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
Thursday 3 July 2025
(Afternoon)
[Dame Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Clause 34
Training about crime and anti-social behaviour
Amendment proposed (this day): 75, in clause 34, page 37, line 24, at end insert—
“144G Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility
(1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility.
(2) The relevant parties are—
(a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence;
(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England
where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services.
(3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding—
(a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services;
(b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and
(c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation.
(5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed—
(a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five year period thereafter;
(b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations.
(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.”—(Steff Aquarone.)
This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regular undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 34, page 37, line 28, leave out from “or” to “the” and insert
“section 144G or of regulations made under those sections,”.
Amendments 75 and 69, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk, for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) would require that senior managers in bus operators and local transport authorities undertake disability awareness and accessibility training. The effect of proposed new section 144G of the Transport Act 2000 would be to place an obligation on senior managers in LTAs and operators that organise or provide local or school bus services to undertake training and keep records of having done so.
Through the Bill, we are extending existing training requirements to drivers and customer-facing staff. The measures do not change training requirements themselves. Co-production would be appropriate for those developing training packages. The hon. Member for North Norfolk asked for an update on the accessible transport charter. I can confirm that my Department provides the Transport Committee with regular updates on the progress of the charter and upcoming appearances. He has my commitment that we will do that.
It is certainly important that senior management in bus operating companies and local authorities are aware of disability and accessibly issues, but EU regulation 181/2011, once amended by clauses 35 and 36 of the Bill, will require staff in local services who deal directly with disabled passengers, or with issues relating to the travelling public, to be trained in respect of disability awareness and disability assistance. For staff dealing directly with disabled passengers, that will improve knowledge of their duties and responsibilities, and thus effect change at the direct point of interaction between staff and passengers. That approach aims to strike a balance between improving services while not overly increasing burdens on operators and local authorities.
In addition, clause 21 will require local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan. We expect that this new requirement would also help to ensure that relevant senior management in LTAs are aware of accessibility issues in their area. I reassure hon. Members that where school transport is provided by local services, that would fall within the scope of new enhanced training requirements, requiring relevant staff to be trained on both disability awareness and assistance, which will help to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills and confidence to support every passenger appropriately.
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments and reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Training about disability: further provisions
Amendments made: 20, in clause 36, page 39, line 16, at end insert—
“(8A) The Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1865) are amended in accordance with subsections (8B) and (9).
(8B) In regulation 8, after paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) Paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to the enforcement of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of Regulation 181/2011 as they apply to a terminal managing body by virtue of paragraph 1A of that Article, and the designated body responsible for the enforcement of those requirements as they so apply is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.
(1B) The enforcement authority in relation to the requirements of regulations made under section 36 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.’”
This amendment ensures that references in the 2013 Regulations to the enforcement authority cover traffic commissioners responsible for taking enforcement action under regulation 10A.
Amendment 21, in clause 36, page 39, line 17, leave out from “10” to “insert” in line 18.
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 37, page 40, line 23, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 24 and insert “1 January 2027,”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 33, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered before 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 37, page 40, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) A vehicle does not fall within subsection (3) if it previously had the tailpipe emissions listed in subsection (3)(c) but has since been converted to a zero-emission drive train.”
This amendment would qualify buses that have repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies to be considered as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of this Bill.
Amendment 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.
Amendment 58, in clause 37, page 40, line 40, at end insert—
“(6) The provisions of this section apply to any mayoral combined authority in England, where ‘mayoral combined authority’ means an authority established under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.”
This amendment would clarify that the provisions of section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities.
Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 40, line 40, at end insert—
“(6) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing how adequately and easily local transport authorities have been, or will be able to, access funding to replace polluting buses with zero-emission buses for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section.
(7) A report under subsection (6) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of current funding mechanisms available for the transition to zero-emission buses, including grants, loans, and other financial incentives;
(b) an evaluation of the sufficiency of available funding to meet the projected costs and timelines for local transport authorities to achieve a zero-emission fleet by 2035;
(c) a review of the barriers and challenges faced by local transport authorities in accessing existing funding, including administrative burdens, eligibility criteria, and capacity constraints;
(d) recommendations for improving the adequacy and accessibility of funding to accelerate the replacement of polluting buses with zero-emission buses.
(8) In conducting the review under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, bus operators and manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles.
Clause 37 is a good clause on the mandate for the use of zero emission buses in England. In essence, as it stands, it sets zero emission standards for new buses registered after a certain date. Rather than mandating that that date may not be before 1 January 2030, my amendments 32 and 33 would set it as 1 January 2027. I think that is the appropriate level of ambition for the Bill.
I am very aware that air pollution remains an enormous, preventable public health threat and that road transport plays its part in that. In certain hotspots in every town and city, bus travel is responsible for a significant amount of the pollution that people breathe in. That pollution is disproportionately experienced by the people who use and wait for those buses, and the pedestrians along the routes of those buses. We need to have the highest possible ambition.
Buses under Transport for London have had that mandate in place since 2021, despite any legal requirement. All buses procured in London since that day have been zero emission capable, and have been deployed without any kind of problem. The investment has been put in, and it was done in part because of the imperative to clean up dirty air. Bus availability is now clearly no obstacle to the amendment being accepted. Double-deckers, single-deckers and all kinds of buses are available to provide services. One constraint, though, is the ability to charge those buses at depots.
I seek clarification on the import of the hon. Lady’s amendment. On Transport for London, she said that no newly purchased bus would be outside this consideration. Proposed new section 151A(1), for which she seeks to bring the date forward, states:
“The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3)”.
Her amendment would therefore mean that no existing bus that was not zero emission at the tailpipe could be used from 2027 onwards. Is that really her intention?
As I understand it—the Minister might want to intervene if I am not correct—proposed new subsection (3)(b) sets the condition that the bus is first registered
“on or after a date”.
The condition is placed on new buses, not on any bus being used. It gives considerable leeway for existing buses to continue to be used. The clause is about procurement, and that is what I understand it to be mandating.
As I say, not every single bus in London has yet converted to zero emissions, but for several years now, new buses being purchased have had zero tailpipe emissions. That is not to say that they do not create any air pollution at all; much air pollution comes from brakes and tyre wear, and dust off the roads—there is a lot more air pollution than what comes out of the tailpipe.
I thought so—I am not as radical as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham thinks. I think that the amendment is entirely reasonable on bus availability and procurement. It does not speed up the rate of procurement, or mandate that at all.
I am aware that there are challenging issues at certain depots. However, having spoken to private bus operators about this, they often do not lack the willingness to invest in charging infrastructure, and I am sure the imperative for a publicly owned bus company would be even higher. Instead, the constraint for some of them is the ability of the local electricity infrastructure to support the load produced by the rapid charging of very large vehicles with very large batteries.
I believe that including this provision in the Bill would provide a strong incentive for joined-up working between Government Departments. Sadly, I have not yet introduced the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, which I am hoping the Government will take up, but we do have a strong net zero target. We have the aim of Government Departments working together to help each other to achieve net zero goals—we are talking about net zero in carbon dioxide, not just air pollution.
It is entirely reasonable to put this target in place, and to try to clear some of the existing blockages, which I believe are primarily to do with electricity infrastructure, rather than the willingness of bus companies to invest. After all, buying diesel every single week is a lot more expensive than using electricity, which a forward-looking bus company could potentially start to generate itself on its large depot roofs. There is so much to be gained by raising the ambition of the clause, which is why I have proposed amendment 32.
As has become my custom, I will start with the clause and then look at the amendments. I will be relatively brief, but it is worth highlighting that clause 37 deals with the use of zero emission vehicles for local services in England. It is intended to prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses in local bus services in England, but inevitably there a number of qualifications to the proposed ban.
Under proposed new section 151A(2)(a), the ban will be limited to local bus services or London local services, the rationale behind which is presumably that long-distance buses do not currently have the technology to reliably use electric batteries, as opposed to other forms of lower-carbon technology. That raises questions about rural services that are classified as “local” but are, in fact, long distance. The county of Norfolk is a big old place, and there are long journeys that are classified as “local”.
I raise a flag at the way in which the Government have sought to vary the classification by taking out long-distance journeys, and assuming that bus battery technology is therefore capable of dealing with all other local services. That is not necessarily the case where long rural routes, which are classified as “local”, still face the same disadvantage in battery technology, as it is currently developed. I am raising that issue with the Minister so that he can go away and think about it. The date of registration is 1 January 2030.
The consequence of the clause is that it bans tailpipe emissions, and there is a separate, but slightly more philosophical, point. I have a challenge to the Government’s policy direction: it looks like the Government are picking winners—in fact, they definitely are—in relation to low-carbon technology. The tailpipe emissions include CO2, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide and particulates, which is all set out in subsection (3)(c). Currently, only hydrogen and electric buses would qualify, so there is a huge implication to this clause.
This is a blanket ban for new registrations, which undoubtedly has some positives but also some negatives of which we collectively ought to be aware. The positives of these vehicles are their quietness and, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion pointed out, air quality. That is a significant positive. I was born and went to school in my early years in London, and the difference in air quality in this city between then and now is enormous. It is a totally different experience from back in the 1970s, when vehicle fumes just enveloped us. That has made a huge difference.
I was just coming to that. The hon. Lady is quite right, but I am talking about the up-front capital cost. The lifetime running cost may well be cheaper for an electric bus, but the creator has to finance their capital cost on day one, whereas the lifetime operating costs are spread over the effective lifetime of the asset, which, for an electric bus, is an interesting question, actually. The lifetime of the structure of the bus may be 15 or 20 years, but we are not yet sure what the effective lifetime of the battery component of the bus is, and whether or not it needs to be replaced after about 10 years. The data is not particularly robust on that. If it means that we have to change out enormous battery banks during the operating process, that would be a significant additional secondary capex cost.
