Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Points of Order

   I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I also thank him for correcting the record in so much detail at the earliest opportunity.

   Hansard source
2. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 1—£2 bus fare scheme— “(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.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to cap bus fares at £2. New clause 2—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes— “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. New clause 3—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 made publicly available. (5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, 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 4—Duty to promote bus services— “(1) It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction. (2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider— (a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options; (b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives; (c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage; (d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility; (e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions; (f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion; (g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services. (3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including— (a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable; (b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage; (c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and (d) plans for future improvements in bus services. (4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.” This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas. New clause 5—Reporting on accessibility of bus services— “(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries. (2) In this section, "relevant authority" includes— (a) a county council in England; (b) a district council in England; (c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009; (d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023; (e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England. (3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory. (4) The report must also include— (a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings; (b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation; (c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups; (d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required; (e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers. (5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed. (6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.” This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory. New clause 6—Public sector equality duty— “In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading “Transport” insert— “A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation.”” This new clause would place bus companies under the public sector equality duty. New clause 7—Young person’s discount scheme— “(1) The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a discount on bus fares for people aged between 19 and 25. (2) Any scheme under this section must provide for a discount amounting to a third of the price of relevant fares.” This new clause would introduce a discount scheme for young people, providing 19-to 25-year-olds a third off bus fares. New clause 8—Review of impact of VAT changes on demand-responsive bus services— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of the VAT system on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services. (2) A report under subsection (1) must consider— (a) whether the current system of granting a zero-rated VAT exemption to public service vehicles with 10 seats or more while subjecting smaller vehicles to VAT on fares— (i) influences the choice of vehicles used for demand-responsive bus services; (ii) has any other impact on the provision or operation of demand-responsive bus services, (b) the potential for VAT exemptions to facilitate the rollout of demand-responsive bus services. (3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives from the intelligent mobility sector, local authorities, bus operators, and public transport users. (4) The 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 to support the growth of demand-responsive bus services across the UK.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of current VAT rules on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services. New clause 9—Free bus travel for unpaid carers— “The Secretary of State must work with local transport authorities and operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which— (a) provides free bus travel to those in receipt of carers allowance, and (b) supports local transport authorities to expand provision for other unpaid carers.” This new clause would require the Government to introduce a scheme to provide free bus travel for those in receipt of carers allowance and improve bus provision for carers. New clause 10—Review of capacity of Bus Centre of Excellence— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing— (a) the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities in establishing and operating franchising schemes under the Act, and (b) additional resourcing required for this purpose. (2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to— (a) an assessment of the current operational capacity, staffing levels, and expertise of the Bus Centre of Excellence; (b) an evaluation of the effectiveness and reach of current training programmes and support services provided to local transport authorities on franchising, and their suitability for authorities able to franchise services under the Act; (c) an identification of specific additional financial, human, and technological resources required by the Bus Centre of Excellence to adequately deliver comprehensive training and ongoing support for all local transport authorities considering or implementing franchising schemes under the Act; (d) an analysis of the impact of current capacity limitations on the pace and quality of franchising scheme development and implementation by local transport authorities. (3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, representatives from the Bus Centre of Excellence, and bus operators. (4) 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 steps to ensure the Bus Centre of Excellence is adequately resourced for its role in supporting bus franchising.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities for bus franchising. New clause 11—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. New clause 12—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme. (2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in— (a) rural areas; (b) coastal communities; and (c) suburban areas.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes. New clause 13—Power to convene for bus service coordination— “(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England may convene other agencies and public bodies that have transport functions and obligations for the purposes of coordinating bus services within, to, or from its area. (2) The power under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, the power to convene NHS trusts and other health bodies for the purposes of coordinating bus services with non-emergency patient transport services. (3) The purpose of convening under this section is to promote the efficient, integrated and accessible provision of bus services across different sectors and to ensure that bus services meet the needs of the communities they serve. (4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the coordination of transport services with other public services. (5) Local transport authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the exercise of functions under this section. (6) The Secretary of State must publish— (a) any guidance issued under subsection (5), and (b) any variation or revocation of that guidance.” This new clause would empower local authorities to convene other agencies for the purposes of coordinating bus services. New clause 14—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 15—Rail bus links scheme: proposals— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing local rail connections. (2) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance accompanying the scheme on— (a) the departmental funding which will be available for the purposes of the scheme; (b) the qualifying criteria which will be used to assess eligibility for the scheme, which may include, but may not be limited to, insufficiencies in funding, vehicles and equipment, workforce or expertise.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing connections. New clause 16—Bus pass scheme for persons in post-16 education— “The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a half-price discount on bus fares for persons in post-16 education.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a discount on bus fares for people in post-16 education. New clause 17—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of— (a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance; (b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards. (3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe. New clause 21—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 22—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.” New clause 23—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders— “(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders. (2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law. New clause 24—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops— “(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England. (2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England. New clause 25—Franchising authorities: joint forum— “(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions. (2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.” This new clause would require all local transport authorities that introduce franchising schemes to establish a joint forum with trade unions and operators. New clause 26—Consultation of trade unions— “In section 138F of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (6)(f) insert— (fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,”. This new clause of the Transport Act 2000 would require local transport authorities to consult trade unions when proposing to make an enhanced partnership plan. New clause 27—National Bus Forum— “(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Bus Forum. (2) The purpose of the National Bus Forum is to address issues affecting the provision of local bus services at industry-wide and strategic level. (3) The membership of the National Bus Forum must include— (a) HM Government, (b) trades unions, (c) bus service operators, (d) local authorities in England, and (e) any other body or persons as the Secretary of State deems necessary.” This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Bus Forum whose membership includes unions, operators and local government, in line with a recommendation by the Transport Select Committee. New clause 28—Review into floating bus stops— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England. (2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a vote on the proposals.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the safety of existing floating bus stops and publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a vote debate on the proposals. New clause 29—Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England. (2) The review under subsection (1) must assess— (a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act, (b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services, (c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and (d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England. (3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.” New clause 30—Consultation: bus funding formula— “(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.” 