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

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

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

† Aquarone, Steff (North Norfolk) (LD)

Berry, Siân (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)

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

† Dearden, Kate (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)

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

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

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

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

† Kohler, Mr Paul (Wimbledon) (LD)

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

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

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

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

† Newbury, Josh (Cannock Chase) (Lab)

† Race, Steve (Exeter) (Lab)

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

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

Simon Armitage and Adam Evans, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan in the Chair]

Bus Services No. 2 Bill [Lords]

14:00:00

Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent and to send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. We have some visually impaired people in the Gallery who are very welcome. For their benefit and for the benefit of others following the proceedings this afternoon, when I call a Member to speak, I will announce their name and party affiliation. I ask that Members allow me to do so before commencing their speech. For the benefit of those in the Gallery who have not met me yet—you have a different Chair from the one this morning—my name is Dr Rosena Allin-Khan and it is a pleasure to have you here. Clause 27 Powers of inspectors Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment 67, in clause 28, page 24, line 37, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.” This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws. Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.

As I was saying this morning, clause 28 enables local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to tackle antisocial behaviour on vehicles, as well as within and at bus-related infrastructure, such as bus stations. The clause was developed to address the current situation, in which there are no specific powers available to local transport authorities to make byelaws to deal with antisocial behaviour on their bus networks. Certain local transport authorities could use the general powers contained in section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 for this purpose, but those powers are not available to all local transport authorities, most notably metropolitan combined authorities. The clause is intended to provide flexibility to local transport authorities to effectively enforce against antisocial behaviour on the transport network and to ensure greater consistency across the country and across public transport modes. Through these byelaws, local transport authorities can provide authorised persons with the power to enforce against antisocial behaviour, including the ability to issue fixed penalty notices where they have reason to believe that an offence has been committed. Clause 29 ensures that the new byelaw powers being granted to local transport authorities are also available to Transport for London. TfL has requested to be included in this provision. Although TfL officers can deal with antisocial behaviour at bus stops and bus stations under existing byelaws, they cannot easily enforce against nuisance behaviour on the buses themselves. Closing this loophole gives TfL the same powers as other local transport authorities in England and will help to make buses in London safer for passengers and for staff.

It is good to see you back in your rightful place, Dr Allin-Khan. Clause 23 is not a controversial element of the Bill, so I will not detain the Committee for too long. It gives local transport authorities and Transport for London sensible new powers to enforce against fare evasion.

I think there is some slight confusion among Committee members because my hon. Friend said clause 23 when he meant clause 27.

I am grateful for that intervention; I stand corrected, as I was talking about clause 27. I do not know where clause 23 came from—my subconscious. Subsection (2) clarifies that regulations can address the powers of an inspector outside of their authority’s area. Subsections (3) and (4) clarify the definition of an inspector. That is all fine. Clause 28 is the largest clause in the Bill, so although it is not particularly contentious—we are substantially supportive of it—I would not be taking my duty seriously if I totally skipped over it. I will therefore pick and mix and hope that people bear with me while I take a little time to consider how it deals with local transport authority byelaws. It amends the Transport Act 2000, sets out the power of LTAs to make byelaws, and lists the various areas that can be covered. Proposed new section 144A(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act is relevant to Liberal Democrat amendment 67. The byelaws set out in proposed new subsection (1) relate to travel on services, the maintenance of order and the conduct of persons while using services. Those are the areas of interest about which organisations will have the authority to create byelaws. Proposed new subsection (2) goes into more detail and states that the byelaws relate to issues including tickets, the evasion of payment of fares, interference with or obstruction of local services, and the prohibition of vaping, smoking and nuisance on local services. I highlight that list, because Liberal Democrat amendment 67 would add “sustained anti-social auditory disturbance” to it. The two subsections are dealt with differently: proposed new subsection (1) is an exhaustive list setting out the scope for byelaws, but proposed new subsection (2) is a non-exhaustive list of provisions that may be considered. Therefore, proposed new subsection (1) does not allow the consideration of issues relating to noise disturbance and would need to be amended to include that. In my submission, however, proposed new subsection (2) would not need to be amended because it is a non-exhaustive list, so we could go on forever adding things that annoy us on public transport—I would quite like to settle down and consider that. Although I share the Liberal Democrats’ fury and annoyance at antisocial auditory disturbance, I do not think it is necessary to add it to the non-exhaustive list in proposed new subsection (2).

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments on our amendment, but what is the point of including anything in proposed new subsection (2) then? Following his argument, nothing needs to be there.

As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not the Government; it is for them to defend their drafting. If he wants to help to change that, I will happily stand on the Government side and give him the answer he is looking for. The essence of any non-exhaustive list is to give examples. It would not be wrong to give another example, but it is up to the Government whether it is necessary to amend the clause and whether they are prepared to add it to the list. As a matter of law, however, that is the difference between an exhaustive and a non-exhaustive list. Proposed new section 144B sets out the procedures on byelaws. The Minister spoke about them briefly, and the measure is a reasonable approach to the problem that the Government seek to solve. I will just go back, however, and highlight that the byelaws allow for level 3 fines for these offences. Hon. Members will know that, under the current guidelines, a level 3 fine is £1,000, so the byelaws will allow local transport authorities and Transport for London to impose not inconsiderable fines. Given that these are substantial powers that can address quite wide-ranging behaviours, and that transport authorities can impose fines of up to £1,000, we collectively need to think about the guidance from the Secretary of State that will accompany this legislation. It is important to get that right, and I invite the Minister to elaborate on the guidance’s likely approach to enforcement. A kind of draconian, one-strike-and-you’re-out enforcement would be deeply unpopular, and it would bring in a whole load of people who were just running for the bus. There are good actors and bad actors: people get caught up in behaviours for all sorts of reasons, and we need sensible guidance about enforcement. Clause 29, on TfL byelaws, is a similar clause that simply seeks to apply a similar approach to TfL. I will not go through it, but the points that I made about clause 28 apply.

