is going to be attractive only to a fairly small proportion of England—areas with high-density populations and those with metropolitan authorities. In this country, franchising is for the few; it is not a mass model that all local authorities will find attractive. It could lead to a more uneven quality of bus services across the country, and to a two-tier system.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I want to challenge the suggestion that franchising is an obligation. It is not; it is a power that is given to authorities to use if they wish. However, in those communities that were so poorly served for the past 14 years under the previous Government, should we not inspire an ambition for better bus services?

I was not suggesting that it is an obligation. Plainly, franchising is an option. My point is that it is an option that is unattractive to smaller local authorities, which cannot benefit from the economies of scale of franchising bus services. It is much more attractive for city areas. Of course I want rural bus services to be improved; my constituency is a rural area and we want better bus services. I see absolutely nothing in the franchising option that will deliver that, because I cannot see a local authority—in my own or other rural areas—looking at it and thinking, “This is helpful.” That is because it does not, as a right, bring money with it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am a Warrington MP, and, as has been mentioned, the town has one of the country’s eight remaining municipal bus companies—the award-winning Warrington’s Own Buses. It is a trailblazer, and it is an example of what a municipal bus company can be and what can be achieved. For example, Warrington still has capped fares, and the bus company can still offer a flat fee of £2 for adults and £1 for under-22s. We have a pioneering all-electric fleet and a brand-new depot. Any profit goes back into the service, and we have free travel for care leavers. With a municipal bus company that understands our communities, we have been able to maintain the essential services that private providers would simply give up on and walk away from.

I agree with much of the hon. Lady’s description of Warrington’s Own Buses. A few weeks ago, I spoke to the company’s managing director and I was impressed, as I said on Second Reading. However, does the hon. Lady agree that that is because Warrington’s Own Buses has 30, 40 or 50 years’ institutional experience in running those kinds of services—experience that other local authorities simply do not have? Does she also agree that exactly the same delivery of services can be achieved through an enhanced partnership, in which the operator works in collaboration with the local authority, and it is up to them to decide what is important for the community?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I put it on record that Ben Wakerley, who heads up Warrington’s Own Buses, is fantastic. He has been a real asset for us. Experience is an important factor, but it is also about understanding the community that a company serves, and that does not take 30 or 40 years. It just means taking the time to know and understand the community. Ben has not been there for 30 or 40 years, but he has been leading the way with a lot of the delivery. Collaboration can be good, but my experience of Warrington’s Own Buses, and of how it has focused on services and delivered in the way that it has, shows how powerful that format can be. I encourage other areas to adopt the same thing, because it has put power back into the hands of the community, not private providers.

10:45:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will speak to the clause and to new clause 30 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. We have this Bill Committee, Department for Transport estimates day and the forthcoming Transport Committee report on connecting rural communities—we wait for years for the opportunity to talk about buses, and three come along at once. I strongly welcome the widening of bus franchising opportunities. Rural transport, in particular, needs a proper rethink, and the greater powers that transport authorities can get hold of as a result of the Bill will, I believe, allow local leaders to do just that. People are already welcome the idea of bus franchising. When we visit London, we do not quibble about whether our red bus is run by Transport UK, Arriva, Stagecoach or another franchise holder; we care that it comes at the time we want and takes us where we want to go. What is lacking in the Bill, however, is leadership relating to how the powers can be used to make a much needed difference to people in rural areas. We have models of urban bus franchising to follow—London has taken the lead and now Manchester is following—but it has never been attempted in a truly rural area. It would be quite reckless of the Government to leave authorities completely rudderless, because some would be guaranteed to go off the rails, and we all know that residents would pay the price in their passenger experience and council tax bills. I gently say to the Minister that this is not about whether guidance is in the pipeline; it is about how far it goes and how robust it is. Our new clause 30 is the first of our many new clauses and amendments that seek to provide guardrails, guidance and models for those adopting franchising for the first time, in a situation where there may be little evidence to go on. Given the concerns of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East about how franchising might work in rural areas, there could be some good news for him in our new clause, but we need to adjust our thinking about what good bus services look like in such areas. While we do not want a top-down imposition of things on rural, coastal and suburban areas, I and other hon. Members believe it would be good for those areas to be given a greater degree of support from the Government than there currently is in the Bill. I also think that specifically outlining such areas in the Bill will help to ensure greater consideration of the unique characteristics of those parts of the country. Even if the Department pledges to produce guidance, it could fail to address the challenges faced in rural communities in particular. Coming from a rural area, I know how much Government policy feels like it was written by someone who has rarely stepped foot outside the SW1 postcode. Our coastal communities remain without a top-table representative in Government, and I struggle to see how residents of rural communities can trust that such guidance will be forthcoming unless it is in the Bill, or that it will represent the challenges and needs of their areas. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to what we are trying to achieve with new clause 30. I do not expect him to accept it, although he is welcome to do so, but I hope that he outlines the steps that his Department will take to provide comprehensive and structured support to those authorities embarking into uncharted territory with their franchise schemes, beyond what we have heard already.