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. New clause 31—Poor performance of franchising— “(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.” 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. New clause 32—Requirement to consult and notify before service review discussions— “(1) A local transport authority or bus operator must not enter into formal discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service unless— (a) notice has been given to parish and district councils affected by the change or withdrawal, and (b) a period of public consultation has been concluded. (2) The authority or operator must publish, before giving notice and holding the public consultation— (a) the date on which formal discussions regarding changes to the service are proposed to commence, (b) a summary of the reasons why alteration or withdrawal is being considered, and (c) information on participating in the public consultation or submitting representations on or alternatives to the proposed changes.” This new clause would require local transport authorities and bus operators to notify relevant councils and initiate a public consultation before entering into discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service. New clause 33—Duty to promote and increase bus usage— “(1) A local transport authority must include in its local transport plan a strategy to promote and increase bus usage in its area. (2) The strategy must— (a) set out specific, measurable objectives for increasing bus ridership, (b) establish 2015 as the year against which progress will be assessed, (c) include measures to encourage modal shift from private vehicles to buses, and (d) explain how the authority will monitor and report progress.” This new clause would require local transport authorities to include in their transport strategies a specific plan for increasing bus usage, including measurable objectives and assessment against 2015 as a baseline year. New clause 34—Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services— “(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility, and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain. (2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.” This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality, and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain. New clause 35—Enhanced partnerships: stakeholder forum— “(1) Every local transport authority in England that has formed an enhanced partnership must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a stakeholder forum to monitor the delivery of the enhanced partnership. (2) The forum established by subsection (1) must meet at least once every three months, and its membership must include trade unions representing bus workers, passenger groups, and local businesses. (3) Where two or more local transport authorities are working together in an enhanced partnership scheme, a single forum should be established to meet the duty set out in subsection (1).” New clause 36—Concessionary travel for 16 and 17 year olds in education or training— “(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows. (2) After section 150 insert— ‘150A Free bus travel for 16–17 year olds in education or training (1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons aged 16 or 17 and who are— (a) in full-time education, or (b) undertaking training on a course or programme that has been approved by Skills England. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’” New clause 37—Secretary of State duty to ensure services for certain towns— “(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every town in England is served by bus services which— (a) operate seven days a week, and (b) serve specified locations. (2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the relevant local authorities for the areas to which the duty applies, (b) the integrated care boards for the areas to which the duty applies, and (c) residents, or organisations representing residents, of the areas to which the duty applies for the purposes of determining the specified locations which must be served.” New clause 39—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Wales)— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for— (a) bus service operators, and (b) bus passengers, on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Wales. (2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Wales to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England. (3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Welsh Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.” New clause 40—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Scotland)— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for— (a) bus service operators, and (b) bus passengers, on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Scotland. (2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Scotland to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England. (3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.” New clause 41—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.’” This new clause would ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System). New clause 42—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.’” 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. New clause 43—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service— “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.’” 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. New clause 44—Concessionary travel for people under the age of 22— “In the Transport Act 2000, after section 150 insert— ‘150A Free bus travel for people under the age of 22 (1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons under the age of 22. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’” This new clause would require transport authorities to provide free bus travel for children and young people who are under the age of 22. New clause 45—Minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services— “(1) It is a requirement for local transport authorities to provide a minimum level of bus services for individuals reliant on off-peak and nighttime transport to local and regional employment centres. (2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, commission each local authority in England to undertake an audit of the minimum off-peak and nighttime bus services required by those working in key employment centres in their respective areas. (3) For the purposes of the audit specified in subsection (2), local authorities must consult with bus companies, trade unions, employers and members of the public. (4) Where more than one local authority is responsible for the delivery, or funding, of local transport services in their respective localities, the audit specified in subsection (2) must be undertaken as a partnership between the relevant local authorities. (5) Within three months of being commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake the audit under subsection (2), each local authority, or partnership of local authorities, must publish— (a) the findings of its audit, and (b) proposals for delivering the off-peak and nighttime services identified by the audit as necessary to fulfil the requirements laid out by subsection (1). (6) For the purposes of subsection (2) a key employment centre means a city, a town with either a population above 50,000 people or whose economic output represents more than 10 per cent of that local authority’s economic activity.” This new clause establishes a legal duty for local authorities to ensure a minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services to local employment centres, require the Government to commission local authorities to undertake an audit of local service requirements and produce proposals on providing a minimum level of services. New clause 46—Duty to consider funding for service enhancements— “(1) A local transport authority in England must consider whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services. (2) In exercising the duty under this section, the authority must have regard to— (a) the potential for increased ridership; and (b) the overall sustainability of the network. (3) Service improvements under subsection (1) may include— (a) increasing the frequency of existing services; (b) extending operating hours; (c) improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; or (d) extending the routes of local services.” This new clause would place a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate public funds to improve existing bus services where this would grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network, and sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. New clause 47—English National Concessionary Travel Scheme: Companion Passes— “The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”. New clause 48—Free travel for uniformed police officers— “(1) The holder of a PSV operator’s licence must permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local service which has one or more stopping places in England. (2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, make a statement on options for compensating operators of local services for any costs that arise or revenues lost fulfilling the duty under subsection (1). (3) In this section— ‘local service’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985; ‘police officer’ means a member of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales or a special constable appointed for such an area; and ‘PSV operator’s licence’ has the same meaning as in section 82 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.” This new clause would permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local bus service in England. Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4). Government amendment 31. Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert— “(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4). (A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’; (A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert ‘, and (c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme. (2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include— (a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and (b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’ (A4) After subsection (6) insert— ‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’” This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes. Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 6, line 33, at end insert— “(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000. (12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead. Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 6, line 38, after “2010)” insert “, or with special educational needs (within the meaning given by section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014),”. This amendment would require local transport authorities wishing to proceed with a franchising scheme to consult bus users with special educational needs, or groups that represent them. Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, after “fit;” insert— “(db) relevant train operating companies and other public transport operators, for the purposes of ensuring coordination during peak travel times and tourist seasons;”. This amendment would add other transport operators to the list of parties who are to be consulted when making or varying a franchising scheme. Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, leave out line 10. This amendment would retain the requirement for consultation when varying a franchising scheme. Government amendments 32 and 33. Amendment 66, in clause 14, page 10, line 5, after “services” insert “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”. Amendment 5, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert— “(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must— (a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities; (b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities; (c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models. (4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting— (a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area; (b) users of local services; (c) NHS providers; (d) education providers; (e) local employers and businesses; (f) people with disabilities; and (g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.” This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services. Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 10, line 20, leave out “and” and insert— “(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, and (v) schools and colleges.” This amendment would ensure that primary health care services, schools and colleges are considered as “socially necessary local services”. Amendment 60, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, after “activities.” insert— “(16) A service which was abolished in the 15 years before the day on which the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 was passed may also be considered a socially necessary local service for the purposes of this section and section 138C.” This amendment would mean that previous bus services could be considered as socially necessary local services. Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert— “(5) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where— (a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and (b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service. (6) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme. (7) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so. Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert— “(5) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable. (6) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to— (a) the scope and nature of the service; (b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps; (c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs; (d) a timeline for the operation of the service; (e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall. (7) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (6)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered. (8) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (7). (9) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).” This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established. Amendment 8, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert— “(5) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out— (a) the number of socially necessary local services in England; (b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled; (c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services; (d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation; (e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and (f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership. (6) For the purposes of subsection (5), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000. (7) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues. Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert— “(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.” Amendment 27, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, after “comfort” insert “;— (d) identify what, if any, provision is made to facilitate access to child and adolescent mental health services and other community-based mental health services not attached to hospitals.” This amendment would require bus network accessibility plans to consider access to CAMHS and other community-based mental health services. Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 17, line 3, at end insert— “(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly. (4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024. (4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert— ‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’” This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act. Amendment 28, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert— “(6A) Guidance issued under subsection (6) must require local transport authorities, when making grants to operators, to take into account factors relevant to the provision of services in their area, including but not limited to— (a) the rurality of the area or areas to be served; (b) the age profile of persons in the area or areas to be served; (c) measures of deprivation in the area or areas to be served; and (d) the percentage of persons with disabilities in the area or areas to be served.” This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the making of grants to bus operators to require authorities to consider factors relating to the demographics of the area or areas to be served when making grants. Amendment 29, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert— “(6A) The guidance must include information on when and how local transport authorities and mayors may give grants for the purposes of replacing or otherwise providing for bus services in rural or isolated areas when a socially necessary local bus service has been withdrawn, including details of what Government support or funding will be available for such purposes.” Amendment 61, in clause 23, page 19, line 3, after “environment,” insert— “(ba) about the operation of concessionary fare schemes by the local transport authority,”. This amendment would include information about concessionary fare schemes in the guidance about the making of grants by local transport authorities issued by the Secretary of State. Amendment 9, in clause 23, page 19, line 13, at end insert— “154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation (1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it. (2) In particular, local transport authorities may— (a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services, (b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and (c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands. (3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider— (a) the size of the operator’s fleet, (b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and (c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.” This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants. Government amendments 35 to 38. Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”. This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws. Amendment 59, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, at end insert— “(2A) A local transport authority whose area is in England, or two or more authorities acting jointly, shall have the power to make byelaws prohibiting any person on the bus network from, to the annoyance of any person— (a) singing; or (b) using any instrument, article or equipment for the production or reproduction of sound. (2B) Local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, make byelaws in accordance with the powers provided in subsection (2A). (2C) Bus service operators, including those delivering services as part of a franchising, concessionary, or other scheme, must work with local police forces to ensure the effective enforcement of byelaws made under subsections (2A) and (2B).” Government amendments 39 to 42. Amendment 18, in clause 30, page 32, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places. Amendment 64, in clause 30, page 32, line 22, at end insert— “(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,”. This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section to cover the provision of toilet facilities. Amendment 11, in clause 30, page 32, line 29, at end insert— “(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”. This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place. Amendment 12, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take reasonable steps to implement”. This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented. Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert— “(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1). (6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.” This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Amendment 19, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert— “(6A) The bodies listed in subsection (6) may depart from such guidance only if— (a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and (b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure. (6B) The bodies listed in subsection (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.” This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published. Amendment 20, in clause 31, page 34, line 32, at end insert— “(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.” This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 34, line 39, at end insert— “(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders. (1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.” This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. Amendment 14, in clause 34, page 37, line 18, after “2003” insert— “(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).” This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse. Government amendment 43. Amendment 15, in clause 34, page 38, line 16, at end insert— “144H Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility (1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility. (2) The relevant parties are— (a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence; (b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services. (3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding— (a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services; (b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and (c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities. (4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation. (5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed— (a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five-year period thereafter; (b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period. (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations. (7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.” This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regularly undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility. Government amendments 44 and 45. Amendment 62, in clause 37, page 41, line 26, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 27 and insert “1 January 2027,”. This amendment, along with Amendment 63, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered after 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c). Amendment 1, in clause 37, page 41, line 33, 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 63, in clause 37, page 42, leave out lines 1 and 2. Amendment 30, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, leave out “2030” and insert— “2028 in relation to vehicles to be used in areas containing all or part of a National Landscape, or 1 January 2030 in relation to all other vehicles, and the Secretary of State may by regulations provide any— (a) financial remuneration, or (b) specific guidance (or both) that they deem necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the deadlines specified in this section.” Amendment 16, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, 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 17, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, 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. (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. Government amendments 46 to 50, 34 and 51 to 57.