Clause 28 introduces powers for local authorities to make byelaws for buses. That is welcome, and I agree that the behaviour that the clause already lists should be prohibited. There is, however, a clear omission. With passengers already paying extortionate fares to be packed in like sardines on buses, we should at least ensure that they do not face the added indignity of someone’s blaring TikTok feed. That is why our amendment 67 seeks to add the words “including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.” The amendment would explicitly allow transport authorities to bring in byelaws that ban persistent antisocial noise, such as music or videos played out loud on personal devices. It is a sensible, proportionate response to a problem that has been left unchecked for far too long. Let us be clear: we are not talking about a small inconvenience. The scale of the problem is significant. Recent polling has found that almost two in five people say that they have experienced others playing music out loud often or sometimes, while only a quarter report experiencing it rarely. Furthermore, a majority of respondents say that they would not feel comfortable asking someone to turn down their music on public transport. Women feel especially unable to challenge such antisocial behaviour; almost two thirds say that they would not feel comfortable doing so. Furthermore, playing music and other content loudly on public transport is done not only unthinkingly but, on many occasions, in a deliberately intimidatory manner designed to provoke and unsettle others going about their lawful business. The amendment is a sensible step that would ensure local authorities have the tools that they need to combat a growing menace. Not everyone agrees. I was deeply disappointed when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who also happens to be a valued constituent of mine, opposed the measure, dismissing fines for such disruptive and selfish behaviour as “silly”, despite the frustration and discontent that it causes for so many. I find her attitude extraordinary; I would be very surprised if she had not, like so many of my other constituents, experienced the phenomenon on buses across Wimbledon—assuming, of course, that she uses buses. The right hon. Lady is not alone, however, as I will explore in more detail in a moment. Some have accused me of abandoning my liberal sensibilities in seeking to address the issue. All I would say to such critics is that liberalism is as much about responsibilities as about rights. I do not begin to see how my right to play content loudly on my phone or some other device obviates my responsibility not to cause unnecessary disturbance to others. Whether people are heading to work, taking their kids to school or simply trying to enjoy a moment of peace, they deserve to feel safe and respected on public transport. Time and again I hear people say that they feel too intimidated to speak up when someone is blasting music or videos from a phone or speaker. The Liberal Democrats want to take tough action on headphone dodgers to ensure that every passenger feels safe and respected, and can travel in peace. We urge all parties to support the amendment and finally bring an end to commutes filled with unnecessary noise, disturbance and frustration. In what has become a running motif of the Committee, the Minister has said that the amendment, like so many that have perished before it, is unnecessary on two broad grounds. First, he argues that the antisocial playing of music and other content already comes within the term “nuisance” under the Government’s proposed new section of the 2000 Act. That is clearly open to challenge, however: I have already quoted the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears not to regard such thoughtless or intimidatory disturbance as a nuisance. Perhaps more significantly, in what has become an increasingly rare experience for the Conservative leader, she appears to still be speaking for most of her parliamentary party—although not, it seems, for the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on this issue at least—given the jeers and heckling directed at me from the Opposition Benches when I raised headphone dodgers at Prime Minister’s questions recently. I humbly suggest to the Minister that it is worth noting the Prime Minister’s answer to my question. Pointing at the jeering Conservative Benches, he said: “We take this seriously; the Conservatives laugh about it.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2025; Vol. 766, c. 324.] Here is the Minister’s chance to prove that the PM is a man of his word by accepting our amendment and showing that the Government do take sustained antisocial auditory disturbance seriously in the face of those who would—bizarrely—argue that it is not a nuisance.

14:15:00

The second reason the Minister gives as to why our amendments are unnecessary is that he believes those powers already exist. Even if they do, they are clearly not working and something has to change. In my first 12 months as the MP for Wimbledon, nothing—with the exception of assisted dying and the terrible tragedy in Gaza—has excited more interest in my constituents than our proposal to combat headphone dodgers. At its most basic, the amendment gives the Government a rare chance to do something popular. Let us be frank, they need all the help they can get given their current poll ratings, so I urge the Minister to support it.

I rise to support the clause, and in particular the elements in proposed new section 144A of the Transport Act 2000 on nuisance and antisocial behaviour. In the community of Hemlington in my constituency, there have recently been disgraceful attacks on bus drivers and buses by young people in the community. I commend the work of Cleveland police, which responded using an innovative so-called Trojan bus filled with plain-clothes police officers who then arrested and apprehended the individuals committing those crimes. I am asking for clarity on how those provisions in the Bill fit with the broader legislative framework on nuisance and antisocial behaviour, including in relation to people who are not necessarily bus passengers but who are outside and may be disrupting transport. I hope that the Minister can give us some more information on that. I welcome the provisions in the clause, because we have to address antisocial behaviour and the way that it impacts our public transport system. I support this clause, and I am pleased that we have these provisions in the Bill.