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

There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about which system passengers prefer. The way to really judge that is through ridership—how many people take the buses. It is absolutely right that in Greater Manchester, under the Bee Network, there has been a post-pandemic increase in ridership of about 34%, from memory. However, does the Minister not accept that in Norfolk, where there is an enhanced partnership, ridership has increased by more than 40%, and in Essex, another enhanced partnership area, ridership has increased by more than 50%? The point is that it is not the scheme design that is fundamentally important, but the way in which it is approached. Does the Minister accept that we can have outcomes that are just as good—better outcomes, in fact—through enhanced partnerships as we can through franchising?

What the shadow Minister failed to hear in my previous remarks is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to buses. This could be done through franchising; it could be done through municipal bus companies or local authority-operated bus companies; or it could be done through strengthened enhanced partnerships. Let me touch on franchising, because the shadow Minister talks about Manchester as the full-fat model. A huge number of alternative franchising arrangements are available, including the Jersey model, which I will go into in a moment. Within franchising assessments, there will be a detailed investigation that is then checked robustly for assurance purposes. Obviously, the process as it stands does not provide an effective check on local transport authority plans, because it happens before a franchising assessment is produced. On the Secretary of State’s consent, as I have said, it is not effective because it is at the beginning of the franchising process. The assessment must look at the finances of the proposed scheme and then be independently assured. Different areas will also have different circumstances when pursuing franchising; the Secretary of State is not in a position to scrutinise them all. On funding and LTA support, £1 billion of funding was announced for 2025-26, £700 million of which was for local authorities to improve bus services. That is not for franchising per se; as I said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The Government are opening up options to local transport authorities. No LTA is being forced to franchise. No LTA has been forced to franchise through the Greater Manchester model, in fact. The Government are looking at how best to support LTAs, including through franchising pilots, which will include elements of rural communities as well. Funding is provided through the bus allocations for LTAs to decide how to spend. The franchising pilots will look at alternative models, one of which could be a joint venture model like the one in Jersey.

The Minister is right, of course, that all sorts of different franchising schemes and mechanisms are available, and I am looking forward to his description of the Jersey model. However, does he not recognise and accept that, of the authorities that have expressed a direction of travel so far, both Liverpool and West Midlands have also decided to go down what I have described as the full-fat model? It is not just Manchester being an outlier. It is likely that the Bill will ensure—in fact, it is happening already—that full fat is seen as the direction of travel. Does the Minister not think that that is correct?