   Hansard source
3. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   I call the shadow Minister.

   Hansard source
4. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   Order.

   Hansard source
5. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   Order. Please be seated. I should have to say “Order” only once. You just said the word “you”, so let’s restart that intervention, which should be short.

   Hansard source
6. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   Order. Will Members please be seated? Before I go to speeches from Back Benchers, I want to be clear about where we are and what we are debating, because there seems to be some confusion among colleagues. We are debating the remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, and we are on Report. Speeches should relate to the amendments listed on the amendment paper, not the Bill as a whole, so please check the amendment paper; I say that for Back Benchers who hope to contribute. I know that the next Member knows exactly what they are doing. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

   Hansard source
7. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   Order. I talked so highly of the Select Committee Chair and said that she does everything right, but I think she mentioned a colleague by their name, not by their constituency. Can we try and stick to the etiquette?

   Hansard source
8. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

   I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

   Hansard source
9. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

   Engagements

   I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about the Duchess of Kent; she lived an exemplary life of public service, and will be very much missed. I agree with the Prime Minister, as all of us in this House should: we stand shoulder to shoulder with Poland and all our NATO allies against Putin’s aggression. A NATO country has just had to defend itself against Russian drones. Now more than ever, we need our ambassador to Washington fully focused on this issue, and liaising closely with America. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in Peter Mandelson?

   Hansard source
10. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    This is interesting. The Prime Minister says that the ambassador has expressed full regret, but the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein have called for Lord Mandelson to be sacked. Just so the House is aware, in 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of child prostitution and sex trafficking, which took place between 2002 and 2005. That is the precise period when Lord Mandelson called Jeffrey Epstein his “best pal”. Was the Prime Minister aware of this intimate relationship when he appointed Lord Mandelson to be our ambassador in Washington?

    Hansard source
11. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I asked the Prime Minister if he knew about the relationship. The fact that he did not answer indicates that he probably did know. I was not asking a question about process; I was asking a question about his judgment. The Daily Telegraph reported today that while Lord Mandelson was Business Secretary, he brokered a deal with Jeffrey Epstein, and that this occurred after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences. Given this new information, does the Prime Minister really think that it is tenable for our ambassador to remain in post?

    Hansard source
12. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I think it is embarrassing that the Prime Minister is still saying that he has confidence in a man who was brokering deals with convicted child sex offenders while sitting in Government. That is a disgrace. This Government have repeatedly refused to declare Lord Mandelson’s full interests. As part of the appointment, there will have been extensive Government vetting, covering details and timings of Peter Mandelson’s dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. Will the Prime Minister publish all the documents, including those about Lord Mandelson’s interests?

    Hansard source
13. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister cannot answer any questions. That is not the behaviour of someone who has full confidence. The ambassador should be in the White House, talking about how we respond to an incursion into NATO airspace; instead, he is giving interviews about himself to The Sun. This is a man who has already had to be removed from Cabinet twice, and now we learn that he was brokering billion-pound deals with Jeffrey Epstein while he was Business Secretary. I did not get a proper answer. The Prime Minister is talking about process, but this is not about process; this is about judgment. Just last week, I told him that he should sack his Deputy Prime Minister. Labour Members were all cheering and congratulating themselves, but she was gone two days later. His phase 2 is broken, and he has a wholly new Front-Bench team. I will ask him again: will he ensure that these documents are published? Will he actually instruct Peter Mandelson to publish all his correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein?

    Hansard source
14. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    A load of waffle and whataboutery. All Labour Members are interested in right now is their pointless deputy leadership election, while the country out there is suffering from an economic crisis. The Prime Minister has an ambassador mired in scandal, not focusing on NATO. He lost his Deputy Prime Minister just last week for evading taxes. He has a new Home Secretary and a new Foreign Secretary who are just learning the ropes and not able to help with this issue. We have strikes crippling our capital city and damaging our economy. He could use the minimum service legislation that the Conservatives introduced to make the lives of the people out there better, but he will not, because he does not have the backbone to face down the unions. The unions are running the Government; all the deputy leadership candidates are chasing after them. With this Government, it is more strikes, more scandal and more chaos. Is not the link between all this his bad decisions, his bad judgment and his total weakness?

    Hansard source
15. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    The Minister should see how committed we were in office, because I gave more than a billion pounds to Manchester for that scheme and for setting it up. Indeed, the National Audit Office recently praised our £2 bus fare scheme, saying it “achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage.”