After the Liberal Democrat contribution, I was missing my headphones—[Interruption.] I say that with love. I thank Committee members for their further comments on the powers to make byelaws contained in the Bill. The Government are focused on tackling antisocial behaviour. Improving the safety of our bus network is one of the Government’s aims in reforming buses, because that is critical to giving passengers, particularly women and girls, the confidence they need to take the bus. Different powers are currently available for different transport modes, and the powers that certain local transport authorities hold for light or heavy rail are not in place for buses. That has created a situation where local transport authorities rely on a patchwork of powers to enforce against poor behaviour, and some authorities are unable to act at all against those committing antisocial behaviour. The Bill remedies that situation by providing powers to create and enforce bus byelaws. On the question of what constitutes antisocial behaviour, the Bill lists specific behaviours that byelaws can cover, such as vaping, smoking and interfering with or obstructing services and vehicles. My Department plans to issue non-statutory guidance about the content of byelaws that will take the existing railway byelaws as a starting point, which should help to ensure consistency across different transport modes.

Given the Minister is comparing the rail system with buses, and saying that he wants to bring buses into line with the railway, I am intrigued about who will do that enforcement. We have the British Transport police on the railway, and there are signs everywhere and a phone number that someone can call, but at the moment on buses—I have been on ones where antisocial behaviour is taking place—it ultimately falls to the driver to enforce against that. Is that what the Minister is saying will happen as a result of this legislation? Will there be additional powers or will an additional force be created to enable that enforcement to take place—or is that entirely down to LTAs to figure out for themselves?

The hon. Lady will have seen in the Bill that there is an element of ensuring that bus drivers and other persons in bus companies are given training on antisocial behaviour, particularly violence against women and girls, so that when it is safe to act, they can intervene in the interests of public and driver safety. I talked earlier about the potential for transport safety officers in local transport authority areas, not just among bus providers. Ultimately, the design of that and how it is enforced, depending on the byelaws, will of course be a matter for the local transport authorities themselves, but this is about giving them the powers and allowing them to put those byelaws in place. Obviously, they need to be enforced. Sometimes it is also a matter of communicating this stuff. We have all been on other modes of transport where it is not adhered to. As I said, my Department plans to issue non-statutory guidance on the content of the byelaws. That guidance will take the form of existing railway byelaws and is expected to emphasise the “educate, engage and enforce” approach. As I said in my opening remarks, I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon—despite my jest—on the need to take action against antisocial behaviour, but powers already exist to take action against playing music or videos loudly on buses. The training that I talked about a moment ago will only help to raise awareness of that, both with passengers and with drivers. In relation to enforcement at bus stops and stands, there are areas where divergence is expected in enforcement practices. That is likely to include stops and stands, which by their nature are harder to define than parts of the railway estate. Question put and agreed to. Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 28 Local transport authority byelaws Amendment proposed: 67, in clause 28, page 24, line 37, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”—(Mr Kohler.) This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws. Question put, That the amendment be made.

11|0|2|10|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 30

Safety and accessibility of stopping places

I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 30, page 32, line 6, leave out “may” and insert “must”. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places.

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

It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who tabled amendment 40, is not here to move it herself. This amendment would change one word for another in subsection (1) of clause 30, which is about safety and accessibility of stopping places. This subsection says: “The Secretary of State may give guidance about stopping places for local services, and facilities in the vicinity of such stopping places, for the purposes of” and then there is a whole list. Amendment 40 proposes to swap the word “may” for “must” to make that a mandatory requirement. I will now talk about clause 30 in its entirety, putting amendment 40 in context, because this is a very live issue. Many people are concerned about the current state of stopping places and the urgent necessity to take effective action to remedy what has become an increasingly dangerous situation. Clause 30 will create a new power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance concerning “the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places” used by public service vehicles providing local services, and the facilities in the vicinity of such stopping places. The guidance will be provided for the purpose of facilitating disabled persons’ travel on local services, enabling them to do so “independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”— that phrase we have become familiar with—and improving the safety of persons using facilities. The guidance may include “location, design,” and importantly, “construction and maintenance of stopping places and facilities in the vicinity”. When publishing, revoking or substantially changing such guidance, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. Local traffic authorities, local transport authorities and National Highways, which are responsible for commissioning new and upgrading or maintaining existing bus stations and stops in England, will be required to have regard to the guidance when commissioning such activity, as set out in subsection (6). While I welcome the overall aim of the clause—to make travelling on bus networks more accessible, comfortable and inclusive for disabled people—I have significant concerns, and I am not alone. That can be seen by the huge number, relatively speaking, of amendments and new clauses suggested in relation to clause 30. The clause states that the Secretary of State will be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, but there is a risk that one group of people with experience is being chosen to advise the Government, and the wider disabled community is not being consulted. Why has the Minister not consulted more widely with persons with disabilities? Can the Minister confirm that the anticipated guidance has no statutory power of compulsion? The only sanction I can find is in clause 32(3), which states that the Secretary of State may issue a statement of non-compliance. That is it. The question is: if there is a statement of non-compliance, so what? What actual powers do these two clauses, acting together, give the Secretary of State to enforce change? In that context, we can see that amendment 40, in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, is important because it makes the Secretary of State’s guidance on stopping places mandatory. It is a very important issue. There is an established need for guidance, given the current controversy. It should not be in the gift of the Secretary of State—he or she should be getting on with it. Why would the Government object to amendment 40? The Member who tabled amendment 29 is not here, so I will not respond to it. I will speak to amendment 41, again tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea, which deals fairly and squarely with floating bus stops. Over the next couple of hours, we will be rehearsing a lot of the information that the Committee has received about the dangerous difficulties and problems that partially sighted and blind passengers, in particular, have found with accessing floating bus stops when they have to cross over live cycleways.