I concede that, at the moment, it tends to be city regions that are looking at franchising, which is why we are doing the pilots to ensure that we have the template approach. We will learn the lessons from the various different franchising models that could be used. As we announced at the spending review, York and North Yorkshire is one of the areas that would be ideally suited to demonstrate the effectiveness of franchising in a rural setting. There was a comment about coastal communities, so let me just put this on the record: this South Shields-born, not SW1-postcoded MP knows full well the importance of buses to coastal and rural communities. In fact, I am the son of a bus driver as well. [Interruption.] I have ticked all the boxes—he was not a toolmaker, though. Let me touch on Manchester. The figures quoted on franchising costs in Manchester refer to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network, supporting economic growth, greater productivity, access to homes and so on. In 2024-25, the cost of operating the franchised bus network was about £151 million, but it would be misleading to compare that with the £226 million in an attempt to argue that costs have inflated year on year. Greater Manchester was only partway through the three-phase transition to franchising during ’24-25, so the cost was accordingly lower. Transport for Greater Manchester was operating only half of the full network for the majority—nine months—of ’24-25. There is very little additional cost resulting from the adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester, and evidence to date shows that this model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money. Bus depots in Greater Manchester were required to ensure a level playing field when procuring franchised operators; otherwise, there would be an inherent advantage, of course, to incumbent operators. Depot acquisition also recognises the importance of investing to bring infrastructure up to modern standards to deliver a quality service and electrification of the fleet. Turning to local authority bus companies—LABCos or municipal bus companies—there is a level playing field for arm’s length LABCos, which the existing ones in England are, and for private operators. There is existing legislation and regulations around local authority bus companies. There will be different ways that LTAs can franchise. Rural areas, for example, could look to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network. It is right to recognise the successes that there have been in Jersey. When I visited in April, I saw at first hand the benefits of franchising and what it has delivered for passengers. A small team have successfully introduced franchising in rural areas. Although that offers useful lessons for rural and suburban communities in England, Jersey offers just one model, and there will be particular local transport challenges and opportunities in other places. Far from stipulating the one-size-fits-all Greater Manchester model, we are exploring and working with local transport authorities throughout the country to demonstrate different forms of franchising to make that a success. Question put and agreed to. Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 Specification of areas Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 70, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “or places” and insert “, places or Rural Bus Hubs”. This amendment is linked to NC35 and would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification for a franchise scheme. Clause 4 stand part. Amendment 71, in clause 38, page 41, line 23, after “England” insert— “(e) the impact, or potential impact, the establishment of Rural Bus Hubs on services to villages.” This amendment would require a review of bus service provision for villages to include an assessment of the impact of rural bus hubs, if already established, or the impact which establishing them may have on villages. New clause 35—Rural Bus Hubs— “(1) Local transport authorities may consider the construction of Rural Bus Hubs in rural areas which are, in the authority’s assessment, not sufficiently well-served by buses. (2) Any Rural Bus Hub must— (a) be a facility where bus users can park vehicles for the purposes of transferring to a bus service for the remainder of their journey; (b) be constructed outside of town or and village centres, and be easily accessible by road, cycle or walking routes and other modes of transport; (c) be on newly-developed sites or on sites which have been repurposed; (d) contain car parking, electric vehicle charging, cycle parking and other amenities as the franchising authority sees fit, at a level of adequacy determined by the franchising authority.” This new clause would allow local transport authorities to create rural bus hubs in areas to create a hub-and-spoke model of bus service delivery.

The clause enhances the flexibility of franchising in terms of the areas that can be brought into such a scheme. The Government understand that there is a lack of clarity about whether a franchising scheme may specify more than one non-contiguous area. The clause therefore clarifies that that is permissible, meaning that franchising authorities may be flexible in the areas that they can bring into a franchising scheme. For example, it will allow rural authorities to focus on franchising in individual towns and villages if they so wish. I thank the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Wimbledon for tabling amendment 70 that would allow rural bus hubs to be included in the specification of a franchising scheme. The franchised services that a franchising scheme will provide must be specified or formally set out and published. This ensures that the scheme will deliver in a transparent way. The amendment would make it explicit that franchised services could be specified by reference to the rural bus hubs that they might serve. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill already allows franchising authorities to specify places that franchised services will serve. Places can include rural bus hubs. Alongside clause 3, clause 4 also enhances flexibility for franchising authorities by clarifying how franchised services may be specified in the scheme. This ensures that franchising authorities can more easily make minor changes to franchised services. For example, the clause will give a franchising authority scope to specify services by listing specific places to be served, or by specifying places by the purpose they serve. Purposes could include connecting students to school or employees to work. The clause allows franchising authorities to combine approaches to specifying services. This will allow adaptability and ensure that franchising authorities can develop franchising schemes that meet the needs of different communities, such as those in urban and rural areas. The clause also has transitional provisions for authorities that have started the process of franchising prior to the Bill becoming law.