    Hansard source
16. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    What bus passengers really want is reliable, affordable and cheap bus travel on a growing network. That is what was guaranteed under the last Conservative Government’s £2 fare cap. It was a commitment in our manifesto, and one that worked. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may jeer, but the National Audit Office said—they might want to listen—in praise of the DFT that the “DFT’s £2 bus fare cap achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage”. That is a policy abandoned by Labour but stood up for by the Conservatives. This Labour Government scrapped it, and they keep on pretending that a 50% increase to £3 is actually beneficial to taxpayers. There is zero indication of how the Bill will improve passenger numbers or ensure rural coverage. Indeed, the Bill creates an even more fragmented and inconsistent service across the country. Labour has scrapped a national fare cap and failed to replace it properly, and now it expects local councils to pick up the bill without any extra funding. The last Conservative Government delivered real investment for passengers, backing bus services and improvements in the west midlands, and Greater Manchester with £1 billion. I was there with Mayor Burnham, and anyone would think it was all down to him. I am sure Ministers are finding dealing with Andy as interesting as I did. We also did so in West Yorkshire, delivering bus service improvement plans, and working with local authorities to get real results. The Bill is the opposite of that. It will drown councils in process, drive up costs and threaten rural connectivity while ignoring what passengers really need. Without significant subsidies, councils will naturally prioritise cities and towns over villages, leaving our rural communities even further behind. Just as we have seen in our courts and our prisons, the Government risk creating yet another two-tier system—this time for buses—where city regions are supported and everyone else is simply forgotten. How else to explain forcing operators towards zero emission bus registration without any plans to help make that transition for them? After hammering rural communities with attacks on family farms, the Government will do exactly the same all over again with reduced services because they are not providing extra funding. To make matters worse, they are undermining the very infrastructure that buses rely on by cutting roads funding in road investment strategy 3 by 13% in real terms and delaying or cancelling critical projects. The Government cannot promise better bus services while cutting the very roads that they and all other users depend on. In tearing up the safeguards around the Secretary of State’s oversight, Ministers are giving councils free rein to set up municipal bus companies without ministerial sign-off or competitive tendering. Let me be absolutely clear: if those companies fail, the responsibility lies squarely with the Secretary of State, with taxpayers left to pick up the Bill. Moreover, the Bill has completely ignored the shortage of bus and coach drivers across our country. We have called time and again for 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to be allowed to drive buses beyond 50 km a day. Fifteen months ago, the consultation ended. This Government have had 14 months, yet last week, in answer to a written parliamentary question, they said that they are still considering their response to the consultation. It is a straightforward and common-sense change that would help tackle driver shortages, boost businesses and tourism, and get more buses back on our roads. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor have told this House repeatedly that they will pursue growth by any means necessary, yet when an opportunity clearly presents itself, as this has done, they do not seem to want to move at all. In this week of hugely damaging and disruptive strikes in our nation’s capital—we will see further bus strikes across the country next week—the Government are putting ideology ahead of delivery and siding with the unions over passengers, with a Bill that fails bus users, fails rural communities and fails to guarantee value for taxpayers. That is why we on the Conservative Benches will vote against the Bill tonight, and I urge all hon. Members to do the same.

    Hansard source
17. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Urgent Care Centres: Hillingdon

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. He has highlighted the issues in his constituency, and he is lucky enough that Hillingdon hospital is going to be refurbished. Given the delays to the Watford General refurbishment, where spades will not be in the ground until 2032 at the earliest, does he agree that Mount Vernon is even more critical for the surrounding areas with the capacity that it provides?

    Hansard source
18. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    Political choices are made locally and nationally. Labour Members talk about the past 14 years, but we Conservatives won control of Lancashire county council in 2017, and increased the bus budget by 50%. We put on bus routes that the Labour party in Lancashire had made the political decision to cut, just as it chose to put up the price cap from £2 to £3. These are political choices.

    Hansard source
19. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Engagements

    His Majesty’s Prison Stoke Heath in Shropshire has seen six deaths in custody in less than two years. That is above the national average. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the Ministry of Justice to ensure that there are enough resources and that the right governance is in place at Stoke Heath?

    Hansard source
20. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace

    Let us be clear: this is no accidental violation of Poland’s—or NATO’s—airspace. As NATO members, one could argue that it is actually a violation of our own airspace. Is it not clear that Russia is testing NATO’s resolve, and that Putin will ruthlessly exploit any real or perceived diplomatic, military or political weakness? I get the Minister’s point on calibration and proportionality, but what does a robust response mean? Following on from an earlier question from the Labour Benches, given that there are many Russian ships in the English channel and around these isles from which drones could easily be deployed, what about UK air defences?

    Hansard source
21. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    New Technologies in the Workplace

    3. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support the adoption of new technologies in the workplace.

    Hansard source
22. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    New Technologies in the Workplace

    I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. Small businesses in my constituency are vital to economic growth. What is her Department doing to ensure that small businesses can benefit from innovation and new technology?

    Hansard source
23. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Qatar: Israeli Strike

    The events of yesterday come as no surprise to those of us in the Chamber who have raised the issue of the Israeli Government’s crimes, committed with an air of complete impunity. It should now be crystal clear to the Minister, as it is to so many across the world, that the Israeli Government are not interested in the slightest in peace, or indeed in the fate of their hostages. In that light, I have two questions. First, what military and intelligence assistance will we provide to the Qataris to allow them to defend themselves against further attacks? Secondly, will the UK add its voice to the growing calls across the world for the formation of an international protection force to enter Gaza and enforce a peace?