The Department for Transport figures for March 2024 say that there are 29,400 buses used by local bus companies. If we are going to replace all of those, that would be an £8 billion investment. That is very significant, and it is not considered in the impact assessment. There are some long-term savings, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion quite rightly pointed out. It is not just the differential in costs between electric and diesel; there are reduced maintenance costs as well. There are many fewer moving parts with an electric vehicle as well as the lower fuel cost, but the capex costs are front-loaded, and we cannot ignore that. Have the Government considered the financing consequences of imposing large, increased, front-loaded capex costs on bus companies? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
The second issue here is that through the current drafting, the Government are inevitably picking a winner in terms of technology for low-carbon vehicles, because it focuses on tailpipe emissions and ignores whole-life carbon assessments. That is important; again, we must have a balance of approach here. There is a significant benefit in zero tailpipe emissions, which is primarily about air quality as opposed to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.
There are very significant emissions during the construction of large-scale battery-operated buses, and there are alternatives under development. In the life cycle of the vehicle, if we take into account its construction, operation and disassembly, it is likely that new technologies, particularly ones using synthetic fuels, could be lower in carbon terms, albeit emitting Euro VI equivalent particulates at the tailpipe. The Bill denies an opportunity for that market to develop.
I want to expand a little on what my hon. Friend was saying about sustainable fuels that are, literally, drop-in fuel alternatives. Anyone watching the British Grand Prix this weekend knows that motor racing is beginning to use such fuel. There is real appetite for manufacturing it in the UK, but regulations get in the way of that happening at the moment. I have secured a meeting to share that with the Minister’s colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy, because it feels like a significant opportunity that would impact not only public transport but, in due course—I appreciate that this is not within the scope of the Bill—general users of vehicles. Ultimately, I think we all agree that we want to get to net zero from the perspective of emissions from vehicles; potentially, however, we need an alternative third way to ensure that the transition can take place.
I accept that currently synthetic fuels are expensive, because they are at the development stage, but I do not believe that the Government’s intention is for the clause to write them out. I recognise that the Minister is unlikely to tear up his clause on my say-so, but I would be grateful if he discussed the issue further with his Department.
I will leave it to the Minister to consider amendments 32 and 33, and the same can be said for amendments 78 and 58, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Finally, therefore, amendment 63 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to produce a report assessing the adequacy of funding for the replacement of emitting buses with zero emission versions.
The amendment is right to focus once again on the central issue of funding, because that is totally absent from the existing drafting of the clause, but—a fatal “but” from my perspective—the amendment focuses on the LTAs. In fact, however, in the vast majority of cases, the cost lies with private operators and not with the local transport authority. The amendment makes no mention of what should be done for them, and that lets the Government off the hook, frankly, of addressing the real problem, which is the bus companies and the impact on them, as opposed to the local transport authorities. That is probably an inadvertent oversight, but I just point it out.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.
I will speak to the clause and from my experience of representing an area that already benefits from the use of zero emission vehicles. Warrington’s Own Buses, our municipal bus company, set out an ambition to replace its entire diesel fleet with a fleet of all-electric buses with the aim of reducing carbon emissions in the town and transforming bus travel in the borough, and it has delivered on that. The all-electric, bright yellow buses, including new double-decker buses, were introduced in 2024. I was delighted to attend the launch.
The new zero emission fleet has many benefits. Noise operation is much reduced, minimising noise pollution and creating a more pleasant environment for passengers and passers-by along the routes. The buses are compliant with the strictest emissions regulations, contributing to cleaner air. They are powered by renewable energy and designed to be as green and carbon neutral as possible. We have an electrified depot that ensures smooth operation of the fleet, and Warrington’s Own Buses has overhauled fleet management with the introduction of a new digital system.
The buses also have community benefits for apprenticeship opportunities, the local supply chain and job security. Prior to their introduction, bus travel in Warrington accounted for 11% of the nitrogen oxides and 5.7% of the PM2.5 of traffic emissions. Warrington’s Own Buses’ all-electric fleet is a major step forward in tackling poor air quality in the town and building sustainable transport into the everyday life of Warrington.
I support the motivations behind clause 37. Making our public transport greener and cleaner is a positive thing and will make it an even more climate-friendly travel option. I note with excitement that Sanders Coaches, which runs many services across my constituency and that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, recently trialled a fully electric bus on the CH1 Coasthopper route between Cromer and Wells—the first ever fully electric bus used by the operator. We can see that rural transport providers are working hard to embrace the green future.
However, we have to recognise the challenges that rural routes face; I associate myself with the remarks made on that topic by the hon. Member. Long distances, limited charging infrastructure and the slim profit margins are all impediments. I would appreciate it if the Minister undertook today to publish, alongside the regulations set out in the clause, guidance and support for rural bus operators on the definitions of local routes. I hope he shares the work and engagement that his Department have done and will be doing with rural operators to make sure that we get this right for them and for the communities they serve.
Amendment 78 is about technology and is similar to something the hon. Member mentioned. It would qualify buses that have been repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of the Bill. “Repowered” means enabled to become zero emission after the date of registration. It involves replacing diesel engines with new, zero emission electric drivetrains mid-life. It is a proven UK innovation that can provide a more affordable and faster route to decarbonisation of our public transport fleet.
For local transport authorities, especially those facing constrained budgets, repowering could present some advantages. First, it can be quicker: companies can convert diesel buses to zero emission in as little as three weeks in their UK facilities. Buses could therefore be back in service quickly, supporting a seamless transition. Secondly, repowering is more cost-effective. A repowered bus can cost less than half the price of a brand-new zero emission vehicle, which could translate to considerable savings for operators and local authorities and allow them to stretch limited resources further. While this route may not work for all buses or local authorities, it is a simple and flexible option to deploy the most cost-effective and timely solution for their fleets. This practical amendment supports British innovation, stretches public funds and accelerates the path to cleaner air and net zero transport, and I urge Members to support it.
I will start my comments on this group by speaking to clause 37 stand part and then move to the amendments. The clause will prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses on local bus services in England. The full transition to zero emission buses is a vital part of the Government’s plan to make buses better for passengers and to realise the benefits of lower running costs, cleaner air and smoother, quieter journeys. Bus operators have begun to invest in new zero emission buses, supported by Government funding initiatives. All stakeholders including bus operators, manufacturers and local transport authorities share the ambition to achieve a zero emission bus fleet more quickly.
However, I recognise that there is a need for Government intervention to accelerate bus decarbonisation by supporting the sector with greater certainty of future demand for zero emission buses. The clause seeks to provide that certainty. However, in recognition of the need to provide time and confidence to manufacturers to shift production, and to operators and local transport authorities to plan their fleet transition, the change to the law will come into effect on a date specified by the Secretary of State in secondary legislation. The clause specifies that the restriction on the use of new non-zero emission buses will not take effect earlier than 2030. It also allows for the Secretary of State to exempt certain types of vehicle or local services from the restriction—for example, to enable the relevant local services reliant on those vehicles to still run.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion raised the issue of charging capacity at depots. The clean power action plan includes a programme of connection reform measures aimed at reducing the delays—and I recognise those she has spoken about. The Government are moving from a first come, first served model to an approach based on readiness and strategic alignment. If approved, connection reform proposals submitted to Ofgem by the National Energy System Operator will release up to 400 GW of capacity from the oversubscribed connections queue, accelerating the connections that the hon. Lady talked about for customers ready to connect by the end of 2025.
I assure hon. Members that the Government are committed to decarbonising our bus fleets. For example, in April we announced £38 million to deliver a further 319 new zero emission buses across England. Furthermore, the recent announcement of £15.6 billion over five years to improve local transport in some of the largest city regions allows local leaders to play a more active role in the delivery of local bus services and allocate some funding towards decarbonising their local fleets.
In March, I chaired the inaugural UK bus manufacturing expert panel, which aims to ensure that the UK remains a leader in bus building while helping local authorities to deliver their transport ambitions. More than 50% of new buses registered in 2024 were zero emission—a record 1,600, up 33% on the previous year’s record of 1,200. We hope to see the appetite for ZEBs continue to flourish, with private investment and alternative funding models stepping in to ensure that the sector’s journey towards decarbonisation continues. As a result, the Government are already taking forward what is intended by amendment 63 and we have concerns that it would add unnecessary complexity to the process. I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.
I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments 32 and 33, but I am quite disappointed. I take his points about potential downsides. I assume that, in outlining them, he took into account all the lovely investment that he was just talking about and assumed that there would be no additional Government investment to enable the target date to be met. I would like the law of the land that we create during this process to retain the hope that there may be increases in investment in public transport and buses in future Labour Budgets.
I will withdraw amendment 32, but I would like to press amendment 33 to a vote. That would remove the stipulation that the date cannot be before 1 January 2030 and give Ministers the opportunity to look again at whether an earlier date is possible. I appreciate that it is too much to expect the Minister to accept the new date proposed in amendment 32 today, but I think it is completely reasonable to expect the Committee to agree to give him an opportunity to look again at the date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 37, page 40, leave out lines 39 and 40.—(Siân Berry.)
Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England
Amendment proposed: 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.”—(Steff Aquarone.)
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.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discussnew clause 53—Minimum bus service standards: review—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.
(2) The review conducted under this section must—
(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,
(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”
Clause 38 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review, within two years of the Bill’s enactment, on the level of bus services being provided to villages in England. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the Lords.
The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts. Although the Bill aims to improve bus services, the review required by the clause would not be practical to deliver. Measures such as franchising and setting up a local authority bus company are significant undertakings that will take time. It is unlikely that a review after two years would allow enough time to capture and assess the impact on rural areas. The full impact of a franchising scheme or a local authority bus company is not expected to be seen until the scheme or company has been operating for some time.
Moreover, although I accept the positive intention behind the measure, it is already addressed by the Bill and wider Government policy. The Government are seeking to reverse the long-term decline in bus services, partly by ensuring that the impact of any changes to bus networks is fully assessed and options are fully explored before a service is changed or cancelled. That will be achieved through measures on socially necessary local services, which will help protect and improve services in rural areas.