11:00:00

I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk for tabling amendment 71. It builds on clause 38, which requires the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the level of bus services provided to villages in England within two years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Clause 38 outlines specific criteria that the review must consider. The amendment would expand those requirements by requiring the Secretary of State to assess the impact of rural bus hubs, both for those already established and the potential impact of establishing them in other villages. Requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review in this level of detail is unnecessarily burdensome. Rural bus hubs are not yet widespread and the available data on their impact is limited. Further, the amendment is overly specific and the intended outcome of including this requirement remains unclear. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members not to press their amendments.

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

I wish to speak to new clause 35 and amendments 70 and 71 tabled in my name. The Minister has done a very good job of outlining what those proposals seek to achieve, for which I am grateful. I am seeking to remedy the lack of vision for fixing the public transport problems that we face in rural areas. As I have said, we cannot just throw new powers at rural areas and hope for the best. We have to create workable models for adoption to support areas to use the new powers in the best way possible. There has been great excitement about how to use them to transform the bus networks in our major cities, but in all the conversations here on this issue, rural communities seem to have been forgotten about. In rural areas, the local bus service is not just a convenience or a “nice to have”, but a real and genuine lifeline. For many, it is the main way they can get to see friends and family, go to medical appointments, and get to the shops and to leisure activities. Bus services keeps many rural villages going. It is no surprise that when the withdrawal of routes in areas like this are proposed, there is fury locally and major campaigns against it. I asked some of my rural colleagues about their experiences and, unsurprisingly, I was inundated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) has been campaigning to save the X5 between Aylesbury and Hemel Hempstead, which was replaced with an unreliable service that is making it hard for residents to get to key medical appointments. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) are trying to bring back the 84/85 route from Yate to Wotton, a vital route to shopping centres, schools and colleges and for those visiting HMP Leyhill. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) has been working with campaigners to save school bus services in Ancells Farm, with children facing the prospect of long walks down unsafe roads to get to and from school in Fleet. There are all these communities and campaigns, but we still have not come up with better ways to serve rural areas and protect their access to services. It is telling that when my Transport Committee colleagues and I, several of whom are represented on both sides of this Committee, wanted to go and see some best practice of rural bus networks for our “Buses connecting communities” inquiry—report forthcoming shortly; I am sure everyone will be reading it as soon as it is published—we had to travel to the Republic in Ireland to find them. We simply do not have good examples of successful rural networks here in the UK. All of that serves to say that it is time for a bold new approach. A good few years ago, when we were researching the Liberal Democrat manifesto for Norfolk’s 2021 county council elections, we undertook research with a number of key local stakeholders to hear what they thought of the local bus network and what we could do to improve it. I personally interviewed bus companies, council officers and other stakeholders. Most importantly, we surveyed local people, including those who do not currently use buses—an often overlooked audience segment. We concluded that we need to combine two of the most successful features of current public transport models to create a new model for rural public transport. Those two things are park and ride services and demand-responsive transport. Pairing them could create a real network that works for our rural towns and villages without the near-impossible task of running an hourly timetable to every village. That conclusion resulted in the rural bus hub scheme outlined in new clause 35. Rural bus hubs would allow people to get between key towns and villages that they need to visit directly. People in many rural areas suffer from having to take buses in the opposite direction from where they want to go, going to the nearby town or city just to go straight back out again. That adds hours to people’s journeys, the journey is totally derailed if one link in the complicated chain goes wrong, and it is ultimately an inconvenient way to get about. As a result, it does not improve passenger numbers. Similar to our park and ride networks, rural bus hubs would have facilities to enable those living nearby to travel to the hub independently, either by car or active travel routes. The hubs would have the amenities to charge electric vehicles, and to lock and store bikes safely, so that people could easily return to them to complete the final few miles of their return journeys. The hubs would also be well served by demand-responsive transport for those who are not independently mobile. That would ensure that the network could reach into all areas, including rural villages and harder-to-access communities that may never have had a regular service, if any service, from an existing bus route. Such passengers, once at the hub, could catch direct, frequent buses to any part of a proper network, getting them to the hub nearest to where they want to go, and linking up with train connections or even hospitals and employment areas. It is a model that could easily be adopted by transport authorities. It would reach the most people possible without seeking to run a regular bus through every village, and it would connect those in rural areas to a proper public transport network that broadens the range of their destinations, rather than just taking them to the nearest city or large town. My amendment 70 would permit rural bus hubs to fit into the current model of franchising, allowing for specified services to include those running to and from, or between, the hubs. My amendment 71 would add to the review of service provision to villages an assessment of how service in the villages could be impacted by the establishment of rural bus hubs, or how the establishment of the hubs has affected services for villages at the time of the review. That would ensure that, as we assess how villages are faring following the passing of the Bill, we do not simply grow a list of complaints but assess what could be done differently to make improvements and the impacts that those improvements would have. I grew up in a rural village with a sketchy bus connection. I now live in another, and my children are growing up with the same sketchy connection that I had. That cycle cannot continue. We have to do better for areas like mine, and conventional thinking is not going to cut it. It is time for a radical rethink of how we deliver public transport in rural areas. We have to challenge the old ideas and be willing to seize on something new. I am sure that the Government will oppose these ideas, but I would gently say that they have not put forward anything equivalent. It is all very well to say, “You could do anything,” but there is nothing of substance to say, “Of all the things you could do, these are the things you might specifically like to consider.” We could feasibly help households to reduce the number of vehicles they rely on, saving them thousands every year. We could encourage active travel by expanding the number of journeys, and the hubs could be a component of that. By expanding demand-responsive transport, we could even remove car reliance altogether, while connecting the carless to a far better range of travel times and destinations than they currently have. The same old approach is not working. The situation will not magically fix itself with the new franchising powers alone. We have to try something different, and do something to create networked, accessible public transport that works for people, and gets them where they want to go, when they want to go there. I do not think that is asking the world, and I hope that the Government will pledge to look into this idea further to deliver real change for people in North Norfolk, and rural communities across the country.