14:30:00

This is not a theoretical problem; it is a real issue that is faced daily by people with disabilities who, very properly, wish to use their local bus service. I have been shown multiple videos of cyclists not stopping even though there is obviously someone with impaired sight seeking to make their way to the bus stop—the cyclists just keep coming. We are not making this problem up; it is a very real issue faced by the disabled community.

The amendment would extend the Government’s guidance to include enabling disabled people to travel without having to cross a cycle track to board a bus, or once they have alighted. There are significant issues with floating bus stops, particularly in relation to accessibility for disabled people. We will analyse that in more detail when we move on to clause 31, but I support the intention behind the amendment, even though it is not in my name. It is important that we seek, either through that amendment or the others we will discuss in a moment, to solve this very real problem collectively.

I have just looked at how long floating bus stops have been in use in the UK, and I found that they were first installed in London around 2013. That was clearly under the previous Government, some 12 years ago. I also did a quick search of Hansard to see if the hon. Member had mentioned floating bus stops in the House before. Apparently he has not, so can he tell us what he has done previously to address the issue? He has said that he has long-running concerns about it. Why has he not raised the question of floating bus stops in the House before?

What a clever, clever intervention. Floating bus stops were introduced in 2013 under the coalition Government; I fully accept that. I was first elected in 2019, so I could not have spoken either in favour of or against the adoption of floating bus stops. This is the first occasion on which legislation has come before us in which floating bus stops have been an issue. The hon. Member is quite right that I have not mentioned it before. While I have entered the private Member’s Bill ballot, I have not been successful. If I had been, would I have introduced a private Member’s Bill solely about floating bus stops? Perhaps not—I stand guilty as charged. However, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, while it is always tempting to throw political brickbats around, there are, even in this room today, people who are living with the consequences of floating bus stops. We should be working collaboratively to find a workable solution that helps real people. Amendment 42, which is also in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, makes mandatory something that is simply advisory, as the clause is drafted. The amendment would require such guidance to include: “the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places.” Can the Minister describe a situation in which the Secretary of State would not wish to provide such guidance? I am sure he would accept that there are some very serious problems here that need to be addressed. Given that the Secretary of State will want to do this in any circumstance that either he or I could envisage, why would he object to making the requirement mandatory? Amendment 65, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would expand the screen information associated with bus stopping places. The amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places could include—or, if amendment 42 is adopted, must include—guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place. Accessibility guidance addresses not just physical infrastructure but information provision, which is equally crucial for enabling disabled people—particularly those with cognitive impairments, who rely on the reassurance of timings, and blind or partially sighted passengers, who require audio information —to travel independently and confidently. Amendment 65 would extend such benefits beyond disabled people to older passengers, tourists and passengers who do not have technology such as smartphones. I support that intention. As ever, I have concerns about the funding associated with the amendment, because we have to accept that there is a very significant cost to these undoubted improvements. I question whether all local authorities and bus operators have the technical capacity and, most importantly, the funding to install and maintain real-time information displays at every stopping place. I am aware that there is such infrastructure in large metropolitan areas such as London. However, what about rural areas, such as the ones that the hon. Member for North Norfolk and I represent? It is a very different picture there. Let us not forget that this legislation will apply to every local authority in the country, so some pretty small local transport authorities will be applying whatever comes out of the Bill. Will they have the funds and resources to satisfy the amendment, if it is adopted? I hope that it is adopted, and that the Government say, “This is a very good idea, and we will fund it”, but I am not holding my breath. Amendment 60, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would beef up clause 30 by replacing the words “have regard to” with “take reasonable steps to implement.” The amendment would ensure that the authorities listed in subsection (6) took reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State was implemented. Members will be aware that “reasonable steps to ensure” is a legal term of art, so it is not just about making a list; it has a degree of compulsion to it. An LTA could be challenged, through the judicial review process, on whether such reasonable steps had been taken. Again, it all comes down to money. I agree with the ambition behind amendment 60, but change costs money, and the Government are not providing the support. This provision would leave LTAs open to costly challenges by rights groups. I say that it is costly because to mount a successful defence against an argument that reasonable steps had not been taken, the LTA would have to demonstrate in its response that it had done so, taking into account its financial position, resources and ability to raise funds. We already know that, under the Bill, a debt-raising ability is being applied to both bus companies and local authorities.

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

I agree with everything that the hon. Member for North Norfolk said. As I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, this would undoubtedly improve the service provided not just for people with disabilities but for all of us. I will not speak to amendment 43, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; others may wish to do so. Amendment 55, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff, which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The training would have to be made available to bus operating companies. I support the intention behind the amendment, as guidance alone will not deliver accessible infrastructure unless staff understand and implement it. Training will help to embed best practice among bus staff and improve disabled passengers’ safety and confidence. There is again a “but”, though. One reason to hesitate is money, but there is also a lack of detail about training providers and the additional financial burdens on local transport authorities. Where will the money come from to conduct the training in franchise bus systems? We have already seen how costly franchising alone can become, with the Bee Network. I would love to have another crack at those numbers and get the Minister finally to admit that he is wrong and I am right, but I will not, as I have tried it three or four times already. The amendment would add even more financial burden on local transport authorities, with a lack of detail about funding. Clause after clause, we are seeing, first, how expensive the proposed changes are, and secondly, how financially risky they are. Those are two different things. Something can be expensive but the risk is adopted by another organisation, or it can be expensive and the risk lies with the taxpayer. The Bill as a whole, and these clauses in particular, create more financial risk for the taxpayer, particularly in local transport authorities, and a more expensive process, because all these good things are expensive. We want to achieve all of them, but we are not seeing Government money following their ambition.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for highlighting the cost risk for local authorities. He referred to the greater risk for small local authorities, of which my own Isle of Wight council is a very good example. It is dwarfed by other transport authorities, and on cost risk alone would be unable to make use of the so-called freedoms in the Bill.