Beyond the Bill’s reforms, the Department’s support programme includes a focus on rural-specific challenges, with a dedicated Bus Centre of Excellence conference on quality rural bus services this month, and the first two of our franchising pilots, in York and North Yorkshire and Cheshire West and Chester, announced at the spending review. The Government therefore oppose the clause.
I support clause 38, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the provision of bus services to villages in England within two years of the Act being passed. Members will have heard many of my points about the clause in previous speeches, including on amendment 71, which I have pressed to a vote already, but the clause as a whole is not only sensible but essential. I am very pleased that those in the other place added it to the Bill and I hope it will be retained today.
In North Norfolk I have more than 100 villages and hamlets. From Alby and Antingham to Wiveton, Wickmere and Worstead, they are all treasured communities but face challenges with rural transport. Too often, rural communities are treated as an afterthought when it comes to public transport planning. I know this at first hand and my constituents experience it day in and day out. I am sorry to say that the last Government did not do enough in the years that they had to tackle the issues that rural communities face. It is time we stepped up to the challenge of rural mobility.
Villages across England have been cut off by decades of under-investment, deregulation and short-term decision making. The clause acknowledges that rural isolation is not a minor inconvenience, but a daily barrier to work and education, healthcare and opportunity more broadly. The clause rightly demands that the Government take stock of the current state of rural bus provision. It requires an assessment of how many villages are being served by regular bus routes, and it asks important questions about who is being affected—which demographics, which regions and which types of communities are being left behind.
As I said when speaking to my amendments and new clauses on rural bus hubs, having a service to every village might not be the right approach for every area. In many places, moving towards a hub-and-spoke model might be the best course of action. This review would help to identify that and allow us to better understand the current state of play and what steps can be taken to improve the situation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I want to speak in support of clause 38. As a representative of a rural constituency, public transport is one of the things mentioned most frequently when I speak to local people on the doorstep or at events. Car and van ownership in North West Leicestershire is higher than the national average, partly due to the lack of public transport options, including bus and rail.
In the light of the support given to expand local services and our ambition in government, Leicestershire has had an additional £8 million and we are starting to see a change, with bus services no longer being reviewed, reconsidered and cut, but being reviewed with a view to expansion. Bus services are important. People talk about services that have been withdrawn; they feel the loss of service.
As transport is so important, one of the first things I did after I was elected was undertake a local transport survey, and 72% of respondents said that the reason they do not use buses is their frequency and the lack of service and choice. I am sure that the challenge is felt in other constituencies, but local people in my constituency said that buses are infrequent, unreliable, poorly timed and often do not connect towns and villages effectively. That was most commonly felt in Moira, Diseworth, Heather, Ibstock, Ravenstone, Castle Donington, Kegworth and Breedon.
People also said that services stop too early, with no evening or Sunday options, impacting leisure and work. One disabled passenger told me that they can catch a bus to work from Monday to Saturday but cannot be available to work on a Sunday owing to the lack of a Sunday service. Public transport rarely facilitates straightforward journeys to colleges, workplaces or local amenities.
People also said that they needed increased frequency, reliability and coverage, especially in our villages but also in new housing areas. A villager in Belton told me that buses can be unreliable. That has put them off using the service, particularly because, the last time they risked it, they ended up stranded and had to get a taxi home. That happens even in our larger conurbations, where just two weeks ago a resident told me they had to wait for more than an hour for the next bus because the one they had planned to catch simply did not turn up.
It is very hard to add anything to that. I fully support the comments of the hon. Member, and of the hon. Member for North Norfolk. Clause 38 is excellent. It is a great addition—it was introduced by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in the other place—because it requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of, essentially, the impact of the Bill within two years of its passing. The meat of the clause is in subsection (2), which states that the review must assess
“the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,”
and
“the number of villages in England not served by bus services”,
as well as the
“demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of business services available”,
and finally,
“the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.”
It is the review of, “What have we achieved today?” That report will be useful, because it will kick-start discussion of solutions to rural transport.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk has already referred to Sanders, which is a family-owned regional bus company—I think it has grown such that I can properly call it regional. We also have First Bus in Norfolk. We have a radial approach. We know the impact of the £2 bus fare on ridership in our county: it was very useful, including by enabling residents of Fakenham, in my constituency, to get down to Norwich—that is a bus journey of three quarters of an hour for £2. It has been an effective policy to increase ridership. We will see what impact the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will have on ridership and provision in the country as a whole, especially in rural areas. I suspect that the answer is that it will have absolutely no impact.
A review would expose the Bill for what it is: virtue signalling without any funding at all to support the supposed ambitions of local transport authorities. If the Government vote against clause 38 standing part of the Bill, that will clearly demonstrate their concern that the Bill is performative, that it will not actually make services better, and that it has in fact been a monumental waste of time, without funding.
I will make a point that I have made before, following on from the shadow Minister’s description of clause 38 as revealing, and of the Bill as transparently not providing funding for anyone. The clause would also be helpful to demonstrate to small local authorities and local authorities that provide over large rural areas, such as my own on the Isle of Wight, the gulf between trying to realise the objectives behind franchising and having responsibility for delivering them, as a small local authority taking on all that financial risk. So, like him, I support the clause standing part of the Bill, if only to reveal to local authorities some of the issues behind it, and that it is not the all-singing, all-dancing solution that they might think.
I am grateful for the intervention. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said.
Moving on, new clause 53 would require a review of the minimum level of bus services required for communities, within a quite ambitious six months. I leave it to the Minister to respond to that.
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, for what may be the final time on this Committee. I thank you for guiding us—particularly those of us who are new to the world of Bill Committees—through this process.
I would like to speak in favour of the Minister’s approach to clause 38, which, though clearly well intentioned, perhaps would not have achieved what it was aiming to for England’s villages. On Tuesday, hon. Members heard me mention two of the villages I am proud to represent, Slitting Mill and Norton Canes, and what clause 14—regarding socially necessary services—would mean for them. However, not wishing to have favourites, I am grateful to now have the opportunity to talk about what this Bill will also mean for Brereton and Ravenhill, Brindley, Littleworth, Rawnsley, Hazelslade, Prospect Village, Cannock Wood, Bridgtown, Heath Hayes and Wimblebury.
Like so many parts of England, particularly in rural and semi-rural areas such as mine, bus routes in our villages have been shrinking for many years, while fares have risen. However, I would like to highlight a rare piece of good news, which is that, from 20 July—a successful tender permitting—the No. 60 between Cannock and Lichfield, and the No. 74 between Cannock and Stafford, will begin to run on Sundays once again, and hopefully later into the evenings. The No. 60 in particular is the only service for many of my villages, so that extension will be very welcome.
My constituents have sadly become used to bus services stopping at 7 pm and not running at all on Sundays. From listening to the debate, that is a world away from the experiences in the constituencies of some members of this Committee, but it is the reality in much of our country. When growing up in a village, like I did, or living in a village, like I still do, a bus can be a lifeline—something that I am glad to say we on this Committee have discussed extensively—so the withdrawal or reduction of services means more cars on the road, more people isolated within their homes, and, of course, less cash to invest in, or even preserve, routes. That is why I am pleased to hear the Minister’s assurances on this matter.
On new clause 53, legislation to guarantee minimum levels of services for communities already exists in the Transport Act 2000. The Bill’s socially necessary local services measure will provide greater protection for existing bus services from being arbitrarily cancelled or reduced. The Department for Transport is also currently undertaking a review into enhanced partnerships, which is set to conclude later this year. We are looking into the potential of developing a set of minimum standards for enhanced partnerships.
I thank members of the Committee for their thoughts on seeking to review the provision of bus services to villages in England. The Government recognise the need to serve villages, alongside improving service, reliability and punctuality, across England, and the role that buses play in linking communities together. We are seeking to reverse the long-term decline in bus services, partly by ensuring that the impacts of any changes to bus networks are fully assessed and that options are fully explored before a service is changed or cancelled.
An evaluation of the Bill, including the impact on rural services, will be completed as part of a wider evidence review of bus franchising. The Government do not want to undermine that analysis by presenting findings before franchising and local authority bus companies have been established. That would not reflect the true impact on passengers.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 would require the Secretary of State to implement a vision zero programme in the bus sector, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries in the course of bus operations. The clause was inserted as a non-Government new clause in the other place.
The Government support the principle behind vision zero, because we do not want any deaths or serious injury on our transport network, but where vision zero programmes are being taken forward, such as in London and Greater Manchester, the focus of the strategies is wider than just buses; they are multimodal and take a safe-system view across the transport network. A nationwide programme would cut across the Department’s plans for a road safety strategy and promote a one-size-fits-all approach that is unlikely to work in different settings, such as rural areas. Local leaders are best placed to design the programmes that work to eliminate serious injuries in their local areas.
By creating a national programme that would significantly overlap with wider local transport authority management, the clause would undermine the Bill’s intention to empower local areas. It is therefore inconsistent with the Bill’s principles. The Bill aims to empower local leaders to take control of bus services so that they meet the needs of their communities. That includes making the best decisions to encourage safer transport networks in a given area. The Government therefore oppose the clause standing part of the Bill.
I rise to strongly support clause 39, which was the inspiration of Lord Hampton, the Cross Bencher who tabled it in the other place. It would require the Secretary of State to collaborate with industry stakeholders to implement a vision zero programme for buses, with the aim of eliminating serious injuries during bus operations and improving overall safety in the sector. It is very hard to argue against that as an objective for the Bill.
The Minister expressed support for the concept and direction of travel. His primary argument against the clause was that it would somehow get in the way of a multimodal approach to the reduction of injuries on transport, but there is no reason why it need do so. It could co-ordinate with a multimodal transport response. Nothing in the clause prevents it from being part of a wider piece of work. I accept that the legislative requirement would be limited to the bus sector, but a non-legislative multimodal approach would be perfectly permissible, and it is a ministerial sleight of hand to suggest otherwise. The Minister is using some other review as an excuse not to keep this very good clause.