Clause 3 is not controversial, so I will not make a long speech. Proposed new subsection (2A) of the Transport Act 2000 simply makes it clear that, where more than one area is specified in a franchising scheme, the specified areas “need not be contiguous.” I say no more about that. Amendment 70, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, adds a reference to bus hubs. As he is my constituency neighbour, our constituents share many of the same experiences, and I absolutely support the sentiments that he eloquently expressed: rural areas are often overlooked, bus policy is designed with the major cities and large towns in mind, and policymakers—perhaps because they have limited experience of life in the kind of rural communities that he and I serve—do not consider the very different challenges that we face. I therefore support the sentiment of the amendment, but the challenge is the cost. We keep coming back to the money—or lack of it—in this legislation, because it is disproportionately expensive. The hon. Member is absolutely right that park and ride is an interesting hub-and-spoke model for rural areas, but there is also the on-demand model, which I have previously described as the Uberfication of rural transport. The tech is obviously already there. Someone books in and says that they want to go from here to there; the algorithm sorts out the route and how many people can be picked up; and then they are delivered from door to door. Because it is door to door, it has the opportunity to provide an improved customer experience. The challenge is getting the take-up, because it requires a large number of people to buy into such a scheme, and the set-up costs are expensive. There has been a trial in Wymondham, in Norfolk, where the county council put forward a type of on-demand rural service, but the take-up was disappointingly low. Why was that? My working hypothesis is that, if it is a pilot, hardly anyone knows about it, but if there is wide-scale adoption—“This is the future of rural transport”—and it is backed up with public information so that everybody in the community cannot help but know about it, the take-up will be much greater and that then transforms the economics of it. As a fellow Norfolk MP, I fully support the concept behind the hon. Member’s amendment, but I am afraid that I question whether it is needed, given the specifics of the drafting. As “places” are not defined under the clause as drafted, I am not sure about the requirement to define a specific place—this is my lawyer’s background coming through; it is a nasty rash I am developing—and I wonder whether there is a legal need for that clarification. I will move on to clause 4. According to the explanatory notes, it inserts proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(a) into the 2000 Act to clarify that services can be specified by routes or the places intended to be served. I think that is sensible. For example, a franchising authority could specify the services by listing the principal points to be served, so, “The local services to be provided under local service contracts are ones that serve the following principal points,” followed by a list of what they are, such as the hospital, the railway station and the doctor’s surgery. Another example under this proposed new subsection would be for services to be specified route by route. I will come back to that in a moment, because that is quite an important clarification when we look at the kind of operators that will be in a position to provide these services. Specifically, there is a question about the access of small and medium-sized enterprises to contracts under franchising, which sounds a bit niche but is nevertheless important. Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(b) of the 2000 Act clarifies that services can be specified by describing intended services in general terms. It is broad and gives franchising authorities a wide range of options for specifying services under this proposed new subsection. That, again, is eminently sensible; I will not go into the detail. Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(c) of the 2000 Act clarifies that franchising authorities can combine the approaches under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, a franchise authority that covers both urban and rural areas could specify services by reference to the specific routes for the urban areas, in line with proposed new paragraph (a), and then could take a broader approach for the rural areas. Finally, paragraph (d) clarifies the catch-all that franchising authorities can specify services “in such other way”.