    Hansard source
24. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Julia Lopez

    Topical Questions

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the new Secretary of State to her place and, of course, I welcome her stellar team. The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), is so hot that he snared two jobs from the guy who just fired him. The Tech Secretary replaces the Ozempic of Whitehall, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), who claimed that his digital plan would shear £45 billion of fat from the Government. By how much did it cut the civil service?

    Hansard source
25. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Julia Lopez

    Topical Questions

    I fully agree with the right hon. Lady, but the number of civil servants has risen to a 20-year high under Labour. If somebody in the private sector led a reverse efficiency drive, they would get sacked; Labour made the person responsible Business Secretary. For a welfare meltdown, you get to be the Minister for the future, but while AI is screaming for cheap electricity, the Prime Minister cannot sack his failing Energy Secretary. Why should the tech sector believe that this is a Government of delivery?

    Hansard source
26. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

    Qatar: Israeli Strike

    As a seasoned diplomat, does the Minister recognise that there is a danger that we are holding Israel to a different standard? When the Americans reached out into Pakistan to snuff out Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11, we were taking them to the bar; when Israel reaches out with a precision decapitation strike on the leadership of Hamas, we want to take it to the bar of the international court.

    Hansard source
27. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this debate and for speaking with such knowledge and passion, not only about the Stockton and Darlington railway but about railways more generally and the impact they have had on this country. The Stockton and Darlington railway was the first step in the great railway invention and expansion that shaped our country and the world. Britain pioneered steam locomotion and railways, and we have heard how George Stephenson set the global standard. Railways in turn powered the industrial revolution by enabling the efficient movement of raw materials, goods and people. Within just a few years our country had established a railway network that grew throughout the country; what was once a three-day trip to remote areas by horse and cart became, within a few years, a journey of a few hours by train. We take it for granted today in the age of the internet and artificial intelligence, but it is hard to overstate just how transformative the railways were in the 19th century—and it all started in Stockton and Darlington. Beyond the railways’ economic impact, they transformed the social fabric of our country. They opened the countryside to the urban population, offering access to fresh air and green spaces. Rail travel also revolutionised tourism. Affordable fares made trips possible for working-class families, reshaping the character of seaside towns such as those in my constituency on the Isle of Wight. Heritage railways act as living museums that preserve the rich legacy of our railways, and they will be doing so up and down the country—an essential part of the 200th anniversary celebrations. The central and most important part of that will be the cultural festival in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. While discussing heritage railways, I must mention the contribution of the heritage railway in my constituency, the Isle of Wight steam railway at Havenstreet, which welcomes over 110,000 visitors annually. It is not just a tourist destination; it is an accredited Arts Council England museum and educational charity, employing 35 staff and enriching our local economy—particularly the visitor economy—and our community. Heritage railways contribute £600 million to the UK economy and welcome 13 million visitors each year. None of that would be possible without the extraordinary contribution of volunteers, and I am sure volunteers will play a very significant role in the upcoming cultural festival. Across the country, thousands of dedicated individuals give their time and expertise not only to restore locomotives and maintain rolling stock, but to guide visitors and passengers. On the Isle of Wight steam railway alone, we have a team of up to 500 volunteers, and it is one of the largest volunteer organisations on the island. In celebrating the 200th anniversary of our railways, we must do more to remove barriers to volunteers and offer more flexible opportunities that encourage people both young and old to volunteer. Recently, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay identified just such a barrier to volunteering and sought to remove it during consideration of the Employment Rights Bill in the other place. An obsolete 1920s law governing the employment of young people has survived in later legislation. It means that, strictly speaking, it is not legal for heritage railways to give volunteering opportunities to anyone under the age of 16. My noble Friend was able to amend the Bill in the other place on a cross-party basis to remove that outdated provision in existing legislation. I hope very much that when the Bill comes back to the Commons, as part of the 200th anniversary celebrations and in that spirit, the Government will allow that amendment to stand. I close by again congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor and by celebrating the story of Britain’s railways. The Stockton and Darlington railway was the world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives. Its opening was pioneering proof of the role not only of steam, but of railway, as a means of public transport that continues to this day. It is only fitting that we all join in honouring 200 years of innovation, connection and progress.

    Hansard source
28. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    On the point about financial risk for local authorities, does my hon. Friend agree there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that local authorities such as mine, the Isle of Wight council, would possibly want to touch when it comes to franchising for buses across my constituency? The risk for small unitary authorities is just far too great. If there is any opportunity at all in this Bill—I am not sure that there is—it will apply only to large city councils and metropolitan areas.

    Hansard source
29. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I am slightly surprised to be called so early, but I am delighted to speak in the debate. This will be an interesting debate. I am delighted that there is so much interest from Back Benchers. It is interesting to note that the Bill is primarily focused on process rather than passengers. I tried to work out why that was and came to the conclusion that it is, in fact, steeped in Labour’s political ideology—the ideology that the state is better at running things than private businesses—linked with the separate issue that it has a deep suspicion of the profit motive. In some of its clauses, which we will come on to in a moment, the Bill harks back to the 1960s and to municipal bus companies after the second world war. This feels like the happy place of the Labour party.