The reason why it is a good clause is that personal injury to passengers on buses caused by sharp braking is a significant issue. A 2019 study for Transport for London showed that three quarters of bus passenger injuries in London were due to non-collision incidents, such as sharp braking or harsh manoeuvres. This disproportionately affects older females and standing passengers, whether they are standing for the journey or standing on their approach to a stopping place.
The challenge with the current statistics is that they are binary—they report either collision injuries or non-collision injuries—and are not broken down further into, for example, sharp braking or avoiding manoeuvres. The clause would help to get to the bottom of where risk lies, expose the data and lead to an effective focus on remediation efforts. I strongly support it.
I have very little to add to the speech of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. Any road death involving a bus is one too many; any injury to a bus passenger is one too many. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon shared the London statistics with me: just last year, there were 20 deaths resulting from collisions involving buses: 10 pedestrians, two cyclists and eight passengers. That tragic toll represents a 17% increase in bus-related fatalities on the previous year. Each death is a tragedy—20 families, 20 sets of loved ones and 20 communities who were shaken by those deaths—and we should be taking action to reduce bus-related death and injury. That is why clause 39 must remain part of the Bill.
It is rare that a non-collision leads to a passenger accident in a car; almost all such non-collision passenger accidents happen on buses. We need a different approach, and that is why we need a specific vision zero ambition in the Bill. That would set the standard for safety and send a message that we will not accept fatalities and injury as inevitable by-products of public transport. I hope the clause remains part of the Bill.
I support the speeches made by the hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for North Norfolk, and I am exasperated that the clause is being rejected. I asked the Secretary of State about incorporating vision zero goals in the road safety strategy, as it is an entirely reasonable aim for there to be no deaths on our roads. To reject such a goal only for buses seems utterly unreasonable, and contrary to what the other place decided.
Every death that is due to a bus is 100% preventable, and we should be setting the goal of eliminating bus-related death. It is already part of the Bill—to take it out is even worse than not including it in the first place. I am very supportive of keeping the clause in the Bill. It does not go into detail about what is required but would merely ensure that the goal is set, which is completely reasonable.
I thank Committee members for their thoughts on the vision zero programme. My noble Friend the Minister for Rail noted in the other place that the Government are “sympathetic to the aims” behind vision zero. We all want a completely safe bus sector with no incidents. Safety goes wider than buses: other modes of transport share a vision for that, and that includes the Department’s work on a road safety strategy. It is the first such strategy in over a decade, which raises the question of why the previous Government failed to keep us up to date.
The Government are already taking steps to improve safety in the bus sector, but we recognise that more needs to be done. We want to eliminate serious injuries and deaths on our transport networks, but the clause cuts across the forthcoming work on the new road safety strategy.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The clause requires bus operators that are contracted to operate a franchising scheme or enhanced partnership to record data about all assaults and violent behaviour that have taken place on their services. The clause requires that data to be shared with the relevant local transport authority. It also requires local transport authorities to consult relevant trade unions about any staff safety issues arising from the data. The clause was inserted into the Bill via a non-Government amendment in the other place, and I do not consider it necessary.
First, the clause duplicates work already done by the Home Office and the police. All incidents reported to the police under the Home Office crime recording rules, whether by victims, witnesses or third parties, and whether crime-related or not, will result—unless immediately recorded as a crime—in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police. That is in line with the vision that all police forces in England and Wales should have the best crime recording system in the world—one that is consistently applied, delivers accurate statistics that are trusted by the public, and puts victims’ needs at its core.
Secondly, the clause may not be compatible with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, as no limits are placed on what the data to be collected and shared may include. It does not specify what should be collected or how frequently, and no enforcement mechanism is attached. That may result in inconsistent data. As drafted, the clause relates to contracted services, which would exclude all the local transport authorities that have entered into enhanced partnerships with private operators. For such practical reasons, the Government will seek to remove the clause from the Bill.
It is rather unedifying to see the Government hiding behind arguments about article 8. If they seriously thought that article 8 was a practical consideration that prevented the adoption of the clause, why did they not seek to amend the clause? They were perfectly capable of tabling a clarifying amendment to make the clause compliant with article 8, if they really had genuine concerns about such compliance. They could have done it, but they have chosen not to. It does not befit the Minister to hide behind that as a defence for the Government’s inaction.
The clause deals with the recording and sharing of data about assaults. It was proposed by the noble Lord Woodley in the other place. The Government should be aware of that, because it was after all drafted by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. I am sure the Government are good union supporters and, in other situations, I would have expected them to be highly supportive of union recommendations, although I seem to recall—I think I am right—that the RMT is not officially affiliated to the Labour party. Perhaps that explains why the clause is about to be removed from the Bill.
The clause imposes a duty to record all data about assaults and violent behaviour, and a duty to consult any relevant trade unions about issues of staff safety arising from that data, which is eminently sensible. Before I go into more detail, I want to clarify that most bus journeys are in fact very safe. Data from Transport for London for 2024 suggests that only 9.6 crimes are committed per million journeys in London. I do not have the data in front of me, but I think that the equivalent data for rural Norfolk might show it is even safer.
It is an increasing trend in London, however, as 4,167 crimes on London buses were reported as violence against the person in 2018-19, which was an increase of 2.5% on the previous year. In the west midlands, another hotspot, violent crime on buses increased 7% year on year in the latest statistics. Bus driver assaults is an important subsection of such crime, and in London between 2011 and 2013, on average four bus drivers every single day were assaulted or verbally abused. According to a Unite the union survey in 2024, 83% of UK bus drivers experienced abuse, with 79% saying that there had been an increase over the previous year and many reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults.
I, too, am frustrated that the Government did not see fit to address those concerns by amending the clause.
Let us start by being clear: assaults that take place on bus services are not abstract statistics—they are real events affecting real people. Often, drivers and frontline staff are simply doing their jobs and passengers are just trying to get from A to B. We cannot tackle this problem unless we properly understand it. To do that, we need robust, consistent data.
Here lies the point: at present, too many of those incidents go unrecorded, or are not handled consistently across different operators and regions. Clause 40 would put a stop to that, creating a clear and consistent duty that, if an operator is contracted to run services, it must record this data and share it with the local authority. That is the very least the public expect. Furthermore, the inclusion of a duty on a local transport authority to consult with relevant trade unions regarding issues of staff safety arising from the data collected is a good step. It will ensure that the data is used in practice and could lead to increased safety for staff and passengers.
It is clear that the clause is about more than data collection; it is about creating a feedback loop between those who operate bus services, those who oversee them and those who work on them. That would ensure that when violence occurs, it is recorded, known, and acted on. That is how we start to build a safer system for staff and passengers—for everyone. The Prime Minister recently it made clear that abuse of those working in the rail industry is “utterly unacceptable”; he responded to a question on the abuse of rail staff by saying:
“The abuse and assaults on staff are utterly unacceptable. We are taking measures to make sure they are safer.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 281.]
I am sure the Prime Minister believes the Government should take measures to ensure that bus staff are kept safe, not just rail staff. For that reason, the Minister should push to maintain clause 40 in the Bill. It is not only the right thing to do; it seems that the PM backs it too. I want to protect those who serve our communities, and ensure that public transport is not only affordable and reliable, but safe. Clause 40 helps to deliver that vision, and I implore the Government to keep it in the Bill.
I thank hon. Members for their thoughts on recording and sharing data about assaults. In the other place, we highlighted the fact that the Bill already includes measures to enhance the safety of staff and passengers on bus services. As I set out, many operators—and indeed the police and the Home Office—already collect data on assaults, and it makes sense for them to rationalise how best to manage their operators and staff in that respect. We are not seeking to duplicate the work of the police. Victims may also not want to report incidents without their consent, and we should be cognisant of that.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 123B (assessment)—
(a) for subsection (3)(b) substitute—
‘(b) whether the proposed scheme would contribute to the implementation—
(i) by neighbouring local transport authorities of those authorities’ policies under section 108(1)(a), and
(ii) by neighbouring relevant local authorities of other policies affecting local services that those authorities have adopted and published,’, and
(b) in subsection (7)—
(i) omit the ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (b), and
(ii) after that paragraph insert—
‘(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, or’.
(3) In section 123E (consultation)—
(a) in subsection (4), after paragraph (d) insert—
‘(da) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed scheme;’, and
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) omit the ‘or’ at the end of paragraph (e), and
(ii) after that paragraph insert—
‘(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, or’.
(4) In section 162(1) (interpretation of Part 2), at the appropriate place insert—
‘“council in Scotland”’ means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;’.”—(Simon Lightwood.)
This clause removes unnecessary provision from the assessment requirements for franchising schemes, in certain cases requires consideration of policies of Scottish Transport Partnerships and consultation with them and with the Welsh Ministers, and defines “council in Scotland” for the purposes of Part 2 of the Transport Act 2000.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 5
Driver access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System for drivers of PSVs
(1) Local transport authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).
(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 44—Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—
“(1) In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS) for drivers of PSVs
(1) Local authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).
(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.
(3) Local authorities must consult with trade unions on health and safety matters which arise from reports to CIRAS.’”
This new clause seeks to ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).
I have tabled a number of new clauses relating to safety of working conditions, health and safety, and reporting of bus safety. I want to speak in detail to new clause 5, but I will speak only briefly on the other related new clauses.
We need to see a step change in attitudes and effort on bus safety. Buses are a poor relation compared with other forms of transport in terms of the amount of work and care that goes into the safety of drivers and working conditions, much to the detriment of public safety. I therefore fully support the written evidence from the RMT. I am disappointed that this issue was not voted on in the Lords, because there is a clear case and a high need for it to be looked at.