11:15:00

The issue is in a nugget of that detail: the risk of franchising to SME operators. In our current market, we have four or five big national bus service operators, such as Stagecoach and First Bus, and then a plethora of local operators that might be truly local or regional. There is a concern among the industry that there is a risk to SMEs associated with franchising, particularly larger franchising such as the Bee Network in Greater Manchester.

Without further guidance, or without franchising authorities being asked to at least consider SMEs, those SMEs will be—perhaps inadvertently—designed out of the contracting process. If we have a depot-based approach, the scale of the operation being contracted means that SMEs are designed out of taking part. We can see that that has happened in Manchester, where only the biggest four or five operators have been able to undertake the complex and expensive tendering process and then provide the scale of services that large-chunk franchising contracts demand.

There is another way, as we can see in London with TfL, where route-by-route franchise contracts allow for much smaller operators to take part. In the scheme of things, I think that is something that we would all support. It is absolutely right that the Bill, as currently drafted, gives a huge amount of autonomy to the franchisee. It is basically an open house: they can do it this way, that way or a combination of the two, and if the Government have missed something, they can think of any other way that they want to do it—that is what the proposed new subsection allows.

Would it not be better, however, for a local authority to at least be required to have regard to the local economy in designing those contracts, so that SMEs are not inadvertently excluded from the tendering process? If the Minister does not think that it is sensible to include that consideration in the Bill, or at least in its accompanying guidance, I would be grateful for his explanation.

What analysis have the Government undertaken of the potential impact on SMEs if that approach to franchising is more widely adopted? I do not think that I am wrong about what has happened in Manchester and about the experience of SMEs in the vast majority of the Greater Manchester franchise, but if I am, the Minister will correct me. How many SMEs have been successful there? Would he consider a duty to have regard to SMEs when deciding the franchising mechanism?