My hon. Friend is quite right, but in partial defence of the Government’s position, they are not requiring a change; they are facilitating a change should a local authority choose to go down the franchising route. None the less, concerns remain, and my hon. Friend is quite right to highlight them. Many local authorities will wish to pull the levers of state, and this looks like a shiny new lever. They are being led by the charismatic mayoral combined authorities—well, charismatic to some; I couldn’t possibly comment. Transport for Greater Manchester is now being followed by Liverpool and Transport for West Midlands. Those are the trailblazers. They are all going for what we have described as full-fat franchising. I am concerned that for many local authorities, being seduced by this new opportunity, as they might see it, will be a terrible mistake, and they will come an absolute cropper. Think of the cost of running a franchise service: even if a local authority has not created a municipal bus company and is just contracting out the franchise services, the commercial risk stays with the local authority. That could easily bankrupt a local authority of the size of the Isle of Wight. It is a very significant concern, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. Amendment 30 was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who is not in her place. The amendment would, in clause 30, after “place” insert “from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route”. When we consider the usability of a bus stop, whether it is a floating bus stop or a shared use bus stop boarder, we should have it in mind that that the vast majority of people who take a but journey will want to come back in the opposite direction. The interrelationship between the bus stop on one side of the road and the bus stop on the other is important. The amendment highlights that and includes it in the Bill.

14:45:00

I support amendment 31; it is a helpful clarification. Clause 30 gives the definition of facilities, which means facilities provided to assist persons with accessing a stopping place, and a number of other things. The amendment would include the requirement to look at information as part of the facilities. Facilities are not just the built environment; they are also the information that is provided as part of the use of that built environment. That appears to be a helpful amendment, and it should not be controversial, but I will wait to hear what the Minister says in response.

Clause 31 is on the provision and design of floating bus stops. The clause requires the Secretary of State to give guidance within three months of Royal Assent on the design of floating bus stops, which have now been defined as stopping places for local services that incorporate a cycle track. I will pause there to remind the Committee that this provision was not originally part of the Bill, but was brought in by the noble Lord Blunkett, with support from the Government, in response to a huge amount of disquiet in the other place over the failure to deal with floating bus stops.

The guidance will cover the matters to be taken into account and the consultation that should be carried out by responsible authorities when deciding whether it is appropriate to construct or remove a floating bus stop to allow greater accessibility for passengers, particularly those with disabilities. The disabled and elderly communities share deep concerns about floating bus stops. These are a relatively new design: a bus stop that is separated from the pavement by a cycle lane. They were designed to enable the simultaneous accommodation of cyclists and bus passengers, which in itself is a noble ambition.

There are many road users and we all compete for space on a crowded transport network. As a society, we wish to encourage cycling; we want people to move to multimodal transport, away from simply relying on a car or bus, so that they can get the exercise benefits of cycling as well. That should not be considered a bad thing. Cycle routes have been very successful in increasing the take up of cycle ridership. However, while we instigated a significant change under the coalition and then the Conservative Governments, for which we should receive the plaudits of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, there have been some problems. One of them is in the design of floating bus stops.

Floating bus stops are designed to use shared space—to enable simultaneous accommodation of cyclists and bus passengers—but significant and justifiable concerns have been raised about the risks to bus passengers, particularly disabled and elderly passengers, who are required to cross a cycle lane to reach the bus stop. Various campaign groups and charities have been highly critical of the safety of floating bus stops. The Royal National Institute of Blind People held an event in the other place to highlight the serious safety risks posed to pedestrians and cyclists by floating bus stops. Cyclists are at risk of people crossing without realising that they are coming at speed along their cycle route.

A report by the RNIB, “All aboard?”, states that as many as 49% of people with sight loss who have encountered floating bus stops make fewer journeys to avoid the inaccessible designs. That is a shocking statistic. The design is having a real impact on people with sight loss being able to access their own bus network. The RNIB has also raised concerns that the wording of the Bill is insufficient to deliver the changes needed, even with Lord Blunkett’s amendment.

The Guide Dogs charity is equally critical:

“Public transport should be a gateway to independence, but for disabled people, these types of bus stops make using public transport an even more stressful and potentially frightening experience, forcing people to stay closer to home.”

The National Federation of the Blind of the UK has taken to social media to highlight the dangers facing the blind and visually impaired due to floating bus stops, saying:

“It’s unacceptable that blind people in London are unable to use public transport independently due to floating bus stops.”

We can see from those comments and the interest in the Gallery today that the Government absolutely do have a case to answer when it comes to the design and construction of floating bus stops.

The clause mandates the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the provision and design of floating bus stops. I welcome the recognition that floating bus stops pose safety and accessibility challenges, but the clause is fundamentally limited in scope, given the serious safety concerns surrounding floating bus stops. Subsection (1) merely requires the publication of guidance, without imposing any obligation on local authorities or highways bodies to strictly adhere to it. Having “regard” to the guidance in subsection (7) is indeed a weak standard. The Secretary of State produces guidance only; it is not mandatory, and the relevant authorities only have to have regard to it. They do not have to follow it. Without enforceable requirements, I fear that the needs of disabled and elderly people will be deprioritised in local decision making. That is the first significant concern about the current drafting.