It is a shame that a Bill with such potential to include these kinds of measures does not, hence these new clauses. In its written evidence, the RMT argued that
“decades of fragmentation and deregulation has led to poor working conditions in much of the sector and a stark lack of oversight for health and safety. As a report into the UK’s deregulated bus market by former UN rapporteur Philip Alston states ‘privatisation also appears to have resulted in lower quality jobs in the bus sector and unsafe working conditions’.”
Given that the Bill is intended to undo and help to mend some of the harm of privatisation, and to create better standards, these measures need to be brought in.
Bus workers are subject to many health and safety risks, including fatigue. I have met with bus drivers about the impacts of fatigue and the kinds of shifts they have to carry out. We will discuss new clauses about working times later. When drivers spot issues, they need to have a confidential reporting system such as that in new clause 5. It would be good to include in the Bill a means of reporting confidentially without fear of repercussions, which is a safety measure used in many other industries.
I will speak more on the individual measures in the new clauses to come, but they all need to be looked at. They come as a package to ensure that drivers have better working conditions, that there are better qualifications in management, that things can be reported, and that data on the current situation can be collected and used to focus attention on these issues in future.
New clauses 5 and 44 seek to require local authorities to ensure that local bus operators are providing their drivers with access to CIRAS. The Government are deeply concerned about any safety incidents in the bus sector, but the issue was discussed in the Lords, and the Government cannot support in legislation an amendment that specifies a third-party service.
CIRAS is one of a number of suitable routes through which safety concerns can be raised. For example, anyone may anonymously report a lack of safety or conformation to standards in the bus sector to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency intelligence unit. The DVSA may use that information to investigate the situation, including working with other Government Departments and agencies, as well as the police. The Minister for Rail noted the need to raise awareness of that service, and officials are working with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. I remember discussing this very issue with the RMT.
There are comprehensive standards covering all aspects of bus operation, such as roadworthiness of vehicles, operational services and driver standards. Those are enforced by several organisations including the DVSA. Operators of those vehicles are licensed by the traffic commissioners, who also consider any non-compliance issues and ensure that bus operators are effectively regulated. Those regulatory systems also include provisions on the responsibilities and conduct of drivers. Drivers or any member of the public may at present report any concerns to CIRAS if they would rather use that route. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Department is absolutely committed to ensuring safety in the bus sector, and that the new clause is unnecessary.
I do not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Bus safety performance data
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Bus safety performance data
(1) Local transport authorities must—
(a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and
(b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy.
(2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 45—Bus safety performance data—
“(1) In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Bus safety performance data
(1) Local authorities must publish bus safety performance data online every quarter at a minimum.
(2) Every calendar year, local authorities must submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor to assess the data’s accuracy.
(3) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (2) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.
(4) Local authorities must consult with trade unions on any safety issues detected by this data.
(5) Local authorities must make the release of bus safety performance data by operators a requirement of any franchise they enter into.’”
This new clause seeks to ensure that local authorities publish bus safety performance data every quarter and that franchises place a requirement on operators to release this data.
New clause 49—Bus accident investigation branch—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Bus Accident Investigation Branch.
(2) The Bus Accident Investigation Branch must have the aims of improving the safety of bus travel and preventing bus accidents and incidents.”
New clause 6 relates to the same issue of bus safety. It requires local transport authorities to collect and publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and to submit that bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of it assessing the data’s accuracy. That is a very important thing that we should be doing at a national level.
This is another probing new clause, so I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about how that will be done in some other way. It is now routinely done in Transport for London’s reporting, which has been incredibly useful for everyone interested in road danger, such as people interested in pedestrian and cyclist safety. It has been a really good thing, so extending it and making it a duty on every local transport authority should be very basic and not resisted.
I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 6, which I will deal with alongside the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), which deal with the same issue. These new clauses seek to require local authorities to publish bus safety performance on a quarterly basis, which must be audited annually.
Road safety is a priority for the Government, which is why we are developing a road safety strategy—the first, as I have said, in over a decade. The Department for Transport already collects data in respect of reported collisions involving personal injury, and publishes that information at a local authority level. Records of individual collisions are also published as open data. That is carried out through the STATS19 framework, which relies on reports from the police.
We recognise concerns about the lack of data collection for areas off the public highway. As a result of those matters being raised in the other place, the Department is engaging with the standing committee on roads injury collision statistics, which reviews the STATS19 framework to understand how those concerns can be addressed. Data is also collected from public service vehicle operators who must report incidents to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, thanks to the PSV operator licensing requirements.
I hope that provides reassurance that the Department is absolutely committed to ensuring that passengers benefit from safe journeys on bus services, and is working to ensure that passengers can access information about those matters easily. As a result, I hope that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will feel able to withdraw the new clause.
This is a probing new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service
“(1) In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert—
‘, subject to subsection (1A).
(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 42—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—
“(1) In the Transport Act 1968, in section 96(1), at end insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).
(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service under provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any consecutive weeks.
(1B) In meeting the condition of subsection (1A), drivers cannot be subject to any loss of pay.’”
This new clause seeks to limit the permitted driving time for bus drivers to no more than 56 hours in any one week and 90 hours in any consecutive weeks.
New clause 43—Permitted time on duty for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—
“(1) In The Driver’s Hours (Passenger and Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1971, Article 4(2) is amended as follows—
‘(1) In the inserted words before paragraph (a), after “Act” insert “, subject to subsection (2A),”’
(2) At the end of the inserted text insert—
‘(2A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service under provisions of the Bus Services (No.2) Act 2025 must not on any working day be on duty to drive a PSV for more than five and a half hours without a break of 45 minutes.’”
This new clause would set a permitted driving time for bus drivers—drivers of public service vehicles—that matched the permitted driving time for heavy goods vehicle drivers. Currently, the permitted driving time for bus drivers is considerably less stringent than for HGV drivers. Some of the data that we have received from the RMT on this issue shows that bus drivers can drive up to 10 hours a day and they have a 30-minute break as a minimum—I am sure that many operators operate different shift patterns than that, but this is what is permitted—after five hours and 30 minutes of driving. In every two consecutive weeks, there is a requirement for them to have 24 hours off duty. However, there is some flex in the rules, which means that someone can actually drive for 130 hours across two weeks. To me, that is asking for trouble. I feel that drivers are potentially being put under far too much pressure by these rules and that we need to look at having this kind of limit in our law.
Two similar new clauses have been tabled: new clauses 42 and 43. They take the same limits but treat them more in aggregate, which may be an attempt to be more flexible. I would be really interested to hear what the Minister has to say about how bus drivers’ hours will be regulated in a way that ensures greater safety than is currently the case.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 7, which I will discuss alongside new clauses 42 and 43. The new clauses seek to align the GB drivers’ hourly rules with the maximum permitted weekly and fortnightly driving limits in the assimilated drivers’ hours rules. They also aim to increase the break requirements for drivers of local bus services in the GB rules to something akin to those in the assimilated rules. The maximum permitted daily driving time for a bus driver is 10 hours, where the driver is providing a regular bus service and where the route length does not go beyond 50 km. The maximum permitted driving time for a driver providing a service beyond that, as well as for coach drivers and HGV drivers, is nine hours, which is extendable twice a week to 10 hours.
While I recognise the hon. Member’s intentions, there are a few unintended consequences to the proposed changes. First, they would increase the number of drivers required to undertake the same amount of work. That would likely have a knock-on impact on the considerable progress made in the last couple of years in addressing bus driver shortages.
Secondly, the proposed changes would likely impact how drivers work. When such a change was previously put to bus operators, they advised that it would result in an increase in the number of drivers having to work split shifts. That is likely to be unpopular with bus drivers, because it would likely mean that they would have to wait around at operating bases for a number of hours. Operators have worked hard to avoid drivers working split shifts when organising shift patterns.
Thirdly, such a change would limit a driver’s earning potential, due to a reduction in the maximum number of hours they could work. The result of all these changes could lead to bus drivers leaving the profession, which would impact the progress made in addressing driver shortages.
Would the Minister not agree that shorter consecutive hours and more flexible shift patterns might attract more people to consider bus driving as a potential career?
I think that the hon. Member is insinuating that there would be a choice there, but her proposal would remove that choice.
As I was saying, the result of the changes could be bus drivers leaving the profession, which would impact on the progress made in addressing driver shortages and could lead to cuts in the frequency of services or even cuts to entire routes, which I am sure we all agree we do not want to see. Should service cuts occur, they would likely have a disproportionate impact on those on the lowest incomes, who rely most on the provision of bus services. On that basis, I suggest that the hon. Member withdraw the new clause.
Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 123X insert—
‘123Y Professional qualifications for officials in franchising authorities
Officials from a franchising authority responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme must have certification from—
(a) the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, and
(b) the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health.’”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require officials from franchising authorities responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing any franchise scheme to have IOSH and NEBOSH certifications.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Following on from my other new clauses, this new clause would simply mandate that those who work in franchising authorities and who are responsible for designing, negotiating and enforcing franchise schemes be qualified through the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. That would, I hope, lead to greater focus on health and safety in the work that they do.
New clause 8 relates to training for officers in franchising authorities. It specifically focuses on officials from franchising authorities holding certification from the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health. Under current health and safety legislation, local transport authorities are required to ensure a safe and healthy work environment, which includes risk assessments, proper training and compliance with health and safety regulations. It is therefore right that a local transport authority that has chosen to franchise determines what level of qualifications is required to ensure that it meets those important requirements.
The effect of the new clause would be an increase in the cost and time that it takes to franchise if the Government required all staff to achieve certification before they started the process. Part of the Government’s bus reform is to simplify and speed up franchising and drive down costs. The new clause would disproportionately impact authorities considering franchising, including those in smaller towns and rural areas. We all agree that health and safety is paramount for bus staff, passengers and the wider public. I will therefore ask my officials to consider that this matter be addressed in the updated guidance for franchising authorities.
Review of the use and costs of bus travel for children
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the use of bus services by children.