    Hansard source
30. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    The hon. Member is quite right, of course. I am not suggesting that bus services should be only for profit. He will know that Essex county council has an enhanced partnership agreement; it has a relationship with for-profit providers, but has negotiated that it will pay extra for social journeys. He will also note that Essex has had more growth in its passenger numbers than any of the franchise operations. In particular, it has had more passenger growth than the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the organisation that the Bill largely seeks to replicate. The Bill has a deep suspicion of the profit motive and focuses on process, ignoring what the real purpose of the legislation should be. The House of Lords identified this lacuna in the drafting, and rectified it with a purpose clause, which was clause 1 when the Bill was considered in Committee. It said that the Act should “improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.” That is not a particularly high bar, or particularly onerous, because the Secretary of State merely had to have regard to those objectives. I would not have thought that was particularly challenging for the Government. However, it was too much for them, and they removed that purpose clause in Committee. New clause 34, which is in my name and that of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), seeks to reinstate that very reasonable clause. It would ensure that when we discuss the improvement of bus services, at the front and centre of our minds are the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services, so that we put the passenger first. This Bill, despite the explanations given by the Minister a moment ago, remains weak on protections for the disabled, the partially sighted and the blind. That was a huge concern in Committee. There has been a lot of concern about this in the disabled community—concern particularly focused on floating bus stops, and bus stops with shared use borders. I note that the Minister said that he is looking at having guidance notes on design, and that there should be a campaign to remind cyclists in particular of the highway code. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think a design tweak could be made to a floating bus stop that would provide partially sighted and blind users with the security that they richly deserve when using bus services. An educational campaign to remind cyclists of their duties under the highway code would not do any harm, and I suggest that the Government do it, but it would not be the solution in its own right. We have had warm words from the Minister, both in Committee and today, but we need action. New clause 28 would give the Government six months to prepare proposals to prohibit the creation of new floating bus stops. The Government appear to be deaf to the blind, and not prepared to take effective action on this point. The Government are also being weak on protections for bus passengers more generally. We want legislation that puts bus users first, both as regards accessibility, which I have mentioned, and protection against antisocial behaviour. We are not asking much—we are just asking that the legislation afford bus users the same protections that rail passengers benefit from. The Government have an opportunity to support those objectives, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that that is the direction that they should take.

    Hansard source
31. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    The hon. Lady will know, from reading the Hansard of Committee proceedings, what time and effort the official Opposition put into supporting the aspiration to have increased accessibility across disability and special educational needs, so I am very supportive in principle of her amendment’s aims. I have addressed accessibility, but what about pricing and increasing bus usage? We know from our experience of operating bus services over the past decade that price is one of the biggest factors affecting patronage. In the previous Administration, the Conservatives put forward a £2 bus fare cap, and it was enormously successful. Apart from anything else, it was hugely popular, but it also aided the recovery from covid, and in getting people back out and about. It was particularly useful for younger passengers; it helped to build their confidence and get them back on the road to recovery. In the run-up to the last election, the continuation of the £2 bus fare cap for the duration of this Parliament was a Conservative manifesto commitment. What was Labour’s response to that? Its first act on coming into power was to put the price up by 50%, from £2 to £3. To accompany that, there was a perverse claim that that was actually a price cut. One does not need to be an economist at the Bank of England, or even from the accounts department, to work that one out. Experience of customer complaints would be enough to enable a person to see that a price rise from £2 to £3 is exactly that: a rise, not a cut.

    Hansard source
32. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    That does not take away from the overarching point that Labour has increased bus fares by 50% and described it as a price cut, which was disingenuous in the extreme. We need to understand the impact of Labour’s price rise on ridership, and in particular on social accessibility. That understanding will inform behaviour, and should inform good policy for the future, but the Government have their head in the sand. Amendment 23, also in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services. That proposal was initially inserted in the other place, with wide support from a number of parties, but again, the Government decided to remove it in Committee. They need to own the consequences of their decisions. Last year, Transport Ministers needed to find money for an unfunded pay rise of 15% for ASLEF train drivers. Where did they get the money? Their first choice was to go after bus passengers, and their second was to go after pensioners.

    Hansard source
33. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I am perfectly happy with that principle. In fact, it was a Conservative principle, first introduced in 2016. We do not have to choose between one thing and another; that is a false analysis. The pricing was a political decision by this ministerial team, who chose to increase prices from £2 to £3, and that was voted for by all Government Members; they made that political choice. The choice between a franchise scheme, an enhanced partnership scheme or any other form of scheme has nothing to do with the primary political choice, made by Labour Members, to raise prices for bus passengers to pay for unfunded union pay rises. That is simply the fact.

    Hansard source
34. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    My hon. Friend is entirely right. I refer the House to Norfolk county council—another Conservative council, and the one in which my constituency is based—which has an enhanced partnership with bus companies. That partnership has been more effective in driving bus ridership than the franchised process has been in Manchester—at least as enacted by the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham. I will now deal with franchising more fully. This bizarre draft legislation appears to have taken a good idea in principle and made it worse in practice. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) is quite right that the Conservative Government recognised in 2016 the potential for region-based transport integration. In principle, mayoral combined authorities had the scale, resources and financial sophistication to take on the responsibility of creating a franchised scheme, and would thereby have more control over the design of public transport in their area. That was a Conservative innovation, and I support it. Under the 2017 legislation, other local transport authorities also had the ability to apply for franchise status, if I may loosely call it that. However, there was concern that smaller local authorities would not have as many resources—be they financial or top-tier management resources—to deal with and design such operations, so a critical safeguard was inserted in that legislation requiring such authorities, should they wish to go down the franchise route, to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for their plans. It is a sense-check—a needed safeguard—because franchising exposes local transport authorities to huge commercial risk. They are not just letting contracts and, as with an enhanced partnership, adding a bit extra on, after negotiation with commercial operators; they also become responsible for the design of the full bus map and timetable, and have the resulting commercial liability of providing all the buses and drivers. Authorities can either pay a bus company to operate for a fee, and so take no commercial risk—the company just turns up and does what it is told—or expose themselves further by creating a municipal bus company and doing everything themselves. If that goes wrong, it can bankrupt a local authority.