Secondly, although the clause requires consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, it does not mandate co-production with disabled people themselves, including blind and partially sighted passengers who are disproportionately affected by floating bus stops. Without direct involvement from those with lived experience, guidance risks becoming more of a paper exercise, rather than driving real-world safety improvements. Instead, subsection (6) leaves consultation with any other groups to the discretion of the Secretary of State, since it refers to

“any other persons…it is appropriate to consult”.

I worry that is too broad. Which other interested parties, if any, will the Secretary of State deem it appropriate to consult? By what metric will the Secretary of State decide which other groups are appropriate for this process?

Thirdly, the clause continues to frame floating bus stops as a design issue rather than questioning their appropriateness altogether. There is no design solution that I am aware of for floating bus stops that would enable blind people and others safely to access their buses. The clause presupposes that the construction of floating bus stops will continue, and attempts to resolve issues arising from their design through guidance, rather than asking the fundamental question: should we be building these things at all, given the clear and repeated safety objections from the RNIB, Guide Dogs, Transport For All, the NFBUK and other charities?

Finally, there is no mention of enforcement. Clause 33, which we will come on to, refers to monitoring and the ability of the Secretary of State to publish a statement following cases of non-compliance. However, there is a real risk of it being issued and ignored or shelved. There does not appear to be any detail on any repercussions for non-compliance. The Bill is just silent on that.

That brings me to amendment 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea, which would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. As the Committee will know from my previous remarks, even though I feel that the clause needs to be more robust and go further in many ways, I would, in the alternative, support the amendment. Shared bus boarders harbour most, if not all, the same health and safety issues for disabled, blind and elderly bus passengers as floating bus stops, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of why that is not the case, if that is his position.

I also support amendment 45, in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, which would introduce the gathering of data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. Considering my previous observation that clause 31 does not call for the end of floating bus stops, I assume their continuation in particular circumstances and certain areas. If that really is the case, and the Government are going to force this through without dealing with the core problem, the amendment is necessary. Data must be gathered to ensure we know what we are talking about and can hold the Government properly to account for their decisions.

Clause 32 introduces a duty to provide information to the Secretary of State. It proposes a mechanism by which the Secretary of State can ensure that relevant authorities are complying with the duty to have regard to guidance about safety and accessibility of stopping places, and about floating bus stops. The clause empowers the Secretary of State to request that relevant authorities provide information on stopping places provided by them, including on how they have complied with their duties under clauses 30 and 31. That enables the Government to understand what progress has been made across England to ensure that bus stops and, where relevant, facilities in their vicinity are safe and accessible for all users. The measure is also intended to allow the Government to promote accountability and encourage compliance where they have been made aware of concerns.

The Bill provides a power, where the Secretary of State is of the view that authorities have not complied with their duties, to publish a statement to that effect, but that is it. On its face, it appears to strengthen accountability by requiring local authorities to provide details of how they have complied with the guidance. In practice, however, it raises several issues. First, under subsection (1), the clause imposes only a duty to report how a local authority is complying with the guidance. Local authorities must simply report how they “have regard to” the guidance. They are not obliged to follow it by law or the guidance. There is no mandatory part of the clause. I am not quite sure what, in reality, it will achieve. I worry that it will result in, at best, a cursory box ticking rather than a meaningful implementation. Without an accompanying legal requirement to act on the guidance, the reports risk becoming a bureaucratic exercise with little practical effect for disabled passengers.

Secondly, although the Secretary of State is empowered under subsection (3)(b) to publish information received and their statements of non-compliance, there is no enforcement mechanism. I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with this directly: what consequences are anticipated if an authority fails to comply with the duties under clause 30(6) or clause 31(7), and a statement of non-compliance is issued? The big question that needs to be answered is: what happens?

There is no mention of intervention powers, penalties or requirements to remedy failures under the Bill. I accept that a public statement of non-compliance might be reputationally embarrassing, but I am concerned that it is woefully insufficient to drive improvement, particularly when authorities are facing acute budget constraints.

15:00:00

Finally, under subsection (1)(a) and (b), the duty for local authorities to report on how they have complied focuses narrowly on administrative compliance rather than actual outcomes for disabled passengers. There is no requirement, for example, to report on the experience of disabled people who use these stops. We simply will not know whether they feel safe, whether incidents have occurred or whether travel confidence has improved as a result of the guidance, because the Government have gone through a box-ticking exercise rather than seeking to engage with passengers.

I move on to new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea, who is not on the Committee; I happily take it forward in her stead. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment of the Bill

“so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders”

within 12 months of it becoming law. In the light of my remarks highlighting concerns about floating bus stops during our debate on clauses 30 and 31, I support the direction of the new clause. By mandating a formal equality impact assessment on the specific aspects of bus infrastructure, we would ensure that the design and innovation do not come at the expense of inclusion and the safety of disabled and elderly bus passengers. We would be better positioned to understand how different groups experience such bus stops and there would be the additional opportunity to highlight their dangers for certain bus users. As an aside, I should say that the new clause also strengthens democratic oversight by requiring the assessment to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

New clause 12 was also tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea, and I will also speak to it in her absence. It would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared use bus boarders within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. That would provide time for a substantive debate on the proposals in both Houses of Parliament.

As with all my previous remarks about clause 31 and floating bus stops more generally, the case for the new clause is clear. The official Opposition do not believe that, in its current form, clause 31 goes far enough. For many disabled people, blind and partially sighted people and the elderly, floating bus stops represent a dangerous and hazardous barrier to travelling by bus. We do not want that.