(2) The review must assess—
(a) the level of use of bus services by children,
(b) the degree to which cost is a limiting factor in children’s use of bus services,
(c) the potential health, social and environmental impacts of children being unable to use bus services as a result of the cost of those services, and
(d) the potential impact of making bus travel free for children.
(3) For the purposes of any review undertaken under this section, ‘child’ means any person under the age of 18.
(4) In conducting a review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and youth organisations.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children and to consider the impact of making bus travel free for children.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 21—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—
“(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services within their areas.
(2) Any review must assess—
(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;
(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures;
(c) changes which may improve accessibility and increase patronage; and
(d) the potential benefits to bus patronage of the simplification of ticketing systems.
(3) A local transport authority must complete its first review under this section no later than six months after the passing of this Act, with subsequent reviews conducted at least once every three years.
(4) The results of any review conducted under this section must be publicly available.
(5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, and community representatives, and any other stakeholders the authority deems relevant.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services in their areas.
New clause 52—Fare cap for school-only services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, extend the £3 bus fare cap to school-only services.
(2) Where the £3 bus fare cap is subsequently increased or decreased, an equivalent change applies to the cap for school-only services.”
New clause 9 is about looking again at services for children, particularly their uses of them and the cost of them. The new clause defines a child as
“any person under the age of 18”
and I think that is significant. It means that it overlaps, I think, with new clause 25, which we are debating separately and which looks at 16 to 25-year-olds, but anyone under the age of 18 needs access to buses. They are, almost by definition, not drivers and not always going to have access to a car, but they are always going to need access to essential goods and services and things that help them to thrive, particularly education. I have heard evidence too many times from young people who are struggling to access college for training and other opportunities because of a lack of bus services.
The cost of bus services for children varies hugely around the country. We have many different proposals from different Members, including colleagues in the Liberal Democrats, trying to get the Government to look again at the cost of bus travel for young people as part of the Bill. What I would like to hear from the Minister in response to my new clause and other new clauses that hon. Members have tabled is that the Government will look again at the cost of travel for young people. We have the example of Scotland, where young people can now access buses for free up to the age of 21. We have the example of London and other local authorities that are paying their own money out to make it possible for younger people to get free travel.
It really should be Government policy that young people up to the age of 18, or 21, can travel for free, so that they have the maximum opportunities to access training, social occasions and all the ways in which they become fully fledged adults. I think the Government should be making this a priority in the Bill. They have not yet done that, and this new clause helps them to do so.
I will briefly touch on new clause 9, tabled by the Green party, and I will also speak to new clause 21. Buses are often the first form of transport that children use by themselves, without the supervision of parents. They are vital for many children to get to school every day, as well as socialising, and they are an important way to build independence and allow access to people and places outside their immediate vicinity. As a result, this review is welcome and a positive amendment that the Liberal Democrats are pleased to support.
New clause 21, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, would place a duty on local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage within their areas. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and I do not necessarily share the same degree of pessimism about the Bill overall, but we share a belief in measuring the impacts of changes to policy. In his case, it is franchising, but in mine it is the impact of the fare cap.
This is a simple but important proposal. At its heart, there a basic principle: if we want more people to use buses, we have to understand what is stopping them, and fare levels are a crucial part of that picture. The new clause would ensure that local authorities assess how fare structures influence ridership trends, what changes might improve accessibility, and what role simplified ticketing could play in encouraging more people on to buses.
Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture of their wider consequences on social inclusion, economic activity, environmental goals and so on. That is short-sighted policymaking that this new clause seeks to correct.
On a point of clarification, under subsection (1) of the new clause, could local transport authorities collaborate to conduct this kind of research? I worry that a single local transport authority might struggle to carry out robust research on its limited amount of data, whereas it might work slightly better if they were to team up.
I could not possibly talk about the inquiries that the Transport Committee is considering undertaking, but I would say that we all have an active interest in how to account for policy impacts on integrated travel as a whole. It may be that the Minister can attend a hearing in the forthcoming inquiry to speak to the exact point that the hon. Lady has just made.
Far too often, decisions about fare levels are made without a clear picture on their wider consequences, as I have said. The evidence is compelling; we know from both national and international experience that lower, simpler fares drive higher patronage. We have seen that with the £2 fare cap still inexplicably being phased out by the Government. With successful fare reform in places such as Germany and the Netherlands, affordable and innovative ticketing has increased public transport use. This new clause would bring that learning to a local level. It would empower transport authorities to act and analyse their policy in an informed away, based not on guesswork but on real data, public consultation and a clear understanding of what works.
This is not onerous. Most of our local authorities are already gathering some, if not all, of this data. What this new clause would do is provide consistency, as well as clarity, and a stronger evidence base for future fare and ticketing policy. It puts passengers and communities at the heart of decision making, and gives us the tools to reverse the long-term decline in bus use that has plagued far too many parts of the country for too long. If we are serious about boosting ridership, cutting emissions and making public transport fair and accessible, we need to understand the role of fares properly. This new clause would help us to do just that.
New clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seeks to require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of bus use by children, or those under 18, to consider the impact of making bus travel free for them. The Government remain committed to exploring targeted solutions that deliver value for money to taxpayers, while ensuring affordable bus travel for those who need it most, particularly young people.
Local authorities and bus operators can choose to offer concessions to children and young people. For example, in the year ending March 2025, these concessions were offered by 24 out of 85 travel concession authorities in England outside of London, and by at least one commercial bus operator in 73 out of 85 local authority areas in England outside of London. A good example of that is Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority, which launched the tiger bus pass, offering bus fares of £1 for those under 25.
We want bus fares to be affordable, which is why we are funding the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027, and confirming around £900 million in revenue funding each year from 2026-27 to maintain and improve vital bus services. As I said, local authorities may choose to use this funding to support such initiatives based on their local needs. As such, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw her new clause.
Review of the English national concessionary travel scheme
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS).
(2) A review undertaken under this section must assess—
(a) the effectiveness and impact of the ENCTS for eligible persons,
(b) the impact of the timing restrictions of the ENCTS, and
(c) the approximate cost of removing timing restrictions of the ENCTS to allow eligible persons to use the scheme 24 hours a day and seven days a week.
(3) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils, transport authorities and relevant user groups.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the English national concessionary travel scheme (ENCTS) and explore the consequences of removing timing restrictions.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 32—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the impact and feasibility of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes.
(2) A review under this section must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of current usage patterns of concessionary travel passes and the impact of existing time restrictions on passengers, particularly persons with disabilities and older people;
(b) an evaluation of the potential social, economic, and environmental benefits of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, including impacts on access to essential health services, goods and services, and social activities;
(c) an analysis of the financial implications for local transport authorities and bus operators of removing time restrictions, and potential funding mechanisms to mitigate any adverse impacts;
(d) investigation of passenger volume at different times and regional variation;
(e) recommendations for any legislative or policy changes required to implement the removal of time restrictions.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local transport authorities;
(b) bus operators;
(c) bus users and organisations representing people with disabilities and elderly people; and
(d) any other persons or organisations whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the completion of the review.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes (such as “Freedom Passes”).
New clause 48—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.
I will be as brief as I can. New clause 10 and the other new clauses in the group are all aimed at the same thing. It is an anomaly in this day and age that older people and disabled people have a time restriction on the use of their bus passes. The Government must look at that, particularly in relation to recent changes to welfare policies and the ongoing cost of living crisis that means that more and more people, according to the Government’s own aims, will be going to work. They also may be taking part in valuable volunteering for the community. The Government must look at this again, and I support any provision that will achieve that.
New clause 32 in my name and new clause 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion both call for a review into the impact of the current timing restrictions, whereby those eligible for the ENCTS, whether through age or disability, receive free travel only after 9.30 am. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) for tabling new clause 48, and I am happy to speak to it. I wish to press new clauses 48 and 35 to a Division, but I will not press any other remaining Liberal Democrat new clause.
New clause 48 would immediately remove the time limit for those with disabilities. It may surprise the Committee to learn that I am going to praise a transport policy of Norfolk county council, which has used its discretion to remove time limitations and allow disabled people to use their bus passes at all hours. I have heard very positive feedback. Therefore, I think the new clause would be a sensible and useful measure. I urge the Government and the Committee to support it.
To respond to new clause 10, the English national concessionary travel scheme costs around £700 million annually, and any changes to the statutory obligations, such as extending the hours in which a pass can be used, would need to be carefully considered. As I said to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion regarding new clause 9, local authorities in England already have the power to offer concessions in addition to their statutory obligations.
A review into the ENCTS was concluded in 2024, which included an assessment of the travel times of the scheme; the Government are considering next steps. On that basis, and as the new clause would cut across the ENCTS review, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw it.
The Minister refers to the cost of concessions. Has he made an assessment, or is he aware of what the assessed cost would be, of removing the time restriction, as proposed in new clause 48?
As I have already explained, local authorities across the country already have powers to use their funding, and they have done so on many occasions.
New clause 32, which is on a similar theme, would require an assessment of the impact of and means to removing restrictions on concessionary travel passes. As all hon. Members know, the Government’s intentions are to give power to local leaders to determine their local priorities. That is why the £900 million of bus funding secured in the spending review will enable local leaders to expand their offer on concessions beyond their statutory obligations, if they so choose. I have said that the Government are considering our next steps on the ENCTS review. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk not to press the new clause.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw new clause 10?
I shall do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
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.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
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.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula,
(b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and
(c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—(Jerome Mayhew.)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29— Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;
(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;
(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;
(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;
(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—
(a) local councils and local transport authorities;
(b) bus service operators;
(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;
(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and
(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.
(4) Any report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
An excellent settlement was secured for buses in the latest spending review. Although we need to determine how to spend it most efficiently, the Government recognise that ensuring that the funding is distributed fairly is of great importance.
New clause 17 would require us to come forward with a report detailing a proposed revision of the formula that is currently being used. The current formula is based on local need, taking into account factors such as levels of deprivation, population size and bus mileage. The new clause is therefore not needed. The Government have already said that we will review the current formula and engage with stakeholders in doing so.