I will move on to amendment 71, which the Opposition will support. It would add subsection (2)(e) to clause 38, which was introduced as a new clause by Baroness Jones in the other place. As I understand it, paragraph (e) would require any review of bus service provision for villages to include an assessment of the impact on those villages of rural bus hubs, if already established, or what their impact would be. The Government have high hopes for the Bill—they claim that it will transform the provision of bus services—so let us really see what that looks like in the case of rural areas such as North Norfolk and Broadland and Fakenham. With enthusiasm, I will support amendment 71.

New clause 35, tabled by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, deals with rural bus hubs, and it would create a hub-and-spoke model for bus provision in rural areas. As I said, this is an interesting model that could breathe life into otherwise poorly served areas, similar to a rural park and ride.

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

I appreciate the warm support from the hon. Gentleman, who is, as he stated, my constituency neighbour. I defer to his lawyering experience on his salient points about the propriety of my amendments given the Bill’s drafting, but I will ask for his reflections on two points. First, cost is a big unanswered question in the Bill. If the Minister had access to the Treasury, I know that he would be raiding it to fund improved rural bus services. Does the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agree, however, that at least looking at a hub model makes more sense financially, and for service provision, than trying to establish hourly services in every village? Secondly, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for amendment 71. Although I intend to withdraw amendment 70, I will push amendment 71 to a vote with his support.

I do not disagree with anything the hon. Member said. I do not have in my head the financial details associated with rural hubs, but it makes more commercial sense as a matter of principle, although it would probably not be profitable, to have a hub-and-spoke approach rather than an hourly service for every village. I do not know whether the hon. Member has counted the villages in North Norfolk, but there are well over 100 in Broadland and Fakenham, so that would be a challenge for any provider. The Opposition support the concept of new clause 35 if the finances—the missing link—add up, but we question the need for it, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing what it sets out.

I am conscious that we are finishing in three minutes, so I will limit my comments to give the Minister some time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I query the premise that public is better than private. The hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned the ability to provide a better service than existing franchise services, but I want to put on record that we can still get £2 fares in South West Devon. There is not necessarily a concrete need for a franchise; it is not necessarily a magic wand. I will fit my other comments in somewhere else, because I am conscious of time.

I thought the Liberal Democrats were the party of devolution, but they have a strange habit of wanting to tell local areas what to do and how to do it. Rural bus hubs are not yet widespread and the available data on their impact is limited. I have already outlined that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to improving buses. Local transport authorities in rural areas better understand the needs of their local communities, so it is right that they are given the opportunity to determine what is right for their areas. I have already spoken about the different models for bus franchising, such as the Jersey model. The pilots will explore the models that may suit rural areas over metropolitan areas. In a rural setting, bus franchising could provide the opportunity to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network, ensuring that it links rural areas to key locations and access to onward travel options. The Government are also supporting local transport authorities to improve the viability and sustainability of demand-responsive transport. That may be the most viable option in rural areas. The Government are gathering insights from the rural mobility fund pilots and are developing best practice guidance—a comprehensive resource for setting up and managing DRT schemes. Beyond that, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, such as the dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence’s conference on quality bus services in July and our plans for franchising pilots. The Department understands that there are barriers to SMEs accessing franchise networks. That is why we are listening to the sector about ways to ensure that disproportionate paperwork requirements do not hinder SMEs bidding for franchising contracts.

11:25:00

Written evidence to be reported to the House

BSB01 Campaign for Better Transport

BSB02 Lee Odams, Bus Driver

BSB03 Disability Rights UK

BSB04 Kevin Mustafa, Former London Bus Driver

BSB05 National Federation of the Blind of the UK

BSB06 Green Alliance

BSB07 RMT

BSB08 Woodall Nicholson Ltd

BSB09 Vincent Stops

BSB10 Caroline Russell, London Assembly Member

BSB11 Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety

BSB12 First Bus

BSB13 Warrington Borough Council

BSB14 National Association of Local Councils

BSB15 Lorraine Robertson