Where boarding a bus once meant stepping from the pavement into the vehicle, these new designs now ask passengers to cross an active cycle lane to reach an island stop, relying on the good will of cyclists to be cautious and to stop as and when required at those crossings. We have to accept that often that simply would not happen. As I have previously said, Guide Dogs, the RNIB, Transport for All and a host of other disability rights organisations have warned us in good time, for the opportunity to improve the Bill is now, that these bus stop designs are not merely problematic—a tweak will not suddenly make them okay—but inherently flawed. The design is inherently inaccessible and dangerous.

Does the shadow Minister agree that it is slightly ridiculous to expect cyclists to be able to recognise that somebody disabled is seeking to cross a cycle lane? That seems to assume that people with disabilities are instantly recognisable, which is a very old-fashioned view of disability. It is plainly ridiculous to expect cyclists to make such a recognition. It is bad for them as well as being plainly bad for people with disabilities.

I am grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend is right. I do not want to demonise cyclists. Cyclists are not out there actively trying to mow down pedestrians seeking to cross at floating bus stops; they are doing their best in the vast majority of cases, but we have created, with the best of intentions, a conflict between foot passengers and cyclists. I would submit that we have the balance of convenience wrong, and we should be brave and bold enough to admit where we have made a mistake and should take effective steps to improve the situation. Floating bus stops are inherently inaccessible and dangerous. They compromise the safety of people with visual impairments, who potentially cannot see or hear cyclists. They confuse wheelchair users and those with mobility impairments, who are put off using public transport. New clause 12 would strengthen democratic oversight by requiring proposals to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. New clause 13 was also tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; in her absence I shall set out what it does. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared use bus boarders to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England. I made clear in my earlier remarks the dangers caused by floating bus stops to the safety of disabled, partially sighted, blind and elderly people, and I support the new clause, as it would add further checks and balances to clause 31 and strengthen the Government’s stance on the issue. The requirement on the Secretary of State to commission an independent safety and accessibility review and to undertake that review in collaboration with groups representing disabled people would not only help to ensure that the Government’s response to floating bus stops was evidence-based and centred specifically on safety concerns and the lived experience of people trying to use such bus stops, but accommodate consulting the wider disabled community, not just the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. New clause 40 was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon and he will be delighted to hear that he has my support. I will leave it to him to rehearse all the details of the drafting, if he wishes to; suffice it to say that that the new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops—not future ones, but the ones that are already there—and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure that they are fully accessible and safe. I welcome any amendments that add checks and balances to the Bill to help to ensure the safety of passengers and nullify the safety issues with floating bus stops. My new clause 47 accommodates the aims of new clause 40(2), but goes one step further by prohibiting any new floating bus stops after the day on which the Bill becomes an Act. I fully support the Liberal Democrat new clause. Members will be delighted to hear that my new clause 47 is the last clause in this group, so I will sit down in a moment. Were the new clause to be adopted, it would do three important things. Subsection (1) would establish an immediate prohibition on the construction of new floating bus stops by local authorities—so we would stop digging. That is the first thing: we would stop making new floating bus stops. Subsection (2) would compel the Secretary of State to review existing infra-structure to assess compliance with accessibility and inclusive design principles—that is, to see what we have and to analyse it to see whether it is accessible. Subsection (3) would require a clear and public statement to Parliament setting out what changes would be made, what steps the Secretary of State would take to ensure that they were delivered, and what guidance would be issued to local authorities to support that work. The new clause is designed to be a pragmatic response to persistent and credible concerns raised by the disabled community, charities representing blind people and elderly bus passengers who have to struggle with the safety challenges that persist with these bus stop designs.

Is there not a contradiction? Subsection (2) seems to suggest that there are ways of designing out the problem, whereas subsection (1) bans all new floating bus stops. If subsection (1) were offering a moratorium until the design issues had been addressed, we could support it, but subsections (1) and (2) do not sit well with each other.

Given my criticisms of the hon. Gentleman’s drafting of previous amendments, I am sure he is delighted to raise this drafting concern. I respectfully disagree with him, as new clause 47 takes a sequential approach to stop the problem getting worse, then to identify the cause of the problem, and then to require the Government to set out how to fix it. I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman and his conscience to decide whether he feels able to support the new clause, should it come to a Division. New clause 47 strikes the right balance between a pragmatic approach towards existing floating bus stops, a requirement for the Secretary of State to review all floating bus stops to identify the changes that are needed, and a firm but necessary stance against the construction of any further floating bus stops. The principle of inclusive design must be a main priority when we think about bus stops, and my new clause would achieve that. I urge the Committee to think carefully about it, and to see if they can find it in their hearts to support it.

There is a lot to cover, but I will not take as long as the shadow Minister. Amendments 40 and 42 are sensible, as making guidance mandatory rather than permissible would keep the right balance. This is clearly an issue for many people, and having clear Government guidance on the accessibility of stopping places would be a positive step. As the shadow Minister said, surely the Minister will want to produce guidance, so making it mandatory would not be an onerous obligation. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not here to press amendment 29, but my party supports it and will press it. This positive amendment would ensure that there is guidance on toilet facilities—which are clearly an issue, particularly for people with a disability or medical condition—and on travel information in relation to floating bus stops. Liberal Democrat amendment 65 would mean that accessibility guidance includes guidance relating to the provision of information at a stopping place, and amendment 60 would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that the disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented. Although the Bill makes provision for the publication of new statutory guidance to improve the accessibility of bus stops, service information provision is not mentioned. Up-to-date route and timetable information, as well as real-time arrival boards, are crucial for all passengers, especially those without access to digital tools. It also improves passengers’ feeling of control and security. In Wimbledon, many signs have been removed and not replaced, which is a real issue for older people and the digitally excluded. For those who do not have access to an iPhone, this sort of information is critical. Amendment 65 would address that need by ensuring that legislation covers both infrastructure and information provision, including up-to-date route maps, timetables and real-time arrival information at bus stops, ensuring accessibility and safety for all users. It would help to prevent people becoming disoriented or isolated, ensuring that disability does not stand in the way of navigating a local bus route. Amendment 60 would ensure that disability provisions are properly actioned. “Reasonable steps” is a legal term of art, and the shadow Minister’s criticism does not hold because the costs would be part of deciding whether it is reasonable. Having regard to guidance on disability could see many transport authorities fail to implement anything substantive, but this amendment would require them to take reasonable steps to deliver the guidance—that is, they must be reasonable steps. Accessibility is not a nice-to-have; equal access for all passengers is essential. If disabled people are unable to travel to their doctor’s appointments, to see their friends or to access work because of poor accessibility, the impact on their lives is intolerable. For accessibility, legislation needs to talk in terms of duties and steps that must be implemented rather than just a consideration that can be done away with. However, as I said, the amendment emphasises reasonable steps, not unreasonable ones.