The new clause would introduce the simple but crucial requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula within six months of the Bill’s passage, alongside an explanation of its rationale, an assessment of its distributional impacts, and any alternative models considered but not adopted.
We all recognise that bus services are a lifeline for many of our constituents, connecting people to work, education, healthcare and social functions, and yet we come back to Banquo’s ghost: funding. There are cheques being written by local authorities that opt for franchising, but where that funding will come from is absent from the Bill—it is totally opaque. The new clause would resolve that. It would not dictate what the funding formula should be. Instead, it would ensure that when a funding formula is proposed, it is done on an evidence basis, as described in subsection (2)(b), and transparently. Such transparency is essential to maintain trust in the system, especially after the vast overspends in Greater Manchester.
The new clause is proportionate and constructive, and aims to fix the significant concerns around the lack of funding detail in the Bill overall. It would help to ensure that the significant investments we make in bus services deliver the greatest possible benefits, particularly for communities that rely on them most. I will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
“(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.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This new clause would require transparency about the costs of franchising local authority owned bus services.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2.
(2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into a scheme established under this section.
(3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 23 of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must review the terms of any scheme established under this section every three years.
(5) The Secretary of State may amend a scheme established under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Steff Aquarone.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to cap bus fares at £2.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will actually press both this new clause and new clause 35 to a vote. When discussing the Bill, there is an elephant in the room: the Government’s decision to raise the national bus fare cap from £2 to £3, which is no less than a bus tax on communities across the country. The original £2 cap was not only popular but effective. It reduced costs to passengers, supported struggling households and, crucially, helped to bring people back to the bus network after years of decline. It was precisely the kind of bold, inclusive transport policy that we need more of, not less.
Fares that have been raised by £1 per trip might not sound prohibitive to some, but for those on a low income or families making multiple journeys each week, that represents a significant burden. Many people who rely on buses are running a household budget without much wiggle room, and an increase of £10 a week, which adds up to hundreds of pounds a year, is not money that some of my poorest or most vulnerable constituents have to spare.
I question the logic of the hon. Member’s statement that the increased cost is £10 per week. He is assuming that somebody travelling two journeys per day buys a single fare each time, but most people who use the bus regularly will invest in day savers, weekly savers, monthly savers or even longer season tickets. Perhaps he would like to revise his estimate.
I imagine that there are many different calculations in different parts of the country; mine is based on casework inquiries. A limited number of fare options are available to people in my constituency, as is the case in many rural areas, and I think that £10 is a reasonable approximation.
New clause 19 would ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of the Bill, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to reintroduce the £2 fare cap. It would restore a measure that was working, that passengers appreciated, and that delivered wide social and economic benefits. I urge Committee members to join me in supporting the new clause, axing the bus tax and putting money back into the pockets of our constituents.
I have already explained the Government’s position on the bus fare cap. It ensures that passengers up and down the country have access to affordable bus fares and, through those, improved opportunities.
New clause 19 would provide that operators taking part in the scheme may be given priority consideration in the awarding of financial grants. That may give rise to unintended consequences; for example, it is likely that larger operators would be more able to cap fares at £2, potentially muscling out smaller and medium-sized operators in allocations for grant funding. Moreover, it also might impact service levels by reducing the funding available to keep services viable. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for North Norfolk to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
“(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.”—(Steff Aquarone.)
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.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to take over the management of a service where, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there has been a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.
(2) A statement under subsection (1) must set out—
(a) the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service, and how these circumstances are to be identified;
(b) the actions which the Secretary of State may take to redress the failure to deliver the service;
(c) the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.”—(Jerome Mayhew.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement of when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important new clause that deals with poor performance franchising. Subsection (1) would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement on when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services were persistently failing because of poor operational or financial management. Subsection (2) says that the statement must set out the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service and how those are to be identified, and that it must clarify the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.
As Members will be aware, under the Bill, franchising provides local authorities with significant powers to shape, manage and procure bus services in their areas. With those powers should come an equally important responsibility: the duty to ensure that services are delivered efficiently, sustainably and to the high standards that the public rightly expect. The new clause addresses that important gap in the legislation. It requires the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to lay before Parliament a clear statement outlining their intentions and mechanisms for intervention in circumstances where franchising arrangements persistently fail due to poor operational or financial management.
I will cut to the chase: we have franchising on the railways. The Government are getting themselves into a very odd position. They are saying, “We are all for devolution. We don’t want to get involved. We are removing the requirement to gain the consent of the Secretary of State to enter into franchising agreements and we have no mechanism to intervene if local transport authorities get themselves into a mess and oversee persistent underperformance.” On rail, however, they take the opposite position and their version of franchising is to nationalise. What would the Government do to remedy the situation if the transport network in a local transport authority persistently underperformed? At the moment, they are expressing no opinion at all on that.
Poor performance by operators delivering franchised services is properly managed through the franchising contracts themselves. The Department’s franchising guidance clearly states that authorities should build mechanisms into their contracts to ensure that better bus service outcomes are delivered and that poor performance from operators can be dealt with. Franchising authorities therefore have the levers to address that without the intervention of the Secretary of State.
On the subject of ensuring that franchising authorities successfully deliver bus services, I highlight that LTAs must produce a robust assessment before developing a franchising scheme. An assessment enables an authority to take an informed decision about whether a proposed scheme would deliver better outcomes for passengers and do so in a way that is financially sustainable. The assessment must, in turn, be independently assured.
Finally and crucially, I stress that franchising authorities should ultimately be accountable to local people for bus provision and service standards delivered by a franchised network. It would be contrary to the wider principles of the Bill for the Secretary of State to break that line of accountability. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will consider withdrawing the new clause.
“(1) The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”—(Steff Aquarone.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
If I may, I want to put on record my thanks to you, Dame Siobhain, and the other Chairs of the Committee over the past couple of weeks. I also want to thank the Clerks, who have literally done a marathon today, running backwards and forwards—it is great to see active travel alive and well. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers overseeing proceedings. I also thank the officials who have supported me in bringing this important legislation forward, and for helping me navigate my very first Bill Committee on the Government Front Bench.
Finally, I also thank hon. Members on all sides of the House for their valuable contributions and insights throughout these sittings. In particular, I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon—please pass on my regards to him. I thank them for the insights that they have brought and the very good-natured way in which they have contributed to the Committee sittings. I know that we all want to deliver the best possible public transport system for our constituents, and I very much look forward to further engagements with hon. Members on the Bill.
I associate myself with all the Minister’s comments, particularly those regarding the officials and everyone who has made this Committee work over the last few weeks. I am very grateful to hear the Minister’s nice words about how he was listening carefully to what we said. If that were the case, I wonder why he did not accept any of our amendments, but it may just be a question of time—he may reflect further on them. It is great that we have managed to finish a day early, at the time that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Halifax, had in her mind. I also thank her for the way in which she has managed the operation of this Committee behind the scenes.
The Chair
I thank all Members for being a very pleasant group, and my failings are my own.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Committee rose.
Written evidence to be reported to the House
BSB33 Kidical Mass London
BSB34 School Streets initiative Cycle Campaign
BSB35 Dr Harriet Larrington-Spencer, Research Fellow, Active Travel Academy, University of Westminster. PhD, MSc, MSc, BSc
BSB36 Newham Cyclists
BSB37 Dominic Leggett
BSB38 Cycling UK
BSB39 Tom Kearney, Bus Crash Survivor and Campaigner, #LondonBusWatch
I am concerned that the new requirement may increase the administrative burden without necessarily leading to positive results in the experience of disabled passengers at the point of contact with staff and services. I therefore cannot support amendments 75 and 69 and I ask that they be withdrawn.
Clause 35 will require bus drivers and staff providing direct assistance to passengers on local services to complete both disability awareness and assistance training at least every five years to ensure that they have the knowledge, skills and confidence to support every passenger appropriately. Despite progress in recent decades, clauses 35 and 36 have been developed in response to the barriers that disabled people still face when attempting to make bus journeys. The clauses recognise the role that bus drivers play in helping to overcome those barriers, ensuring that disabled passengers’ rights are upheld, and that they are provided with timely and appropriate assistance.
Currently, drivers of local services are already required to complete disability awareness training, but mandatory course content does not cover the practical assistance that they should also provide. Likewise, other customer-facing staff of operators are not currently required to completely training on disability at all. Clause 35 corrects that imbalance. It is about ensuring that passengers on local services can travel anywhere in Great Britain, with any operator or driver, with confidence that staff will help them to travel safely and in comfort. The measures should help to ensure that passengers receive the help they need, and that buses continue to provide an inclusive experience for everyone who uses them.
Amendments 20 to 22 have been tabled to clause 36. Amendment 20 will ensure that a traffic commissioner is responsible for taking action against a terminal managing body. For the benefit of Committee members, terminal managing bodies in the context of this measure are those responsible for terminals identified in regulation 6 of the Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013, namely Victoria coach station and Birmingham coach station. The amendments will be relevant to breaches of the training and publication requirements in clauses 35 and 36. Amendment 20 ensures that the enforcement powers in those clauses align with traffic commissioners’ powers to enforce the training and publication requirements in clause 34. Amendment 21 is consequential on amendment 20. Amendment 22 is a minor technical change to ensure that consistent language is used in the 2013 regulations.
Clause 36 works with clause 35 to ensure that staff are sufficiently trained to uphold disabled passengers’ rights. To that end, the clause allows the Secretary of State to set expectations for operator record keeping and data publication on completed disability training and enables the traffic commissioner to apply appropriate sanctions if legal requirements are not met. The traffic commissioners are operationally independent, and it would be for them to determine how best to prioritise the use of enforcement powers given to them. My Department has consulted the traffic commissioners throughout the development of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham mentioned the impact of training requirements on small and medium-sized operators. Our proposals do not prescribe how the training must be undertaken. That is for bus operators to decide, and we expect disability-related training to be undertaken as part of established learning and development programmes.