    Hansard source
35. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    My hon. Friend is quite right. There is some good in the amendments. I come to amendment 58, which would reinsert the Secretary of State’s safeguard. That would not prohibit small unitaries from applying or developing a franchise model; it is about the Secretary of State having the ability to sense-check the commercial ability of an organisation to take the very significant commercial risks that franchising brings with it. There is another massive lacuna in the current drafting of the Bill. Having expanded franchising to any local authority, no matter how small and whether district, county or unitary, the Secretary of State would withdraw from any power to intervene if things go wrong. We recognise that there is increased commercial risk and that we will ask potentially small local authorities to undertake wholly novel activities of which they have no experience at all, but the Secretary of State is saying, “We wash our hands of this. We do not want to have any power to intervene, even when there is a prolonged failure of services to the public.”

    Hansard source
36. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I thought the hon. Member was in favour of devolution. Not all mayoral combined authorities are the same; if we have a mayoral combined authority, we want to have the right system for the area that the mayor represents. If the mayor in Teesside thinks that it is not the right thing for him, I back his decision. Let me move on to new clause 31, which would give the Secretary of State the power to step in where there has been “a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.” It seems genuinely extraordinary that the Government are saying no to that added safeguard. No cost is associated with it; the new clause just says that where there is prolonged failure on the ground to deliver the service for whatever reason, the Secretary of State would have the power to step in and take on the management. Why would the Government say that they do not need that backstop power? They voted it down in Committee, and I do not see them accepting it today either. All the amendments from the loyal Opposition have a common theme: they put passengers first. This Bill is not really about passengers; it is for a bigger state, more unions and more union involvement, and it is primarily against private business involvement. I understand that that is the ideology of Labour Members, but the problem is that their ideology is demonstrably wrong in this instance, and we see that in the Bill. Without amendment, it will damage our bus services and almost certainly damage our local transport authorities, particularly the smaller ones, if they are misguided enough to follow the encouragement of the Government and go down this route. Above all, I am sorry to say that the Bill will damage the chances of our passengers.

    Hansard source
37. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    We have had an interesting debate with around 25 to 30 speakers, and some themes have developed from it. A number of speakers mentioned disability access, particularly issues with floating and shared-border bus stops for those who are visually impaired or blind. Other speeches focused on concessionary travel during rush hour and concessionary companion passes. We also heard a number of descriptions of local bus needs in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, particularly focusing on rural needs. I want to pick out two or three speeches for commendation, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke in support of amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34. He highlighted a concerning failure by his Liberal Democrat county council, so if we want to improve bus services, we know where the Liberal Democrats can start. I commend the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who put his name to and championed new clause 47, which aims for companion passes to form part of the concessionary travel scheme. I would like to mention the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), because he had a tiny pop at the Conservatives, particularly about new clause 10 relating to antisocial behaviour. I think this requires a bit of explanation. It was right of him to highlight that the position of His Majesty’s Opposition has changed on this measure, and I will explain why. When we discussed new clause 10 in Committee, the hon. Member will recall—if he does not, he can always refer to Hansard—that I was very sympathetic to the objective of his new clause, but, as I now accept, I took a rather narrow objection to its drafting. The new clause adds a description to a non-exhaustive list and is therefore technically not required, because the definition was already employed. The definition is one of nuisance, and audible antisocial behaviour is, by definition, nuisance. It was the lawyer in me coming out, and I was being slightly otiose.

    Hansard source
38. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I stand corrected, in the sense that I have listened to the hon. Member and, on reflection, I accept that I was making perhaps too legalistic a point. If by adding “sustained antisocial auditory disturbance” to the definition of nuisance we can make what is an implied power an express one, I am happy to support that. As for the jeering, perhaps my hon. Friends were cheering—who knows?

    Hansard source
39. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    On that point, I will give way.

    Hansard source
40. 10 Sep 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

    I am grateful, although I am not sure whether that was an intervention on jeering or cheering and the difference between them. I will go so far as to say that I am not in a position to make economic spending commitments at the Dispatch Box. Although we are supportive of the principle, that is why we will not vote for something that writes a blank cheque for the future, because at least the Conservatives are trying to be economically responsible. Without amendment, the Bill is a missed opportunity in relation to bus stop design and disability access. It is a missed opportunity in relation to antisocial behaviour on buses and bringing that in line with the protections already enjoyed by rail passengers. It is also a missed opportunity not to focus on passengers as the primary object of all actions undertaken as a result of the Bill, particularly in relation to rural areas. The Bill is not just a missed opportunity; it is also, in its current drafting, damaging for the future prospects of the provision of bus services, because it risks exposing local transport authorities to potential bankruptcy without support from the Secretary of State. That is, in the first instance, in terms of oversight of plans for franchising—particularly for small local transport authorities—and giving them the all-clear. Secondly, if franchise systems are set up and then they fail to provide over a prolonged period, the Secretary of State must surely be able to step in and provide those services—if we are interested in the experience of passengers as opposed to the organisation. I have raised those two issues consistently throughout Committee and earlier on today. They are significant, genuine concerns that prevent the Opposition from supporting the Bill in its current form.

    Hansard source