15:15:00

Amendment 55 would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff that must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the safety and accessibility of stopping places. It would also strengthen the provision of disabled access by ensuring that guidance is fully implemented on the ground through the development of training for members of staff with responsibility for bus stops.

The need for that is clear from the recent testimony of the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) in the Chamber about how she has intervened on a number of occasions where buses have failed to deploy ramps for wheelchair users seeking to board buses. This training is crucial. Everyone involved in the provision of bus services must understand how important it is to provide for disabled people and to use the facilities in a way that helps disabled people to board and disembark buses and use public transport. Accessibility is not just a tick-box exercise—we need to ensure that it is implemented in practice.

Amendment 44 would include shared bus stop boarders in the guidance. That seems absolutely sensible. We support clause 31, which specifically states that the Government must provide guidance on floating bus stops within the first three months of the Bill passing. Amendment 45 would require local authorities to record where floating bus stops are. Again, that is a positive; we need to audit the floating bus stops that we have. I will move on to that in a moment, but making a list of where they are is the first thing that needs to be done. Clause 32, which requires local authorities to report to the Secretary of State on how they have complied with the guidance in clauses 30 and 31, is a welcome part of the Bill.

New clause 11 would require an equality impact assessment, which we need to address the issues before us. New clause 13 would require an independent review into floating bus stops to be commissioned within a year, and we approve of that.

Clause 31 needs to go further and an audit is needed, as I mentioned. Lobbying from the RNIB and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association has been incredibly powerful, and we have seen how terrible some floating bus stops are. There is a real danger to life and limb for disabled and blind people in particular, but also for everyone—some of these floating bus stops are death traps. Our new clause 40 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to outline the Government’s plans to implement any necessary retrofits to ensure that they are fully accessible and safe for users.

Floating bus stops tend to be located on busy main roads, often where protected cycle lanes have been added. They were introduced with the important and commendable goal of improving cyclist safety, particularly by preventing the dangerous manoeuvre of having to pull out into fast-moving traffic. It is crucial that we remember the intentions behind this infrastructure, which are rooted in saving lives and reducing serious collisions on our roads. However, as we have discussed today, there are clear examples of where these stops have not been designed well and passengers are forced to step into or across a cycle lane, putting them and the cyclists at risk. That is not acceptable. There are too many badly designed floating bus stops out there, as we have all seen, and we must address them urgently.

The new clause seeks to strike a balance and ensure that detailed national guidance is developed and applied to fully enable blind, visually impaired and disabled passengers to access bus services safely while continuing to protect cyclists. I have met groups representing both communities and if there is one thing they all agree on, it is that the present state of affairs is unacceptable.

I am intrigued: does the hon. Member agree that we also have an issue where pedestrian crossings land straight on to cycle routes on busy main roads? Although it is outside the scope of the Bill, would his proposed review also look at that? For example, when a visually impaired person or someone using a wheelchair crosses Vauxhall Bridge Road, which is very busy, they are sent straight into a cycle lane that cuts across it. Does he agree that, in an ideal world, it would be nice to address that too?

I completely agree with the hon. Member. With the welcome increase in active travel and the number of cyclists, we need to address the conflicts that arise on the road. If one goes to the continent, it is part of their DNA—cyclists, motorists and pedestrians understand their relationship—but the same is not true in this country. The new clause proposes a review of existing floating bus stops within six months and would require the Secretary of State to come up with a plan. This is a proportionate, evidence-led and pragmatic path forward that puts safety, accessibility and inclusion at its heart. I have been lobbied by eloquent advocates from Guide Dogs and the RNIB, who are concerned that the review of the existing provision that we are proposing will be biased in favour of floating bus stops, so I make it absolutely clear that we would expect the Secretary of State to include representatives of those organisations along with other charities in that review process. Moving on to new clause 47, I am aware that some think there is no solution to this problem apart from banning floating bus stops. However, from my conversations with visually impaired colleagues, both in Parliament and beyond, I believe that compromise can be achieved. I counsel the Committee to reach a compromise that does not pit the blind and disabled against cyclists. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)

15:21:00

Written evidence to be reported to the House

BSB24 Transport for All

BSB25 Wheels for Wellbeing

BSB26 Royal National Institute of Blind People

BSB27 An individual who wishes to remain anonymous

BSB28 Councillor Jon Byrne, Stockport Labour Group Shadow Transport Lead

BSB29 Mark Philpotts, a cycling campaigner

BSB30 Vitor Moura

BSB31 Hounslow Cycling

BSB32 London Cycling Campaign