Amendment 22, in clause 36, page 39, line 21, leave out “this regulation” and insert “these regulations”.—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment brings regulation 10A(1) of the 2013 Regulations into line with regulation 10(1) of those regulations.
Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in England
(9) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to ensure sufficient and accessible funding for the transition to zero-emission buses.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the adequacy and accessibility of funding available to local transport authorities to transition their bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The report must include an evaluation of current funding mechanisms, barriers to access, and recommendations for improvements.
Clause stand part.
If we agree to the amendment, however, we would be legislating enormous cost increases for the creators of fleets. We need to be careful: the cost of a standard Euro VI compliant bus, which has the most efficient engine, is about £180,000. An electric equivalent is about half a million pounds. These are hugely different orders of cost.
There are currently artificially-produced fuels made using renewable energy that have no net CO2 emissions over their life cycle. If they are interested, I can explain the basic process to Members: it uses carbon capture plus hydrogen from renewable electricity, synthesised via processes such as the Fischer-Tropsch or methanol synthesis, to create e-diesel, e-kerosene, e-methanol or e-gasoline. The key benefit is that it works with existing engines and fuel infrastructure, and avoids the enormous carbon emissions from wasting existing built infrastructure and machinery.
We need to understand that we have “spent” an enormous amount of carbon and greenhouse gases in constructing the 29,400 vehicles—buses—already out there, many of which have a natural life that could be extended significantly. We do not even need to convert them: we could just pour a synthetic fuel into the same bus, saving all the carbon associated with the manufacturing of new, large-scale hydrogen or electricity buses. At the very least, that would be a significant transitional material to extend the use of existing, or pre-manufactured, vehicles.
We try to reduce, reuse and recycle, and that would be an absolutely classic case of a good thing, and yet the clause, I am afraid to say, prohibits the development of that market. I suspect that that is not the intention of the Department or the Minister, but that is what will happen.
Amendment 58 is a small technical change that would clarify that the provisions of proposed new section 151A of the Transport Act 2000 on zero emission vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities. I would appreciate the Minister providing clarity on that point.
Finally, on amendment 63, while the transition to zero emission buses is right and essential for tacking the climate crisis and reducing air pollution, we must be honest about the pressures that transition will place on local authorities. I take the point that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, is making, but in this regard, given the subject of clause 37, I will persist with this point. The pressures on local authority budgets and local transport authorities are why we need amendment 63. It would introduce a sensible and measured requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing how adequate and accessible the central Government funding for zero emission buses has been. It would simply require the Secretary of State to bring forward recommendations on how to improve the system and accelerate the replacement of polluting buses. It is about identifying what works and what does not, and how we can ensure that local transport authorities are properly supported to deliver on one of the Government’s central missions.
Such a report could be helpful for not just local authorities, but the Secretary of State herself when the Treasury inevitably comes knocking asking Departments to justify their spending. Being able to point to a clear evidence-based publicly available report that sets out the scale of funding required to meet our zero emission bus targets will only strengthen the Department’s hand, so I urge the Government to support the amendment.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Ofgem are also considering what further action could be taken to accelerate connections for strategically important demand customers. The Government are working to ensure that they understand the specific conditions affecting bus operators and continue to communicate directly with bus operators to share best practice. Battery ranges are getting better; independent tests carried out on behalf of the Department on the UK bus test cycle show that ranges for electric vehicles can exceed 500 km, and further for hydrogen. The Government’s independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee, have been clear: buses should transition to zero tailpipe technologies, and biofuels should be focused on sectors harder to decarbonise such as aviation and maritime. The purchase costs of zero emission buses have decreased in real terms, and they have become more efficient to run.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 32 and 33 relating to zero emission buses. I appreciate that their intention is to ensure that the English bus fleet is decarbonised as quickly as possible. I can reassure her that the Government share that intention. However, having considered them carefully, the Government cannot support the amendments, and I am happy to set out the reasons why.
Amendment 32 would prevent new non-ZEBs from being used on English local bus services from 1 January 2027. Amendment 33 would enable that by removing the 1 January 2030 restriction currently in the Bill. That would allow the Secretary of State to end the use of new non-ZEBs at an earlier date.
We have stated in the Bill that the measure will not come into effect before 1 January 2030. The precise date will be set by statutory instrument. That will provide the industry with reassurance that the measure will not come into effect suddenly or without warning, and allow sufficient notice to be provided, enabling the industry to prepare for the change to zero emission buses. I am concerned about the impact that an earlier date could have on bus operators and the potential adverse consequences for passengers, such as the cost of decarbonising leading to reduced services and increased fares.
A reduction in bus services could also lead to more journeys being made by car and therefore greater overall carbon emissions. I am also concerned about the potential for job losses in the UK manufacturing sector if an earlier date led to bus operators running diesel buses for longer on certain routes.
As indicated in the published impact assessment for the Bill, there is a significant risk that setting an implementation date too early, before the total cost of owning electric buses reaches broad parity with diesel buses, could have damaging impacts. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw her amendment.
I thank the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk for amendment 78. I appreciate its purpose —to encourage the repowering of existing diesel buses, meaning their conversion into zero emission vehicles. I assure them that we support bus repowering—indeed, I opened a plant myself—as a viable and sustainable option to help the transition to zero emission buses in the UK. My Department has introduced the zero emission vehicle repower accreditation scheme to help bus operators to ensure that repowered buses get higher standards of efficiency and emission reduction, invest in their existing fleet and become eligible to claim the zero emission bus incentive in the bus service operators grant.
I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Only new diesel buses will be prevented from being used on English bus services; any existing diesel buses, including those that are repowered, can continue to be used. For any new diesel buses registered after the stated date, regulation 16 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 will require the vehicle keeper to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of any changes to the vehicle that may result in the particulars held on the vehicle record becoming incorrect. That includes changes to the engine or propulsion of the vehicle.
Proposed new section 151A(4)(a) of the Transport Act 2000 states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations…specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine…what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle”.
I can assure the hon. Member for North Norfolk that we would ensure that such documents included those that include up-to-date information about the bus’s powertrain. That would allow such buses to be used on English local bus services. I therefore ask him not to press amendment 78.
Amendment 58 tabled by the hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Wimbledon and for South Devon seeks to clarify that the restrictions on the use of non-zero emission buses from a date no earlier than 2030 apply to mayoral combined authorities. I welcome the intention behind the amendment. The Government agree that the restrictions should apply to local bus services in those areas, creating jobs, supporting local economies and accelerating our journey to a zero emission future. That is why, in response to concerns raised in the other place, the Government expanded the measure to apply to all local services in England, including those in London. If a mayoral combined authority operates a relevant service, they will already be subject to the restriction on using non-ZEBs. That means that the measure as it stands in the Bill already fulfils the intention of the amendment.
I thank the hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Wimbledon, for South Devon and for Didcot and Wantage for tabling amendment 63, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent on the ability of local transport authorities to access funding to decarbonise their fleets. The restriction on the use of new non-ZEBs will not come into effect immediately. That will follow careful consideration of all relevant factors by the Secretary of State, including affordability, and it will be fully debated in Parliament as it will be implemented by affirmative secondary legislation. We state in the Bill that the measure will not come into effect before 1 January 2030. That will give the industry and local transport authorities reassurance that the measure will not come into effect suddenly and without warning, and will allow sufficient notice to be provided, enabling them to prepare for the change to zero emission.
The clause also rightly mandates consultation with key stakeholders—local councils and transport authorities —who are best placed to speak to the lived reality of rural transport as currently delivered. Without proper scrutiny and transparency, bus networks in rural areas will continue to wither. This review clause is a modest but vital safeguard that ensures we do not look the other way while whole communities are cut off.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long championed the rights of rural communities to fair access to transport. From Cumbria to Cornwall and Norfolk to Newton Abbot, we are fighting for cut-off communities to finally have their challenges heard and their needs addressed. Clause 38 speaks directly to that principle and I urge colleagues across the Committee to support its inclusion in the Bill.
Clause 38 provides the opportunity to review and assess the challenges to local services, and to make sure that our ambition reaches all parts of communities, including villages.
Time and again, throughout consideration of the Bill, I have said that the Conservative party is not against franchising; in fact, it is a Conservative policy development. In the right circumstances, it is a good solution—it is progress—but we have to accept that it is expensive. The Government are pretending that they are facilitating a whole load of local transport authorities to franchise, but are not giving them any money to do it, so we are left with a meaningless shell. The review mandated by clause 38 would hold the Government to account. If I were proven wrong by the report, and it lists a huge number of additional services that have been supplied as a result of the Bill, I would happily come back here and eat my hat.
I do hope that a review of the benefits of this Bill to England’s villages can be carried out in time, but when the time is right, not by an arbitrary timeframe. By that point, the full benefits of things such as franchising and registers of socially necessary services can be properly assessed. For that reason, I urge fellow members of the Committee who represent villages—like I do—to oppose clause 38 standing as part of this Bill, so that the Secretary of State and the Minister can determine the best approach to ensuring that, once again, buses are there for people and communities first and foremost.
That is the important bit: if bus drivers are reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults, why is requiring the proper recording of data associated with assaults such a bad thing? Surely the first step to change would be to understand the full nature of the problem. The clause would lead to better data, and therefore better support for bus drivers and passengers faced with violent crime.
The new clause gives them the power to set out their views. It seeks to ensure that where franchising authorities or franchisees fail to deliver contracted services, there is a backstop of national intervention to guarantee continuity and standards. Buses should not be the poor relation of rail. The new clause brings the franchised bus networks in line with the franchised rail network and introduces further certainty and confidence into the franchising system for operators, passengers and local authorities alike. Everyone will know that where persistent failure occurs, there will be a robust safety net to prevent communities being left with persistently poor franchised bus services.